• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Republican 2012 Candidates

-ty-

Don't Ask, Just Tell
  • 792
    Posts
    14
    Years
    The Republican Presidential Candidates 2012


    Here they are, in alphabetical order:





    Newt Gingrich

    Republican 2012 Candidates






    Ron Paul

    Republican 2012 Candidates






    Mitt Romney

    Republican 2012 Candidates



    Rick Santorum

    Republican 2012 Candidates


    Discuss debates, polls, and opinions of the Candidates.
    These are only candidates that have been recognized in the presidential debates, and it almost given that one of the above candidates will be selected to represent the Republican Party.

    - I personally like Ron Paul the most -​
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Steven

    [i]h e l p[/i]
  • 1,380
    Posts
    13
    Years
    I only have things to say about two of the candidates.

    Michele Bachmann: I think most of the Republican party, and all of every other party in the United States can agree that she is just a bundle full of crazy and stupidity. She has absolutely no chance.
    Ron Paul: Probably the only republican candidate that I like right now..or ever..Some of his ideas I don't agree with, mainly his views of separation of church and state.

    I won't really look into any candidate until I find out who is the the sole Republican Presidential candidate. If it's Ron Paul I might have to vote for him, I haven't really looked into his political positions too much.
     
  • 10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
    Romney seems like the least crazy of the bunch and the least likely to do something ruinous to the country if he became president.

    Ron Paul is too much of an extremist. I don't see how anyone can think a lot of his ideas would work in real life. Like, he's okay with letting uninsured people die if they suddenly get sick. How can a doctor be okay believing that?
     
  • 14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
    So, we basically have a gaggle of absolute morons and one legitimate, normal contender in Romney. I do like Romney though, I would have preferred him over McCain by a longshot back in '08

    Romney will get the nomination. Perry is too controversial and has a shifty past. Bachman is a lunatic. Huntsman isn't a big enough name, same with Cain/Paul/Santorum. And Gingerich is a non-factor at this point.
     

    -ty-

    Don't Ask, Just Tell
  • 792
    Posts
    14
    Years
    So, we basically have a gaggle of absolute morons and one legitimate, normal contender in Romney. I do like Romney though, I would have preferred him over McCain by a longshot back in '08

    Romney will get the nomination. Perry is too controversial and has a shifty past. Bachman is a lunatic. Huntsman isn't a big enough name, same with Cain/Paul/Santorum. And Gingerich is a non-factor at this point.

    Ron Paul has actually been doing well despite his lack of media attention. He just won the straw poll in California by a landslide with 45% of the vote. He has won two other straw polls and placed second in the Iowa straw poll. In the CNN/FOX polls he has been placing third behind Perry and Romney, and well-ahead of Bachmann. The four of these top candidates have similar ideas about the economy, less spending=less debt. Ron Paul and Romney both acknowledge that we need to stop fighting for other countries freedoms when our economy is weak, rather, they want to spend money on national defense. Bachmann and Perry both want to continue in Afghanistan and abroad, and waste money patrolling and policing the world - we have troops stationed in hundreds of different areas amid the world.

    Economy - They are all winners, but these are just promises, and it's not a easy or quick fix, but I think that we cannot be spending so much borrowed money.

    Foreign Policy - Winners are Romney and Paul.

    Gay Rights - Paul (all the others signed NOM legislation)

    Health care - I like the idea of universal health care. The problem with the plan right now is that the drug companies have lobbied for it EXTENSIVELY. The costs are about 8 trillion in the next 70 years, surpassing Social Security's expenditures of around 6 trillion. Merck and other companies want to make more money and therefore have put a lot of money into lobbying. The costs need to go down for health care, we need a stronger economy, and need to take out lobbying while creating legislation before we consider going down this route. There needs to be more competition in medicine. I think I hate corporate lobbyist more than anyone else in our government!! And i used to really like Obama until he showed that he is sleeping with the lobbyists big time. So the winners are...???? Maybe Ron Paul, but I'd like to see someone step up to the plate against lobbying. I think we will see more about this hot button issue.

