PDA

View Full Version : Republican 2012 Candidates


-ty-
September 17th, 2011, 02:00 PM
The Republican Presidential Candidates 2012


Here they are, in alphabetical order:





Newt Gingrich

http://politicks.org/PRESIDENTIAL-CANDIDATES/images/candidates/2012/Newt-Gingrich.gif





Ron Paul

http://politicks.org/PRESIDENTIAL-CANDIDATES/images/candidates/2012/Ron-Paul.gif





Mitt Romney

http://politicks.org/PRESIDENTIAL-CANDIDATES/images/candidates/2012/Mitt-Romney.gif


Rick Santorum

http://politicks.org/PRESIDENTIAL-CANDIDATES/images/candidates/2012/Rick-Santorum.gif

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 -

G.U.Y.
September 17th, 2011, 03:01 PM
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.

Esper
September 17th, 2011, 05:54 PM
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?

Lance
September 17th, 2011, 06:35 PM
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-
September 19th, 2011, 02:45 PM
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

Lalapizzame
September 19th, 2011, 08:07 PM
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)

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.

FreakyLocz14
September 20th, 2011, 11:12 AM
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.

Melody
September 20th, 2011, 11:30 AM
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!!!!

Netto Azure
September 20th, 2011, 02:06 PM
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. >.>

Lalapizzame
September 20th, 2011, 03:08 PM
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.

Esper
September 21st, 2011, 08:41 AM
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-
September 21st, 2011, 12:32 PM
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.

Lance
September 21st, 2011, 01:15 PM
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 (http://thinkprogress.org/author/ian-m/) 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY4R_-jSGig)) 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 (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/23/miller-social-security/). 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 (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/25/scalia-tentherism/), 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 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll332.xml), including such notables as future Speaker John Boehner, uber-tenther Scott Garrett (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/04/garrett-constitution/), and future Budget chair Paul Ryan. Although the GOP more recently voted for a radical plan to phase out the Medicare program (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/15/gop-end-medicare-and-shutdown/), 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 (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/23/gop-tenther/), 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 (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/11/165621/rand-paul-health-care-slavery/) is the equivalent of “slavery.”


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

Lalapizzame
September 21st, 2011, 04:07 PM
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-
September 21st, 2011, 05:12 PM
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.

Lance
September 21st, 2011, 05:57 PM
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.

Lalapizzame
September 21st, 2011, 06:22 PM
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
September 21st, 2011, 07:49 PM
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.

Lance
September 21st, 2011, 07:57 PM
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
September 21st, 2011, 08:13 PM
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?

Lance
September 21st, 2011, 08:29 PM
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 correct?

You dodged my point again, however. He claims to be a strict constructionist, yet he's trying to do the very thing he was accused of - bending the constitutional reality to fit his own methods and means. Rather than uphold the constitutional ruling, that it is indeed legal, he's subverting it here due to his own ideological perceptions.

Lalapizzame
September 21st, 2011, 08:30 PM
The Supreme Court can be bent to the political stances of its justices. John Marshall was a Federalist, and his decisions established the precedence essential for strengthening the authority, with the authority and training of a judge to ensure legality. Interstate commerce and transportation seem to be particular concentrations of court decisions increasing federal authority, and the decisions of the 1950s and 60s were with the consent of each justice's political principles.

I have not read up on social security etc. from the Supreme Court's point of view. The Supreme Court's interpretation has undisputedly changed over the years, as its justices have been replaced by others. Its initial reaction to the policy of "separate was equal" ruled legislation was unable (and unwilling) to enforce social equality but was to ensure political equality, and that the law was fairly applied. By the time of the 1950s, the Supreme Court had mellowed and abandoned this precedence.

It is also necessary to note that Roosevelt launched his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill that very same year. Due to their continued resistance to Roosevelt's New Deal programs, he finally launched a political campaign to pass that bill and flood the Court with new justices more favorable towards the New Deal. We see here a significant amount of pressure applied to ensure the Supreme Court complied with Roosevelt's plans, and one of them was Social Security. The measure failed due to a series of fortunate events, but the Supreme Court was undoubtedly forced to alter its opinions regarding the New Deal.

FreakyLocz14
September 21st, 2011, 08:39 PM
You dodged my point again, however. He claims to be a strict constructionist, yet he's trying to do the very thing he was accused of - bending the constitutional reality to fit his own methods and means. Rather than uphold the constitutional ruling, that it is indeed legal, he's subverting it here due to his own ideological perceptions.


Did Lyndon Johnson bend the Constitution when he passed the Civil Rights Act even though the Court ruled that separate but equal was constitutional? My point is that Social Security being ruled constitutional does not make it good policy. Congress and the President can repeal legislation for political reasons even if the court has upheld that legislation. A Court ruling isn't the end of the matter. We have a system of checks and balances. Congress can repeal legislation even if it has been ruled constitutional, and they can amend the Constitution to nullify a ruling or have it re-argued in Court years later.

Netto Azure
September 21st, 2011, 08:43 PM
That brings us to the main point. What's the sense of strict constitutionalism if the Constitution will be interpreted either way?

There's no "right way" to read the constitution because it's just a framework for how the country should be run. There's a whole other part of the system established by judicial precedent, the U.S. Code, International treaties and unofficial agreements.

Mr. Downstairs
September 21st, 2011, 08:45 PM
Ron Paul is the only constitutional conservative one that list. The rest are either war hawks, neo-cons, religious fanatics, or liberals.
What's so wrong with being a liberal, if I may ask?

Lalapizzame
September 21st, 2011, 08:47 PM
The same reason some people detest Republicans and Conservatives. They do not fit with one's ideology and political principles.

FreakyLocz14
September 21st, 2011, 09:13 PM
That brings us to the main point. What's the sense of strict constitutionalism if the Constitution will be interpreted either way?

There's no "right way" to read the constitution because it's just a framework for how the country should be run. There's a whole other part of the system established by judicial precedent, the U.S. Code, International treaties and unofficial agreements.

You are correct. While the courts do tell us what the Constitution means, they don't determine what our public policy will be. Congress does that. If Ron Paul becomes President and convinces Congress to privatize SS and Medicare, he'd be well within his authority to sign the bill.

What's so wrong with being a liberal, if I may ask?

As you may have noticed, I'm a conservative. I was speaking from a personal perspective as to why I don't support certain candidates. I don't agree with the agenda that most liberals have.

Lalapizzame
September 21st, 2011, 09:23 PM
I am interested in which candidate you would choose after Ron Paul, Freakylocz. Personally, I find none of them appeal to me, although Ron Paul has his fair share of disagreeability as well. Rick Perry is, if I'm forced to choose, my second option, but he has a notorious voting record and once supported healthcare (how the politician changes like the winds going by!). He is not averse to corruption either, although Bachmann was incredibly incompetent at playing on that and ventured too far into the vaccine's actual medical aspects.

FreakyLocz14
September 21st, 2011, 09:27 PM
I am interested in which candidate you would choose after Ron Paul, Freakylocz. Personally, I find none of them appeal to me, although Ron Paul has his fair share of disagreeability as well. Rick Perry is, if I'm forced to choose, my second option, but he has a notorious voting record and once supported healthcare (how the politician changes like the winds going by!). He is not averse to corruption either, although Bachmann was incredibly incompetent at playing on that and ventured too far into the vaccine's actual medical aspects.

Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman seem palatable. Johnson is actually pretty libertarian, but is outshined by Ron Paul among the libertarian base. Ron Paul also has Tea Party support. The Tea Party has factions that are backing Bachmann, and factions that are backing Paul.

Lalapizzame
September 21st, 2011, 09:33 PM
Jon Huntsman is a very nice person, certainly a gentleman. Unfortunately, he's too moderate to gain much traction. As I have said previously, I believe he has no chance of winning the primary and will drop out soon. A pity, since he's very agreeable.

Gary Johnson is also reasonable. As I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, I am naturally sympathetic towards his views. The media has given him virtually no attention, which is unfortunate. He would be my favorite candidate, with Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman following.

If I recall, the Tea Party was founded on fiscal conservative grounds, but has had its ranks flooded with social conservatives. This dampens the Tea Party's reputation outside of its core and with moderates considerably, regardless of the sensibility of its fiscal conservatism.

FreakyLocz14
September 21st, 2011, 09:44 PM
Jon Huntsman is a very nice person, certainly a gentleman. Unfortunately, he's too moderate to gain much traction. As I have said previously, I believe he has no chance of winning the primary and will drop out soon. A pity, since he's very agreeable.

Gary Johnson is also reasonable. As I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, I am naturally sympathetic towards his views. The media has given him virtually no attention, which is unfortunate. He would be my favorite candidate, with Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman following.

If I recall, the Tea Party was founded on fiscal conservative grounds, but has had its ranks flooded with social conservatives. This dampens the Tea Party's reputation outside of its core and with moderates considerably, regardless of the sensibility of its fiscal conservatism.

I identify as a social libertarian, not a social liberal. The term liberal implies that I believe it is the government's job to step in and correct perceived social wrongs. I take the opposite approach. I believe that getting the government out of social matters in order to maximize individual liberty and freedom.

The original Tea Party are Ron Paul's 2008 supporters. While there a socially conservative wing has branched off (represented by Michele Bachmann's candidacy), there are still many libertarian Tea Party members.

Lalapizzame
September 21st, 2011, 09:57 PM
I'm not sure whether or not government intervention in social affairs on behalf of a disgruntled party is the right thing to do. It could create a slippery slope, so perhaps government's intervention in society should be to ensure order and the enforcement of the laws.

Michelle Bachmann's candidacy has been squashed by Rick Perry's arrival. I believe this is an auspicious incident in some ways, but a lesser evil is still an evil. This is especially so when I have another candidate that fits my ideals. Such a decriable environment the Tea Party has, since it conjures up images of social conservatism in the eyes of most Americans. The Tea Party deserves a better reputation, except for its social conservatives.

Esper
September 22nd, 2011, 08:30 AM
I heard this morning that Huntsman and Romney are polling very high (relatively for Huntsman anyway) in New Hampshire at the moment thanks in part to the large numbers of independents there. I have no idea what this actually means in the long run though except that Huntsman might stay in the race longer.

Also, I don't think you can hold on to the idea that the Tea Party is still a group of fiscal conservatives any more than you can compare the current Republican party to the one from decades ago. There are too many neo-cons and social conservatives in its ranks and when you get down to it there's little difference between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment now.

-ty-
September 22nd, 2011, 12:14 PM
I think that some of these Conservatives contradict themselves. The government should not be interfering with our personal lives; you know, that is supposedly part of the Republican platform - less government. That is why Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, and Pawlenty will never have my vote; they all believe that it is the government's job to enforce their religious views upon everyone else. Clearly, being in support of NOM shows that they do not understand the concept of federalism. It is not the federal government's job to dispute any type of marriage legislation, that is a reserved power. This "general welfare" has been exercised to an extreme, in both Republicans and Democrats; it is unproductive and unnecessary involvement. I think that the Constitution is very important, and it was never intended to be taken advantage of as it has. I mean there should be some elasticity, but the usurpation of power has gone WAY too far.

FreakyLocz14
September 22nd, 2011, 12:59 PM
I think that some of these Conservatives contradict themselves. The government should not be interfering with our personal lives; you know, that is supposedly part of the Republican platform - less government. That is why Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, and Pawlenty will never have my vote; they all believe that it is the government's job to enforce their religious views upon everyone else. Clearly, being in support of NOM shows that they do not understand the concept of federalism. It is not the federal government's job to dispute any type of marriage legislation, that is a reserved power. This "general welfare" has been exercised to an extreme, in both Republicans and Democrats; it is unproductive and unnecessary involvement. I think that the Constitution is very important, and it was never intended to be taken advantage of as it has. I mean there should be some elasticity, but the usurpation of power has gone WAY too far.

Ron Paul, John Huntsman, and Gary Johnson oppose the NOM Marriage Pledge and oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. Ron Paul even voted against it in Congress. He also voted to repeal DADT. When he says he stands for limited government and individual liberty, he really means it.

Gothitelle.
September 22nd, 2011, 01:26 PM
Any of them are better than Obama right about now. However, I'd want a candidate that is truly conservative. There's Republicans in congress who are not true conservatives but really democrats with an R by their name.

While, I go with the liberation candidate here, I kinda question the social issues.

-ty-
September 22nd, 2011, 01:30 PM
Ron Paul, John Huntsman, and Gary Johnson oppose the NOM Marriage Pledge and oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. Ron Paul even voted against it in Congress. He also voted to repeal DADT. When he says he stands for limited government and individual liberty, he really means it.

That's why I like him so much. He has all of those stances yet he personally believes that the bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman; that is why I see him as pragmatic and level-headed. He is able to make objective decisions. I cannot say the same for Obama, and his ever "evolving" ideologies, nor the neo-conservative candidates blatant despotic views, especially on this matter. I see a lot in Ron Paul in Gary Johnson; hopefully he runs for vice president alongside Ron Paul after he gets the nomination. haha.

FreakyLocz14
September 22nd, 2011, 09:20 PM
That's why I like him so much. He has all of those stances yet he personally believes that the bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman; that is why I see him as pragmatic and level-headed. He is able to make objective decisions. I cannot say the same for Obama, and his ever "evolving" ideologies, nor the neo-conservative candidates blatant despotic views, especially on this matter. I see a lot in Ron Paul in Gary Johnson; hopefully he runs for vice president alongside Ron Paul after he gets the nomination. haha.

Paul/Rubio 2012!!!

Well, now that the latest debate is over, what are your guy's thoughts on it? It seems like these debates are turning into a bickering war between Romney and Perry.

Lalapizzame
September 22nd, 2011, 10:06 PM
I'm not surprised Perry and Romney are having their catfights on-stage. At least they've contained Bachmann's campaign.

Anti
September 23rd, 2011, 05:09 PM
I'm not sure whether or not government intervention in social affairs on behalf of a disgruntled party is the right thing to do. It could create a slippery slope, so perhaps government's intervention in society should be to ensure order and the enforcement of the laws.

Michelle Bachmann's candidacy has been squashed by Rick Perry's arrival. I believe this is an auspicious incident in some ways, but a lesser evil is still an evil. This is especially so when I have another candidate that fits my ideals. Such a decriable environment the Tea Party has, since it conjures up images of social conservatism in the eyes of most Americans. The Tea Party deserves a better reputation, except for its social conservatives.

The whole "slippery slope" thing is typically a fallacy, and indeed it is here as well. From a purely logical standpoint, you cannot connect government intervention in social affairs with...whatever exactly the slippery slope is sliding to (you didn't actually say), so it doesn't really hold water. Even in terms of common sense, our government is set up so that no one branch can become too powerful, and the entirety of the government itself has never been efficient enough, cohesive enough or, frankly, competent enough to seriously violate our civil liberties. Also, the courts help in this regard. I didn't mean to get sidetracked with this, but I feel like "well if we let the government do this, what other things might it do?" is a very flimsy argument since even without calling it a slippery slope, that is in essence what it is.

I agree about Bachmann though. She doesn't have mainstream appeal, and I believe that voters deserve a legitimate alternative to Obama, who has definitely had his struggles. I also agree that Perry isn't exactly an ideal replacement, but I just have a gut feeling that there's no way he will win. He just doesn't seem presidential. He has a gimmicky feel to me, kind of like a Sarah Palin type.

Paul/Rubio 2012!!!

Well, now that the latest debate is over, what are your guy's thoughts on it? It seems like these debates are turning into a bickering war between Romney and Perry.

I hope Romney wins the nomination. Whatever his flaws, he is clearly intelligent, refined, and is a more savvy politician than Obama was. I know most people view that as a negative thing, but I think that being able to work the system to get things done is quite alright. Obama constantly deferring to our mostly worthless Congress has not helped, even if it's not directly his fault. I feel like Romney is smart enough to understand that the best U.S. presidents weren't such passive and ineffective communicators...and if he's not, none of the potential nominees are.

