Presidential Election: 2012

[3spddrft]

When do we find out if it's Romney or Paul?

 

[Touring Mars]

When do we find out if it's Romney or Paul?

At this rate, it will be decided at the GOP 2012 convention in August, but it could be decided before that if Ron Paul suspends his campaign. That may be unlikely, however, because of the way that Ron Paul is running his campaign. His strategy is to prevent Romney from winning the first ballot at the Convention, and while that remains a possibility, Paul has stated that he will stay in the race. I personally think that he will fold before that, however, since the entire weight of the Republican party is starting to fall in behind Romney. Paul is gambling that he will be able to influence policy by staying in the race, but he risks splitting the party and wrecking their chances in the general election. Splitting the party could be disasterous in the long term as well, and I reckon that Paul will not risk the political future of his son, Rand, by continuing with his plan to wreck Romney's chances.

I think Ron Paul will quit once Santorum and Gingrich publicly endorse Romney, which will probably happen within the next week or two.

 

[Keef]

"Ron Paul is the most successful presidential candidate in the last couple decades, even though he hasn't won the election," [Iowa state Rep. Erik Helland] continued. "He has shaped the dialogue."

...

Russia’s most senior military officer said Thursday that Moscow would strike and destroy NATO missile defense sites in Eastern Europe before they came online if the U.S. pushes ahead with deployment.

 

[FoolKiller]

So, according to Ben Swann's latest Reality Check the delegates may not be as bound as we are led to believe.



If the case is that no delegate is bound then this could bode well for Ron Paul's strategy. But he is quoting rules that were from 2008 and 2010, so it may not be the same this year, or the RNC may have time to change the rule before the convention.

Anecdotally, I do know a guy that was a delegate for Kentucky in 2008 and he voted for Ron Paul without repercussion when he was supposed to be bound to McCain.

 

[Keef]

If the case is that no delegate is bound then this could bode well for Ron Paul's strategy. But he is quoting rules that were from 2008 and 2010, so it may not be the same this year, or the RNC may have time to change the rule before the convention.

I thought I read somewhere that they're not allowed to change the rules at this point. Or does that apply to State parties and not the RNC?

 

[FoolKiller]

I thought I read somewhere that they're not allowed to change the rules at this point. Or does that apply to State parties and not the RNC?

When did rules stop these guys?

As for if there is a rule about changing rules: I don't know.

 

[Sam48]

This may sound a bit a over the top, but does anyone think they make the process of choosing a nominee this complicated on purpose in order to confuse us to the point where breaking the rules becomes practically unnoticeable?

 

[Joel]

Certainly seems that way. As a semi-interested observer I have no idea about how the party nomination works.

 

[Northstar]

I like Obama's strategy of just using clips of other republican (former)candidates bashing Romney.

This may sound a bit a over the top, but does anyone think they make the process of choosing a nominee this complicated on purpose in order to confuse us to the point where breaking the rules becomes practically unnoticeable?

I think the problem is that not many people know the rules to begin with.

 

[arora]

It's never been a democratic process has it? I think that is where you guys get confused. In order to be represented by the rnc you need something to represent.

That being said, there is nothing declaring you're forced to vote for the clown they put up.

 

[Dennisch]

I like Obama's strategy of just using clips of other republican (former)candidates bashing Romney.

Following the Daily show, and the Colbert report, it seems that almost every important republican bashes Romney in one way or another.

Good Luck running for office, Willard Mitt Romney.

 

[Keef]

I think the problem is that not many people know the rules to begin with.

Often, even the people who made the rules don't know the rules.

It's never been a democratic process has it?

Correct. It was never intended to be a purely democratic process. There are indeed democratic elements but there are, or at least used to be just as many checks and balances to prevent mob-like decision making. The proliferation of democracy in the American system is one of the reasons things have become so screwed up - the majority of people are ignorant of and indifferent to the science of government, and in democracy the majority rules.

 

[arora]

My point 👍

 

[Keef]

 

[GTsail]

According to Mitt Romney, he deserves "a lot of credit" for the auto industry's come-back.

Romney's claim for credit

I'm glad that he has finally mentioned his primary role in this, because previously I've been giving credit for the bailout to the US Government.

Here's Romney's New York Times Op-Ed piece from November 2008, where he comes out four-square against any government loans:

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

Amused,
GTsail

 

[Nicksfix]

Just another reason to NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.

Now he supports same sex marriage !!!! (link) This .... after stating he is a Christian ? (link)

He is nothing but a 🤬 liar. What Christian openly admits to the approval of same sex marriage, and then turns around and openly supports it ? ..... none !!!

Dig deeper Obama ... anything to get a vote you loser ! Hope you enjoy your homosexual backing !!!

edit ----> anti Obama rant

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

picture

Vibram FiveFingers...can't be trusted

 

[arora]

LOL nicksfix,

Well he has hem hauled around with that one for a while, it's a double edged sward for him I guess. Ultimately he could give a rats ass about gays or christians, just sayin.

 

[Joel]

Just another reason to NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.

Now he supports same sex marriage !!!! (link) This .... after stating he is a Christian ? (link)

He is nothing but a 🤬 liar. What Christian openly admits to the approval of same sex marriage, and then turns around and openly supports it ? ..... none !!!

