TexasCHLforum.com

Lambda Force wrote:

Lambda Force wrote:

OldCannon wrote:I must admit I have soft spots for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, but my crystal ball says that Newt is the only one that can absolutely stomp Obama and throw him, his cronies, and his policies to the curb.

I predict the Republicans will win big if they nominate a conservative and lose by a small margin if they nominate an Obama Lite.

I wrote that in the middle of December and I haven't seen anything yet to change my predictions.

Although it does look more and more likely the Republicans will "Choose to Lose" by nominating the MSM's choice.

Ameer wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:There is no way I'll ever believe that a Romney presidency, or ANY Republican presidency would be as damaging as another Obama term.

The house is GOP, senate very close split. Obama has to fight the house GOP to get what he wants, Romney wouldnt'.

Romney might be worse because the house would pass his bills.

Well first of all, if Romney were elected, he might still have to face a democrat majority in the Senate, which would essentially put him in the same position as Obama is with the House. Remember, it takes passage in both the Senate and the House to send a bill to a president's desk for his/her signature.

Good point. If we vote for the Republican candidate for President but have reservations, we should counter that with votes for Democrats in Congress, so there are some checks and balances and not a rubber stamp to expand government interference in health care, gun rights, dog safety, etc.

Oldgringo wrote:

TAM wrote, among other things:
...I've pretty much decided that I'm going to vote for Romney in both the primary and the general, for the above reasons.

Me too. A couple of days in Temple Square this past September was a most enlightening and uplifting experience.

VMI77 wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:There is no way I'll ever believe that a Romney presidency, or ANY Republican presidency would be as damaging as another Obama term.

The house is GOP, senate very close split. Obama has to fight the house GOP to get what he wants, Romney wouldnt'.

Romney might be worse because the house would pass his bills.

Maybe, but the difference is in the bills each may try to pass. Obama is much more likely to attempt an attack on 2nd amendment rights because his base demands it....Ronmey has no such demand from his base.

G26ster wrote:Trump is endorsing Romney as we speak (Live on the telybision)

The Annoyed Man wrote:Well, Newt's candidacy has just been sunk......

Sources: Trump to endorse Newt
Politico.com

Word started leaking out in Las Vegas earlier that Donald Trump's "major announcement" is to back Newt Gingrich, and sources are confirming it to POLITICO.

The announcement is expected to come at an 11:30 a.m. press conference tomorrow that The Donald is holding.

That's all I can do is laugh. The Republican primary has become a joke.

bayouhazard wrote:

texasmusic wrote:Romney is ultra conservative??

Maybe he means this is as conservative as Romney gets. So expect a hard turn to port if he gets the nomination.

Anyne else hear a rumor that Santorum actually won one?

mr surveyor wrote:if oboma is re-annointed, all the "protest voters" should be ashamed to take part in any poiltical discussions for the next 5 years.

grow up.... you can't always have everything you want... unfortunately.

Dave2 wrote:I wonder if we'll see a Romney/Paul ticket?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

74novaman wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've come to the conclusion that, unless something startling happens, Gingrich is going to fade, and the nomination is Romney's to lose. This is not a satisfying primary for me. I wish I could get 100% behind one of the primary candidates, but I just can't get there yet.

It's the first primary. It's not over for any of the candidates unless they quit.

Oh, I realize that, and I am referring to the entire primary campaign, not just the Iowa Caucuses.

I'd love if the GOP declared ALL state primaries were to be held on the same day (Say, Feb 15th). To me, there are multiple advantages.

...
One quick, nationwide primary...any thoughts?

tbrown wrote:I hope you're wrong TAM, because I'm not voting for someone who supports Obamacare and gun control, no matter what party backs him.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've come to the conclusion that, unless something startling happens, Gingrich is going to fade, and the nomination is Romney's to lose. This is not a satisfying primary for me. I wish I could get 100% behind one of the primary candidates, but I just can't get there yet.

bikerbill wrote:I'm betting the liklihood of Gingrich being the nominee is about the same as my getting the nod ... how exactly is he the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama? He has more baggage than Amtrak and while he's obviously very intelligent, he also has a reputation which Obama would feast on ... Romney will be the nominee, IMHO, and would love to see one of the also-rans, like Santorum, as his running mate ... We have no idea what condition the country will be in on election day 2012; things could be just bright enough to return Obama to the WH, a horrible prospect to me but one that is certainly as likely as his being ousted ... the real problem, to me, is the circus atmosphere that has surrounded the current campaign and the huge number of hopefuls diluting the message ... read a great line somewhere recently ..."The Tea Party's been around for three years, and THIS is the best they can do?" It's time for Perry and Bachmann to hit the road home ...

The Annoyed Man wrote: The exception is Ron Paul. He has yet to ever urge his supporters to back the party's nominee after having lost. He will cynically use the party and its influence to promote his own candidacy, but he never returns the favor. The only reason he runs as a republican is because it gives him a broader audience than it would if he ran as a Libertarian, which is his natural milieu. But he definitely doesn't give a crap about the GOP. Some call him an independent minded person. I call him an egotist who doesn't care what he'll have to destroy in order to gain what he wants. He is a divider. The way he plays the game encourages his followers to be happy with an Obama victory if they can't have Ron Paul. They would be happy to throw the country down the toilet if they can't have their guy in office. That's not politics. That is having a tantrum and taking your toys and going home. It is famously said that politics is the art of compromise. Well then, either compromise and quit trying to sabotage the party, or run up the Jolly Roger and declare a new party. But come out in the open and quite screwing around. This country is already pretty far gone. It simply cannot endure another four years of Obama; but that will be the result of Ron Paul splitting up the republican party.

I'm pretty tired of the nonsense.

mamabearCali wrote:I am not a Donald Fan, but you don't think he is smart/tough enough to handle it? Just curious.