Republican Nominees

ahlycotc wrote:@RonPaul
Ron Paul
@JonHuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks.

Wow, what a dick thing to say.

ahlycotc wrote:The Iowa caucus said Romney wins by just 8 votes! What a fucking close race. This has got to be some record. It doesn't really matter anyways because Romney, Santorum, and Paul each get 7 delegates. Gingrich and Perry got 2 each while Bachmann and Huntsman got 0.

chemicalrubber wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:The Iowa caucus said Romney wins by just 8 votes! What a fucking close race. This has got to be some record. It doesn't really matter anyways because Romney, Santorum, and Paul each get 7 delegates. Gingrich and Perry got 2 each while Bachmann and Huntsman got 0.

Are the delegates directly proportional to the votes? I read elsewhere that it would be divided 6, 6, 4, 2, 1, 1 to the top five.

ahlycotc wrote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/03/santorums-nephew-backs-rep-paul/

Imagine the conversation at the next family dinner.

(CNN) -- There are two Rick Santorums: The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me.
"Santorum One" pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare.
Then there's "Santorum Two." This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I'm not.

Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.
Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, "Santorum Two" was out there telling anyone who would listen.
He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."
On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."

Yes, that means exactly what you think it does: Santorum believes that each and every one of our government's laws must match God's law, warning that "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." I'm not exactly sure what "agitation" means in this context, but I think it's a code word for something much worse than acid reflux.
And as an aside, when Santorum says "God," he means "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." So, if your god differs from Rick's, your god's views will be ignored, just like the father is on "Keeping Up with the Kardashians."
Some of you might be asking: How far will "Santorum Two" take this? It's not like he's going to base public policy decisions on Bible passages, right?
Well, here's what Santorum had to say just last week when asked about his opposition to gay marriage: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change."
Santorum could not be more unambiguous: His policy decisions will be based on "biblical truths," and as he noted, these "truths" will not change regardless of whether public opinion has evolved since the time the Bible was written thousands of years ago.
Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum.
One of the great ironies is that Santorum has been a leader in sounding alarm bells that Muslims want to impose Islamic law -- called Sharia law -- upon non-Muslims in America. While Santorum fails to offer even a scintilla of credible evidence to support this claim, he continually warns about the "creeping" influence of Muslim law.
Santorum's fundamental problem with Sharia law is that it's "not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code."
Consequently, under the Sharia system, the civil laws of the land must comport with God's law. Now, where did I hear about someone wanting to impose only laws that agree with God's law in America?
So, what type of nation might the United States be under Rick Santorum's Sharia law?
1. Rape victims would be forced to give birth to the rapist's child. Santorum has stated that his religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, and as a result, rape victims would be sentenced to carrying the child of the rapist for nine months.
2. Gay marriages would be annulled. Santorum recently declared that not only does he oppose gay marriages, but he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would ban them, invalidating all previous gay marriages that have legally been sanctioned by states and thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos.
3. Santorum would ban all federal funding for birth control and would not oppose any state that wanted to pass laws making birth control illegal.
4. No porn! I'm not kidding. Santorum signed "The Marriage Vow" pledge (PDF) authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president.
To me, "Santorum Two" truly poses an existential threat to the separation of church and state, one of the bedrock principles of our nation since its inception. Not only did Thomas Jefferson speak of the need to create "a wall of separation between church and state," so did Santorum's idol, Ronald Reagan, who succinctly stated, "church and state are, and must remain, separate."
While there may be millions of Americans who in their heart agree with the views of "Santorum Two," it is my hope they will reject any attempts to move America closer to a becoming the Afghanistan of the Western Hemisphere.

Muhkoo wrote:A question though, what does it require to vote in the US, do you have to be citizen or just have a green card/visa to work and live there?

Cam wrote:What do you have to be, to run for President?

Cam wrote:What do you have to be, to run for President?

Cam wrote:The ignore list.

ahlycotc wrote:

Damn, strong words, even if true. I don't like attack ads. Just say what your own views are and if you want to attack a certain aspect of another candidate, keep it for the debates.

ahlycotc wrote: