US Republician Candidates

[Roverney]

That, plus the fact Mitt has close to $200million in personal capital that he can invest in his campaign. He allegedly spent $50million of his own money on his bid in 2008, and he lost. Ha.

I think Mitt is a pretty solid candidate, certainly a lot better than he was in 2008 when he was just apologising for the previous administration. It's just a shame that you can find so much videos and accounts of him claiming to have near opposite views to what he has now, when he was trying to win a different election. Still, I don't think he can beat Obama which makes me pretty happy.

Exactly, Even as superior as he seems at the moment in the GOP race I think that the bridge between Obama and him is going to be much much bigger. It could get embarassing for Romney in my book.

 

[Naffa]

It could get embarassing for Romney in my book.

Fingers crossed.

 

[JBod]

I'd vote for Martin Sheen.

 

[elmarko]

The Obama healthcare was painful viewing from this side of the pond. It would work so well but got slated by the republicans. I found it quite funny how on the news the us public were complaining about our teeth even though most dental care is now private.

The "British have bad teeth" is also a fallacy.

Our tooth decay rates are lower overall & so is our gum disease - we just put less social significance on having white/straight teeth (As in the US is a class indicator), we are more concerned with having healthy & clean teeth - we also seem more keen on keeping our original teeth when possible (teeth are not often naturally white).

 

[Rich_L]

The best thing about the Republican race this year is that Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart don't even have to edit, misquote or otherwise engage in AV jiggery-pokery to create hilarious viewing, just the unedited clips are enough to send anyone into hysterics - followed by depression when you realise these jesters have an outside shot of being President and aren't actors in a reality mockumentary of the election process..

 

[int]

Just a short list of Ron Paul's negative points, admittedly borrowed from elsewhere:

He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.

He believes abortion should be illegal.

He doesn’t support the repeal of DOMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT.

He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.

He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.

While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).

His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years.

He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.

He believes in free market Capitalism.

He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action.

He voted to ban same-sex couples from adopting children (in DC)

He wants to eliminate the department of education

He is against raising taxes on the 1%

He wants to get rid of income tax all together

He wants to deregulate Wall St.

He thinks climate change is a hoax

He is against the EPA- even after the Gulf Oil spill of 2010 he was advocating deregulating big business and oil companies

He wants to repeal The Affordable Healthcare Act

He would do away with medicaid, medicare, food stamps, welfare, and social security.

He was against the Civil Rights Act & the Americans with Disabilities Act

He has been in government for about 14 years and has only gotten ONE of his bills passed (out of 464)

He is against increasing airport security, proposing that instead we just give pilots guns.

He's against the Auto-Industry restructuring which saved 2 million jobs and put our car industry back on top.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

The best thing about the Republican race this year is that Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart don't even have to edit, misquote or otherwise engage in AV jiggery-pokery to create hilarious viewing, just the unedited clips are enough to send anyone into hysterics - followed by depression when you realise these jesters have an outside shot of being President and aren't actors in a reality mockumentary of the election process..

Amusing yet terrifying in equal measure.

 

[Naffa]

Doesn't hold veto power over UNESCO stuff, just withdrew loads of its funding (the US funding was a fifth, or a quarter, of the total UNESCO was receiving, I think).

It's closer to a fifth, and yes, the United States did indeed threaten to withhold funding, then did so. But the decision was not affected by this. It's the same story all the way up the ladder, though. The US contributes so much more money to the United Nations than any other country that it has an interest in wielding that reality to its own end. However, I must admit that I was surprised when the funding was actually held back... We wouldn't want China or Russia contributing more to the coffers than the US now, would we?

 

[Xiler]

While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).

His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years.

He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action.

He is against raising taxes on the 1%

He wants to deregulate Wall St.

He is against increasing airport security, proposing that instead we just give pilots guns.

He's against the Auto-Industry restructuring which saved 2 million jobs and put our car industry back on top.

Dont really care what happens in the race, but taking someone out of context or not understanding someone’s stance is why stuff like this is said. I’ve picked a few out that I think are easy to answer:

He thinks states should do it because of a multitude of different religious group numbers in every state, not 1 size fits all and needs to be worked towards not force upon. As for drugs its a failed war and legalising drugs wouldnt make everyone a crack head the next day. If you dont think you can go outside and obtain drugs within an hour then your deluded.

His newsletters had 1 or 2 racist remarks in the early 90s which he has already discredited (as he didnt write the newsletters), although shows he should have had more management over it.

No he just doesnt want to rule out talking to these people. If someone was a threat to the US he would consult congress and go to war and get rid of the threat.

Why tax the productive, sure tax the ones that receive government help but what about the guy that worked hard all his life and provide a service/product that has helped millions?

He wants to make it like other businesses, dont do a good job you go bankrupt and liquidate.

US airport security is way over the top and unnecessary, paying people to grope women and children?

Against bailing out the US companies that failed, many foreign car companies operate in the US efficiently and are making profit, not being bailed out.

 

[RDM]

He thinks states should do it because of a multitude of different religious group numbers in every state, not 1 size fits all and needs to be worked towards not force upon. As for drugs its a failed war and legalising drugs wouldnt make everyone a crack head the next day. If you dont think you can go outside and obtain drugs within an hour then your deluded.

So why the difference? Why allow states to choose when it comes to abortion (knowing full well it will lead to abortions being made illegal in many states) whilst keeping drug legislation at federal level? If he is all about states rights why is it only when it will further his own religious agenda?

 

[ubersonic]

Its kinda funny that Hulk Hogan once seriously considered quitting wrestling in the 90's to run for president, they even did market tests and everything and the responses came back so positive it scared him and he backed down fearing that if anything were ever to come of it he would not be able to live up to peoples expectations.

