Betsy Speicher

2012 Presidential Poll for March 2012

2012 Presidential Poll for March 2012   16 votes

  1. 1. If the 2012 Presidential Election were being held today, who would you vote for or support?

    • Newt Gingrich
      0
    • Gary Johnson
      5
    • Barak Obama
      0
    • Ron Paul
      2
    • Mitt Romney
      2
    • Rick Santorum
      0
    • Another candidate
      0
    • Would not vote
      0
  2. 2. Who would you NEVER vote for or support?

    • Newt Gingrich
      1
    • Gary Johnson
      0
    • Barak Obama
      4
    • Ron Paul
      1
    • Mitt Romney
      2
    • Rick Santorum
      8
  3. 3. Who do you think will win?

    • Newt Gingrich
      0
    • Gary Johnson
      0
    • Barak Obama
      5
    • Ron Paul
      0
    • Mitt Romney
      4
    • Rick Santorum
      0
    • Another candidate
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

19 posts in this topic

Just so long as it is not Gus Hall who wins the General!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid President Obama will be re-relected. He will turn populist, promise more government interventions, and make a sudden move to reduce our involvement in Afghanistan. Romney will become the Republican candidate and fail to connect with most American voters.

Hopefully I am wrong but that is how I see it. Feel free to tell me I am stuffed full of wild blueberry muffins and why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are discussing the future free-will choices of millions of voters, none of us can make any predictions with certainty. Still, I don't think Obama will win. His approval rating is at an all-time low, 75% of the electorate oppose ObamaCare, most people are unemployed or know plenty of people who are despite the administration's fudging of the unemployment figures, gas prices are high and rising and so are food prices, etc. Nowadays, "hope and change" means most people hope to change the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are discussing the future free-will choices of millions of voters, none of us can make any predictions with certainty. Still, I don't think Obama will win. His approval rating is at an all-time low, 75% of the electorate oppose ObamaCare, most people are unemployed or know plenty of people who are despite the administration's fudging of the unemployment figures, gas prices are high and rising and so are food prices, etc.

I totally agree and remain hopefully optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confident it will be a tight race and i think Romney will win. I think it all hinges on what people think of the economy on election day. I just hope the economy can stay weak for the next 8 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Santorum were the nominee, I would (want to) vote for Obama, not reluctantly but enthusiastically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Santorum were the nominee, I would (want to) vote for Obama, not reluctantly but enthusiastically.

Indeed, yes. Santorium is truly a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Santorum were the nominee, I would (want to) vote for Obama, not reluctantly but enthusiastically.

I would sit out the election, just like I did in 2008. Given the choice between Obama who is an Obomination and McCaine with a goofy running mate only one heart-beat away from the presidency, I refused to sanction such a hideous choice with my vote. There are two things I do not do: I do not do business with prostitutes and and I do not vote when the choice is absurd or impossible. Since most politicians are whores (of a sort) you can see how reluctant I am to play the political game. However things turn out, don't blame me for the negative outcome. I had nothing to do with it.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Santorum were the nominee, I would (want to) vote for Obama, not reluctantly but enthusiastically.

Indeed, yes. Santorium is truly a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Why would it be better to vote for a wolf in wolf's clothing (Obama) rather than a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Why is an actual risk of socialism/communism preferable to an extremely hypothetical risk of christian theocracy?

Obnoxious Christian moralizers involved in politics ( like Santorum) have been saber-rattling about restoring America to its imaginary pristine Judeo-Christian former self for the last thirty years, and they have been losing for all of those thirty years. They cannot win, because America is gradually secularizing, and has been for probably 100 years now. Think of the vast social changes in just the last 10-20 years: extreme tattoos and body-piercings, pornography, graphic rap music, etc have all quite rapidly transcended from the realm of taboo to being within "acceptable" social norms.

Nay, the only ideologies conquering America successfully are environmentalism and collectivism. The US Government, as it currently stands, has powerful institutions capable of making totally arbitrary rulings on which cars we should drive, what chemicals we can and cannot emit, how much money we should make, etc.. Where the hell are the institutions controlling our lives from a Christian ideology? Other than gay marriage still being illegal, you'd be hard pressed to find anything resembling a serious risk to our rights from the moralizing Christians. They are insignificant, and anyone who seriously follows the facts and stories of the power struggles in Washington knows this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is done for. The House will remain in GOP, in fact they may gain even more seats due to redistricting, and the US Senate will either tie or go GOP.

I'm starting to really agree with this. He's never been seriously challenged or vetted by the media before, and now that his soaring sermon on the mount speeches have collapsed into the empty nothingness they always were, the world is finally getting a look at the real Obama, who is neither intelligent nor strategic in the Clinton sense. Some of his former allies are starting to turn on him, and it can only be so long before some media organizations start taking the gloves off. Eventually they'll have to realize that he's not looking good, and they'll probably start looking for a new candidate to pimp on the american people. Obama is Jimmy Carter, more so than even Jimmy was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nay, the only ideologies conquering America successfully are environmentalism and collectivism.

I'd also add egalitarianism / multiculturalism / moral relativism.

Other than gay marriage still being illegal, you'd be hard pressed to find anything resembling a serious risk to our rights from the moralizing Christians.

Actually, gay marriage is not illegal. No gays are going to jail or being fined if they declare themselves married and gays can contract between themselves regarding exactly them same domestic property issues that married heteros do and these contracts are recognized and enforced in every jurisdiction. The only difference is that a gay couple cannot have their union recognized and sanctioned by the state and the state cannot impose the same unchosen obligations on third parties -- banks, insurance companies, landlords, etc. -- that it does regarding legally married couples.

I'm against legally sanctioning any marriage. It is no business of the state to declare who can or cannot be married to whom any more than it should say who can or cannot be friends with whom, and the state should not be imposing unchosen obligations on anyone not party to any contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Santorum will not be able to impose a theocracy, but he would be able to take us several steps in that direction, and that's enough to disqualify him for me. Add to that that he is *also* a socialist, and I deem him worth than Obama.

The only difference is that a gay couple cannot have their union recognized and sanctioned by the state and the state cannot impose the same unchosen obligations on third parties -- banks, insurance companies, landlords, etc. -- that it does regarding legally married couples.

I'm against legally sanctioning any marriage. It is no business of the state to declare who can or cannot be married to whom any more than it should say who can or cannot be friends with whom, and the state should not be imposing unchosen obligations on anyone not party to any contract.

I agree with that, but given that the state *does* sanction marriage, it should also sanction gay marriage. Similarly, the state should not finance biological studies, but given that it does, it shouldn't exclude stem cell research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"worth" should have been "worse".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Santorum will not be able to impose a theocracy, but he would be able to take us several steps in that direction, and that's enough to disqualify him for me. Add to that that he is *also* a socialist, and I deem him worth than Obama.

What constitutes "several steps"? What evidence is there that these "steps" could even be successful?

It's worth noting that the only recent threats to religious freedom in the United States have come, incredibly, from Obama and the democrats. Their remarkably arrogant ruling on the health care law requires religious organizations to subsidize behavior that they believe, on religious grounds, to be morally reprehensible. That should be startling to ponder for both religious and non-religious individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.