As for Ron Paul, I think he's a decent choice. I actually think that his more radical positions that most people don't agree with won't matter a whole lot because I feel like the legislative and judicial branches could keep him in check if he ever went "too far." At least to me, his main appeal is the anti-militarism (his word, not mine) stance he takes against especially the Republicans. Also, as someone who is neutral on abortion and agrees with Paul on other social issues, I think he has legitimate appeal. However, I do think that his age is a downside, as is the fact that he has been anti-establishment for so long that I don't know how he would fare when suddenly he was the establishment.

In general, the Republican nomination process intrigues me because for people like me (annoyed with Obama's inability to stand up against certain extremely conservative positions and his lack of leadership at times), this really decides who I vote for. If they nominate someone like Bachmann, they've blown it. I really hope they don't.

FreakyLocz14
October 18th, 2011, 01:17 PM
Has anyone here been keeping up with the debates?

What are your thoughts?

twocows
October 19th, 2011, 04:44 AM
They're all extremists. Most are fascist extremists. Ron Paul is a libertarian extremist.

I don't like extremism. I won't vote for any of them. In fact, I think I'll vote for myself as a write-in like I did last election. Or maybe this: http://www.americanselect.org/

-ty-
October 21st, 2011, 11:18 AM
Okay, here is my current concern about the debates, Freaky...

So anyone else "fed" up with Herman Cain?

It is beyond me that his appeal as an outsider, and his simple-minded tax solution (999) has garnered him so much support. Okay, first of all, he is not an outsider. He is the only candidate that work with the Federal Reserve; he served during an era that made it a precedent to print excessive amounts of money which caused super-inflation, and he defends the actions of the Federal Reserve. Okay, now read a bit more on what 9-9-9 really entails. (Most that support it do not understand it.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/herman-cains-misleading-pitch-for-the-999-plan/2011/10/12/gIQAHszPgL_blog.html

Lance
October 21st, 2011, 11:29 AM
Has anyone here been keeping up with the debates?

What are your thoughts?

Not a debate per say, but quite relevant:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 04:31 PM
Cain is just a fad right now.

Ron Paul is in double digits and among the Top 3 in Iowa and New Hampshire. Someone or two is bound to drop-out after those states vote. He's also polling well in Nevada.

Yoshimi
October 21st, 2011, 07:51 PM
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
-Ron Paul

I'd go for Romney if I had to. Everyone else is just a bit too silly for me.

Mario The World Champion
October 21st, 2011, 08:53 PM
9-9-9. Whenever I hear people mention Cain's tax plan, I begin to think of Hitler screaming out "Nein, nein, nein!"

ben cousins
October 21st, 2011, 09:08 PM
herman cain-token black man. i bet the conservetives are telling him to act the way he does so it'l be barack vs cain ''the brotha''.... disgusting rascist republicans.

-ty-
October 21st, 2011, 09:25 PM
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
-Ron Paul

I'd go for Romney if I had to. Everyone else is just a bit too silly for me.

http://slander.revolutioni.st/racist.html

Read this, before slandering someone. Just because you found a quote online doesn't mean that he said it. That is why I mostly watch speeches of the candidates rather than getting second-hand sources that do not have official/proper citation with misleading or false information.

Ron Paul is an advocate against racism -period.

Lance
October 21st, 2011, 09:25 PM
Cain is just a fad right now.

Ron Paul is in double digits and among the Top 3 in Iowa and New Hampshire. Someone or two is bound to drop-out after those states vote. He's also polling well in Nevada.

You might want to re-read that link again. He's nowhere close.

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 10:36 PM
You might want to re-read that link again. He's nowhere close.

You posted national polling, not polling specific to Iowa and New Hampshire.

lx_theo
October 27th, 2011, 01:17 PM
I can respect Ron Paul. The rest are just an assortment of their own styles of crazy. Bachman stands out as the worst by far.

Ron Paul has some more radical view points, and I wouldn't support many if enacted in office. With that said, he can be respected for his ability to hold onto those ideologies.

I'm just hoping America isn't stupid enough to fall for the underhanded tactics of the more popular Republicans. Obama still seems the best of any evil in the race(by far).

FreakyLocz14
October 27th, 2011, 01:33 PM
I'm going to vote for the eventual nominee, unless it's Bachmann or Santorum. I'll vote Libertarian or AIP then.

Zet
October 31st, 2011, 02:55 AM
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is standing by his assertion that reproductive health care provider Planned Parenthood is carrying out the “planned genocide” of African Americans.

In a March speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation, Cain said the organization’s mission was to “help kill black babies before they came into the world.”

On Sunday, CBS host Bob Schieffer asked the candidate if he still believed that statement.

“Yes,” Cain replied. “I still stand by that.”

“Do you have any proof that was the objective of Planned Parenthood?” Schieffer wondered.

“If people go back and look at this history and look at [Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger’s own words, that’s exactly where that came from,” Cain insisted. “Look at where most of them were built. Seventy-five percent were built in the black community and Margaret Sanger’s own words — she didn’t use the word genocide. She did talk about decreasing the number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born.”

Anti-abortion activists often misquote Sanger as saying, “[W]e want to exterminate the Negro population.”

But in full context, the quote has the opposite meaning. In a 1939 letter to pro-birth control advocate Clarence J. Gamble, Sanger argued that black leaders should be involved in the effort to deliver birth control to the black community.

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs,” she wrote (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/OppositionClaimsAboutMargaretSanger.pdf) (PDF).
source (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/30/cain-defends-accusing-planned-parenthood-of-planned-genocide/)

So is anyone else still listening to this guy?

PkMnTrainer Yellow
October 31st, 2011, 03:14 AM
...I'm not sure whether to feel old or just sane whenever I see an older person completely lose their grip on reality like this.

But no. I hope his ridiculousness fades into obscurity where it belongs so that the rest of us adults can continue talking about important stuff. <___>

Esper
October 31st, 2011, 08:33 AM
Herman Cain, how are you even leading in polls for the nomination? Your numbers are wrong, btw.

Among abortion clinics in 2008:
• 63% were located in neighborhoods where one-half or more of the residents were
non-Hispanic white;
• 12% were located in neighborhoods where one-half or more of the residents were
Hispanic;
• 9% were located in neighborhoods where one-half or more of the residents were
black;
• 1% were located in neighborhoods where one-half or more of the residents were
“non-Hispanic other”; and
• 15% were located in neighborhoods where no single racial or ethnic group accounted
for one-half or more of residents.

[Source (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2011/01/19/Guttmacher-Advisory.pdf)]

FreakyLocz14
October 31st, 2011, 09:10 AM
The majority of aborted babies are children of color.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
October 31st, 2011, 09:27 AM
@Herman Cain mugshot: ...o_O; Why do I get a sense of deja vu looking at his smile despite having never heard of him?

Regardless. I for one am voting for Ron Paul. I find that I generally like his stance on things.

lx_theo
October 31st, 2011, 10:54 AM
The majority of aborted babies are children of color.
... And? Even if true, why does it matter? Its not exactly like it'd show Cain has any idea what he's talking about. In any context his assertion is insane.

-ty-
October 31st, 2011, 11:53 AM
There are more unplanned pregnancies in low income families. Also, it's more difficult for parents with little to no income to raise a child.
Therefore, the abortion clinics are also more predominant in low socio-economic neighborhoods. Statitistically speaking, a larger percentage of people of color live in low-socioeconomic neighborhoods. However, the intentions of the abortion clinics are to supply more abortions for the higher demand of abortions in low-economic areas, not to hinder the growth in the black community.

Percentage (number) of people in Poverty in America by Race:

White 13% (25 million people)
Black 35% (14 million people)
Hispanic 34% (17 million people)
Other 23% (6 million people)

37 Million non-white people in poverty
25 Million white people in poverty

lx_theo
October 31st, 2011, 04:22 PM
Planned Parenthood has always had the minds of young women of color who they trick into thinking there are no alternatives. The young women who cannot afford abortions are often paid for by the states, and many PP facilities get state funds for providing family planning services (not limited to abortion) to primarily low-income areas. While not always, they often are areas dominated by racial minorities.

Again, so? As stated by the other person above, Planned Parenthood is there for the low income communities. It has nothing to do with the fact that there is a greater number of minorities in that group. Are you suggesting that Cain actually has some legitimacy to that statement?

I'm not even going to deal with the "tricked" part of your statement. Its your bias and really has nothing to do with the issue thats being discussed. All I ask is that you keep parts like that out of them so that this discussion doesn't go into an unrelated question that we know will end badly.

EDIT: To clarify after Live_Wire's post (not sure if I was clear before), how does any of these claims relate to Cain's claims?

Lance
October 31st, 2011, 06:30 PM
Back to the actual candidates people. No more of this abortion/planned parenthood crap.

FreakyLocz14
October 31st, 2011, 09:33 PM
Has anyone decided on a candidate or changed their previous decision?

If so, explain why.

-ty-
October 31st, 2011, 09:51 PM
I haven't changed my decision, but I would like to bring up another topic. Though I do not like most of Cain's stances, and I will not vote for him, how do you guys think that constituents who either support or have considered supporting Cain think about the sexual harassment suits that he admitted to settling out of court?

Lance
November 1st, 2011, 06:17 AM
constituents who either support or have considered supporting Cain think about the sexual harassment suits that he admitted to settling out of court?

It means he's done for. We're beginning to see the pretenders of the group start to drop - Perry, Cain, Bachmann, etc.

FreakyLocz14
November 1st, 2011, 07:46 AM
Ron Paul has a real shot if those clowns drop-out early. He ranks 3rd-4th in early states, ahead of Bachmann. Those are the polls that matter, because we will be seeing some of the clowns who fail to get in the Top 3 in a single primary or caucus drop-out at that point.

Mr. X
November 2nd, 2011, 01:49 PM
I personally find it odd that this story breaks when he is leading in national polls.

Its the curse. Once you hit top, someone is going to dig up your dirty laundry to knock you down.

Personally, I'm VERY interested in the skeletons that Paul has in his closet.

FreakyLocz14
November 2nd, 2011, 01:54 PM
I personally find it odd that this story breaks when he is leading in national polls.

Its the curse. Once you hit top, someone is going to dig up your dirty laundry to knock you down.

Personally, I'm VERY interested in the skeletons that Paul has in his closet.

The only ones I know of are that some ghostwriter for a publication in his name published some racist newsletters.

Mr. X
November 2nd, 2011, 02:03 PM
But, thats the thing... How many people knew what Herman was involved in before it hit news? Thats right. Not many.

Im not talking about 'bad boy, don't do that again' skeletons. Im talking about the 'holy crap man, why did you do that?' kind of skeletons.

Lance
November 2nd, 2011, 08:47 PM
I personally find it odd that this story breaks when he is leading in national polls.

Its the curse. Once you hit top, someone is going to dig up your dirty laundry to knock you down.

Personally, I'm VERY interested in the skeletons that Paul has in his closet.

Rumor has it that Rick Perry himself had something to do with it being leaked to Politico.

Mario The World Champion
November 2nd, 2011, 09:05 PM
Rumor has it that Rick Perry himself had something to do with it being leaked to Politico.

Didn't some people say that Rick Perry's staff were the ones who told told that one Tea Party group to tell Michele Bachmann to quit?

Esper
November 3rd, 2011, 09:38 AM
I thought Cain admitted (inadvertently) that he leaked the story himself a while back by talking with people about it. And did anyone see the video of Perry acting drunk and/or high in a speech in New Hampshire? What a sad lot the Republican field has become. I used to think that Romney was okay (for a Republican) but ever since I read about his time as a Mormon pastor when he tried to prevent a woman from getting a Mormon Church-approved abortion she needed to have in order to have a life-saving operation I've hated the guy for being a two-faced jerk.

If only there were someone who was honest and at the same time not crazy or extreme.

Mr. X
November 3rd, 2011, 10:06 AM
I try to stay away from most politics, but i'll have to agree with Locz on this. Out of all the Republicans, Ron Paul is proably the best choice.


Anyway, RonPaul>BarrackObama>Theotherrepublicancandidates.

FreakyLocz14
November 4th, 2011, 04:30 PM
I try to stay away from most politics, but i'll have to agree with Locz on this. Out of all the Republicans, Ron Paul is proably the best choice.


Anyway, RonPaul>BarrackObama>Theotherrepublicancandidates.

My Top 3 choices in order of preference:
1) Ron Paul
2) Gary Johnson
3) Jon Huntsman

Black Ice
November 4th, 2011, 05:40 PM
Jon Huntsman is the most moderate of them. As expected though, his budget plans cater to the rich. But I still think he deserves a bit more coverage.

Esper
November 5th, 2011, 09:15 AM
Okay, so maybe I'm a little late to this revelation, but I only just heard about it last night. It seems that Cain is a closet Pokemon fan.

Dvq2tha6heU

After hearing about this, and also that the sexual harassment settlement dates back to 9/99 I'm willing to believe Cain is trolling everyone.

I hope he wins the nomination now.

-ty-
November 8th, 2011, 01:36 PM
I know Scarf, I think that he googled for a quote, and didn't look past "Donna Summers" before he copied and pasted it into his speech. xD

These sexual harassment suits are finally becoming more concrete. From what I have watched the past couple of days, he asked a woman to perform oral sex on him, and he also reached up her skirt, which would really constitute as sexual assault. I don't think that there was enough information to say either way if he was liable, or exactly to what extent the allegations were. So I think as more information surfaces, Cain is going to plummet. Gingrich and Ron Paul will join Romney as the top tier candidates. Not jumping out of my seat for Gingrich...ugh.

FreakyLocz14
November 9th, 2011, 04:31 PM
I know Scarf, I think that he googled for a quote, and didn't look past "Donna Summers" before he copied and pasted it into his speech. xD

These sexual harassment suits are finally becoming more concrete. From what I have watched the past couple of days, he asked a woman to perform oral sex on him, and he also reached up her skirt, which would really constitute as sexual assault. I don't think that there was enough information to say either way if he was liable, or exactly to what extent the allegations were. So I think as more information surfaces, Cain is going to plummet. Gingrich and Ron Paul will join Romney as the top tier candidates. Not jumping out of my seat for Gingrich...ugh.

One Cain is toast, that makes Gingrich, Paul, and Romney the top-tier. Perry's 15 minutes of fame are up, and soon will be Cain's. Paul has a real shot, but it won't be easy.

Mr. X
November 9th, 2011, 06:35 PM
I don't put much stock in all these women coming up and saying he harrassed them.

The only ones, in my mind that are truthful and should matter are the ones that have been settled in court. Other then those, any other claims have a greater chance of being made up then they do being true.

Went
November 10th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Perry completely kicked himself out of the race tonight. It's amazing that Newt Gingrich is still alive and fighting after so many years in Washington.

Nash Bandicoot
November 13th, 2011, 02:06 AM
I'm surprised no one has really brought up that Romney is Mormon, anyway I am one so anyone who thinks Mormons are like cultists or something crazy read this http://www.the-broad-side.com/the-truth-about-mormons-and-mitt-romney. This was written by someone who left the church it my broaden your views on him.

lx_theo
November 13th, 2011, 08:58 AM
One Cain is toast, that makes Gingrich, Paul, and Romney the top-tier. Perry's 15 minutes of fame are up, and soon will be Cain's. Paul has a real shot, but it won't be easy.

Unless the Republicans have been purposely keeping Paul out of the spotlight (all the media, even the Republican ones, have basically ignored his candidacy for the most part), I don't see him faring well against Romney. Thats at least how I see it for him having a good overall chance. He himself may get his own 15 minutes of fame like Cain and Perry.