Id rather have him in the white house than Obama or Mitt/Ron, you know he wouldn't know what he was doing and would just make choices based on what his advisors told him but isn't that what every US president does?

 

[RomanNose]

Can someone explain why the republicans are always really crazy?

 

[Xiler]

So why the difference? Why allow states to choose when it comes to abortion (knowing full well it will lead to abortions being made illegal in many states) whilst keeping drug legislation at federal level? If he is all about states rights why is it only when it will further his own religious agenda?

One difference is they wouldnt be spending billions of dollars fighting against it and most probaly make money from it. If you take drugs its your choice, live with it.

If you get pregnant then you should live with that choice or mistake as its your own fault/choice not one that should be so easily thrown away. He has publicly stated though that if pregnancy occurs through something like rape then they should have the choice to abort and do it ASAP.

Unlike others who are totally against it and those who are totally for it to cover peoples mistakes and avoid complications like this.

 

[RDM]

One difference is they wouldnt be spending billions of dollars fighting against it and most probaly make money from it. If you take drugs its your choice, live with it.

If you get pregnant then you should live with that choice or mistake as its your own fault/choice not one that should be so easily thrown away. He has publicly stated though that if pregnancy occurs through something like rape then they should have the choice to abort and do it ASAP.

Unlike others who are totally against it and those who are totally for it to cover peoples mistakes and avoid complications like this.

You seem to have missed the point. You are suggesting that Ron Paul is in favour of states rights and so it should be up to the state to legislate around issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Yet he does not seem to be in favour of states rights when it comes to issues such as drug control. It is an inconsistent approach and it seems that he is only in favour of states rights to legislate when he knows that it would favour his own agenda.

Putting aside the debate on abortion or gay marriage or drug control (which merit their own threads) it seems that Ron Paul is using the "State legislation" as a cover to help enforce his own religious views on the country as a whole.

 

[Skunkworks]

With candidates now quitting the race to become the nominee it seems like it will be a two horse race between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Are you sure?

From what I've seen it's a race between Romney and Gingrich, with Santorum coming up the rear (yes I did do that on purpose). Ron Paul is nowhere to be seen.

 

[Xiler]

You seem to have missed the point. You are suggesting that Ron Paul is in favour of states rights and so it should be up to the state to legislate around issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Yet he does not seem to be in favour of states rights when it comes to issues such as drug control. It is an inconsistent approach and it seems that he is only in favour of states rights to legislate when he knows that it would favour his own agenda.

Putting aside the debate on abortion or gay marriage or drug control (which merit their own threads) it seems that Ron Paul is using the "State legislation" as a cover to help enforce his own religious views on the country as a whole.

But he is leaving it to the states. He wants to end the federal war on drugs and allow the states to decide their own choice on the matter.

Hes making it legal to have the choice not forcing that it to be illegal in all states, not telling them they have to legalise it.

edit: evidence straight from one of the debates:
Q: Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?
Ron Paul: Yes, in essence, if we leave it to the states. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You're implying if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone's gonna use heroin.

 

[Strife212]

Paul wouldn't ban abortions... He wouldn't ban anything, the entire platform of his campaign is nonintervention by the Federal Government.

 

[TJM]

Firstly he anti-death penalty - personally against abortion (but does not believe the state should tell people they can't have abortions) - haven't heard much on his views on gay marriage.

Ron Paul qualifies all of his positions with 'But it's up to the individual states to decide'. The great defender of personal liberty thinks whether you can be murdered by the government or discriminated against by religious zealots is a matter for the masses (or their representatives) to vote on.

If American history has shown anything, it's that the majority will suppress minorities at every opportunity. Indian land? Well, Indians aren't capitalists, so no-one really owns it and we can have it. African-Americans? Only three-fifths of a white person and liable to enslavement. Freed African-Americans? Not welcome in the white man's shops and certainly not in his government. Civil Rights Act? Just make the discrimination less obvious - run county lines between segregated neighbourhoods so black kids can't attend schools with white kids.

'I believe in state rights' is a dog whistle for every racist and bigot in America because what it actually means is 'I believe the majority has the right to discriminate.'

If you get pregnant then you should live with that choice or mistake as its your own fault/choice not one that should be so easily thrown away.

Bad women, bad! No sex for them unless they are prepared to have their life ruined.

He has publicly stated though that if pregnancy occurs through something like rape then they should have the choice to abort and do it ASAP.

This position is idiotic. A cluster of cells is either a precious little baby or it isn't; how it was created is irrelevant.

Paul wouldn't ban abortions... He wouldn't ban anything, the entire platform of his campaign is nonintervention by the Federal Government.

Which is a completely unprincipled and gutless position.

 

[ubersonic]

Are you sure?

From what I've seen it's a race between Romney and Gingrich, with Santorum coming up the rear (yes I did do that on purpose). Ron Paul is nowhere to be seen.

The majority of media in the US is either suppressing coverage of how well Paul is doing or blacking him out entirely.

 

[Xiler]

Are you sure?

From what I've seen it's a race between Romney and Gingrich, with Santorum coming up the rear (yes I did do that on purpose). Ron Paul is nowhere to be seen.

Straw polls dont really matter its the delegates that matter overall. So in theory with Ron Paul could obtain a majority of delegates by comming in 2nd and 3rd most of the time.

Its quite a complicated system and strange in a sense but shows real base support, not just people voting on how they think looks nice, what the new said that day, etc. Heres a video that explains how Ron Pauls strategy could work: