GOP Nominee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oooh.. this is an interesting head trip right here. I mis-errored your non-error and responded by being redundant! Clearly I need to lay off the skooma.

---

Or just not stay up playing Skyrim until it's light outside.

Before we get to shouting jokes, I should point out that I used nothing but the exclamation "SIR!" to throw a Captain in British Army's Devon and Dorset Light Infantry back about four feet, before I had even passed my 19th birthday too!

An interesting breakdown. Looks like Perry is getting the least return for his money free speech.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...nding_iowa.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Holy crap, how has Bachman made it this far without money!? It can't be her winning personality or her thoughtful ideas.

---

Fox News.

That's how your country works now, not even money is enough to defeat the helpful hand from above, and I don't mean God's, unless he's an Octenagarian Australian Expat.

i dislike bachmann and would never vote for the woman but it should be noted she is a well educated and intelligent woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Bleah. This is all Reagan's fault, you know. He and his people revolutionized politics, and this is the result. Thanks for beating the Russians, Ron, but damn!

---

Actually, I think blame can be placed more directly at Bush and to a lesser extent Clinton's doorstep. Reagan's presidency was actually relatively traditional, Clinton and Bush were actually much more about the domineering personality politics, as is Obama.


I think you're also suffering from fatigue with a constitutionally two part system. Hell, it used to be that the VP was the runner up to the president.

Here's a thought though, successive primaries are inherrently bad in a media era like this one and should be abolished immidiately. The vote should be done in one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Actually, I think blame can be placed more directly at Bush and to a lesser extent Clinton's doorstep. Reagan's presidency was actually relatively traditional, Clinton and Bush were actually much more about the domineering personality politics, as is Obama.


I think you're also suffering from fatigue with a constitutionally two part system. Hell, it used to be that the VP was the runner up to the president.

Here's a thought though, successive primaries are inherrently bad in a media era like this one and should be abolished immidiately. The vote should be done in one day.

---

Reagan got swept in by his personality more than anything else. Bush's was in Reagan's administration, and Bush kept a lot of the Reagan team with him as did Bush Jr. The modern conservative movement begins with Reagan and his grandstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I've been an advocate of demolishing the 2-party system my whole life. It makes it too easy for an alliance of the strong against the weak.

Now, I do agree with everything you said. I think Bush will be remembered as the most influential, controversial, and all-around wierdest president we've had in a very long time. His Fingerprints will be felt for a long time, for good or ill (too early to be definitive).

However, I believe Reagan and his people set the events in motion which led to Bush being electable in the first place.

---

There's a rule in politics, a dissafected constituancy will either find a candidate or a candidate will find them. America has a lot of problems, including a fetish with guns, a fear of any social-democratic policy and a polarisation between the "intellectual" and the "faithful". If you look back historically though you'll see that the Democrats abandoned their religious constituency when they took up social activism. The right to exercise concience became divorced from social responsibility (affermative action happened) and as a resulte the religious flocked to the only party to offer shelter, the Republicans. The flip side of that was that Democrats became "ungodly" and hence so did their policies.

I would blame the sixties, not Reagan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Somehow that makes it even worse. She's clearly not dumb, and I think she's actually kinda cute, but she's just got so much HATE. In the words of Ron Paul "That woman really does not like muslim people."

---

Bachman especially, Santorum and Perry all seem like crackpots. How they could possibly be even vaguely considered presidential material is a real concern.

Paul, despite some odd policies, at least seems reasonable, intelligent, and not crazy. Huntsman seems sensible and intelligent, but that seems like the opposite of what the most ardent republicans (who turn out for the primary process) wants, which is a worry.

Romney seems to be the least worse of the front runners, despite his impressive inconsistency. Gingrich seems to be incredibly inconsistent and dodgy. From memory, hard to top serving your cancer recovering wife divorce papers while she's in hospital. 3 wives, religion change, ethics violations - quite impressive really.

I hope Ron Paul wins just to piss off the neocons.

So far Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are getting an early lead as the first results come out.

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

For those who are tentatively interested.

Oh it's a three way tie now. Oh my lordy lord lord.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Powerful stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Powerful stuff.

---

I will allow someone else to address this because it just makes me roll my eyes. Ask most of Europe, ask NATO, ask South Korea.

One day dammit I just want the US to completely withdraw absolutely from the rest of the world. And I just want to sit back and watch Europe or anybody on earth try to fill the policing role we used to hold.

smh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

America has a lot of problems, including a fetish with guns,

---

Do you mind expanding on this idea?

How will the #1 anti-Ron-Paul media establishment spin a Paul win? Should be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

How will the #1 anti-Ron-Paul media establishment spin a Paul win? Should be interesting.

---

Doesn't look like its going to happen. Would be sweet to have him and Romney come 1 and 2 in the heart of evangelical country, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Doesn't look like its going to happen. Would be sweet to have him and Romney come 1 and 2 in the heart of evangelical country, though.