Dig deeper Obama ... anything to get a vote you loser ! Hope you enjoy your homosexual backing !!!

edit ----> anti Obama rant

Maybe Christians who aren't bigots? You know, all that stuff about loving your neighbour that Jesus guy said?

How about you grow up? You have a problem with gay marriage? Don't marry a dude. Bottom line.

Can people never change an opinion? I've be damned if I could never change the opinions I held earlier. I understand it seems like flip flopping, but to flip flop from an incorrect and unjust opinion (prohibiting gay marriage) to a just and moral opinion is ok in my books.

There's a lot of reasons not to vote for him. That isn't one of them.

 

[arora]

It is a reason though, how ever you may define a "proper" Christian, one who would should and could accept all men and let God judge, politics don't work that way. I think he is drawing a line in the sand tbh, no idea what it will bring.

 

[Joel]

And why is that a reason not to vote for him?

 

[arora]

Maybe not your rational reason of course, but still the fact remains; Why has he waited so long to commit?

A hint, *sticks finger in air

 

[FoolKiller]

Just another reason to NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.

Now he supports same sex marriage !!!! (link) This .... after stating he is a Christian ? (link)

He is nothing but a 🤬 liar. What Christian openly admits to the approval of same sex marriage, and then turns around and openly supports it ? ..... none !!!

Dig deeper Obama ... anything to get a vote you loser ! Hope you enjoy your homosexual backing !!!

edit ----> anti Obama rant

I can't tell if you're being for real or making fun of the reactions of people who would never vote for him anyway.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The president can't do anything about it. Marriage is a state issue and this is just a political ploy. Gay marriage support polls at approximately 50% favorable vs about 30% in 2004. Add in that conservatives are the only political demographic that is majorly opposed and he loses no votes over this. They already aren't likely to vote for him. But the all important youth demographic is around 70% favorable. He can possibly gain some of the young libertarian leaning vote from the individual's who put social issues over financial.

And let's not discount Hollywood. There is probably little meaningful change here in the way of votes, but that isn't the reason to court them. Their money is, and any celebs that haven't donated now but want to keep a hip and cutting-edge appearance might throw some money Obama's way and be public about it, which is just good PR for Obama.

So basically, this is not something that will directly change any policy, but it is likely to be a politically smart move.

 

[Dennisch]

Hope you enjoy your homosexual backing !!!

Homophobia much?

 

[Danoff]

Either way, it doesn't matter. The president can't do anything about it. Marriage is a state issue and this is just a political ploy.

The right to contract (marriage) is a federal issue. We've been over this - I won.

 

[FoolKiller]

The right to contract (marriage) is a federal issue. We've been over this - I won.

Except government doesn't treat marriage as such. If it did gay marriage would be allowed until specifically made illegal. And even if it is treated as you describe, the president cannot unilaterally change the law in such a way.

Marriage licenses, which is the point of judgement, are issued by the state. At least mine was. Right to contract is why you can be gay and still have a ceremony and grant legal sharing of finances, powers of attorney, and so forth, but marriage gains special privileges not recognized of all contracts.

Basically, if we adhere specifically to the Constitution and you are right then Obama can't do anything. If we adhere to how marriage is currently treated as a special privilege by the state then Obama can't do anything.


But I suspect you weren't arguing Obama's power on this subject, merely attempting to crap on my point for fun. You should have thrown a "yeah but" on the front of that.

 

[Keef]

Isn't marriage a function of religion and should therefore be governed by churches? I don't see why marriage should be a federal issue any more than a garage sale or gentleman's agreement should be a federal issue. You can make it a federal issue if you take it to court to judge based on contract law, but I don't see the need for licensing and reporting and all that stuff. Contracts shouldn't be a "federal issue" until somebody makes it a federal issue by taking it to court.

 

[Danoff]

Marriage is a state issue

Except government doesn't treat marriage as such. If it did gay marriage would be allowed until specifically made illegal. And even if it is treated as you describe, the president cannot unilaterally change the law in such a way.

States don't recognize marriage contracts between two men or two women - which is a violation of the right to contract (a federal issue). As you say, Obama doesn't have anything to do with it, but this is not an issue on which states get to disagree - meaning it is not a states' issue.

Isn't marriage a function of religion and should therefore be governed by churches?

Depends on whether you're talking about marriage the religious institution or marriage the secular institution or marriage the legal contract. We use the same term for all.

I don't see why marriage should be a federal issue any more than a garage sale or gentleman's agreement should be a federal issue. You can make it a federal issue if you take it to court to judge based on contract law, but I don't see the need for licensing and reporting and all that stuff. Contracts shouldn't be a "federal issue" until somebody makes it a federal issue by taking it to court.

The state and federal government must both recognize marriage contracts between individuals that sign them. Currently some refuse. This is a state and federal violation of federal charter.

Their refusal to acknowledge a legitimate contract is a constitutional (federal) issue.


Edit: Specifically, equal protection comes to mind.

 

[Encyclopedia]

If Obama's statement on gay marriage is what's going to make him lose, America is a pretty sad country.

Edit: Not directed towards sensible Americans of course.

 

[arora]

You do realize he has been pressured for years about that issue don't you? He has always ducked and dodged.