THough I seriously doubt that either Romney or Paul have enough to beat Obama.

Lance
November 13th, 2011, 10:47 AM
I'm surprised no one has really brought up that Romney is Mormon, anyway I am one so anyone who thinks Mormons are like cultists or something crazy read this http://www.the-broad-side.com/the-truth-about-mormons-and-mitt-romney. This was written by someone who left the church it my broaden your views on him.

I would hope that in this day and age, it shouldn't matter what religeous denomination he is. However, this is the republican presidential race, so....

Mr. X
November 13th, 2011, 11:49 AM
THough I seriously doubt that either Romney or Paul have enough to beat Obama.

Although I like Obama, I don't really see him being a two term president... Unless Bachman is the republican candidate.

You know what would be interesting? Romney as president and Paul as vice president. Or switch the two. Either one would be a interesting combination.

Zet
December 3rd, 2011, 07:15 PM
Herman Cain, former Republican candidate in the presidential primary, and author of the controversial 9-9-9 tax bill, as well as recipient of several sexual harassment complaints and various other accounting’s of his alleged sexual peccadilloes, just announced that he will not continue to seek the Republican nomination for president.

Cain claimed his decision to withdraw was based on the false and unproved accusations he says has made for a “tremendous and painful price on my family.” He went on to say that he is “at peace with my God.” and “at peace with my wife, family and myself.” He further discussed plan “A” which was his presidential campaign but will suspend this plan in favor of “Plan B” his self proclaimed “Cain Solutions dot com,” where he will continue to be a vocal presence on the political stage.

Herman Cain’s big decision was announced to an attentive media and supporters gathered in a festive atmosphere for the opening of his new state headquarters in Atlanta. The New York Times points out it would be odd to go out amid such fanfare, but he did nonetheless. “You’d surmise not,” says Cain’s press secretary in Georgia.

Cain’s departure will likely not have a huge impact on the remaining candidates as he is polling at around 8%.

What are your thoughts on the Herman Cain departure? Do you think he should have stayed in and toughed it out?
source: http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/12/breaking-herman-cain-out-suspends-presidential-campaign/

A good source of entertainment and pokemon quotes has stopped trying to be president.

What are your thoughts on this and do you think Bachmann should also do the same?

lx_theo
December 3rd, 2011, 07:40 PM
What a shame, he was a valuable source of entertainment for a long time. Jon Stewart will be heartbroken.

Mr. X
December 5th, 2011, 05:15 PM
And in other news, Cain has dropped out.

-ty-
December 5th, 2011, 06:14 PM
Ron Paul is now in 2nd, behind Gingrich in the Iowa polls. It is sickening how much support he has, yet the media is blocking him out. Romney is in third, and Cain has dropped out, yet both of those candidates get at least 10 times as much coverage.

Mr. X
December 5th, 2011, 06:38 PM
If Paul wants coverage, do something news-story-worthy.

Like quote pokemon. Or have extremist views. Or be accused of sexual harassment.

In Pauls case no news, is good news.

FreakyLocz14
December 5th, 2011, 06:40 PM
RON PAUL 2012!!!

Gingrich is a corporate shill who supports individual mandates, free college for illegals, and believes in the global warming hoax.

Netto Azure
December 5th, 2011, 11:26 PM
I'm still willing to throw my support for Ditto-Romney. :P

Esper
December 6th, 2011, 10:33 AM
If Paul wants coverage, do something news-story-worthy.

Like quote pokemon. Or have extremist views. Or be accused of sexual harassment.

In Pauls case no news, is good news.
Paul gets no coverage because he doesn't have the poll numbers that others have/had and his brand of extremist views don't jive with the Bachmann/Perry/Cain/Gingrich kind of extreme views, which are for some reason what Republican primary voters seem to like.

FreakyLocz14
December 6th, 2011, 12:42 PM
Paul gets no coverage because he doesn't have the poll numbers that others have/had and his brand of extremist views don't jive with the Bachmann/Perry/Cain/Gingrich kind of extreme views, which are for some reason what Republican primary voters seem to like.

He's doesn't have the poll numbers?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

Netto Azure
December 6th, 2011, 01:31 PM
Poll numbers for the general electorate.

-ty-
December 6th, 2011, 01:49 PM
Poll numbers for the general electorate.

The point is that he has been ignored by the media, and therefore the general electorate don't know enough to vote for him. All they hear is that he is an extremist or a non-threat to the GOP rivals.

He has won the majority of straw polls because when he is able to talk to the constituents they believe that he has the best plan for our economy and other issues.

Since the media ignores him, he has focused all of his time, money, and energy into the grassroots movement in Iowa. If he wins this primary, then the national media will not be able to continue to ignore him.

In addition, polling third with the general electorate means that he is a top-tier candidate, so he does deserve way more coverage. I can't believe he is doing so well given the fact he is never mentioned in the news. When Newt's baggage is unearthed, and he has alot of it, then I think this is going to be a very close race.

FreakyLocz14
December 6th, 2011, 03:26 PM
Poll numbers for the general electorate.

Iowans are and those in New Hampshire are voting in less than a month. Most voters won't vote from February at the earliest to as late as June. The early states are what matter at this point.

Esper
December 7th, 2011, 10:42 AM
He's doesn't have the poll numbers?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html
He does have higher numbers now, yes, in Iowa, but he was always relatively stable nation-wide and quite a bit behind Romney so his stability isn't as noteworthy as Romney's. He never shot to the top like Bachmann, Perry, Cain or Gingrich either.

Not that I think that's fair. I think he should have equal coverage and so should Huntsman, Roemer, Johnson, and anyone else who's running. Good polling numbers mean more coverage and more coverage means better polling numbers. It's too much of a closed system.

Rift
December 8th, 2011, 02:37 AM
Hello friends, neighbors, benefactors, children, hobbits, etc.,

I am pleased to announce that former Presidential hopeful Herman Cain wants to be the very best...Like no one ever was:

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/herman-cain-quotes-pokemon-on-his-way-out/?iref=obnetwork

And even though I'm a stout-hearted Democrat...I would've loved a Pokemon master to grace the steps of the White House! That, and I love a good pizza!

Cheers,
Scotty

Netto Azure
December 8th, 2011, 03:11 AM
*Sigh*

There should just be a nationwide primary day or something, rather than giving such large political powers on states that are fairly small compared to the US population.

But alas, the whole resource allocation issue comes to the fray.

Anyways, a lot of monied interests sees Ron Paul's candidacy as seriously threatening their economic position, such as the whole "returning to the Gold Standard and abolishing the Fed" immovable monetary policy stuff he centers his economic policy on. Then again if the rest of the world returns to the Gold Standard it might work, but I seriously doubt a lot of national governments would give up their independence on monetary policy just to accommodate the US.

Anyways anyone saw this very infamous Ad yet?

v/0PAJNntoRgA

And with that It's a 3 way for Mitt, Gingrich and Ron Paul. :/

Trance and Moss
December 8th, 2011, 03:20 AM
I am Canadian, but I feel the need to say this to Americans: RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL!

Esper
December 8th, 2011, 11:28 AM
Anyways anyone saw this very infamous Ad yet?

v/0PAJNntoRgA

And with that It's a 3 way for Mitt, Gingrich and Ron Paul. :/
You know, I love to watch commercials without the sound on and see what kind of body language the people use. First you get the "calm down, be quiet" hand telling you he's going to be serious. Then you get the open, almost-making-a-fist hand that says he's passionate about what he's talking about. Then the dismissive shrug which says "can you believe this?" and lets you know it's okay to ridicule. And you can almost see the desperation in the way he holds both hands out. Then he finishes with a "we're in this together, let's go get the bastards" kind of manly pseudo-punch. I don't even need to know what he's saying to know that he's gonna be pandering to the base in this add. It's written all over his face.

c l e a r
December 8th, 2011, 11:50 PM
v/TX0eF-rnk7k

Best part is @ :35

-ty-
December 9th, 2011, 12:45 AM
Perry's video is so inspirational!

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 11:59 AM
Just so you guys know. There is a debate tonight. Our new top-tier is Gingrich, Romney, and Paul.

When and where to watch:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/republican-presidential-debate-where-and-when-to-watch/2011/12/10/gIQAtsfjkO_blog.html

c l e a r
December 10th, 2011, 11:33 PM
oh dear, the internet seem to have taken something stupid and run with it again!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/newsfeed/000/214/207/tumblr_lvv096z8oz1qa37hco1_500.gif?1323323516

He's got my vote now.

HackChu
December 13th, 2011, 04:46 PM
Just so you guys know. There is a debate tonight. Our new top-tier is Gingrich, Romney, and Paul.

When and where to watch:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/republican-presidential-debate-where-and-when-to-watch/2011/12/10/gIQAtsfjkO_blog.html
I saw.

As usual, Ron Paul is always on top of his game. Too bad the others are always stuck with their hands down their throats. I cracked up when Perry said he learned from Ron Paul about the FED. He's just saving face. He's know damn well how the FED works, he's a freakin Governor for crying out loud. To top it off, he's Governor of TEXAS! Where Alex Jones and other protested the federal reserve branch of that state.

Mr. X
December 13th, 2011, 05:15 PM
Serious question, but have we ever elected a candidate (In the past 50 years) who was completely legit, nothing at all bad about him?

HackChu
December 13th, 2011, 05:22 PM
I don't really know. JFK was good I guess, he had his problems, but he didn't become corrupt, nor did he take orders. For example, when his JCoS presented him with a document entitled Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods), he was immediately fired.

So, if you switched it up to, "have we had a good President in the last 50 years?" I'd say yes. That was John F. Kennedy. These other clowns (Ronald Reagan I suppose did some good) just carried off what they were told through teleprompters. That was evident enough when George Bush Sr was in office.

-ty-
December 13th, 2011, 09:38 PM
Gingrich is feeling the scrutiny now that he is the front-runner, and conservatives are starting to lose support for him, while Ron Paul is surging. In the most recent poll, Ginrich has fallen to 22% and Ron Paul has increased his support to 21%.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/ron-paul-rising/

Everyone saying that he should be blacked-out by the media or that it is impossible for him to win the nomination can suck it, lmao.

FreakyLocz14
December 13th, 2011, 09:54 PM
Gingrich is feeling the scrutiny now that he is the front-runner, and conservatives are starting to lose support for him, while Ron Paul is surging. In the most recent poll, Ginrich has fallen to 22% and Ron Paul has increased his support to 21%.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/ron-paul-rising/

Everyone saying that he should be blacked-out by the media or that it is impossible for him to win the nomination can suck it, lmao.

The money bomb on the 16th should but him over the top. After that, he just needs to get to 2nd place in NH and he can proceed to win states like California that have large amounts of delegates and are in favor of his libertarian positions.

HackChu
December 13th, 2011, 09:56 PM
To be honest, since Ron Paul is a threat to the Establishment, the polls may end up being rigged anyway, like with Obamas. So this whole voting thing in reality is a sham. The puppets are usually chosen at Bohemian Grove or Bilderberg meetings.

FreakyLocz14
December 13th, 2011, 09:59 PM
To be honest, since Ron Paul is a threat to the Establishment, the polls may end up being rigged anyway, like with Obamas. So this whole voting thing in reality is a sham. The puppets are usually chosen at Bohemian Grove or Bilderberg meetings.

I know what you mean. They rigged the 2008 Nevada GOP caucuses after it became clear that Paul was going to win. Sue "Cocks for Docs" Lowden had the entire meeting shutdown and they rigged it to say that Romney won and Paul only came in second.

HackChu
December 13th, 2011, 10:02 PM
I know what you mean. They rigged the 2008 Nevada GOP caucuses after it became clear that Paul was going to win. Sue "Cocks for Docs" Lowden had the entire meeting shutdown and they rigged it to say that Romney won and Paul only came in second.
Well Ron Paul doesn't have a snow balls chance because the Media said so lol. So we know anything they say must be true.

But really, it's just an illusion to sell out to the public that he isn't when in reality he's won a lot of the polls.

Lance
December 13th, 2011, 10:08 PM
Well Ron Paul doesn't have a snow balls chance because the Media said so lol

Which is a good thing. We don't need any more extremists than we already have.

HackChu
December 13th, 2011, 10:12 PM
Which is a good thing. We don't need any more extremists than we already have.
So anyone who is against supporting Israel(which will help by stopping us from wasting millions of money and soliders)someone who wants America to be...America again is an Extremist?

This type of crap has been portrayed upon real Patriots by the Establishment for quite some time, mainly ever since 9/11. In a sense, I'm getting tired of the word "extremist" being used so loosely and without character.

Anybody who is in support of the U.S Constitution and what it stands for happens to be an extremist now. So this only proves how much twisting and cutting up the mainsteam does. Thank God I "unplugged" myself from the Matrix. Else I'd be thinking this way as well.

FreakyLocz14
December 13th, 2011, 10:14 PM
Which is a good thing. We don't need any more extremists than we already have.

I agree that we already have extremists in office. Obama is a good example.

Lance
December 13th, 2011, 11:03 PM
So anyone who is against supporting Israel(which will help by stopping us from wasting millions of money and soliders)someone who wants America to be...America again is an Extremist?

This type of crap has been portrayed upon real Patriots by the Establishment for quite some time, mainly ever since 9/11. In a sense, I'm getting tired of the word "extremist" being used so loosely and without character.

Anybody who is in support of the U.S Constitution and what it stands for happens to be an extremist now. So this only proves how much twisting and cutting up the mainsteam does. Thank God I "unplugged" myself from the Matrix. Else I'd be thinking this way as well.

Advocating a sudden withdrawal from a key middle eastern military alliance shows your (and Paul's) complete lack of understanding of world politics. That's asinine, for starters.

Dissolving half of the federal government is quite extreme, no matter how you try to justify Paul's actions to yourself.


I agree that we already have extremists in office. Obama is a good example.

Or the entire current Republican field, with Huntsman as the only somewhat sane one of the bunch.

FreakyLocz14
December 13th, 2011, 11:46 PM
Advocating a sudden withdrawal from a key middle eastern military alliance shows your (and Paul's) complete lack of understanding of world politics. That's asinine, for starters.

Dissolving half of the federal government is quite extreme, no matter how you try to justify Paul's actions to yourself.




Or the entire current Republican field, with Huntsman as the only somewhat sane one of the bunch.

If by extreme you mean bold, I agree. We need to take big, bold steps to decrease the national debt and sharply reduce the size of government. We also need an full and immediate withdrawal of all of our overseas troops.

Paul, Johnson, and Huntsman are the sane ones running.

Mr. X
December 14th, 2011, 12:02 AM
I want Paul to win and I don't want him to win. Its strange, I know.

I agree that his ideals are best for America, just not his chosen actions to enforce those ideals.

Like LW said, immediate withdrawal isn't the best choice. While I support withdrawing all troops, it needs to be done slowly. Start with the smaller, unimportant military bases and work your way up.

As for the taxes and the debt, its a complex problem. As for solving it, recalling troops would free up a large amount of money. imo? Use some of that money to cover tax breaks for companies but, keyword, but, give them a ultimatum for the tax break. If they don't create X amount of jobs in Y amount of time, then they lose that tax break and have to pay up the money that they saved from it. Nothing gets corporate America moving faster then the chance to make money, or the fact that they will lose money.

As for alliances, no. Just no. Have the US play a smaller role in them? Yes. Have us end every alliance? No. Not smart, and anyone who thinks is needs to get a reality check and/or learn some World Politics. Come at me bro does nothing, except earn a ass kicking on epic scale.

