The Pavlina 2012 Republican Presidential Primary Election
 

Who do you, the faithful readers of Steve Pavlina.com, choose to be the 2012 opponent to incumbent Barack Obama?

The one candidate who believes in voluntary association and not in the use of force to get people to do what we want.

Ron Paul for me. Even if I have to write his name in he is the only 1 who gets my vote period.

The American Circus- The 2012 Elections - YouTube

I voted for Paul. My reasons are my own.

Honestly none of the candidates fully satisfy me. I like Ron Paul's focus on spending cuts and smaller government for his economic plan, but there are some other things I disagree with him on.

Another thing I can't understand is why so many of the Republicans are advocating a flat tax as their economic plan, as if our tax system had anything to do with causing the 2008 recession in the first place. It's just stupid really, whether you are looking at it just as a policy or as a platform upon which they will attempt to defeat Barack Obama. The country is coming out of a recession, and most people can easily understand that a flat tax helps wealthier people more than it helps poorer people, and frankly "let's help out the rich folks" is a ridiculously moronic economic platform for any candidate to run on during poor economic times such as today.

Up next comes the defense spending. I hate Republicans who blindly refuse to cut defense spending, as if we actually need to spend more than $750B per year on "defense" aka "offense" in order to keep our country safe. And this is while members of Congress say it would "cost too much" to fully secure our border with Mexico, which is where any terrorists are going to enter our country in the first place if they try to smuggle a bomb in or any other dangerous substance.

Another issue that has come up is foreign aid, which is such a small part of government expense that even a dumbass of a President couldn't ruin our country with it (thank God). IMO foreign aid can act as a strategic tool to influence other countries' actions, and should be treated as such. This is one point where I disagree with Ron Paul's statement that we should discontinue all foreign aid because the Constitution doesn't allow it. Whether or not it is Constitutional, there are probably some cases where giving foreign aid to other countries is in the best interest of the United States; where the benefits of influencing others countries' behaviors outweigh the cost in dollars that we spend on the aid given to those countries.

I guess I could outline more points but instead I'll just summarize by saying that I'm disappointed in the overall selection of candidates.

Agreed. Obama's re-election campaign slogan can be: "I know I'm incompetent and a complete pushover, but look at THESE guys!"

The Republican candidates this year appear to be little better than a random collection of committed mental patients.

I can't remember the last time I've seen a group of "leaders" so disconnected from how policies and structures actually affect the real world, yet convinced that their contrived, rigid ideological stances are an accurate reflection of reality. Scratch that; I do remember -- it was the leadership of the Soviet Union.

Paul is the only one up there who has my respect and admiration, yet I think that even his policies would have a great deal of negative unintended consequences.

I'm sorry. I'm sure making a blanket assertion like this is about the most unpopular thing one could do around here but barring the the democrat advocating a policy of something like " every citizen is required to stab themselves in the eye with a fork at least 6 times a day" I don't believe I would ever vote for a republican for president. I'm scared enough of the direction the country is heading with sane person in office.

Yup. Same here.

That's the problem with a two party system. When one party goes insane, There is no real choice, no real democracy.

EDIT You know when I think about it it is absolutely shocking to think that two people only could represent the interests of 300 million people. Once every 4 years.

agreed

My vote went to Dr. Paul, but I am in agreement about the two party system being problematic. We need a third major party to bring in the vast majority of Americans who are, as someone on TV put it, "between the 40 yard lines". I'm getting pretty tired of these false "choices" we are presented every election. And Puff Daddy's "Vote or Die" campaign... LOL what a joke that was. Sorry Puff, but when I am presented with the option of voting for a giant douche or a turd sandwich (South Park, S8E8), I think I'll just pass on both, thank you very much. Neither merits my vote.

http://mispeled.net/wp-content/uploa...uche-turd2.jpg

I'm glad he's out so that the remaining debates can give more time to the real candidates.

I liked his personality at the start like many people did, but after closer inspection I realized that he is completely uneducated on just about every political topic that exists.

How in the world did the US end up with a two-party system? :confused:

I would probably vote for Newt simply because of his experience, but realistically I'm curious of what another four years of Obama might do. I think Obama had some great ideas, I just don't think he anticipated how hard it would be to change Washington.

At the end of the day, I really don't give a ♥♥♥♥ who is president because the presidents power is limited. My focus will be, as I've done the last couple of elections, to vote against anybody who is currently in right now. We don't need a new president so much as we need a new congress. If you want CHANGE, then you need to vote these people out.

It is the consequence of how our whole democratic system is setup.

To change away from the two party system would require major changes in the entire foundation of our political structure, most likely including Constitutional amendments. Frankly, that will never happen.

That is so true! How many people pay attention to Congress, and even more importantly local politics (state level and below), where they have the most power to influence change. We (myself included) spend so much time on who's to become the next president, but how many people know who their House of Representatives are, or even easier their senators?

I think people (once again myself included) need to start paying attention to the things that are going on in their own communities and at the state level because if we can't even clean up our own communities/states, how are we suppose to "fix" the entire US?

There are many parties in the US other than the Democrats and Republicans, but their membership is so small that they never gain more than a few percent of the votes in presidential elections, and they rarely gain seats in Congress or the Senate.

At this point even people who dislike both the Democratic and Republican parties are often resistant to supporting another party, since they believe these other parties have no chance of winning. Reformers often focus on trying to create coalitions within one of the two big parties instead.

I don't think I'll be voting in 2012. In 2008, I voted for Obama, and I don't think he's done that bad of a job, certainly a lot better than Bush did, so I see no reason why he won't be re-elected. And I certainly don't see any other candidate doing any better from the pool of Republicans, so I'll just say that Obama is still the best choice from what we have to choose from.

But the President doesn't have nearly as much power as is projected. He's got tons of people telling him what to do, what not to do, and even has his speeches written for him. He is simply what they call in the business, "the empty suit." 95% of presidents are figureheads for the corporate and secret agendas, so the election stuff they shuffle around every four years is utter garbage. Pretty much the same thing is going to happen no matter who is in the White House. There truly is only one party, not two. The two-party system is to keep us divided instead of together. There's one guy holding the two puppets, so who you vote for is largely a choice between Pepsi and Coke. :)

We could actually use a revamp on congress too... Bunch of assclowns in there as well

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that a bunch of foreigners and democrats on an internet forum will love Paul, Huntsman and Romney. They're the kind of RINOs that will have exactly zero chance of winning the nomination, but get disproportionate support on the internet.

Meanwhile, barring major gaffe, Newt has won.

Newt's problem his that he has a penchant for saying things that make him seem short-tempered, arrogant and unlikable. He's a smart guy, but he tends to put his foot in it sometimes, and there's still plenty of time for him to say the wrong thing.

Some people may not like Romney because he's not as conservative as Gingrich, but he's likable, and he's got a better chance in the general election.

The polls disagree - Newt polls very well against Obama. He's also about 15% ahead in the primaries.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Newt but I'll take him. Romney is a democrat pretending to be a republican, and deserves to lose in the primary for that.

They don't, they're just the only ones that get any nominal press coverage. But that is a whole different discussion!!

I'm very blasé with the entire primary selection pool and disheartened by what I'm afraid my voting prospects will be for 2012. I'm focusing intently on local politics recently to try to make some actual difference...but my Republican vote in the D state of NY is like throwing a brick in the Grand Canyon hoping for some impact ;p

Romney almost looks level-headed when compared to Gingrich, who is prone to constant flip-flopping and two-faced lies. They're both absolutely terrible candidates. Here's a short video about Gingrich's hypocrisy:

Ron Paul Ad - Newt Gingrich Serial Hypocrisy 60 second - YouTube

Ron Paul is the only true conservative running.

Something I don't quite understand--why do online polls seemingly always have Ron Paul winning by landslides?

:confused:

Those voting in the primaries disagree. He's already lost.

Because the demographics of people who actually think it's a good idea to take polls on the internet are very different from the demographics of Republican primary voters.