    Overall - Winner is Ron Paul. Runner up Romney. Perry and Bachman... I would never never never vote for them! haha
     
  • 746
    Posts
    16
    Years
    Santorum - Lame, no chance of winning etc., not to mention that everyone else sounds like they're roaring while he's whimpering. He cannot appeal to his own party, let alone win the election.

    Mitt Romney - Supporting a version of Obamacare was shooting himself in the foot. I'm not entirely convinced of the success of this system, but I need to further study its effects in Massachusetts. It will be interesting to see if he prevails over Perry, since he's fighting tooth and nail against Perry. McCain called him a "man of change", and I wonder if the others will pick up on this sly remark (which was a bit funny, both for its commentary and irony).

    Rick Perry - Energetic, appeal to religious voters etc. His claim that Social Security is a ponzi scheme is sure to attract some criticism (Romney jumped on this boat quickly), although I am somewhat sympathetic towards such claims. One can attack him for crony capitalism, like what happened with HPV vaccines. He's also somewhat of a flip-flopper (but not much) whose past record is dubious, something about opposing Reagan and voting Democrat for a while, which will string him, at the least. I believe he also supported a national healthcare plan, which is as dangerous for him as implementing a healthcare plan in Massachusetts will be for Romney. Baggage is the issue here.

    Michelle Bachmann - Rather dimwitted. She seems to be nothing more than a populist with no solid material, although she did beat out Tim Pawlenty and crush him. Bachmann lost her thunder and lead once Perry entered the race, and she and Romney are probably the two most vigorous opponents of Perry. She is a politician, but a somewhat bad one at that. She was prudent to attack Perry for supposed crony capitalism with the HPV vaccine, but ventured too far into its actual effects. She squandered what gain she had by doing that, and showed herself to be a fear-monger. She is significantly weakened by a large part of the Tea Party defecting to Perry.

    Herman Cain - I trust him with economic policy, but he seems to be somewhat of a social reactionary. Not to mention, he has absolutely no chance of winning the primary, let alone the election (like Santorum). I assume his powerbase will be the reactionary part of the Republican party, and that part is simply too small to carry him throughout the election.

    Newt Gingrich - Baggage, baggage, baggage! His past behavior, both as a member of a family and a politician, have earned him the hatred of many. His tenure as Speaker of the House doesn't seem too popular, and people like a moral candidate. Smart somewhat, yes, but repulsive. Not to mention, I remember hearing news about his campaign staff etc. absolutely collapsing.

    Jon Huntsman - Not enough flavor. He's too moderate for the Republicans, and lacks the weight that comes from clearly aligning with one side. He simply does not have the traction or appeal that will earn him anything. He will earn a mild amount of attention in more moderate states, but nothing more than that. I suspect he will drop out of the race sooner than anyone else on this list. Nice guy to talk with, but not firm enough in political alignment.

    Ron Paul - People like him for his principled, consistent stances over decades. His anti-war platform will surely appeal to many voters, and his consistency only further strengthens the advantage. However, he's a bit loony and disagreeable on most issues. It seems his main standing point is his anti-war beliefs, and his consistency. Underestimating those two key points is foolish, though, because the desire to get out of our current wars is obviously huge, and everyone absolutely hates flip-floppers, no matter the reason.

    I think the winner in the primary will be either Romney or Perry, but Ron Paul is possible of getting it, if Romney and Perry absolutely tear each other up (as they seem to want to do).

    Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum are probably the trio who will drop out first. Jon Huntsman, if he fails to win significant numbers in New Hampshire (I think, not sure if that's the key indicator for a moderate like him), he will give up. Herman Cain will drop out a bit later than Santorum and Huntsman, as he actually has a base to rely upon. Santorum is bland, has absolutely no appeal, and is outshone by virtually every other candidate, even Huntsman.

    Economy - Their policies seem to be the same in principle. Except Santorum and Bachmann, who seem to not have much of substance.
    Foreign policy - Ron Paul's desire to get out of the wars is obviously popular. Consistency ensures he is at least one of the indisputably most popular in this area. However, as strict an isolationist policy as he calls for may be controversial.
    Gay rights - Ron Paul. Although I'm not sure why -ty- mentioned this category, because it's not that important for this election.
    Healthcare - There is no Republican championing such a proposal; it is political suicide. I am personally opposed to this, but the plan still holds traction with Democrats. I believe the Blue Dog Democrats and fiscal conservatives in both parties will oppose this, although mainstream Democrats support it and mainstream Republicans condemn it.