While I'd support a flat tax, the truth is that Congress would spend a long time arguing about the rates and at the end let the plan die out. Tax reform, while needed, can't be done with the narrow minded individuals in congress. (Who, despite the beliefs of some people, are not just on one side. They are on both)

I haven't bothered learning about Johnson and Huntsman since those two don't have enough numbers behind them to be worth any attention.

Trance and Moss
December 14th, 2011, 08:59 AM
Wow, so many undecided voters; glad I'm not in the US.

FreakyLocz14
December 14th, 2011, 09:07 AM
Wow, so many undecided voters; glad I'm not in the US.

That's because of how early it is in the election cycle.

And what exactly is extreme about this guy. He sounds like the most sane and common sense man in Washington to me.
qWxaGRZ7Nrs

Trance and Moss
December 14th, 2011, 09:13 AM
Ron Paul probably would be considered extreme compared to other modern candidates, but extreme is what is necessary if people want to actually see some real change in the US.

I don't think his beliefs are extreme in a historical sense for American politics, they just seem extreme in comparison to all the watered down circular logic which people are used to hearing.

The Author
December 14th, 2011, 09:54 AM
Anyways anyone saw this very infamous Ad yet?

v/0PAJNntoRgA

And with that It's a 3 way for Mitt, Gingrich and Ron Paul. :/
That ad makes me laugh. Yeah, I'm a Christian, but since when has Obama been at war with religion? Sounds like he's just taking advantage of Christians to me.

FreakyLocz14
December 14th, 2011, 07:07 PM
Ron Paul probably would be considered extreme compared to other modern candidates, but extreme is what is necessary if people want to actually see some real change in the US.

I don't think his beliefs are extreme in a historical sense for American politics, they just seem extreme in comparison to all the watered down circular logic which people are used to hearing.

I agree completely with this.

We need someone who is bold enough to take those big steps to end the wars, eliminate the Federal Reserve, return us to sound money, eliminate $1 trillion is spending in a year, and repeal Obamacare.

-ty-
December 14th, 2011, 07:45 PM
Like others above have mentioned, policing the world is not our responsibility. If Israel is taking more and more land from Palestine, it is radical to send Israel more weapons so that the Israelis can drive the Palestinians out of what little is left of Palestine, or for them to defend themselves for the imperialistic behavior. We need to let them decide their own fate, as we do our own. Also, we have military stations patrolling many other countries; I am confident that if another country decided to construct a base in our country that we would be up in arm - literally. Someone mentioned that it is our responsibly to stabilize the middle east and intervene in disputes, but our intervention costs money and gives preference to one country over the other. People are poor and out-of-work in our own country; why does our money go into policing other nations. This behavior is very extreme, and it is exhibited by both liberal and conservatives congressman. Ron Paul is the only top-tier candidate that is not imperialistic and therefore, the only one that is not wasteful in spending. The category that receives the most money is the defense sector, which was about 1 trillion dollars this year; how is that not extreme?

Lance
December 14th, 2011, 07:55 PM
Like others above have mentioned, policing the world is not our responsibility.

Regardless of who's responsibility it is, you can't just ignore nearly a century's worth of political precedent. It's been that way since the end of the Spanish-American war. You can't just up and stop aide to military allies one day because you feel like it. Like I mentioned earlier, someone fluent in foreign politics knows better than this. Which Paul is not. Neither is Perry, Bachman, Gingerich or Romney.

FreakyLocz14
December 14th, 2011, 08:21 PM
Regardless of who's responsibility it is, you can't just ignore nearly a century's worth of political precedent. It's been that way since the end of the Spanish-American war. You can't just up and stop aide to military allies one day because you feel like it. Like I mentioned earlier, someone fluent in foreign politics knows better than this. Which Paul is not. Neither is Perry, Bachman, Gingerich or Romney.

Eliminating foreign aid is a no-brainer. This is one of the easiest cuts to make.

Lance
December 14th, 2011, 08:40 PM
Eliminating foreign aid is a no-brainer. This is one of the easiest cuts to make.

"Aid" isn't just money. Technology, intelligence, weaponry, etc.

-ty-
December 14th, 2011, 08:54 PM
"Aid" isn't just money. Technology, intelligence, weaponry, etc.

Exactly, all of those forms of aid cost money. And really, do we need to be the number one arms supplier of the world?

Also, just because it is a "precedent" it doesn't mean it is the best decision. Also, Paul doesn't want to make cuts because he "feels like it" he wants to cut the deficit and he doesn't want the U.S. putting a target on its back for intermingling in other country's affairs/conflicts. Why do you think 9/11 occurred; why target the U.S. specifically? It's not because they are jealous of our freedom or liberties as many other GOP candidates proclaimed. It's because we intervene and instigate wars.

Lance
December 14th, 2011, 09:24 PM
Exactly, all of those forms of aid cost money. And really, do we need to be the number one arms supplier of the world?

Also, just because it is a "precedent" it doesn't mean it is the best decision. Also, Paul doesn't want to make cuts because he "feels like it" he wants to cut the deficit and he doesn't want the U.S. putting a target on its back for intermingling in other country's affairs/conflicts. Why do you think 9/11 occurred; why target the U.S. specifically? It's not because they are jealous of our freedom or liberties as many other GOP candidates proclaimed. It's because we intervene and instigate wars.


Should we be? No, I don't think so. Are we because of the current state of world affairs? Yes. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Been a cornerstone of US Foreign policy since Teddy Roosevelt. You can't just up and walk out on decades-old military alliances, trade agreements, etc. Not that we should or shouldn't, we physically can't. No elected politician is stupid enough to try it, and the ones dumb enough to try don't get elected or lose it rather quickly. It's about maintaining the status quo.

That's why Paul isn't popular, even within his party. For a senior politician, ending vital military alliances, and damaging American interests, is a no-no.


Also, 9/11 was so much more than a response to U.S. involvement in foreign countries, don't try to cheapen the event to suit your point.

-ty-
December 14th, 2011, 11:24 PM
I wasn't cheapening the event. If we were not entangling ourselves into the affairs of other nations, we would not have been the target of that attack. Do you think that there is another reason why the attack occurred? We are carrying a big stick, but instead of being passive(speaking softly),we instigate and intermingle in other nation's affairs. We literally would not have had a terrorist attack if we were not involved with Afghanistan. It cheapens the attack when our congressman neglect that fact and say that the terrorist were motivated by unprovoked hate of Americans.

Plus, we can't afford to be bankrupt, or have poor living standards for our citizens. It is in the American interest to have a prosperous economy, rather than borrowing money from foreign nations and hyper-inflating the currency in order to fund many parts of the defense budget. The fiscal irresponsibility has destroyed the middle class and left people without jobs. Less troops will die, less terrorist attacks will occur, and our deficit will decrease, and subsequently our economy and job creation will strengthen. Look at our NATO Alliance expenditures. Of all 28 countries we make up more than 75% of the total money spent. We also supply 40% of all the countries troops that are deployed. We do this so that we have more control over other NATO countries, and therefore we are not being forced to spend all of this money to be in the alliance, but rather, so we can control the alliance. If we spent as much as the UK, which is the second highest contributor to NATO, we would cut the budget by 3/4 of a trillion dollars every year. That is my point, and I hope you can see some middle-ground with me. We are overly involved in foreign affairs. We can still be present in the world and allied with other nations without bankrupting ourselves for insider politicians' political gain. This is what Ron Paul intends to do. Cutting the defense budget, not eliminate it.

Here is a table of the expenditures and troop deployment; I also checked the source, and it was sited by NATO's website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Expenditures_and_strength

FreakyLocz14
December 14th, 2011, 11:54 PM
The 9/11 attacks took place because we were invading their countries. We've been meddling in their affairs for decades.

Would the United States sit idly by if another country was invading us?

Jay0173
December 15th, 2011, 03:15 AM
I agree completely with this.

We need someone who is bold enough to take those big steps to end the wars, eliminate the Federal Reserve, return us to sound money, eliminate $1 trillion is spending in a year, and repeal Obamacare.

Let's run a hypothetical: if you were a candidate in this election, exactly what programs would you cut to eliminate the $1 trillion in spending?

As for health care, if you were a candidate in this election, and knowing that the U.S.'s health care system is currently ranked 37th in the world compared to Canada's 30th place, and the U.K.'s 18th place, and France's 1st place according to the WHO, what would you do to improve the U.S.'s health care system?

-ty-
December 15th, 2011, 04:40 AM
Let's run a hypothetical: if you were a candidate in this election, exactly what programs would you cut to eliminate the $1 trillion in spending?

As for health care, if you were a candidate in this election, and knowing that the U.S.'s health care system is currently ranked 37th in the world compared to Canada's 30th place, and the U.K.'s 18th place, and France's 1st place according to the WHO, what would you do to improve the U.S.'s health care system?

In the example I have above, lowering our spending in defense, and still remaining the highest contributing nation to NATO, we can cut 3/4 of a trillion dollars.

The problem with this national health care legislation is the price. The rates are very high, and call for tax increases. The pharmaceutical companies lobbied heavily (spent tens of millions of dollars) for the bill because it secures the these companies hundreds of billions of dollars every year due to the high rates included in the legislation. According to WHO, the United States is 37th as you mentioned in healthcare quality, we are also 2nd highest in expenditures. Obviously hiking prices for health care is not been in our best interest, but rather the interests of politicians and medical companies. I don't understand why the solution is to pump more money/tax dollars into healthcare. The new healthcare system would increase the GDP to over 20%, which would make us about double the spending of that of France and Italy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png/800px-International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png

Jay0173
December 15th, 2011, 06:23 AM
In the example I have above, lowering our spending in defense, and still remaining the highest contributing nation to NATO, we can cut 3/4 of a trillion dollars.

I agree, lowering defense spending would reduce the deficit. The only difficulty I see with this is the hawkish position of some legislators in both the House and the Senate who adamantly refuse to reduce by any amount defense spending. Thus creating the dilemma.

The problem with this national health care legislation is the price. The rates are very high, and call for tax increases. The pharmaceutical companies lobbied heavily (spent tens of millions of dollars) for the bill because it secures the these companies hundreds of billions of dollars every year due to the high rates included in the legislation. According to WHO, the United States is 37th as you mentioned in healthcare quality, we are also 2nd highest in expenditures. Obviously hiking prices for health care is not been in our best interest, but rather the interests of politicians and medical companies. I don't understand why the solution is to pump more money/tax dollars into healthcare. The new healthcare system would increase the GDP to over 20%, which would make us about double the spending of that of France and Italy.

But that still doesn't answer the question. What would you do if you were campaigning in this election? What action would you take to get health spending under control while at the same time ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to receive the health care they need?

Mr. X
December 15th, 2011, 09:37 AM
Those numbers are not accurate though. They were comprised in 2000, 11 years ago. Thw WHO hasn't made new numbers due to the complexity of modern health care systems.

Edit - From the '97 numbers, we were 72nd. In 2000 we were 37th.

Jay0173
December 15th, 2011, 10:17 AM
Those numbers are not accurate though. They were comprised in 2000, 11 years ago. Thw WHO hasn't made new numbers due to the complexity of modern health care systems.

Edit - From the '97 numbers, we were 72nd. In 2000 we were 37th.

Until a more recent report is provided, these are the numbers we have to go by to evaluate the effectiveness of each country's health care systems.

But still, all that is irrelevant given the question I posed.

Each of the Republican candidates in the race now have indicated that they'd do away with the recently passed health care legislation. But not one of them has proposed a way of accomplishing the following:

- Reducing costs of providing health care.
- Increasing the number of people covered by health insurance
- Reducing insurance rates and premiums.
- Eliminating discrimination based on medical status.

There are some, who have advocated for the elimination of all public funding of health care (eradicating medicare and medicaid entirely), and allowing the private sector to take over.

So the question remains, what would you do to address these areas of concern if the health care law was to be repealed?

Mr. X
December 15th, 2011, 11:00 AM
Copy Frances system. We can't make a system that works so we'll need to use someone elses.

That said, the WHO is no longer doing the rankings due to increasing complexity in how the ranks are determined.

FreakyLocz14
December 15th, 2011, 12:17 PM
Until a more recent report is provided, these are the numbers we have to go by to evaluate the effectiveness of each country's health care systems.

But still, all that is irrelevant given the question I posed.

Each of the Republican candidates in the race now have indicated that they'd do away with the recently passed health care legislation. But not one of them has proposed a way of accomplishing the following:

- Reducing costs of providing health care.
- Increasing the number of people covered by health insurance
- Reducing insurance rates and premiums.
- Eliminating discrimination based on medical status.

There are some, who have advocated for the elimination of all public funding of health care (eradicating medicare and medicaid entirely), and allowing the private sector to take over.

So the question remains, what would you do to address these areas of concern if the health care law was to be repealed?

I would eliminate all public funding of health care (save for the military and government employees) and let the private sector take over.

Why should I care about who is covered and who isn't if I was running for office? That's not the government's job.

Mr. X
December 15th, 2011, 12:24 PM
If its not the governments job then why are you allowing government funded health care for the military and government employee's? Seems to me that your saying 'Its not the government's job unless the person does this this this this this or this.'

FreakyLocz14
December 15th, 2011, 12:30 PM
If its not the governments job then why are you allowing government funded health care for the military and government employee's? Seems to me that your saying 'Its not the government's job unless the person does this this this this this or this.'

That's because there are legally binding contracts in place. It's the same as anybody who gets health care from their employer. America also owes a debt to our veterans that no amount of benefits could even begin to satisfy.

Mr. X
December 15th, 2011, 12:41 PM
Why should the contracts matter though? You don't value the agreements between countries so why should you value the agreements between a group and another group?

FreakyLocz14
December 15th, 2011, 12:46 PM
Why should the contracts matter though? You don't value the agreements between countries so why should you value the agreements between a group and another group?

Contract law is an essential element of a capitalist society. Contracts encourage business instead of reluctance by allowing people to know what to expect they enter into a transaction.

Netto Azure
December 15th, 2011, 12:48 PM
Getting into the Healthcare debate again?

Some major points I need to point out:

1. This is not a healthcare system, it's a patchwork of various systems that attempt to dump the real costs to each other:
a. Private Insurance for Adult workers = Germany
b. Medicare for Senior Citizens = Canada
c. Native American, Veterans and Military Healthcare = Britain
d. The Uninsured = any Developing country out there.

Each of these should at least be narrowed down to 1 if we are going to start somewhere.

2. "Obamacare" is the result of "building on top" of this patchwork system that's been advocated by Republicans during the Clinton Care debate and adopted by Democrats today as the "middle course" considering the political climate of 2009.

3. I totally agree that the costs are astronomical, but that's the result of the inherent interests in the system: Hospitals, Private Insurers, Medical equipment developers, Doctors, Pharmacists etc.
The attempt to reform it means going up against some of the biggest billion dollar industries in the country. I want to see you guys try that.

4. The system I prefer, which is modelled generally on either the Single Payer system of Canada or the Heavily regulated French system still could only control costs to a certain point due to the "cutting edge in medicine"

At the end of the day we have to realize we cannot always get what we want. The latest and the best is abhorrently expensive and one must accept that unless we can cope with this fact, costs will remain above the practical rate of inflation.

FreakyLocz14
December 15th, 2011, 12:52 PM
I would also like to add how terrible and invasive Obamacare is.

I don't know why those who advocate single-payer defend it.
It is NOT single-payer by a long shot. The controversial public option was eliminated from the bill to win over the votes of moderate Democrats who vowed to kill the bill otherwise.

UPDATED POLL NUMBERS:

IOWA
Gingrich: 22%
Paul 21%
Romney: 16%
Bachmann: 11%
Perry: 9%
Santorum: 8%
Huntsman: 5%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html

Gingrich and Paul statistically tied for 1st in Iowa.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Romney: 35%
Paul: 21%
Gingrich: 16%
Huntsman: 13%
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/nh

Huntsman seems to be rising in NH. Romney looking to win with Paul coming in 2nd.

-ty-
December 15th, 2011, 07:07 PM
I would also like to add how terrible and invasive Obamacare is.

I don't know why those who advocate single-payer defend it.
It is NOT single-payer by a long shot. The controversial public option was eliminated from the bill to win over the votes of moderate Democrats who vowed to kill the bill otherwise.

UPDATED POLL NUMBERS:

IOWA
Gingrich: 22%
Paul 21%
Romney: 16%
Bachmann: 11%
Perry: 9%
Santorum: 8%
Huntsman: 5%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html

Gingrich and Paul statistically tied for 1st in Iowa.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Romney: 35%
Paul: 21%
Gingrich: 16%
Huntsman: 13%
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/nh

Huntsman seems to be rising in NH. Romney looking to win with Paul coming in 2nd.

WOAH, I haven't checked-up on the New Hampshire Polls in a couple of weeks; I had no idea that Paul was up to 21% there! Huntsman and Johnson need to drop out so that their votes go to Ron Paul.

FreakyLocz14
December 15th, 2011, 07:30 PM
WOAH, I haven't checked-up on the New Hampshire Polls in a couple of weeks; I had no idea that Paul was up to 21% there! Huntsman and Johnson need to drop out so that their votes go to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is rising!

We're working hard to win IA and come in second, or maybe even win, in NH.

SOUTH DAKOTA POLL NUMBER:
Paul 22%
Gingrich 19%
Bachmann 18%
Perry 15%
Romney 10%
http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/60056/group/homepage/

I hope I didn't offend any non-Paul supporters in SD. I don't want any trouble.

-ty-
December 19th, 2011, 04:06 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Ron Paul is leading the GOP pack in Iowa and has the most momentum in the national polls. Gingrich fell from 30-ish % to around 14% in Iowa, while Paul went from about 10% to 24%.

Maybe Gingrich should not lobby for lucrative purposes, or suggest giving Congress the ability to get rid of federal judges because they disagree with the decision, among other things. What a nut!

FreakyLocz14
December 21st, 2011, 05:19 AM
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/12/20/johnson_will_run_for_libertarian_nomination.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wire%29

Gary Johnson is dropping out of the GOP race to run as a Libertarian.

twocows
December 21st, 2011, 11:30 AM
I would eliminate all public funding of health care (save for the military and government employees) and let the private sector take over.

Why should I care about who is covered and who isn't if I was running for office? That's not the government's job.
Then I wouldn't vote for you and would publicly oppose you. The private sector can do all it wants with luxuries. When it comes to my health, I don't want people trying to screw me out of coverage because it'll save them a few bucks.

Anyu
December 21st, 2011, 11:46 AM
If I were an adult, I wouldn't vote because I really don't know what their goals are.

Zet
December 27th, 2011, 04:36 PM
Has it been mentioned yet Ron Paul is a racist? I would scour through all the pages here but I honestly find that to be a challenge.
source: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

Mr. X
December 27th, 2011, 08:45 PM
Going to put my 2 cents into the Ron Paul hate bank.

Guess what? He's believes that pretty much everything is unconstitutional.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/20/392728/paul-everything-is-unconstitutional/

Edit - Willing to bet that he believes all federal anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as well. Specifically, the Civil Rights act.

jpp8
December 27th, 2011, 09:53 PM
Ooh, mind if I dump, like, a dollar?Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:), build a fence along the US-Mexico border (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml), prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:), pull out of the UN (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), disband NATO (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm), end birthright citizenship (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:), deny federal funding to any organisation which “which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style” along with destroying public education and social security (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:), and abolish the Federal Reserve (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:) in order to put America back on the gold standard (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm). He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764).

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), he’s against gay marriage, is against the popular vote (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html), opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html), wants the estate tax repealed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html), is STILL making racist remarks (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/), believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:), and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm), not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:)Ron Paul copypasta cited with links.

Also, his newsletters in easy to take doses: https://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter

Mr. X
December 28th, 2011, 05:28 AM
You are terrible with money. Pretty sure you just dropped a lot more then a dollars worth.

Really? If he gets elected we will, essentially, be trading one extreme for another. And extremes are never good.

FreakyLocz14
December 29th, 2011, 11:45 AM
Going to put my 2 cents into the Ron Paul hate bank.

Guess what? He's believes that pretty much everything is unconstitutional.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/20/392728/paul-everything-is-unconstitutional/

Edit - Willing to bet that he believes all federal anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as well. Specifically, the Civil Rights act.

He does. I agree with him.

Speaking of Ron Paul, he picked up a surprise celebrity endorsement today.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kelly-clarkson-endorses-ron-paul-20112912

Mr. X
December 29th, 2011, 12:09 PM
He does. I agree with him.

Speaking of Ron Paul, he picked up a surprise celebrity endorsement today.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kelly-clarkson-endorses-ron-paul-20112912

So you agree that legistlation meant to deliver equal rights, to groups who people try to deny those rights to due to being racist and/or sexist, is not something that we should have?

I'm sorry. With that view of yours your essentially supporting racism and sexism.

Edit - Just read the reasons why she endorsed him and I now beleive that she is a idiot. This is the part im referring to.

I support gay rights, straight rights, women's rights, men's rights, white/black/purple/orange rights," an under-fire Clarkson continued. "I like Ron Paul because he believes in less government and letting the people (all of us) make the decisions and mold our country. That is all. Out of all of the Republican nominees, he's my favorite."

Paul wants to do away with all anti-discrimination legislation. Sorry, thats not supporting equal rights. Thats basically saying I don't give a **** about them and I'll let someone else decide and support whatever they decide to do no matter what that decision is. He doesn't care about them. Sure, he has his views on them but he refuses to act on those views because he beleives that a 235 year old peice of paper has all the answers, no matter how much the world has changed since it was created.

And for the 2nd part, yah. Need I point out how rampant racism was back in the 60's and how it changed due to the CRA? And how things would likely be the same now if discrimination wasn't made illegal on a federal level?

FreakyLocz14
December 29th, 2011, 12:43 PM
So you agree that legistlation meant to deliver equal rights, to groups who people try to deny those rights to due to being racist and/or sexist, is not something that we should have?

I'm sorry. With that view of yours your essentially supporting racism and sexism.

Edit - Just read the reasons why she endorsed him and I now beleive that she is a idiot. This is the part im referring to.



Paul wants to do away with all anti-discrimination legislation. Sorry, thats not supporting equal rights. Thats basically saying I don't give a **** about them and I'll let someone else decide and support whatever they decide to do no matter what that decision is. He doesn't care about them. Sure, he has his views on them but he refuses to act on those views because he beleives that a 235 year old peice of paper has all the answers, no matter how much the world has changed since it was created.

And for the 2nd part, yah. Need I point out how rampant racism was back in the 60's and how it changed due to the CRA? And how things would likely be the same now if discrimination wasn't made illegal on a federal level?

This has nothing to do with "equal rights". Rights involve people's (whether individuals or groups) relationships with the government. The anti-discrimination policies that I and Ron Paul involve people's relationships with other private entities. They are not rights. They are regulations.

Mr. X
December 29th, 2011, 03:40 PM
And it is the governments duty to ensure that all its citizens are treated equally.

Also, here's the USA's welcome message under Paul
Welcome to the USA. While we believe all people should be treated equal, we are letting states to discriminate against certian genders, races, and sexual orientations because our 236 year old peice of paper makes no mention of how a government should involve itself to ensure discrimination doesn't occur.

jpp8
December 29th, 2011, 03:56 PM
We do not live in a post-racist or post-sexist society. White males still control all of the money and all of everything. Women and minorities are not on the same playing field as them yet. If we were, then I'd agree with him. "Do away with Affirmative Action because it's an unfair and unnecessary advantage," and all that. But statistics show that whites and males on average make substantially more than women and people of color. People who are White and/or Male have an inherent advantage over the rest of the working force. I can only imagine that removing equal rights "regulation" could only serve to exacerbate it.

Mario The World Champion
December 29th, 2011, 04:07 PM
He does. I agree with him.
So how come you're using paper money if you also believe that the American dollar is unconsitutional?

Too bad the majority of Americans disagree with him. He is stuck in the past and his views will not work in today's times. Let's say that if Paul does become President and leaves the other countries to their own vices. He's pretty much giving Iran the green-light to make nukes and to use them on Israel and maybe us. And once that happens, you know how I will want to blame for not doing anything to stop Iran.

Speaking of Ron Paul, he picked up a surprise celebrity endorsement today.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kelly-clarkson-endorses-ron-paul-20112912
And once she questions his electability, his cult followers attacked her. You Ron Paul supporters are crazy sometimes. The constitution which was drafted when this Country was first formed is obsolete for today's radically different world.

jpp8
December 29th, 2011, 04:30 PM
So how come you're using paper money if you also believe that the American dollar is unconsitutional?That's kind of because there's no other choice.

In any case, though. Freaky's argument for a return to the gold standard is due to inflation and our dollar having no backing. I don't know too much about economics to fully understand the implications that backing a dollar by gold has, but Ending the Fed in order to do so? No. The poor, the old, and those just barely scraping by depend on "entitlement" services in order to keep themselves fed and in homes. The problem of inflation? Raise wages in order to match inflation. In this already unregulated system, we have mega-millionaires that get huge tax cuts under the pretense of "job creation" and "trickle down theory" alongside their 1% wages, but can't maintain a living wage for the majority of the working class. Deflation may give more value to the money of those with lesser wages, but there is still a huge wage gap between the two groups due to businesses "regulating" themselves for the most part.

Too bad the majority of Americans disagree with him. He is stuck in the past and his views will not work in today's times. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree here. Ron Paul has a seemingly huge backing. I feel that this is mostly because everyone has forgotten that Bush's tax cuts and bailout, not Obama, is to blame for most of our economic problems and just want to get Obama out. I've already started to see the signs and bumper stickers for Ron Paul 2012. It amazes me how many people can be disillusioned by this man and believe he is infallible. I mean, Obama is not a perfect president. I understand that. But the degree of which Ron Paul supporters will defend his positions, even if they disagree with their own as illustrated by Freaky, is just worthy of awe.

Mario The World Champion
December 29th, 2011, 04:52 PM
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree here. Ron Paul has a seemingly huge backing. I feel that this is mostly because everyone has forgotten that Bush's tax cuts and bailout, not Obama, is to blame for most of our economic problems and just want to get Obama out. I've already started to see the signs and bumper stickers for Ron Paul 2012. It amazes me how many people can be disillusioned by this man and believe he is infallible. I mean, Obama is not a perfect president. I understand that. But the degree of which Ron Paul supporters will defend his positions, even if they disagree with their own as illustrated by Freaky, is just worthy of awe.

I would agree with you on that, but I wouldn't call it awe. More like sheep being led by the shepherd, the shepherd being Ron Paul and his political positions catering to people who are completely disillusioned with the Government right now, because they are ****ing morons. It's a bit scary seeing people protect him like he's Jesus, now that he's on top in Iowa (at least I think so) and every bit of negative dirt from his past is just being ignored by the Paulists despite that dirt having evidence of his past "racist" views.

People just don't like Obama. Period. They found their new scapegoat even though he inherited this mess in the first place. I would like to say he tried, but he could have done more in his first two years in office. Now he can't do **** with the Tea Party saying no to everything in the name of the budget.

I bet you the Established Republican base will do whatever it takes in secret to stop Ron Paul and protect the status quo. He may have the youth movement and have them under his spell, but the Established Republican base will not allow the Status quo to be upset with Paul's positions. And the Establishment hopes he doesn't run as an Independent because he will pretty much give Obama another term if the Republican vote is split or give the Future Republican nominee win the White House.

This race will get ugly. Very ugly.

FreakyLocz14
December 29th, 2011, 04:54 PM
And it is the governments duty to ensure that all its citizens are treated equally.

Also, here's the USA's welcome message under Paul
Welcome to the USA. While we believe all people should be treated equal, we are letting states to discriminate against certian genders, races, and sexual orientations because our 236 year old peice of paper makes no mention of how a government should involve itself to ensure discrimination doesn't occur.

The Constitution requires equal protection of the laws. A business owner refusing you service has nothing to do with how the government enforces its laws. In a free society, no one is compelled to engage in commerce with another person against their will.

Mr. X
December 29th, 2011, 04:54 PM
He has a good backing, but only in certian parts of the US. Iowa is one of the states that he has a lot of support in. But still, with how events are going down right now, odd's are that foriegn policy will become to top topic before the election.

Still... I'm kinda expecting him to drop out like he did last race. He dropped out of the race even though he was doing really well.

Really though? I think he forsaw how everything would go to hell during the next 4 years and he didn't feel like becoming the scapegoat.

(Above @ Jpp8)
(This @ MTWC)

Haha, I use that line a lot but I didn't think of using to describe elections. Also, OWS protested against Paul. Apparently, the 99% don't like him. That should say a lot about just how truthful OWS is about how many people support them and about how truthful Paul is about how many people support him.

You ninjad me on the scapegoat comment. Agreed with the first two years though. Although he tried, he didn't have his priorities set right. And agreed on the last two years. He can't get **** done now because of Congress. (Con is the opposite of Pro. Therefor, the opposite of Progress is Congress.)

I'd be with you on that bet. Odds are, most Republicans in power would do whatever it takes to ensure he doesn't get the nomination. I'd like for him to run as a Independent though. It would be lulz worthy.

Race is already ugly. Just look at the mugs of some of the candidates we have. Scary.

(@Freaky)

If you believe in something, you fight for it. If you truly believe in equal rights for all genders, races, and orientations then you would fight for them no matter what a outdated document says.

FreakyLocz14
December 29th, 2011, 04:59 PM
He has a good backing, but only in certian parts of the US. Iowa is one of the states that he has a lot of support in. But still, with how events are going down right now, odd's are that foriegn policy will become to top topic before the election.

Still... I'm kinda expecting him to drop out like he did last race. He dropped out of the race even though he was doing really well.

Really though? I think he forsaw how everything would go to hell during the next 4 years and he didn't feel like becoming the scapegoat.

He didn't do well last time. He's a frontrunner this time.

I also love when people use the Blame Bush card as a reason to vote for Obama. Even if it were all true, that does nothing to promote why one should vote for Obama. Also, comparing Ron Paul to Bush is laugable. The two are worlds apart.

Mr. X
December 29th, 2011, 05:13 PM
I forget, under who's policies did this entire mess start and who was the person who was in charge when this mess started?

Republicans, and Bush.

So yes, I blame Bush for starting this mess. I also blame Obama for not doing enough to end this mess, but with the Republicans cutting him off on every turn you can't really blame him for not doing anything since his inaction is a result of Republican power games.

jpp8
December 29th, 2011, 05:14 PM
The Constitution requires equal protection of the laws. A business owner refusing you service has nothing to do with how the government enforces its laws. In a free society, no one is compelled to engage in commerce with another person against their will.

Ideally, that would be the case. A "free society" however is something we do not live in. Individuals who are White and/or Male will inherently get special treatment and better opportunities than women and those of color. Whites don't have much to fear because they already own all the better kept establishments and are the least likely to suffer from the repeal of anti-discrimination "regulations".

And did I say "Vote Obama? No. Same with comparing Bush to Paul. I was pointing out that for some reason, people want to blame the guy who inherited the problems for all of our troubles rather than the guy who started it. And through blaming that guy, candidates, whoever they may be, can garner support because of it. I myself see little reason to vote for Obama either other than the fact that he is not the other guy. And that is reason enough for me considering the reasons I have not to vote for the other guy, whoever the other guy may be.

