Republican Nominees

Lux wrote:Why are other candidates from the party in office not allowed to challenge the president (when he still has an extra term possible)?

I'm sure they are but people rarely step up. They rather prepare a bit for the next election w/o an incumbent.

Lux wrote:Why are other candidates from the party in office not allowed to challenge the president (when he still has an extra term possible)?

They are allowed to, it's just very rare because they'd almost certainly lose. President James Carter was very unpopular, but he faced several challenges in the 1980 election.

Romney going in on his speech right now, he's the republican candidate and he knows it.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Full results of Primary

Spoiler:

You are actually wrong. Obama didn't get 100% of the democratic votes. So far, there have been 1,602 write-ins (about 10%).

28% of the results are in and Romney is already projected the winner...

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Full results of Primary

Spoiler:

You are actually wrong. Obama didn't get 100% of the democratic votes. So far, there have been 1,602 write-ins (about 10%).

He's right in the sense that 100% of the DNC delegates of NH will pledge to Barack Obama.

ilJuventino wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

You are actually wrong. Obama didn't get 100% of the democratic votes. So far, there have been 1,602 write-ins (about 10%).

He's right in the sense that 100% of the DNC delegates of NH will pledge to Barack Obama.

Obviously what I meant. Stop being such a fucking smartarse Ahly, you're terrible at it.

I'm sure you knew that 10% were write-ins.

Well no-one knows for sure yet.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Romney says the US will have a military so overwhelmingly powerful that no-one would ever think of challenging it. I'm sure there are better things that money could be spent on.

that was terrible.

The rest of his speech was filled with patriotic BS and false promises.

great result for Paul

edit: so far

didn't realise only 28% had been counted

the first time I've shown in interest in any sort of election..

God-damn it I want Huntsman.

Huntsman's in third!

what are Huntsman's big policies?

Roloman4 wrote:God-damn it I want Huntsman.

Did you read my post last night in the Chat Thread?

wow that TV shit is crazy

whats so special about New Hampshire?

El_indian wrote:what are Huntsman's big policies?

Foreign-policy wise, he supports working with China closely for the betterment of society, that's all he's really talked about. Something I don't like about him is that he likes Israel.

Socially he believes in Same-Sex civil unions, unlike every other Republican who is running.

He believes in Evolution, supports the fight against climate change, and is the only candidate aside from Romney that apparently wants to preserve the separation of church and state.

If I could combine the foreign policies of Ron Paul with the rest of Jon Huntsman, I'd be very happy with that candidate.

Here is a quick look on Hunstman and Paul.

Foreign Policy
Huntsman talks a lot about China and working with them (he was the former ambassador). I haven't heard much about anything else in foreign policy. But it seems like he supports removing tropps from Afghanistan and just leaving a few thousand for intelligence gathering. He is a big supporter of Israel.

Paul is an isolationist. He wants all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to come back home. He believes the US cannot afford to enter wars or police borders in other countries. The importance is worrying about the US and the mess it's in. But he supports free trade between countries and opposes NAFTA.

Financial Policy
Huntsman supports decreasing taxes and simplifying the tax code, but his records show spending increases. You can't have both in a successful government.

Ron Paul is big on cutting spending (especially military spending) and decreasing government. He also supports decreasing taxes. He also supports returning to the Gold Standard. He believes in the reduction or elimination of foreign aid. He is a big supporter of controlling a balanced budget.

Social Issues
Huntsman is pro-life, typified by his signing of three anti-abortion legislations during his last year as the Governor of Utah. Huntsman supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. Huntsman supports stem cell research, but not embryonic cells. Huntsman supports same-sex civil unions, but not gay marriage.

Paul: ”I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.” "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue." He supports embryonic stem cell research. Paul thinks the government should stay out of the gay and lesbian agenda. There should be no affirmative action for any group. He believes the PATRIOT act should not be made permanent. Washington should not be able to dictate personal behavior. Congress should not write laws regarding church and state - the separation of church and state has no basis in the text of the Constitution nor in the writings of the founding fathers. He thinks government hostility to religion is wrong. The first amendment only forbids the creation of an official state religion and was not meant to drive religion out of public life. He thinks personal prayer should be allowed in schools but not required. He thinks that freedom of speech includes the internet and it should not be regulated or taxed.

-------

In the end, I think Ron Paul is the best candidate when it comes to foreign policy and economical policy. Like I told Rolo last night, those are the two most important areas I look at and those are the two areas that the President has the most power in. Things like social issues aren't for the President to decide (it's not like Huntsman is better than Paul on those issues anyways. In fact, I think Ron Paul is better than Huntsman when it comes to social issues.). That's up for the people through Congress and Supreme Court justices. Having said that, Huntsman is my second favorable candidate.

I personally thing spending is necessary for a government to spend to take care of its citizenry.

That said, I am an anarcho-collectivist who believes in no government and small-scale cooperation-based communities.

Roloman4 wrote:I personally thing spending is necessary for a government to spend to take care of its citizenry.

That said, I am an anarcho-collectivist who believes in no government and small-scale cooperation-based communities.

Sure spending is nice. I'm a big supporter of government providing basic health care, education, etc. But it's counterintuitive to increase spending and reduce taxes. That causes an unbalanced budget.

