Presidential Election: 2012

[Keef]

OBAMA 2012!!!!! The conservatives scare the crap out of me, especially Rick Perry!

55 posts and you come in here to support Obama?

Is there any particular reason you're going with Obama and not any of these Republicans besides Ron Paul? With the exception of Paul, all the candidates are almost exactly the same as Obama.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

OBAMA 2012!!!!! The conservatives scare the crap out of me, especially Rick Perry

55 posts and you come in here to support Obama?

Is there any particular reason you're going with Obama and not any of these Republicans besides Ron Paul? With the exception of Paul, all the candidates are almost exactly the same as Obama.

Exactly and I have a good feeling that they wont come back and even explain why to you.

 

[Keef]

I know he won't - he's in the GT5 forums. Probably just trolling.

 

[Sam48]

The fact that Santorum's leading isn't actually disappointing me as much as I thought it would. Although Paul is my first choice, Santorum seems like a safe second choice given the fact that Romney, Gingrich, and Perry seem to fit the "big government/more spending" type.

EDIT: Never mind, Romney's leading.

EDIT: Oh, wait, not anymore.

 

[Keef]

UPDATE:


As it turns out, 50% of Iowans hate Muslims, and 25% of them hate Muslims and gays. Golf clap for the...Iowans whom I will not describe because it's a bit too colorful for the AUP.

 

[Omnis]

Oops.

Damn, Paul was really banking on winning Iowa. He has to start running more action ads and less attack ads. He's the only candidate with an actual published, specific plan so far and I bet only the people voting for him know about it.

Maybe Iowa really IS just a bunch of toothless meth heads and imbeciles. I wonder how many people at U of Iowa actually voted, where they only lost that county by 100 votes.

 

[Keef]

I should have expected Paul to lose Iowa. I didn't realize the populace was mostly hardcore religious folks. If you had told me that I would have expected Santorum, which is what happened. This is really a given. I still think the national race is between Romney and Paul. Santorum only has a specific core of voters who will not budge - kind of like Paul but in a bad way - and that is the devout religious country folks. You won't see him even register in more urban states.

 

[MHPALA]

NOOOOO!!!!!! What are those people smoking on...

 

[Dapper]

He's the only candidate with an actual published, specific plan so far and I bet only the people voting for him know about it.

What plan?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The fact that Santorum's leading isn't actually disappointing me as much as I thought it would. Although Paul is my first choice, Santorum seems like a safe second choice given the fact that Romney, Gingrich, and Perry seem to fit the "big government/more spending" type.

EDIT: Never mind, Romney's leading.

EDIT: Oh, wait, not anymore.

...Santorum is a safe second choice? If you want Ron Paul and you truely know what he stands for, you wouldn't want Santorum if Paul can win. Santorum and Paul especially on foreign and domestic policy, they are worlds apart and that is pretty big when voting I think.

 

[Omnis]

What plan?

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

 

[CSLACR]

I know he won't - he's in the GT5 forums. Probably just trolling.

Aw hell, he probably followed me in.

Oops.

Damn, Paul was really banking on winning Iowa. He has to start running more action ads and less attack ads. He's the only candidate with an actual published, specific plan so far and I bet only the people voting for him know about it.

Maybe Iowa really IS just a bunch of toothless meth heads and imbeciles. I wonder how many people at U of Iowa actually voted, where they only lost that county by 100 votes.

Oops, they accidentally found a soldier with an opinion?

Amazing world we have, this is why I don't have much faith in anything.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

I like the sound of anyone cutting spending.

From things I've heard Santorum say, and what cost him his spot in Pennsylvania, I don't think he's a threat(nationwide), no idea about the other guy.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What plan?

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

^ There is that which is probably the biggest source of info on Ron Paul. Then you have several articles that show how much he has fought for this policy such as this bit from one of the recent debates.

Santorum and Paul differ on Afghanistan


Also here is a bit of what he stands for with Afganistan in there. There is evidence that shows why and how in all three bits of no longer a need to be in Afghanistan.

Views on Afghanistan

 

[CSLACR]

Santorum and Romney are 4 votes apart ATM.
Rick Santorum 29,968 24.5%
Mitt Romney 29,964 24.5%
Ron Paul 26,186 21.4%
Newt Gingrich 16,241 13.3%
Rick Perry 12,592 10.3%

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Probably the greatest call for tonight and probably the smartest I've seen Perry is when he said he was going back to Texas to rethink the viability of his candidacy. Something that I wish Newt and Bachman did as well. Though Newt was somewhat heated after tonight's results.