FreakyLocz14
December 29th, 2011, 05:26 PM
Ideally, that would be the case. A "free society" however is something we do not live in. Individuals who are White and/or Male will inherently get special treatment and better opportunities than women and those of color. Whites don't have much to fear because they already own all the better kept establishments and are the least likely to suffer from the repeal of anti-discrimination "regulations".

And did I say "Vote Obama? No. Same with comparing Bush to Paul. I was pointing out that for some reason, people want to blame the guy who inherited the problems for all of our troubles rather than the guy who started it. And through blaming that guy, candidates, whoever they may be, can garner support because of it. I myself see little reason to vote for Obama either other than the fact that he is not the other guy. And that is reason enough for me considering the reasons I have not to vote for the other guy, whoever the other guy may be.

If the government is discriminating against people, that needs to be addressed. The private sector; however, should not be subjected to anti-discrimination regulations.

Mr. X
December 29th, 2011, 05:33 PM
Essentially the government should turn a blind eye to how its citizens are being treated?

Edit - You know what? How about we just disband the US and let the states (Now nations) govern themselves, fold into other countries, or create a new higher government?

Keiran
December 29th, 2011, 05:44 PM
Rick Perry, opposer of frivolous lawsuits, sues Virginia (http://charlottesville.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/rick-perry-opposer-of-frivolous-lawsuits-sues-virginia.aspx?googleid=297146) for requiring that he obtain 10,000 signatures to be placed on a primary ballot.

I found this pretty hilarious.

Mr. X
December 29th, 2011, 05:54 PM
Not really. The picking of our leader for the next 4 years is not a frivolous matter.

Edit - I get the point. My comment was refering to the name of the article though.

Keiran
December 29th, 2011, 05:58 PM
I think you missed the point completely.

EDIT: No one said it was. The 'frivolous' was in regards to his actions towards lawsuits in Texas. Which is why it's ironic he is making one himself now. Therefore point missed!

FreakyLocz14
December 30th, 2011, 03:22 PM
How do you guys feel about Rick Santorum's Iowa rise and Newt Gingrich's fall?

Mr. X
December 30th, 2011, 05:18 PM
Its a proven fact that once you hit top, all you can do is go down.

Cain had top numbers. Scandal appears. Numbers tank, and he quits.
Gengrich gets top numbers, all canadiates start a massive campaign against him. His numbers tank.
Paul gets top numbers, letter scandal. He's already lost some numbers. His momentum will keep him going, but once FP becomes the topic of choice? His numbers will tank.

The closer the primaries get, the more of a dick waving contest the race becomes. Which explains Bachmans low numbers.

Edit - As for Santorum, he hasn't reached top numbers yet but he's already taking pot shots from the other candidates.

Trance and Moss
December 30th, 2011, 11:05 PM
I can't beleive people are scare mongering about Ron Paul's alleged racism. I don't know him personally, so I can not say for sure. But the most important thing is that his voting and his beleifs are the least racist of anybody. He truly beleives inequality it seems.

I think in practice Ron Paul's methods may be a bit extreme, but atleast he will actually change some things. He will never get his beleifs going full tilt, but he can set the system in a better direction.

It amazes me how many people can be disillusioned by this man and believe he is infallible.
What does him being fallible have to do with anything? Sure some of his supporters are a bit off the deep end, but it is so trivial to sit back and say "ahhh he can't be so great, he is a human he will screw up just like everybody else".

You should vote for who has the policies you beleive in, not put so much weight on personal issues. Besides, as far as character goes, Paul seems like a pretty decent man.

jpp8
December 31st, 2011, 11:29 AM
I wouldn't be so concerned with this "alleged" racism were it consistent and reflected in his policy making. Key word. He did not vote for Rosa Park's congressional medal, he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants to repeal Roe v. Wade, and was for the Defense of Marriage Act. He accepts support from quite a few members of white supremacist groups and has even had a couple on his staff. He also continues to DENY any responsibility for newsletters with racist undertones even though they're authored under HIS name, yet profited off of them. I cannot see this man as someone who believes in true equality. Just a twisted equality akin to "separate but equal".

Leaving power to the states is just going from the singular oppressive federal government to several oppressive state governments. Leading to inconsistency on important issues within the "United" States of America.

FreakyLocz14
December 31st, 2011, 07:16 PM
I can't beleive people are scare mongering about Ron Paul's alleged racism. I don't know him personally, so I can not say for sure. But the most important thing is that his voting and his beleifs are the least racist of anybody. He truly beleives inequality it seems.

I think in practice Ron Paul's methods may be a bit extreme, but atleast he will actually change some things. He will never get his beleifs going full tilt, but he can set the system in a better direction.


What does him being fallible have to do with anything? Sure some of his supporters are a bit off the deep end, but it is so trivial to sit back and say "ahhh he can't be so great, he is a human he will screw up just like everybody else".

You should vote for who has the policies you beleive in, not put so much weight on personal issues. Besides, as far as character goes, Paul seems like a pretty decent man.

I agree. No candidate is perfect. A lot of the candidates have had scandals. I'd say Paul's newsletters that were authored by someone else aren't as bad as Obama's ties to Weather Underground and Jeremiah Wright.

jpp8
December 31st, 2011, 09:48 PM
No candidate is perfect, but Ron Paul should man up. There's a difference between receiving support from a radical group of persons and accepting support between a radical group of persons. It's laughable that you bring up these incidents in an attempt to defend Dr. Paul. Obama's connections to Weather Underground were overblown (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html). Obama vocally disapproved and condemned the actions of his pastor. I have not heard Ron Paul outright saying that he does not condone the actions or attitudes of the many white supremacist groups that support him despite he and his supporters spouting "Liberty" as if it's some abracadabra. As for the newsletters:
http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/15040802649/1/tumblr_lx14ywEqiG1r4k3b8
Saying "he didn't write them"/"he disavowed them" isn't good enough. And don't give me any of that "well he didn't know what was in them" crap either. Sending handwritten ink letters is enough evidence that he should've known what was written in those letters or, at the very least, condoned them. (http://twitpic.com/7xe4ze) The fact that he denies RESPONSIBILITY is the problem here. No effort made to affirm that these newsletters were deplorable. No effort made to reveal who was the true author of the letters. Keeping the money he made off of them rather than taking the suggestion to donate to charity (charity, churches, and neighbors will take care of people, but I won't donate to them). Just "I disavow them". Everybody shut up about all the other scandals of the other candidates once they took responsibility for or fully clarified them. I don't want someone who will deny responsibility for himself or those who work under him to run this country. Heck, he's pretty much already said that he doesn't want to take responsibility of this country by drastically reducing the power of the executive branch.

FreakyLocz14
December 31st, 2011, 09:54 PM
No candidate is perfect, but Ron Paul should man up. There's a difference between receiving support from a radical group of persons and accepting support between a radical group of persons. It's laughable that you bring up these incidents in an attempt to defend Dr. Paul. Obama's connections to Weather Underground were overblown (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html). Obama vocally disapproved and condemned the actions of his pastor. I have not heard Ron Paul outright saying that he does not condone the actions or attitudes of the many white supremacist groups that support him despite he and his supporters spouting "Liberty" as if it's some abracadabra. As for the newsletters:
http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/15040802649/1/tumblr_lx14ywEqiG1r4k3b8
Saying "he didn't write them"/"he disavowed them" isn't good enough. And don't give me any of that "well he didn't know what was in them" crap either. Sending handwritten ink letters is enough evidence that he should've known what was written in those letters or, at the very least, condoned them. (http://twitpic.com/7xe4ze) The fact that he denies RESPONSIBILITY is the problem here. No effort made to affirm that these newsletters were deplorable. No effort made to reveal who was the true author of the letters. Keeping the money he made off of them rather than taking the suggestion to donate to charity (charity, churches, and neighbors will take care of people, but I won't donate to them). Just "I disavow them". Everybody shut up about all the other scandals of the other candidates once they took responsibility for or fully clarified them. I don't want someone who will deny responsibility for himself or those who work under him to run this country. Heck, he's pretty much already said that he doesn't want to take responsibility of this country by drastically reducing the power of the executive branch.

That logic is absurd! By that logic, if you get attacked on the street by someone who happens to work at McDonald's, McDonald's is responsible for your injuries.

Lance
December 31st, 2011, 10:00 PM
That logic is absurd! By that logic, if you get attacked on the street by someone who happens to work at McDonald's, McDonald's is responsible for your injuries.

You really didn't address or try to make a rebuttal to anything said by that graph/post. It's Paul's fault. That's really all there is to it.

Mr. X
January 1st, 2012, 03:24 AM
That logic is absurd! By that logic, if you get attacked on the street by someone who happens to work at McDonald's, McDonald's is responsible for your injuries.

You Freaky, have just pissed me off. You should know that I'm the only one around here who is allowed to twist logic to make stupid claims.

Anyway, no. Just no.

Was the attack commited in the name of Mcdonalds and did Mcdonalds profit off of it? No.

Guess what? The article was published under Paul's name, AND he profited from it.

This is the whole issue. It was published in a newsletter that he writes. He said that he didn't know about it. It was using his name, and if he is telling the truth, that means he didn't give care enough about his name and honor to ensure that whatever was being published under his name was something that he actually agreed with.

If he doesn't care enough about his name, I wonder what things he will not care for if he gets elected President? Personally, I don't want a president with a "I don't care about what my name is used for." attitude.

Edit - As for the Iowan caucus, its not a good reprsentation of what the nation wants, as a whole. Iowa is mainly isolationist and is considered, by some, to be far right.

Digimon Kaiser
January 1st, 2012, 06:07 AM
I dislike all US candidates equally. But Mitt Romney used to be the governor of my home state. He's most likely to go against Obama IMO.

Esper
January 4th, 2012, 08:11 AM
So it looks like Romney slipped past Santorum (snicker) by 8 votes in the Iowa caucus, making him the winner, but the lack of a large margin of victory is probably not good news for anyone except Obama since the party that dithers on who it nominates tends not to do so well in the general election.

Mario The World Champion
January 4th, 2012, 10:01 AM
I've actually watched a good chunk of it while I was playing Saints Row the Third. The fact that Romney and Santorum were only separated by that many votes is amazing. I think I actually know about 8 people IRL.

And just a while ago, Michele Bachmann called it quits after she only got 5% of the Iowa vote. That might be bad news for Romney because he needs her to split the conservative vote.

Went
January 4th, 2012, 11:38 AM
Rick Perry went back to Texas to "reassess his campaign". It seems we are down to five after Iowa, although now it seems even less likely to be a walk in the park for anybody or even a close head-to-head between two candidates. As Mario said, Bachmann leaving will damage Romney, and Santorum has yet to survive the full ad treatment, since he seemingly came out of nowhere and people weren't paying attention to him before unlike pretty much everybody else, who leaded the polls at least once and got attacked by all their rivals.

Meanwhile, Obama is rising in the polls, but there is still a long way to go to November.

Netto Azure
January 4th, 2012, 12:57 PM
Wow, I'm getting Harper ads here. @~@;;;

Anyways Mitt Romney won by 8 votes? xDDD

Damn that just tells you EVERY. VOTE. COUNTS.

Anyways this just breathed life to Rick Santorum's campaign, still I can't really say I approve of the guy. >_>

Mr. X
January 4th, 2012, 01:43 PM
Bachman is out. Anyone remember what I said earlier in this thread? Dick waving contest.

Edit - Wonder who her supporters will go to?

Still, the arrogance of Paul and his supporters is astounding. Know why? (Pulled this from a aticle. Haven't confirmed it yet, but posting anyways.)


To hear the Paul people tell it, their guy is now the chief alternative to Mitt Romney. Mr. Santorum is “a dead end,” according to a piece posted on Paul’s national website.


I'm not going to point it out for you. You should be able to see the arrogant part yourself.

Here's the story I pulled it from.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0104/Iowa-caucus-results-Where-does-Ron-Paul-go-from-here

Also, something else. Guess what? Paul doesn't even see himself winning the election. Essentially, with that, he admits that he is only here to screw other canadiates out of supporters.

Ere link.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/does-ron-paul-see-himself-in-the-oval-office-not-really/

Netto Azure
January 10th, 2012, 05:33 PM
Well it's definitely Obama vs. Romney now. Mitt Romney just has too much momentum now.

Romney Wins N.H. Primary (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144987902/if-romney-wins-n-h-who-emerges-as-his-rival)

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/01/10/romney_thumb.jpg?t=1326239444&s=2



It's just the first Republican primary. But a convincing win in New Hampshire would give Mitt Romney considerable momentum in his quest toward the GOP nomination.

NPR has declared Romney the winner in New Hampshire. Initial precinct returns showed him well ahead of his next-closest competitors, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.

If Romney's final margin is more than 20 percent, it would erase many doubts about his ultimate chances, says Charlie Arlinghaus, who directs the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord, N.H.

"Romney's greatest strength is the inevitability argument," Arlinghaus says. "Expectations had declined to the point where people were wondering if Romney was in trouble. But if he finishes over 40 percent, he's going to be hard to beat."

But yeah, even the polling projects that he will take South Carolina (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/romney-leads-south-carolina-polls/) since Gingrich and Santorum are eating each other's votes. So after that it's pretty much wrapped up.

So we go thru the kabuki, Romney gets the nom, and then Mittens & Obama spend rest of election trying to out-moderate each other.

Went
January 11th, 2012, 01:09 AM
Except his margin is under 17%, and Paul and Huntsman together still beat him.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/1/11/1326270517562/Screengrab-of-New-Hampshi-005.jpg

He's taken the lead, but everyone was taking his NH win by granted so this isn't that big of an earthquake as he still isn't showing the strenght all analysts said he'd need to wrap the nomination up already. We'll see what happens in two weeks in Carolina- if he does win, that will be a huge punch to the race. If he doesn't though, everything will still be open.

TRIFORCE89
January 11th, 2012, 06:14 AM
I consider myself a conservative, but I'm rooting from Obama in the presidential election. However, in a worst case scenario, should he lose, I'd like rather he lose to Huntsman. I think he's the smartest, most qualified, progressive, and...normal Republican running. And yet he's trailing. If he were to win the nomination, I would still want Obama to win re-election. But, it'd be some very interesting debates between the two of them.

-ty-
January 13th, 2012, 07:24 PM
I laughed my ass off when I read that Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, and Huntsman(meh not him as much as the others) were disqualified from the Virginia primary due to not following the requirements set out by the state's primary regulations. Let's hope that they are not able to appeal the decision by March!

Mr. X
January 14th, 2012, 06:23 AM
...

I can predict right now just what other candidates are going to drop out.

Mr. X
January 16th, 2012, 09:34 AM
Remember what I said couple days ago? Well...

Huntsman has dropped out. Just like I predicted.

Only 3 more to go.

Lance
January 16th, 2012, 09:58 AM
Romney/Huntsman is going to be the GOP ticket, that's why he's endorsing Romney.

Netto Azure
January 18th, 2012, 03:51 AM
Romney/Huntsman is going to be the GOP ticket, that's why he's endorsing Romney.

It's still Obama/Biden is it not?

A Romney/Huntsman ticket is very intriguing. Should be a much closer election this time.

Also BREAKING NEWS!
"New Colbert SuperPAC Ad Encourages SC To Vote For ‘Herman Cain’ (Stephen Colbert)" (http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-colbert-superpac-ad-encourages-sc-to-vote-for-herman-cain-stephen-colbert/)

Stephen Colbert wasn’t able to get his name on the ballot in South Carolina despite polling at around 5% (better than Jon Huntsman!) down there, mostly because he didn’t even try. This is a problem for the SuperPAC that has definitely nothing to do with him, but they found a solution: find another name on the ballot no one is actually campaigning under, and squish Colbert in there. To that end, here is an (Non-)ColbertPAC ad endorsing “Herman Cain.”

This is just lulz worthy.