    As Bill Clinton once said, "It's the economy, stupid."

    (although spending and foreign policy are certainly important, the economy is supreme)

    -ty- said:
    Reason: Bachmann was way too big and scary, lol

    that's what he said.

    I have a feeling Jon Huntsman would have done better as a Democrat, but it is usually unwise to challenge an incumbent in their own party: most Democrats would blame Huntsman for dividing the party, which he would indeed do. Even if Huntsman could challenge Obama successfully, the cost of waging such a campaign would divide the party so severely he would get squashed by the Republican candidate.
     
    Last edited:

    FreakyLocz14

    Conservative Patriot
  • 3,498
    Posts
    14
    Years
    • Seen Aug 29, 2018
    Ron Paul is the only constitutional conservative one that list. The rest are either war hawks, neo-cons, religious fanatics, or liberals.

    Here's why I don't like the current front-runners:

    Bachmann: If she had her way, the Constitution would be replaced with the Bible. She's absolutely off her rocker. I agree with her on some fiscal policy, but that isn't enough to save her in my eyes.

    Romney: He's a liberal in sheep's clothing. He's pro-abortion, against gun rights, believes in the global warming hoax, signed the guano loco marriage pledge, and gave Obama the blueprint for his radical health care law.

    Perry: He's Dubya 2.0 pretty much. He also forced every girl in his state to be vaccinated with a risky injection against HPV. HPV is sexually transmitted.
     
    Last edited:

    Melody

    Banned
  • 6,460
    Posts
    19
    Years
    From the way I see it, Ron Paul is probably the lesser of the 7 evils of the republican party. (Perry doesn't count to me, I'm a Texan and I'm absolutely disgusted with him anyway.)

    Not to mention that we actually need someone who's a little bit loony. People called Regan that loony when he was in office, but if you look at what he did as a man in his own life and as a president of the united states, you kinda get the sense that he wasn't as terribly awful or loony as he could have been. This is because Congress exists to balance out the nutcase moves. :P

    tl;dr: Vote Republican for president and Democrat for Senate/Congress...???...PROFIT!!!!
     
  • 9,468
    Posts
    16
    Years
    So, we basically have a gaggle of absolute morons and one legitimate, normal contender in Romney. I do like Romney though, I would have preferred him over McCain by a longshot back in '08

    Romney will get the nomination. Perry is too controversial and has a shifty past. Bachman is a lunatic. Huntsman isn't a big enough name, same with Cain/Paul/Santorum. And Gingerich is a non-factor at this point.

    I totally agree with this. He's like the only electable and more or less standard Republican candidate that I can swallow actually winning (if a Republican does win) in 2012. :/

    But yeah either way I'm still campaigning for Obama 2012. >.>
     
  • 746
    Posts
    16
    Years
    I would actually oppose Obama, unless the Republican candidate was exceptionally loony.

    Bachmann, Perry, Romney are the candidates who have any chance of winning that are unacceptable. Bachmann is completely insane (and most likely incompetent) and reliant on populism, Perry looks like a corrupt man, and Romney is a politician. Not to mention, I dislike the idea of a national healthcare plan.

    Ron Paul, now there's someone I might like. He's also more reliable than any of these other candidates.
     
  • 10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
    Ron Paul is the only constitutional conservative one that list. The rest are either war hawks, neo-cons, religious fanatics, or liberals.
    How far to the right has the Republican party gone for someone to feel like there is anything liberal in accepting global warming/climate change as science?

    Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot if they choose anyone but Romney because as much as they'll soften their words for the campaign against Obama, all the other candidates are way too focused on appealing to their very conservative bases, save Paul who has his own mix of moderate-to-extreme conservative followers but who could never win a general election anyway.
     

    -ty-

    Don't Ask, Just Tell
  • 792
    Posts
    14
    Years
    How far to the right has the Republican party gone for someone to feel like there is anything liberal in accepting global warming/climate change as science?

    Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot if they choose anyone but Romney because as much as they'll soften their words for the campaign against Obama, all the other candidates are way too focused on appealing to their very conservative bases, save Paul who has his own mix of moderate-to-extreme conservative followers but who could never win a general election anyway.

    I think he actually stands a great chance. He has won the majority of straw polls including the one in California a couple days ago. He also is in third right now with 13 percent on CNN and FOX polls right behind Romney. Well ahead of Bachmann, Cain, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Gringrich, without much media recognition at all compared to them. If the media gives him the same amount attention as Perry, Romney and Bachmann, he has a great shot at winning; remember, McCain was in third last year at this point. I don't understand why he is called "extreme" when he is the only one that follows the Constitution, and understands the federal government's roles and limitations.
     
  • 14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
    I don't understand why he is called "extreme" when he is the only one that follows the Constitution, and understands the federal government's roles and limitations.

    This coming from the man who think social security and medicare is Unconstitutional.


    WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.

    PAUL: Technically, they are. … There's no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that's what we have to reverse—that very notion that you're presenting.

    WALLACE: Congressman, it's not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

    iser on May 15, 2011 at 12:25 pm Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) defended his longstanding view that Medicare, Social Security (and pretty much everything else) violate the Constitution. At one point, Paul even claimed that letting Social Security and similar programs to move forward is just like permitting slavery:
    WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
    PAUL: Technically, they are. … There's no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that's what we have to reverse—that very notion that you're presenting.
    WALLACE: Congressman, it's not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
    PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.
    As Chris Wallace tries to explain, Paul's crankish view of the Constitution cannot be squared with the document's text. The Constitution gives Congress the power to "to lay and collect taxes" and to "provide for the…general welfare of the United States," which is exactly what Social Security does. Nor is this reading of the Constitution's unambiguous words limited to "extreme liberals." Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia recently told a gathering of Members of Congress that "It's up to Congress how you want to appropriate, basically."

    Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Paul's fellow House Republicans disagree with his bizarre view that Medicare and other government-funded insurance programs violate the Constitution. 207 Republicans voted in support of President George W. Bush's proposal to create a federal prescription drug insurance program under Medicare, including such notables as future Speaker John Boehner, uber-tenther Scott Garrett, and future Budget chair Paul Ryan. Although the GOP more recently voted for a radical plan to phase out the Medicare program, even that slow repeal of Medicare cannot be squared with Paul's apparent view that it violates the Constitution to allow Medicare to continue one minute longer.


    Like so many other Republicans, Paul needs to learn that the Constitution is not some toy that he can take apart and reassemble to force the nation down whatever path he chooses. The Constitution's words actually mean something, and Ron Paul is not free to ignore them.​
    Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), recently said that giving people a right to healthcare is the equivalent of "slavery."


    He's no different than the rest of these fools.
     
  • 746
    Posts
    16
    Years
    Ron Paul deserves respect for holding the same principles for decades, unlike his peers in both the Republican and Democratic sections of Congress. Unfortunately, consistency does not compensate for outright looniness on some issues.

    Giving people a right to healthcare is not slavery, but politics. It is silly to suggest healthcare be a right, considering the economic (and political) implications of such a position. I am of the opinion that the market should be left to its own devices on healthcare, and that the government not be given the power to enforce its own version of healthcare on its own people. It is more efficient for a market free of the political and bureaucratic intrusions to deliver healthcare than a government that is fiscally unable to stand on its own feet.

    I have lost faith in Obama. He was elected on a platform of change, a promise that Washington would be changed by this relatively inexperienced and young politician out of nowhere. There has been none of that change. He has become integrated into this system quite well, and it is only his rhetoric that portrays any detachment from Washington. His second and equally important manifesto, was a promise of economic recovery.

    Neither of the two promises has been fufilled whatsoever. When a President elected on the promise of reform and economic recovery has failed to produce anything substantial in the case of the former, and seen the economy and fiscal situation worsen on account of the latter, why should we re-elect him? The situation of our debt continues to worsen, the government remains as it has always functioned for the past half-century, and the economy is in a state of near stagnation.