My problem with Paul is that he believes that while Washington can't regulate personal behavior, Atlanta can, Portland can, Albany can, etc.

He thinks states can do whatever they want and become theocracies if they should will so. That is unacceptable.

He also doesn't think that supermarkets should be prohibited from selling bad shit.

I mean, I love his foreign policy and his views on Freedom of Speech and the Patriot Act... but I am really suspicious about his social, economic, and environmental policies.

ahlycotc wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:I personally thing spending is necessary for a government to spend to take care of its citizenry.

That said, I am an anarcho-collectivist who believes in no government and small-scale cooperation-based communities.

Sure spending is nice. I'm a big supporter of government providing basic health care, education, etc. But it's counterintuitive to increase spending and reduce taxes. That causes an unbalanced budget.

Well yeah, I think that there is no way in hell that big corporations are taxed enough... I mean,the fact that some rich assholes can buy five houses and give themselves 50 million dollar bonuses while some people are starving is fucking appalling.

They also don't create jobs, they outsource companies to India, and then they should especially get the living shit taxed out of them.

I hate it that people think that companies should not be taxed particularly on what they make on foreign soil. Transnationals are the evil of the world and anything that can be done to fuck them over is necessary.

Roloman4 wrote:My problem with Paul is that he believes that while Washington can't regulate personal behavior, Atlanta can, Portland can, Albany can, etc.

He thinks states can do whatever they want and become theocracies if they should will so. That is unacceptable.

He also doesn't think that supermarkets should be prohibited from selling bad shit.

I mean, I love his foreign policy and his views on Freedom of Speech and the Patriot Act... but I am really suspicious about his social, economic, and environmental policies.

I agree. His social issues when it comes to federal v state are weird. But does he really have any say in it? That's up for the Supreme Court mostly.

ahlycotc wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:My problem with Paul is that he believes that while Washington can't regulate personal behavior, Atlanta can, Portland can, Albany can, etc.

He thinks states can do whatever they want and become theocracies if they should will so. That is unacceptable.

He also doesn't think that supermarkets should be prohibited from selling bad shit.

I mean, I love his foreign policy and his views on Freedom of Speech and the Patriot Act... but I am really suspicious about his social, economic, and environmental policies.

I agree. His social issues when it comes to federal v state are weird. But does he really have any say in it? That's up for the Supreme Court mostly.

He's probably do anything to undermine the Supreme Court as well, he lumps it together with the federal government and probably believes that it has no say in social issues.

In the end, we are both going to be disappointed when Romney wins.

ahlycotc wrote:In the end, we are both going to be disappointed when Romney wins.

Yep, we are.

Holy shit, where the fuck is a candidate that, you know, I agree with?

Where is the candidate that doesn't support policing the world but believes in the separation of church and state?
Where is the candidate that believes in social welfare programs but doesn't believe that government should police our lives and spy on us constantly?
Where is the candidate that believes that taxes are necessary and some people need to be taxed more than others?
Where is the candidate that doesn't bow down to oil magnates and other self-centered corporate entities?
Where is the candidate that supports direct democracy and true freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas?
Where is the candidate that can respect those of opposing ideas and be willing to work with them to solve issues?
Where is the candidate that believes in the protection of our environment and alternate energy sources?
Where is the candidate that believes in equality of the sexes equality of the sexual orientations, equality of races, equality of HUMANITY?

Where the fuck is he/she?

Roloman4 wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:In the end, we are both going to be disappointed when Romney wins.

Yep, we are.

Holy shit, where the fuck is a candidate that, you know, I agree with?

Where is the candidate that doesn't support policing the world but believes in the separation of church and state?
Where is the candidate that believes in social welfare programs but doesn't believe that government should police our lives and spy on us constantly?
Where is the candidate that believes that taxes are necessary and some people need to be taxed more than others?
Where is the candidate that doesn't bow down to oil magnates and other self-centered corporate entities?
Where is the candidate that supports direct democracy and true freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas?
Where is the candidate that can respect those of opposing ideas and be willing to work with them to solve issues?
Where is the candidate that believes in the protection of our environment and alternate energy sources?

Where the fuck is he/she?

Even if such a candidate existed, they won't win anything. Do you think the media, big corporations, Israel, etc. are going to sit back and let that candidate spread their ideas?

ahlycotc wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:

Yep, we are.

Holy shit, where the fuck is a candidate that, you know, I agree with?

Where is the candidate that doesn't support policing the world but believes in the separation of church and state?
Where is the candidate that believes in social welfare programs but doesn't believe that government should police our lives and spy on us constantly?
Where is the candidate that believes that taxes are necessary and some people need to be taxed more than others?
Where is the candidate that doesn't bow down to oil magnates and other self-centered corporate entities?
Where is the candidate that supports direct democracy and true freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas?
Where is the candidate that can respect those of opposing ideas and be willing to work with them to solve issues?
Where is the candidate that believes in the protection of our environment and alternate energy sources?

Where the fuck is he/she?

Even if such a candidate existed, they won't win anything. Do you think the media, big corporations, Israel, etc. are going to sit back and let that candidate spread their ideas?

Regardless of such unjust restrictions, where is this person? Why is no-one stepping up to fight against these men in the name of humanity?

one of the greatest speeches

so will other states get as much coverage as New Hampshire?