Mr. X
January 19th, 2012, 03:41 PM
Sooo...

Turns out Romney LOST Iowa by 34 votes. (A recount.)

Perry has dropped out and is endorsing Gengrich.

And Gengrich is closing in on Romney in SC. Romney no longer has a large lead.

With Perry dropping out, just two more before my prediction is proven correct.

Lance
January 19th, 2012, 03:49 PM
It's still Obama/Biden is it not?

A Romney/Huntsman ticket is very intriguing. Should be a much closer election this time.

Also BREAKING NEWS!
"New Colbert SuperPAC Ad Encourages SC To Vote For ‘Herman Cain’ (Stephen Colbert)" (http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-colbert-superpac-ad-encourages-sc-to-vote-for-herman-cain-stephen-colbert/)



This is just lulz worthy.

An intriguing ticket that still won't win.

Interestingly enough, Colbert has a higher approval rating in SC than any of the GOP field, lololol.

Netto Azure
January 19th, 2012, 05:35 PM
An intriguing ticket that still won't win.

Interestingly enough, Colbert has a higher approval rating in SC than any of the GOP field, lololol.

While I do hope that it doesn't win, it's still fun to see the debates on that. ;D

Lance
January 19th, 2012, 05:45 PM
While I do hope that it doesn't win, it's still fun to see the debates on that. ;D

Oh, I cannot wait to see some of those. ;D

Shanghai Alice
January 19th, 2012, 06:57 PM
I more or less stopped closely following the race after Cain dropped out. Of course, I'll probably tune back in around election time, but...

I actually liked Herman Cain's policies, though I admit that he stumbled more than Edgar Allen Poe on election day. His policies of "do it your damn self" were unpopular and openly ridiculed, but I actually support people making their own way through life. :/

Still. It's a shame that he dropped out, and it's a shame that the media had their Kill Sats trained on him.

But meh.

jpp8
January 19th, 2012, 07:30 PM
NOBODY got where they were today by themselves. ALMOST EVERYONE has received aid from the government in one way or another. "Do it your damn self" is just a way for rich people which enjoy luxurious tax breaks to blame poor people who are unable to get out of their situation for their problems.

And he possibly sexually assaulted a few individuals and you expect the media to turn a blind eye? At the same time, his actions promoted rape culture where the woman is either a liar or "she was asking for it". It's the same crap with Ron Paul's racist newspapers. If you promote hatred or break the law, don't think that people are going to look it over. The people deserve to know those faults if these people are seeking a candidacy. Because having our country being run by a racist or a rapist, both of whom refuse to take any amount of responsibility for their actions, is certainly not a country that would be viewed in a positive light.

Hyrule
January 19th, 2012, 08:11 PM
I more or less stopped closely following the race after Cain dropped out. Of course, I'll probably tune back in around election time, but...

I actually liked Herman Cain's policies, though I admit that he stumbled more than Edgar Allen Poe on election day. His policies of "do it your damn self" were unpopular and openly ridiculed, but I actually support people making their own way through life. :/

Still. It's a shame that he dropped out, and it's a shame that the media had their Kill Sats trained on him.

But meh.

His policies were unpopular and openly ridiculed because that particular policy of "do it your damn self" is inappropriate, ignorant, selfish, and downright wrong. It's why he's no longer in the race - he was an ignorant, sensationalist side show who knew more about Pokemon than he he did foreign policy. Disgraceful.

Shanghai Alice
January 19th, 2012, 08:34 PM
So trying to succeed on your own is inappropriate, ignorant, selfish, and downright wrong?

Lance
January 19th, 2012, 08:40 PM
So trying to succeed on your own is inappropriate, ignorant, selfish, and downright wrong?

Nope. But making a broad sweeping generalization about the subject, something Cain knows nothing about, is the problem. Not everyone can just will themselves to success, or out of poverty or the Ghetto, especially when you have politicians like Cain who make policies that keep them there. Single mother of 4 can't send all of them to college on 2 jobs, and provide for them like a good parent should. Hard work doesn't necessarily mean you will succeed. Plenty of citizens in this country work their asses off to get by and have nothing to show for it, for reasons outside their control. That's the problem with people like Cain.

Regardless of his statements on that topic, the alleged sexual assault also doomed him. And Rightfully so.

jpp8
January 19th, 2012, 09:07 PM
Nope. But making a broad sweeping generalization about the subject, something Cain knows nothing about, is the problem. Not everyone can just will themselves to success, or out of poverty or the Ghetto, especially when you have politicians like Cain who make policies that keep them there. Single mother of 4 can't send all of them to college on 2 jobs, and provide for them like a good parent should. Hard work doesn't necessarily mean you will succeed. Plenty of citizens in this country work their asses off to get by and have nothing to show for it, for reasons outside their control. That's the problem with people like Cain.

When you restrict access to legal abortions and promote abstinence only sex education, women feel that they have no choice but to carry through with their sometimes unwanted children. When you effectively stifle and reject government funded job creation under the pretense that government has no right interfering in business, unemployment rises and jobs continue to be non-existent. When you value people who've already reached success on the backs of others more than the average worker; when people who play mass guessing games with money are more valued than those who work hard every single day, that's when the middle class starts to shrink and daily life for the everyman becomes harder and harder.

Nobody should spout that bootstraps bullcrap unless they feel that if they lost everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, that they could reach an ideal standard of living WITH ABSOLUTELY NO assistance from others and do it their damn selves.

Shanghai Alice
January 19th, 2012, 09:50 PM
When you restrict access to legal abortions and promote abstinence only sex education...

And this is where I leave this conversation, for the good of all of us.

(Except the ones who are dead.)

CapricornPsyche
January 19th, 2012, 10:46 PM
Just gonna say this here, some of you might hate me for it, but I don't care, it's my opinion.

I HATE Republicans AND Democrats... things have gotten polarized wayyy too much in this country... we need someone that's truely balanced, one that's not affiliated to any of those two idiot parties.

I'm voting for Obama, but my heart's not gonna support it, what we really need is an independent... sorry, but that's my opinion in a nutshell.

Mr. X
January 19th, 2012, 10:58 PM
What we need to do is disband the party system altogether. Let people run as themselves, not Republican, Democrat, *Insert political party name here*

Netto Azure
January 19th, 2012, 11:04 PM
What we need to do is disband the party system altogether. Let people run as themselves, not Republican, Democrat, *Insert political party name here*

Sadly the result of that is very muddled policies and a Congress that cannot pass anything as each successive government rises and falls at the whims of a minority.

Or it would still result in "Unlabeled coalitions" as per the Early republic which in the end solidify into a party system in all but name.

Went
January 20th, 2012, 05:28 AM
In most South American countries, parties (well, more like "political platforms") are created only to support one person, and then they disappear in the following election. In a great number of them, getting to the second round in an election, even if you lose it, guarantees you winning the following one, or as soon as the President leaves and their party disappears. That means everything but political stability. Specially when you got first-past-the-post Congress and Senate elections, which results in elected members having nothing to do with each other on a first glance.

A healthy and stable political system requires parties or at least broad groups which create a general political frame all their members can agree with, even if there are disagreements in particular topics. The US doesn't need killing all their parties, but instead creating new ones to compete against the current oligarchist, bi-partisan, two-sizes-fits-all system. New parties focusing in different aspects that can allow different compromises in both the Senate and the Congress. By trying to appeal to everybody, they basically cannot appeal to anybody in particular, and this is what is creating a "both are the same" vibe.

CapricornPsyche
January 21st, 2012, 02:37 PM
In most South American countries, parties (well, more like "political platforms") are created only to support one person, and then they disappear in the following election. In a great number of them, getting to the second round in an election, even if you lose it, guarantees you winning the following one, or as soon as the President leaves and their party disappears. That means everything but political stability. Specially when you got first-past-the-post Congress and Senate elections, which results in elected members having nothing to do with each other on a first glance.

A healthy and stable political system requires parties or at least broad groups which create a general political frame all their members can agree with, even if there are disagreements in particular topics. The US doesn't need killing all their parties, but instead creating new ones to compete against the current oligarchist, bi-partisan, two-sizes-fits-all system. New parties focusing in different aspects that can allow different compromises in both the Senate and the Congress. By trying to appeal to everybody, they basically cannot appeal to anybody in particular, and this is what is creating a "both are the same" vibe.

Yes, we need a strong third party that isn't shut down by the media saying "BUT CONFLICT MAKES MORE MONEY AND RATINGS"this is my theory of why we don't have a third party, the news media believes that conflict and fighting = High ratings and more people watching. ><;;; yes it'll definitely have more people watching the news, but will it HELP THE COUNTRY? No, it will most certainly not.

Netto Azure
January 21st, 2012, 06:24 PM
Ginrich wins South Carolina Primary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16669714)

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58025000/jpg/_58025672_013776016-1.jpg


Early results show that Newt Gingrich has convincingly beaten Mitt Romney in South Carolina's primary, the latest leg of the battle for the Republican candidacy in the US presidential poll.

With 70% of the vote counted, Mr Gingrich had 40% to Mr Romney's 26%.Mr Romney was widely seen as the frontrunner, but the latest outcome is set to turn the race into a long, hard-fought campaign, correspondents say.

The South Carolina victor has won the nomination in each election since 1980.Other Republican hopefuls, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and Texas representative Ron Paul are trailing badly, with 18% and 13% respectively.

In the words of Mitt Romney, this Primary Election season has gotten "Interesting"

Misheard Whisper
January 23rd, 2012, 05:19 PM
Looking at all of these candidates, I can safely say I'd never vote for any of them. I lean casually to the left for the most part, but these people are just making fools of themselves and pushing me further away from their side - especially the likes of Bachmann and Perry (thank goodness they're both out, iirc). The only one I could possibly deal with as president is Romney, but I'd still infinitely prefer Obama. I've been looking around at the problems people have with him, and most of them seem to stem from 'He's black'. :/

Empoleon144
January 24th, 2012, 06:31 PM
[He] knew more about Pokemon than he he did foreign policy. Disgraceful.

If I could vote I would have voted for him (if I were a Republican) solely because of that. All of the Republican candidates seem to be vying for a World Aristocracy controlled by American Aristocracy.

TRIFORCE89
January 25th, 2012, 04:42 PM
A healthy and stable political system requires parties or at least broad groups which create a general political frame all their members can agree with, even if there are disagreements in particular topics. The US doesn't need killing all their parties, but instead creating new ones to compete against the current oligarchist, bi-partisan, two-sizes-fits-all system. New parties focusing in different aspects that can allow different compromises in both the Senate and the Congress. By trying to appeal to everybody, they basically cannot appeal to anybody in particular, and this is what is creating a "both are the same" vibe.
The more parties the better, I say. Even if you rarely end up with a landslide victory, so be it.

In Canada, we used to have two conservative parties at the Federal level. The Progressive Conservatives (which I consider myself to be) and the Reform Party (more like the Republicans, but slightly more... normal, I hope). They merged quite a few years ago and slowly but surely the Reformers seem to be taking over the party.

In the end, what it results in is my political views non being adequately represented.

Since the now Conservative party won a majority last time around there have been rumblings that two of the opposition parties (one center-left and one left-wing) might merge in order to take them down. So that the vote isn't split. I see that as a temporary "solution" that, if they do merge, they will very quickly regret.

We'll end up as black VS white with no graduations in-between just like in the United States, and we'll be worse off for it. I hate that the center-right and right-wing parties merged. And I'm sure supporters of the opposition would hate if their voices won't be heard either. It will just be noise and rhetoric.

I'm for more options and better representation.

CapricornPsyche
January 28th, 2012, 01:15 PM
The more parties the better, I say. Even if you rarely end up with a landslide victory, so be it.

In Canada, we used to have two conservative parties at the Federal level. The Progressive Conservatives (which I consider myself to be) and the Reform Party (more like the Republicans, but slightly more... normal, I hope). They merged quite a few years ago and slowly but surely the Reformers seem to be taking over the party.

In the end, what it results in is my political views non being adequately represented.

Since the now Conservative party won a majority last time around there have been rumblings that two of the opposition parties (one center-left and one left-wing) might merge in order to take them down. So that the vote isn't split. I see that as a temporary "solution" that, if they do merge, they will very quickly regret.

We'll end up as black VS white with no graduations in-between just like in the United States, and we'll be worse off for it. I hate that the center-right and right-wing parties merged. And I'm sure supporters of the opposition would hate if their voices won't be heard either. It will just be noise and rhetoric.

I'm for more options and better representation.

I approve of this post <3

jolly good show, sir!

greggydion
January 30th, 2012, 04:04 PM
Congress can repeal legislation even if it has been ruled constitutional, and they can amend the Constitution to nullify a ruling or have it re-argued in Court years later.

Mr. X
January 31st, 2012, 06:59 PM
TAMPA, Fla. -- Florida was, at one time, the state that could sew up the Republican presidential nomination for Mitt Romney and end the primary.

Not anymore. But Romney's overwhelming win here Tuesday night was a big moment for the former Massachusetts governor that fully restored him to frontrunner status, and dealt a major blow to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Romney won convincingly, with 46.6 percent to Gingrich's 31.8 percent, with 94.8 percent of the vote counted. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) trailed behind, with 13.3 and 7.0 percent, respectively.

Romney began his victory speech by addressing head on the growing concerns in the GOP about the nastiness of the primary fight between he and Gingrich, noting that Democrats have watched the brawl and "comfort themselves with the thought that a competitive primary will leave us divided and weak."

"I've got news for them. A competitive primary does not divide us, it prepares us. And we will win," Romney said to a cheering crowd.

But Romney saved much of his most aggressive rhetoric for President Barack Obama, a clear sign that he has watched and learned the way that Republican voters respond to Gingrich's willingness to speak bluntly and forcefully about the incumbent president. Romney's speech was a succession of swipes at Obama.

"In the State of the Union address, the president actually said these words. He says, 'Let's remember how we got here,'" Romney said, referring to the nation's prolonged economic slump. "Don't worry Mr. President. We remember exactly how we got here. You won the election."

"Leadership is about taking responsibility, not making excuses. Mr. President, you were elected to lead. You chose to follow. And now it's time for you to get out of the way," he said.

Romney said Obama's idea of a free economy, "is to send your money to his friends." Under his presidency, Romney said he would help "build an America where hope is a new job with a paycheck, not a faded word on an old bumper sticker."

"I stand ready to lead this party and to lead our nation," Romney said. "My leadership will end the Obama era and begin a new era of American prosperity."

It was by far one of Romney's strongest speeches of the campaign, and the crowd's wildly enthusiastic response validated that.

Earlier the packed ballroom here in Tampa at Romney's victory party cheered wildly when the race was called for Romney seconds after all the polls closed, while in Orlando, the results were piped in to a mostly empty ballroom holding Gingrich's election night rally.

Romney's win in Florida put him in solid position to ultimately claim the GOP nomination. At points throughout the past year, many political observers thought that the race would be over if Romney won here.

But the race will go forward at full speed, largely because Gingrich has dug in his heels and angrily denounced those who say his candidacy is over after a Florida loss. That chorus was joined Tuesday by Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

Defiantly, Gingrich said this week he'll fight tooth and nail, "state by state," all the way to August and the Republican convention, which, by the way, will be right back here in this city.

There are a few reasons why Gingrich could actually deliver on his threat.

Gingrich has been left for dead twice already in this primary, first when his campaign imploded last June and then again in early January, when his lead in the polls plummeted into the abyss. He has the guts, the brains, the anger, and -- for now -- the money to carry him along for some time. And there is still resistance to Romney from a significant portion of the Republican Party, particularly at its grassroots.

A total of 39 percent of GOP voters told CBS News in exit polls that they were not satisfied with their choices of candidates.