    Not to mention he is no more averse to blatant corruption than his Republican counterparts. Recently, a company called Solyndra descended into banruptcy. There were doubts not only outside but within the government that Solyndra should have been granted government support, and a skepticism regarding its well-being. Incidentally, Solyndra was founded and constituted by supporters of Obama. The economics of green energy such as in this case is a different story, but it is related.
     

    -ty-

    Don't Ask, Just Tell
  • 792
    Posts
    14
    Years


    This coming from the man who think social security and medicare is Unconstitutional.


    He's no different than the rest of these fools.

    It is unconstitutional. Taxation for "general welfare" in Section 8 of article 1 refers to taxation as means to fund the following things:

    "To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    Anything not contained within these duties should not be funded by the federal government, however, states have the right to establish such social programs. General Welfare was referencing these duties, not the ability to exercise an unlimited amount of power.

    Many federal and state programs are striving for similar goals, and counteract each other's efforts.
    Example: Education

    The federal government has no right to tax and then mandate states' curricula. We already pay state taxes for education. Our money is being wasted when we are funding several different entities to do the job of one. Also, the effectiveness of these groups suffers when there are multiple entities funding and mandating policies. Programs like Social Security and Education need to be controlled and funded by states.
     
    Last edited:
  • 14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
    It is unconstitutional. Taxation for "general welfare" in Section 8 of article 1 refers to taxation as means to fund the following things:

    "To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    Anything not contained within these duties should not be funded by the federal government, however, states have the right to establish such social programs. General Welfare was referencing these duties, not the ability to exercise an unlimited amount of power.

    Per your constitutional interpretation. Strict Constructionalism makes no sense whatsoever. 1789 =//= 2011

    If you honestly believe that Ron Paul has the audacity to challenge nearly 70 years of United States federal precedent, then be my guest. It means an early retirement for him, or any politician stupid enough to challenge it. Look why happened in NY-26. Republican leadership attempted to slash Medicare, and they lost a district to the Dems they've held for decades.
     
  • 746
    Posts
    16
    Years
    Implied powers is on shaky grounds, due to the nature of implied powers. The states should be left to their own devices on this one. I'm assuming you're talking about implied powers, anyway.

    New York has been a Democrat-leaning state for a while now. Mediscare was an easy way to portray the Republicans as an evil that must be kicked out. By contrast, NY-9, a Democratic seat for almost an entire century, was lost to the Republicans, and I have no doubts that Mediscare tactics were used to try and keep them out.

    Voters dominated by fiscal issues will agree that Medicare should be dealth with, but on financial grounds, not constitutional grounds. Constitutionalists like Ron Paul will have some disagreement with Medicare, and those who believe it should be relegated to the states only will oppose keeping it as a federal program.

    Also:
    Paul needs to learn that the Constitution is not some toy that he can take apart and reassemble to force the nation down whatever path he chooses.

    Applying the Constitution strictly on some occasions and not-so-strictly on other occasions (Medicare) is toying with and reassembling the framework of government to fit a political figure's desires.
     

    FreakyLocz14

    Conservative Patriot
  • 3,498
    Posts
    14
    Years
    • Seen Aug 29, 2018
    What is this I'm reading? Ron Paul is one of the few people in Congress who is faithful to the Constitution. Most of the others running in both parties like to twist and distort the words in the Constitution to fit whatever their agenda is. We need a true strict constructionist constitutional conservative like Ron Paul in the White House.
     
  • 14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
    What is this I'm reading? Ron Paul is one of the few people in Congress who is faithful to the Constitution. Most of the others running in both parties like to twist and distort the words in the Constitution to fit whatever their agenda is. We need a true strict constructionist constitutional conservative like Ron Paul in the White House.

    It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
    Too bad he's not a strict constructionalist.
     

    FreakyLocz14

    Conservative Patriot
  • 3,498
    Posts
    14
    Years
    • Seen Aug 29, 2018


    Too bad he's not a strict constructionalist.

    Court decisions are not always correct. It is not uncommon for the Court to overturn its prior decisions. Was Plessy v. Ferguson correct in its time? For some more recent examples: Is Citizens United correct? Was the Court's ruling that the Constitution can knowingly allow an innocent person to be executed as long as they received due process correct?
     
    Back
    Top