 

[CSLACR]

Probably the greatest call for tonight and probably the smartest I've seen Perry is when he said he was going back to Texas to rethink the viability of his candidacy. Something that I wish Newt and Bachman did as well. Though Newt was somewhat heated after tonight's results.

I'm a little worried at the moment, first because I actually like Ron Paul (a politician) and second that he won't win, which compounds the first fear.

Not even kidding a little.

 

[FoolKiller]

I would like to know what you are doing to change this country? Are you voting? Will you change the country by voting for someone that lobbyists have appointed in the name of their own interests?

Is this rhetorical? I assume it is, or I can assume you walked into this thread and started arguing with people without reading enough of the thread to know where certain people stand on the issues.

Things change over time, especially 200 years.

Ah, the false belief that because the US Constitution is over 200 years old it must be out of date, having never been updated in any form (false), and that it left no way for new issues that arise to be dealt with (false).

The US Constitution can, and has been changed, and prevents itself from being a hard and fast rule against new issues that arise by giving the power to deal with those things to other entities than the federal government.

I honestly believe the only people that believe the US Constitution is out of date are the ones that haven't take the time and effort to understand what it says, what it does, and how it works.

What is most-curious is that Murdoch threw his support behind Santorum today. Not only did he choose the most-clueless candidate, he chose the one who associates least with younger voters, and has little appeal outside of the bible-belt. It is demonstrating completely that it is a numbers game, and the only thing they care about is being elected and maintaining power. Paul is a direct threat to what they want, and they will not deal with it.

Yesterday (Monday) I read five different opinion pieces, all which had a title that said Ron Paul was dangerous for the country, and then the articles went on to address the same exact foreign policy talking points based on the same exact false information.

I honestly believe that different authors in different cities with different papers writing what is basically the same opinion article, but were not exact duplicates, is evidence that someone made a coordinated effort to attack Paul with false information. If I had to guess, I would guess Murdoch/Santorum made the move.

OBAMA 2012!!!!! The conservatives scare the crap out of me, especially Rick Perry!

So, you are a fan of the NDAA and The Patriot Act?

The fact that Santorum's leading isn't actually disappointing me as much as I thought it would. Although Paul is my first choice, Santorum seems like a safe second choice given the fact that Romney, Gingrich, and Perry seem to fit the "big government/more spending" type.

Um, Santorum? The annul gay weddings Santorum? The voted to expand Medicare Santorum? But now says he wants to reduce all entitlements Santorum? The billions in earmarks Santorum? Are we talking about the same guy? Or did you follow the first Google result for "santorum"?

What plan?

I guess you were unaware that Ron Paul is the only candidate, including Obama, to release a budget plan with actual details?

I would suggest you inform yourself on candidates before you speak ill of them. It will save you from embarrassment.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm a little worried at the moment, first because I actually like Ron Paul (a politician) and second that he won't win, which compounds the first fear.

Not even kidding a little.

Even if he was elected and was good (which I think he would be) what about after a Ron Paul era? Would the person to follow him keep the good times going or would it bring us back to a pre Paul era and we'd be mad again but more than ever? These are some of the hard pressing questions you have to think of. How does one keep freedom when it is given back to them...I don't see too many others.

Also what if Paul doesn't keep his promises? I doubt this will happen and I look at his time in Congress from 88 till now and it is consistent.

 

[Dapper]

I guess you were unaware that Ron Paul is the only candidate, including Obama, to release a budget plan with actual details?

I am aware.

He's the only candidate with an actual published, specific plan so far and I bet only the people voting for him know about it.

What plan?

Since I'm not going to vote for him, I just made a poor attempt at a joke that didn't come across well.

I would suggest...

Save your fingers and keyboard.

 

[Bram Turismo]

The thing I've noticed in these kind of videos is that they always ask a candidate what they think about another candidate. Kind of sounds like they're seeking for some kind of a personal attack rather than a discussion of that candidate's ideas.

I've noticed during those debates you guys have when all candidates are together, many times when a candidate is asked for an explanation behind their reasoning for some of their ideas they just won't let that candidate finish their answer or they won't even give him/her the chance to properly answer and instead try to insult that candidate to amuse the crowd.

When I hear Ron Paul speaking, he doesn't really sound like that nuttcase, pro-religious, redneck candidate. And every year there's always one.