---

Paul looks to have 3rd place locked in. Considering the breakdown is 25, 25 and paul with 21 that is not too bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Paul looks to have 3rd place locked in. Considering the breakdown is 25, 25 and paul with 21 that is not too bad.

---

Nah, but it is enough for the media to continue to marginalize him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Nah, but it is enough for the media to continue to marginalize him.

---

Did you expect the media to not marginalize him if he won?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Did you expect the media to not marginalize him if he won?

---

He would have to be taken more seriously at first than third, at least until New Hampshire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

He would have to be taken more seriously at first than third, at least until New Hampshire.

---

Not really. They were planning on calling Iowa a fluke from the get go if Ron Paul won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Not really. They were planning on calling Iowa a fluke from the get go if Ron Paul won.

---

Ahh, I didn't know you had Rupert on speed dial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Ahh, I didn't know you had Rupert on speed dial.

---

That's what establishment commentators have always been saying.

"I think that Gingrich, Santorum or Romney will definitely take the lead in Iowa."
"What about Ron Paul."
"I think if Ron Paul wins, that shows that the caucus may turn out to be a fluke since Paul has no support in New Hampshire nor anything visible in South Carolina."

So during Christmas I went to visit my grandparents and my grandma told me that Mitt Romney is my 4th or 5th cousin :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Here's a thought though, successive primaries are inherrently bad in a media era like this one and should be abolished immidiately. The vote should be done in one day.

---

This is my first time paying attention to a primary, and it's pissing me off that just a handful of states gets to decide who the nominee is. This year the state of Nevada tried to move their primary to an earlier date because they were tired of their vote not meaning anything and the Republican party threw a fit, with some of the candidates saying they would boycott Nevada because for some reason the citizens of New Hampshire are more important than the citizens of Nevada. That doesn't seem very democratic to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, the problem is very simple for me. Both parties support things I need and support things I abhore. And significant deviance from the party line just does not happen any more, and when it does its newsworthy. This is sad.

For example, the Democrats generally support social freedom and a rational attitude towards the poor. I like that. On the other hand, they are quick to embrace any populist cause (and all the associated junk-science and irrationalism) without considering the real world--a sure sign that they are interested in power more than results.

The Republicans support fiscal responsibility (in theory only these days), gun rights (Its a god damned right, and the only sure insurance policy against tyranny) and they have a certain realpolitik and sensibility when it comes to populist issues (or at least the good ones do). On the other hand, they've been totally high-jacked by the religious right and the neo-cons, who are 100% Wolves in Sheeps Clothing.

Those are not viable parties. They are often self-contradicting. Our political system is a joke, and needs to be fixed. The Founding Fathers would likely die of shame if they saw what has become of their ideals.

---

Everything you just wrote echoes my thoughts on the Democrat and Republican parties. I also think the bipartisan bickering that has become a staple of US politics distracts people from the more devious motives of our politicians. For example, yesterday I was googling the NDAA act of 2012, where the government can detain US citizens indefinitely without a trial or lawyer if they're suspected of terrorism, and one blog that I found that was obviously pro-Obama said that the Republicans just put that in the bill so they could make Obama look like a dictator, when in reality democrats and republicans voted for the bill and only a handful of senators voted against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I will allow someone else to address this because it just makes me roll my eyes. Ask most of Europe, ask NATO, ask South Korea.

One day dammit I just want the US to completely withdraw absolutely from the rest of the world. And I just want to sit back and watch Europe or anybody on earth try to fill the policing role we used to hold.

smh.

---

You should have detected my sarcasm. ~;)

Last night's caucuses confirmed a suspicion I have had for a while. That is that evangelicals are not looking for a more conservative alternative to Romney, but a more evangelical (read: not Mormon) one. After all, Romney was the conservative alternative in 08. It is kind of disappointing, as I have always thought of small minded block voting as a Democratic evil. Santorum is a big government evangelical, and certainly no more conservative than Romney. He represents everything I had hoped the GOP was moving away from - big spending, activist government, overt religiosity, gay bashing, and other wedge issue politics. What he has not ever been is a successful manager.

Or maybe my definition of 'conservative' is out of date. The GOP may be devolving back to its pre-Reagan roots, which does not bode well for the eventual nominee. The three way split in Iowa says a lot about the movement. You had the Northeastern pro-business Republican, the Southwestern libertarian, and the evangelical reactionary. Reagan was able to unite these disparate groups (although not in Iowa), as was W.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The three way split in Iowa says a lot about the movement. You had the Northeastern pro-business Republican, the Southwestern libertarian, and the evangelical reactionary.

---

A summary I read this morning put it this way: mainstream Republicans went for Romney, evangelicals broke for Santorum, and the independents and indy-leaners went for RuPaul. Quite a fracture.

Bachmann dropped out, I'm guessing her voters go to Perry or Santorum in upcoming primaries. One more wing-nut gone... NEXT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Bachmann dropped out

---

Or as one wag put it:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...achman_out.png