[Dr. Sheh]

As far as I'm considered, I'm a libertarian so no Republican would ever make me happy. I'm talking about ditching the Department of Education, Housing and Urban Development, getting rid of Homeland Security (and replacing it with something less intrusive), and slashing 90% of the EPA's budget.

Amen. Someone asked Ron Paul if he would abolish the department of education in days. His reply; 'Well no, that's absurd. It would at least take a few weeks!' Classic Ron Paul. I'd support Ron as well, I voted for him in 2008, and wrote him in when he didn't get the nomination (shock). There are a few other libertarian/Paul supporters on this board, Covert Hawk comes to mind.

[From the class of 09]

That wasn't what I meant. I think we're misunderstood here. The primaries are our chance to make sure our beliefs are represented. There will be no perfect candidate. Therefore we must choose who is best. Often that means voting for someone you may not like. Otherwise, we fraction our support and someone we despise in terms of policy gets elected.

We're in violent agreement, I hope you understand what I'm saying.

I think we do agree on some things here... Where I don't know if we agree is where we rank the importance of ideology/policy. I would rather see someone who is morally sound of good character who I disagree with on policy then see someone who is obviously morally corrupt but instep with my ideas when it comes to policy elected to any position. This is why I have a hard time getting behind any party because any party tries to minimizes the importance of an individuals character and increases the importance of the parties policies.

[ALUmnus]

I would rather see someone who is morally sound of good character who I disagree with on policy then see someone who is obviously morally corrupt but instep with my ideas when it comes to policy elected to any position.

This is very dangerous, and you're just asking for disaster here. Policy & leadership is what you're voting into office, that's the job. If the guy's making the wrong decisions, it doesn't matter at all how "good" of a person they are.

[From the class of 09]

I would rather see someone who is morally sound of good character who I disagree with on policy then see someone who is obviously morally corrupt but instep with my ideas when it comes to policy elected to any position.

This is very dangerous, and you're just asking for disaster here. Policy & leadership is what you're voting into office, that's the job. If the guy's making the wrong decisions, it doesn't matter at all how "good" of a person they are.

Thats where we disagree... I don't think anyone will be a good leader if they have no moral character. They can say whatever they want about policy but in the end they will do whats best for them and not whats best for the country. This IMO are not the qualities for a good leader.

Also (and I know this will leave me in the minority on this board) I'm not convinced the republicans will or have done a much better job when you give them a majority then the dems. Don't miss read that, in theroy the conservative movement has better ideas (overall) but when entrusted to execute these ideas they've failed.

[ALUmnus]

Thats where we disagree...

[RubberMallet]

my mom is the epicenter of moral goodness. she would make a terrible president.

[From the class of 09]

my mom is the epicenter of moral goodness. she would make a terrible president.

I'm don't think being a moral person necessarily qualifies you to be president but rather being an immoral person disqualifies you.

[RubberMallet]

my mom is the epicenter of moral goodness. she would make a terrible president.

I'm don't think being a moral person necessarily qualifies you to be president but rather being an immoral person disqualifies you.

so you've disqualified the entire human race.

[From the class of 09]

my mom is the epicenter of moral goodness. she would make a terrible president.

I'm don't think being a moral person necessarily qualifies you to be president but rather being an immoral person disqualifies you.

so you've disqualified the entire human race.

there are people who while sinners are people of character...and those who while sinners are lacking character. It's a judgement call but so is voting so there you go.

But I'm sure you already knew this is what I meant so what else do you want to nit pick at?

[whmatthews]

So Donald Trump didn't make the list?

I don't have a problem with someone voting for the person running against Obama just because they're the person going against him. Should we vote on principles? Yes. That may mean voting against Obama if that person is the lesser of two evils.

[Sly Fox]

I just added Trump and an 'Other' option.

[jbock13]

I only added people who had filed exploratory committees and those who have claimed their interest, or ran in 2008. Trump is not running for president, let's be honest.

[Sly Fox]

Trump has publicly stated that he is exploring the idea.

[NJLibertyboy]

I know the dude probably won't run, but I have to say this...

Trump is a scum bag and if he received the Republican nomination I would shoot myself in the mouth.

I had the pleasure of working at Trump Marina during my summers in high school and my mom worked there for 15 years.

First, dude sucks in business. He portrays himself to be a guru, but I cannot tell you the last time his casinos made money. He claims bankruptcy every few years to clean the books and then does it again in a couple of years. The bank finally made him sell a ton of his stock a couple of years ago as a result of his terrible track record. He doesn't like to reinvest in any of his properties and they all have looked the same for the past 20 years - old. A bunch of businesses in South Jersey too have claimed bankruptcy as the result of Trump, because he claims bankruptcy, and doesn't pay them. He's also a pervert and a womanizer.

Secondly, what he does succeed at is primarily real estate in New York, which isn't difficult. You can build a shack in midtown Manhattan and sell it for a ton of money. He also claims he's a self made millionaire, which is bull. His dad was rich and gave him a job developing real estate. However, most of his other business ventures fail because he is sleazy and doesn't ever hold up his end of the bargain.

Ron Paul 2012, holla.

[01LUGrad]

Chris Christie would be entertaining, but he has this whole thing against running for president before he is "ready." Whatever. It worked for the last guy!

[jbock13]

Thats where we disagree... I don't think anyone will be a good leader if they have no moral character. They can say whatever they want about policy but in the end they will do whats best for them and not whats best for the country.

Jimmy Carter had strong moral beliefs for doing what he did, might I add?

I'm not completely sold on Ron Paul, I like Rand Paul much better. But in fairness, probably it's Ron Paul's supporters that have annoyed me the most (not implying anyone on here) but they will disagree with you on 1 of 625 issues and say you aren't american or libertarian. Of course, I know most supporters aren't like that.

[panfan01]

Eisenhower, a man who by modern standards would be reviered beyond measure. The Republicans of today cannot lead let alone govern.

[NJLibertyboy]

In regards to Chris Christie, I like the guy even though he wasn't my first choice (I was a Steve Longean supporter in the primaries), but he grew on me, especially with the way he's taken on the teachers unions in the state. But he's going to face a tough test in NJ in a year or two and the NJEA and the Dems are filling up their bank accounts to fight him. If he can get two terms in a blue state like NJ, he's definitely got the cred to run for Prez in a couple of years.

[WinterIsComing]

Other: Rubio or Christie first in my book. Ron Paul after that. Ron should really be in charge of slashing spending in an administrative role within a Republican White House's administration. But if he was President, I'd be happy with that too.

[jbock13]

Boy people really have high hopes in Ron Paul...

[RubberMallet]

I'm don't think being a moral person necessarily qualifies you to be president but rather being an immoral person disqualifies you.

so you've disqualified the entire human race.

there are people who while sinners are people of character...and those who while sinners are lacking character. It's a judgement call but so is voting so there you go.

But I'm sure you already knew this is what I meant so what else do you want to nit pick at?

hey you were the one with the terrible choice of words.