I agree with a lot of things Paul says, but I'm not sure whether I fully understand his views on same-sex marriages, and I'm not really a fan of this pro-life, anti-abortion thing.

 

[Keef]

The thing I've noticed in these kind of videos is that they always ask a candidate what they think about another candidate. Kind of sounds like they're seeking for some kind of a personal attack rather than a discussion of that candidate's ideas.

I've noticed during those debates you guys have when all candidates are together, many times when a candidate is asked for an explanation behind their reasoning for some of their ideas they just won't let that candidate finish their answer or they won't even give him/her the chance to properly answer and instead try to insult that candidate to amuse the crowd.

When I hear Ron Paul speaking, he doesn't really sound like that nuttcase, pro-religious, redneck candidate. And every year there's always one.

The media loves personal attacks. Usually candidates love personal attacks. They get people excited, fired up, and it helps the ratings. Ron Paul avoids personal attacks because they're childish and distract from the real issues at hand.

I agree with a lot of things Paul says, but I'm not sure whether I fully understand his views on same-sex marriages, and I'm not really a fan of this pro-life, anti-abortion thing.

His view on same sex marriage is...that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what the President thinks about same-sex marriage, because marriage is not an issue that the Federal government should have any business dealing with. Paul wants marriage to be taken away from the Federal government (you have to have a license to get married, wtf). He wants the decision making power to be given to the states where it belongs as stated in the Constitution, but his real desire is to have no government involvement at all in marriage, giving it back to local churches where it came from in the first place.

As for being pro-life, the Right to Life is the first inalienable right all humans enjoy. It is generally recognized that a fetus enjoys this right while in the mother's womb - by our criminal law, if you murder a pregnant woman, you have committed a double murder for killing two people. Because of this pro-life precedent that already exists in our legal system, it makes no sense to allow abortion because that is effectively the same as murder.

I don't know if anybody posted this bit last night...

Rick Santorum's nephew endorses Ron Paul.

 

[Omnis]

So Ron Paul won Iowa. Tied with Romney and Butt-Froth. Each of them got 6 delegates a piece.

Paul's showing more than doubled from 2008 and Romney's vote count was lower than 2008's. Santorum picked up the Mike Huckabee biblebillies. Ron had a strong presence is every county, whereas it was either-or between the Mitt Wit and Lube Dookie.

Now would be a good time to remind Michelle Bachmann that she should have endorsed Ron Paul and never entered the race. Her career in politics is likely over, and she doesn't have SNL, a porn parody, or an interesting Alaskan dynamic to keep her relevant. When you turn against the man, you get burned. Can't stand these fake tea-party co-opters.

Rick Perry is also done. I stuck a fork in him back when he made that sparkling display of honesty (that he doesn't know jack pooey) or what everyone else called a gaffe.

 

[disinfected]

I don't quite understand the recent Santorum push. Almost seems as if it came out of nowhere. He initially talked of dropping out if support didn't improve almost immediately following the first debate.

Michelle Bachmann has dropped out.

 

[Danoff]

As for being pro-life, the Right to Life is the first inalienable right all humans enjoy. It is generally recognized that a fetus enjoys this right while in the mother's womb - by our criminal law, if you murder a pregnant woman, you have committed a double murder for killing two people. Because of this pro-life precedent that already exists in our legal system, it makes no sense to allow abortion because that is effectively the same as murder.

Human beings have rights because they can observe the rights of others - not the case for a fetus. Refusal to allow abortion violates the rights of the mother - someone who is actually protected by the constitution. When you murder a pregnant woman, you murder the woman and a fetus that was wanted, that she was going to carry to term, that was eventually going to become a person because the mother had chosen to have it. If you murder a pregnant woman who was on her way to the abortion clinic presumably we should count it as a single murder because the fetus was not going to be carried to term by the only person who gets to make that decision.

 

[A2K78]

When I hear Ron Paul speaking, he doesn't really sound like that nuttcase, pro-religious, redneck candidate. And every year there's always one.

I agree with a lot of things Paul says, but I'm not sure whether I fully understand his views on same-sex marriages, and I'm not really a fan of this pro-life, anti-abortion thing.

despite being a pro-life ron paul is in no way a threat to pro-choicers especially he doesn't believe in using using federal power.