Lastly, more states are awarding delegates proportionally in Republican primaries than ever before, and the political universe -- thanks to the epic 2008 Democratic primary contest between Obama and Hilary Clinton -- is more aware than any time in recent history of why delegate counts are important. A candidate needs 1,144 delegates to secure the nomination. With his victory in Florida, Romney won 50 delegates and is up to 86 in all, ahead of Gingrich's 25, Santorum's 14, and Paul's 4.

The big question mark for Gingrich is how long he can run his campaign if he loses steam and donors, and if the biggest donor of all -- Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- decides to stop depositing $5 million checks in the bank account of the super PAC supporting Gingrich.

It was a big win for Romney, and it halted the wave of momentum behind Gingrich as he entered Florida just over a week ago, after winning South Carolina. But it was also absolutely mandatory for Romney to keep doubts about his candidacy at bay. And it didn't drive a stake through Gingrich's heart.

There is an air of uncertainty now about what lies ahead. Gingrich faces a full month before there are any more contests that favor him. It's not yet clear how the various campaigns will handle the odd pause in action between a quick burst of smaller state contests in early February and the Arizona and Michigan primaries on Feb. 28.

It's a nearly three-week gap where no votes will be cast. The Gingrich camp, sources said, will campaign in states where they are weak during the February lull, leaving Super Tuesday states that are advantageous to Gingrich -- Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma -- well enough alone. There are eight other states that will vote or caucus on March 6: Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming.

Gingrich will seek to build strength in those places. In Virginia, he can't because he's not on the ballot and is ineligible for the state's 49 delegates, a result of the way he has run a small and unorganized campaign. In places like Massachusetts, he probably won't spend any time, since that is the area where Romney is from.

The Romney campaign will likely have plenty of ammunition to use against Gingrich, simply because Romney will have won Florida and is expected to perform very well in Nevada on Saturday and in the early February caucus states.

A senior Romney adviser told The Huffington Post they expect the dead period to "freeze in place" the state of the race, and that Romney will focus on fundraising to boost up the campaign coffers, as well as deliver a policy speech or two. This state of affairs could end up putting even more pressure on Gingrich to try to produce some kind of breakout moment, to jump start his campaign (again).

"Newt's going to have to figure out how to go after Mitt without turning people off," said Al Cardenas, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, who attended Romney's rally but has not endorsed him. "That's not an easy assignment, given the fact that there won't be a lot of opportunities and the opportunities that may exist, he's not going to do that well. So he's gotta figure out, 'How do I survive February in order to be competitive in March?'"

Romney's win on Tuesday capped a week of "gutter politics," as Santorum put it, with Romney and Gingrich trading blows that seemed only to grow more vicious and personal by the day. It marked a new chapter for Romney, who showed a willingness to throw verbal punches on the trail that he had up until now allowed his campaign to deliver for him.

And the Romney campaign's concerted attacks on Gingrich following his huge win in South Carolina on Jan. 22 drove Gingrich to distraction and to angry, scattershot counter attacks that risked making him look desperate. Romney described him on Monday as "flailing."

Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), one of Romney's top backers and an informal part of his campaign, defended the Romney campaign's broadsides at Gingrich.

"Everything we've raised are aspects of the speaker's professional and public record. This is what campaigns are about. You contrast on the record," Talent told HuffPost. "We've avoided the personal stuff. We really have. I don't know what Newt thinks or [is] saying but I think we've been very fair."

The two candidates will be under pressure from those in their party who have been distressed by the nasty tone of the race to get back to discussing substance and policy, and to restore some measure of civility as the race moves forward. Santorum himself worked this theme into a speech on Monday, and could begin scoring political points if Gingrich and Romney continue their food fight.

Santorum and Paul skipped Florida on Tuesday and held election night parties in Nevada, where the candidates will compete for that state's 28 delegates when Republicans caucus on Saturday.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/fl-primary-results-2012_n_1244922.html?ref=politics

Netto Azure
January 31st, 2012, 09:49 PM
Well the Mittens is Mr. Inevitable again!

Still Gingrich could go the Convention route. :P

LadySurreal
January 31st, 2012, 10:02 PM
Yes, we need a strong third party that isn't shut down by the media saying "BUT CONFLICT MAKES MORE MONEY AND RATINGS"this is my theory of why we don't have a third party, the news media believes that conflict and fighting = High ratings and more people watching. ><;;; yes it'll definitely have more people watching the news, but will it HELP THE COUNTRY? No, it will most certainly not.

There's the Libertarian Party which is currently the third largest party in the US and the fastest growing (That includes people who switch parties every few weeks).
The Communist Party of America always have been a well known "behind the scenes" party with a long and interesting history in US politics.
All other small parties (Social Democrats USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Socialist Party of America, Reform Party of America, Green Party, etc) are just ignored fabrics.

And remember, "To be left wing is to be far right, to be right wing is to be far left".

TRIFORCE89
February 19th, 2012, 06:36 AM
I don't think any Republican candidate can carry through with the grand win (thankfully :p), much like how the country is politically divided the Republican party itself is divided.

I don't think the party leaders know quite who to try appealing to. You've got the tea party, the libertarians, the religious right, the fiscal conservatives, etc. Generally, these don't really overlap (the libertarians and the religious right, in particular)

Whoever wins the nomination, won't have the full backing of the party no matter what.

Went
February 19th, 2012, 07:12 AM
Next caucus in Michigan are going to be specially interesting. If Romney loses to Santorum at home, he will go back from "Mr. Inevitable" to "Dr. Isn't-there-anybody-better-really". Again.

The longer this keeps going, the easier for Obama will be.

Netto Azure
February 19th, 2012, 04:31 PM
It depends. If Romney looses Michigan to Santorum, South Carolina-style then it certainly does throw his campaign a huge monkey wrench. But if it's a close race he can recover easier.

But yeah "the tea party, the libertarians, the religious right, the fiscal conservatives, etc. " are the components that make up the Republican Coalition so you have to appease them all :/

Esper
February 20th, 2012, 09:23 AM
Boy, it's frightening how the things that Santorum is saying aren't being challenged by the rest of the other candidates, the Republican party, or the Republican base. He wants to disband the public school system, he wants to ban not only abortion but birth control too, doesn't think women can be soldiers because they're too emotional. And he's winning in polls. That means a lot of people are okay with this kind of talk.

Lance
February 20th, 2012, 09:30 AM
Boy, it's frightening how the things that Santorum is saying aren't being challenged by the rest of the other candidates, the Republican party, or the Republican base. He wants to disband the public school system, he wants to ban not only abortion but birth control too, doesn't think women can be soldiers because they're too emotional. And he's winning in polls. That means a lot of people are okay with this kind of talk.

I'll stop with my criticism of the Republican Party when they stop condoning freak shows like Santorum and Paul. What he says is pure hate.

Went
February 20th, 2012, 11:09 AM
Why aren't other candidates challenging his views? Because thousands of people from the Republican base voted for Santorum and, by challenging his main ideas, they'd risk alienating them- and you need as many votes as you can get to beat an incumbent. It's late into the show already, only three real candidates are left, cards are on the desk, you don't want to get into a much deeper mudfight by now.

Why isn't the Party challenging them? Because American parties aren't but electoral machines whose political leadership is left to the dude who gets nominated- so nobody can really challenge him, and, if he won, the Party would gladly support him for President. Of course, the powerful party members are supporting Romney, but they won't openly challenge Santorum. What if the people support him regardless and they are forced to eat their words and say he's the best candidate ever? Obama's team would choke on their own saliva. What if Santorum, with the support he already has, decides to still run for President as independent? He might get enough pro-Republican votes to make Romney lose, since it's very unlikely that he'd get that many Democrat votes. Ron Paul, in fact, is thinking about doing this, and that's one of the events that could shake the campaign up. He clearly hasn't got enough support to win but he can take enough support from the real fighters to decide the winner.

What is sad is that, if people vote for him, is because they do agree with what he says. There is no other option, because there is a very electable candidate fighting against him they can vote for instead.

Mr. X
February 20th, 2012, 03:31 PM
Politics have gotten to the point where I don't care anymore.

Still, my vote is going for the one who I think will be able to cause the bigger ****storm.

Right now its looking like either Santorum or Paul. Santorum is more likely (right now) to get elected then Paul so in the end, for the lulz, I'll be voting for good ole sanny.

Edit - Now that I think about any, any Republican would be sure to cause a big ****storm.

TRIFORCE89
February 20th, 2012, 04:14 PM
Politics have gotten to the point where I don't care anymore.

Still, my vote is going for the one who I think will be able to cause the bigger ****storm.

Right now its looking like either Santorum or Paul. Santorum is more likely (right now) to get elected then Paul so in the end, for the lulz, I'll be voting for good ole sanny.

Edit - Now that I think about any, any Republican would be sure to cause a big ****storm.
Between Santorum and Paul, I think Paul would be worse.

As much as I dislike Santorum, if he ends up being presidency, I don't think he'll risk political suicide to do anything social. Right now he's appealing to the base and has said himself (although, I've never bothered enough to verify this) that his voting record is counter to his personal social beliefs. A kind of... he thinks it's wrong, but he wants you to be able to do it thing. Supposedly. I doubt that, but that's what he said.

Paul in terms of the economy or health care would be worse I think. Libertarians are cool, but he's too laissez-faire on the surface

Esper
February 21st, 2012, 08:09 AM
As much as I dislike Santorum, if he ends up being presidency, I don't think he'll risk political suicide to do anything social. Right now he's appealing to the base and has said himself (although, I've never bothered enough to verify this) that his voting record is counter to his personal social beliefs. A kind of... he thinks it's wrong, but he wants you to be able to do it thing. Supposedly. I doubt that, but that's what he said.
But Santorum's whole platform is social issues. I can't see him not pushing for them. And as much as I know that nothing that gets said on a campaign means anything as far as what they'll do if elected, Santorum has a long history of supporting and pushing really, really antiquated social views. At the very least he'll embolden people like him to pass laws like what happened in Oklahoma with the 'personhood' law there.

Black Ice
February 21st, 2012, 09:23 PM
I don't know when it became acceptable opinion that America should become a theocracy.

50 years ago people didn't want JFK in because they thought his religion would impact his decision-making. Oh, how times have changed.

Mr. X
February 22nd, 2012, 12:34 PM
On the surface it's not.

But when we allow people to base laws and only use Religion as a excuse for why the law needs to be passed, thats when the line starts getting blurry.

I'd like if Religion was separate from Government. As in, that the people we elect do not allow Religion to be the main factor that determines what they do or do not support.

Even better, I'd like for our elected officials to never even have to say what religion they follow. Personally, I don't think someones religious ideals should play a part in their electability.

Nowadays, Religion is a symbol. I'd like to leave Religion to the symbolminded, and keep the symbolminded out of politics. (Say symbolminded 10 times fast, and you'll get the joke... Hopefully.)

Ninjabait
March 11th, 2012, 05:10 PM
I think we all know who the real winner of the Republican primaries is: Barack Obama.

Jokes aside, the candidates this cycle are an...interesting bunch. And by "interesting", I mean crazier than ****house rats.

First, we have the inevitable nominee, Mitt Romney. I won't talk about Romney's policies, because, in all honesty, he's flip-flopped on so many issues that I'm not even sure what his policies are. I remember a joke that went something along the lines of "A conservative, a liberal, and a moderate walk into a bar. The bartender says 'Hi, Mitt.'". In all honesty, he seems like a man who isn't interested in helping and leading the country so much as getting money and power, and will say pretty much anything to do that. Half of what he says seems to just be pandering to weasel out votes, and the other half just reeks of "rich guy who is disconnected from reality". Like his infamous $10,000 bet early on, his assertion that his wife drives a couple of Cadillacs, the whole Nascar thing, him saying that he likes being able to fire people, and that photograph of him from his days at Bain Capital. Everything about him oozes "rich guy who's disconnected from reality".

Speaking of oozing, Rick Santorum. While all of the candidates are crazy in their own special way, Frothy really goes above and beyond in his craziness and religious zeal. He's likened gay sex to dog ****ing and child rape, grossly misinterpreted and then condemned a JFK speech on religious freedom, spouted some nonsense about the president being a snob because he wanted to educate our children, and there's that whole thing about his last name and the campaign behind its second meaning. The fact that he's experiencing a come from behind victory makes me ashamed to be American.

And on the subject of things that make me ashamed to be American, Newt Gingrich. I could literally go on for pages about how much of a lying, heartless, hypocritical, thick headed, sociopathic cry baby he is, but I'll just confine it to a sentence. He wants to build a base on the moon, he divorced his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer, cheated on his second wife while she was suffering from multiple sclerosis, tried to establish a polygamous relationship with her and the woman he was cheating on her with, and when that failed, divorced her, and all the while he was arranging for the impeachment of Bill Clinton based on Monicagate, caused a shut down of Washington because Bill Clinton made him sit at the back of a plane, and MY GOD I WANT TO PUNCH HIM SO MUCH GAAAAAH

*ahem* And finally, there's Ron Paul. I wouldn't really mention him at all, since he hasn't won a single state, even Maine and Idaho, the arguable homes of Libertarianism, and it doesn't seem like he'll be winning any states any time soon, given how low his favorability rating is, but if I don't I'll be swarmed by Paulbots, so nonetheless. First fault: the Paulbots. My god, the Paulbots. Now, unless you've been reading comment sections or browsing Youtube, or have been looking at Internet polls (and I take it most of you aren't doing these things), you haven't really experienced the sheer annoyance that is the Paulbots. Basically, what they do is come in and swarm comments sections, the like/dislike buttons, and Internet polls to make it look like there's a huge amount of support for him when there isn't. It's bloody annoying (and before you ask, he did do this back in his 2008 run, but not to the extent that he is doing it this cycle, and I wasn't as involved in politics as I was now so it wasn't as much of a bother). Outside of that, there's the fact he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Acts, has published racist newsletters comparing blacks to zoo animals, wants to completely de-regulate the economy even though that's what caused this bloody recession in the first place, has some intellectual basis in the teachings of Ayn Rand and Objectivism (which would automatically keep me from voting for him), and has some support from some...rather questionable groups. Something amusing I read in a comments section of a Youtube video (don't ask why I was reading that, I don't know) basically sums up my thoughts on him: "RON PAUL 1912!!!"

Ugh. I sincerely hope that none of these kooks get elected into office. I know I certainly won't vote for them, because a) they're all crazy, b) I don't turn 18 until December, and c) I'm very left-wing in my views (think Ralph Nader, Clement Attlee, Nelson Mandela, almost all of Scandinavia, etc.) and I couldn't really ever see myself voting Republican. Sometimes I can hardly see myself voting Democrat.

As for who I'm rooting for the most out of these four (I am personally endorsing Obama in the general election unless Nader changes his mind and jumps in), I'd say Romney. It'll be a major step for America to put a Mormon on the national stage after we, you know, massacred Mormons and exiled them to Utah in the 1800s. Can't see him winning the election, but the Republican party putting up a Mormon has some huge implications.

Went
March 12th, 2012, 05:49 AM
Romney needs to win it before the Convention. If he doesn't bring enough delegates, I can see a coalition between the other three dudes to either put Santorum in or some fifth outsider (Jeb Bush is a recurrent name in the political chitchat these days).

Right now, his projected advantage over the other candidates together is a slim +36, with still 1400 delegates to go.

TRIFORCE89
March 12th, 2012, 06:51 AM
The Democrats are already a center-right party, Obama in particular. So...the right wins regardless.

I just want this primary to end already. Every day they continue to reveal themselves to be idiots. And the Republican base is scary!

Santorum as a flavour of the month is lasting a whole lot longer than the others did.... which is worrying.

If it comes to someone surfacing at the convention, who have said they'd jump in? Jeb Bush, Trump, Palin?