Posted on 12/28/2011 3:07:08 PM PST by TBBT
Would a Paul Presidency be more dangerous that an Obama Presidency? Consider Paul's stands on national security and foreign policy...
At least Newt had the guts to say he wouldn't vote for the nut case...
Are they sure he didn’t say ‘a lot of acid’?
That’s some bad trip, man.
Another note...
It appears the deserved scrutiny of Paul in the media has all but dried up. Nary a headline today about Paul.
After the token coverage, the media can claim that they covered it.
Need to keep that Paul stalking horse factor going for a Romney victory...
newt says he’d vote for obama?
what a turd
If Paul was the only alternative to Obama?
A Paul vote seems the most logical.
Makes sense to me. If we win the Senate and hold the House, we can control this dottering old nitwits BS a lot more effectively than this Marxist POS we have. I think this is a better tact running for the Primaries than picking a fight with opponents supporters you are trying to get on your side in the General.
A most astute observation.
They need to answer by telling the questioner that voting for Paul won’t be a consideration as he intends to be the nominee, not Paul. Playing to these gotcha questions doesn’t any of them any good.
Paul won’t be the nominee IMO.
Sure - I'd vote for a Lyndon LaRouche/Rev. Jim Jones ticket as an alternative to Obama....
So did Newt say that if Paul was the nominee he would vote for Obama ? Or not vote at all ?
I don’t know, I’m actually wonderin’ if any candidate would actually say they would either a) not vote at all or b) vote for Obama under any circumstance.
IMHO, it’s hard for a candidate to say they’d vote for the other party or not vote for the nominee of their own party. Seeing as how they are seeking their own party’s nomination.
A Paul vote seems the most logical.
Perhaps.
I'm loathe to give either one ANY approval, any justification or any support, no matter how faint, in their campaign to destroy all I hold dear.
I might not be able to prevent them from liquidating my country, but I will not let them, let alone HELP them.
Right... because we have only two choices available on the ballot to for vote.
And where do you vote, the the ballot only has two parties’ candidates listed for the presidency?
I’ll not vote for Obama, or Romney... and neither will I vote for anyone that supports, and desires to see, the destruction of the state of Israel. So Paul is out.
Hopefully, the Republican party... meaning you, as you (as much as I) vote in the primaries, will not force the issue.
For I will vote for a Presidential candidate. It just won’t be Obama, Romney, or Paul.
So make your vote count in the primary (like I did- via absentee ballot)... so that your, AND my, vote counts in the general.
I am not a Ron Paul fan.
BUT, I would vote for Ron Paul before voting for Mitt Romney......
Why don’t they just say they’d write in someone?
A write-in vote is a vote for Obozo.
The nation cannot stand another 4 years of him.
Taking acid would make more sense. You need to be high on LSD to make sense of Paul's foreign policy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/dec/26/former-paul-aide-offers-odd-defense-ex-boss-tolera/
neither will I vote for anyone that supports, and desires to see, the destruction of the state of Israel. So Paul is out.
__________________
I have never seen or heard that Paul desires the detruction of Israel. Please give me the data where Ron Paul is saying that.
Love being informed before my meaningless vote in the Iowa caucus.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/dec/26/former-paul-aide-offers-odd-defense-ex-boss-tolera/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.