Yes he does believe that Roe V. Wade should be overturned, but not for the reasons the GOP want it to be. His argument against R v. Wade....in line with the general libertarian consensus is that the ruling is an overstep of federal power and abortion should be state-by-state issue. Its the same deal with same-sex marriage...Paul doesn't want the federal government deciding the issue of marriage but rather it be a state-by-state issue, overall he doesn't like the idea of government being in the marriage business.

 

[Danoff]

despite being a pro-life ron paul is in no way a threat to pro-choicers especially he doesn't believe in using using federal power.

...to enforce the right to life....

That's just not the right answer, no matter which side you take. If you're pro-life you cannot allow states to legalize murder. If you're pro-choice you cannot allow states to violate the woman's rights to her own body. Either way it's a federal issue.

 

[Keef]

Human beings have rights because they can observe the rights of others - not the case for a fetus. Refusal to allow abortion violates the rights of the mother - someone who is actually protected by the constitution. When you murder a pregnant woman, you murder the woman and a fetus that was wanted, that she was going to carry to term, that was eventually going to become a person because the mother had chosen to have it. If you murder a pregnant woman who was on her way to the abortion clinic presumably we should count it as a single murder because the fetus was not going to be carried to term by the only person who gets to make that decision.

But what if she kind of wanted an abortion but wasn't quite sure yet? Obviously she doesn't necessarily want to carry it, but she also might not want an abortion. Or maybe she was on her way to the abortion clinic...but stopped at Kroger along the way to pick up a gallon of milk. Does that count as being on her way to the abortion clinic? What if it was an anonymous clinic and she didn't tell anybody of her intentions, and then gets killed in the parking lot at Kroger. How the hell are you supposed to prove that she was on her way to the clinic? Of course, the audience watching the movie know the truth, but the characters don't.

This argument about abortion has been going on for so long because there is no clear answer that draws a sharp line making abortion okay.

But this whole argument in pointless anyway when it comes to Dr. Paul, as he has stated himself. It doesn't matter what he thinks - the Federal government should have no say in the matter to begin with. These issues should be decided by individuals in their communities, not by the Feds. So it's okay, Danoff, to vote for Ron Paul on this issue. All the other candidates think that the Feds should dictate whether or not abortion should be allowed for every woman across the country. Paul is the only one who realizes that most of the issues on the table should not be Federal issues to begin with.

 

[Keef]

...Butt-Froth...biblebillies...the Mitt Wit and Lube Dookie.

Now would be a good time to remind Michelle Bachmann that she should have endorsed Ron Paul and never entered the race. Her career in politics is likely over, and she doesn't have SNL, a porn parody, or an interesting Alaskan dynamic to keep her relevant. When you turn against the man, you get burned. Can't stand these fake tea-party co-opters.

She almost won a county! Almost.

EDIT: Bachmann dropped out.

Rick Perry is also done. I stuck a fork in him back when he made that sparkling display of honesty (that he doesn't know jack pooey) or what everyone else called a gaffe.

And this guy won two counties, and will probably win more around the country. I'm embarrassed for my fellow Americans who voted for him.

I don't quite understand the recent Santorum push. Almost seems as if it came out of nowhere.

It tends to do that.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Human beings have rights because they can observe the rights of others - not the case for a fetus. Refusal to allow abortion violates the rights of the mother - someone who is actually protected by the constitution. When you murder a pregnant woman, you murder the woman and a fetus that was wanted, that she was going to carry to term, that was eventually going to become a person because the mother had chosen to have it. If you murder a pregnant woman who was on her way to the abortion clinic presumably we should count it as a single murder because the fetus was not going to be carried to term by the only person who gets to make that decision.

Safe-sex isn't 100% safe, though. A woman, or as of lately, younger women could get pregnant when they either can't afford having a child, have no idea how to take care of a child or are still studying when they were being clumsy. Having sex is a big risk, and even using a condom for either partners isn't a 100% guarantee there is no chance of getting pregnant for the woman. Same can be said for women who are victims of being raped, and possibly bearing the child of the criminal. It's a bit of a harsh thing to say, but I'm sure every mother who chooses to have a child in the first place would like their child to grow up in a safe and healthy environment.

 

[Sam48]

Um, Santorum? The annul gay weddings Santorum? The voted to expand Medicare Santorum? But now says he wants to reduce all entitlements Santorum? The billions in earmarks Santorum? Are we talking about the same guy? Or did you follow the first Google result for "santorum"?

Hey, I didn't say he was any good, just better than Romney, Gingrich, and Perry.