The 2012 election topic. Republican general in full swing

Caucus here tomorrow. Thank god I don't watch TV. My mom says 75% or so of ads right now are for various campaigns.
I wonder if I show up to vote for one of them if I'll A.) be asked to show ID B.) be hasseled for not being a registered (R)
 
Message from the right: rally the social conservatives around moral issues. stress the PPACA's requirement that insurance plans include contraceptive coverage so as to outrage Christians, 98% of whom (Catholics, at any rate, the most vocal group currently) have used contraceptives in their history. Preach doom and gloom - Obama is a socialist marxist who wants to kill your god, abort your babies, turn your kids queer and force them to marry each other.

Message from the left: Santorum? Lol.
 
Santorum with Bachmann as running mate would be the biggest lol-candidacy in history. I can just imagine all the SNL spoofs now...
 
had a really weird dream about a GOP debate between Shatner, Walken, Napoleon Dynamite and Patrick Warburton. PW suggested the moon bases a la` Newt, but then Walken (and you have to read this in that damn voice) questioned "how do you insure, financially, in the case of catastrophic moon base failure?" at which point I actually woke up laughing at about 2:30am.
 
“[I will] fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican party and the conservative movement., he said last June. And in 2005, he remarked, “[Libertarians] have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”
Click to expand...
Guess who said it and win a prize.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry for not letting anyone else play the game, but I've been sitting on this .gif that I've been dying to share with everyone. Here is the answer to my question:

 
Look... I agree, Rick Santorum is a huge hypocritical douchebag... the guy reeks of insincerity; I'd rather vote for Obama than Santorum, and I really dislike Obama!
 
Look... I agree, Rick Santorum is a huge hypocritical douchebag... the guy reeks of insincerity; I'd rather vote for Paul than Santorum, and I really dislike Paul!
 
Getting nervous that Paul supporters, despite being minuscule in number, may be close to successfully gaming their way into winning the Maine Caucuses. Nervous because I've got a lot money riding on him not winning any state contests.

He's now above 40% at intrade to win, which is really, really high.
 
Are we allowed to place bets on political races? Because I could probably make a LOT of money betting on Obama to win in the right crowds who are convinced that Newt or Mittens can beat him...
 
A friend of mine wants an even bet with me that Romney will beat Obama. The only reason I dont take it immediately is that I'm keeping tabs on the Republican efforts nationwide to make it harder to register to vote, and harder to vote. They're going to knock MILLIONS of people off the voter rolls, and with elections being decided in a few states only, thats a big deal. I may still take it though.

Intrade is nice but comes with some caveats. Theres a small monthly membership fee. The amount you are liable to lose stays tied up, sometimes for long periods of time, with zero interest. This makes it to where even if its a 100% chance of happening, you always see things 2-3%, because its not profitable to take those positions.

Intrade did have Romney at ~97% to win Colorado. That means all shares terminated at $10 a share, with shares costing as little as 30 cents. Someone probably made a small fortune.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']A friend of mine wants an even bet with me that Romney will beat Obama. The only reason I dont take it immediately is that I'm keeping tabs on the Republican efforts nationwide to make it harder to register to vote, and harder to vote. They're going to knock MILLIONS of people off the voter rolls, and with elections being decided in a few states only, thats a big deal. I may still take it though.

Intrade is nice but comes with some caveats. Theres a small monthly membership fee. The amount you are liable to lose stays tied up, sometimes for long periods of time, with zero interest. This makes it to where even if its a 100% chance of happening, you always see things 2-3%, because its not profitable to take those positions.

Intrade did have Romney at ~97% to win Colorado. That means all shares terminated at $10 a share, with shares costing as little as 30 cents. Someone probably made a small fortune.[/QUOTE]

I think it really comes down to the situation with Greece. When that blows up, the economy tanks again (worldwide economics and all that). It's just a matter of when it happens, and if it happens before the election, how close will it have to be before it starts hurting Obama's numbers.

Otherwise, I think Obama would have make a major mistake in the debates to lose. Romney's problem is his look. He looks like a fraud. It's hard to trust the guy going by looks alone, even though he has a political record to look at. That's why the Republican process has been so crazy; they simply have a hard time trusting him and Romney doesn't know how to fix it.
 
Obama's approval rating is back to 50%, and he has a clear lead over Romney in some polls now, like this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-on-rivals/2012/02/05/gIQAwaBbsQ_graphic.html


And this one (CBS/NYT poll):

article-2101491-11BF8608000005DC-972_634x298.jpg
 
My favorite song on "Killing is My Business" is "Preemptive Military Strikes are Awesome."

On second thought, that sounds more like a Carnivore tune...
 
Come on Santorum/Bachmann ticket, I'm still pullin for ya! I suppose Santorum/Perry would work too but maybe they'll figure they've already got Texas in the bag and why not give MN a shot by pullin in Batshit Bachmann. I love how there's now been what 5-6 "GOP Frontrunners" makes for better lulz. Clear vision of the future party they've got there...
 
Rick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special'

"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea... It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative.

That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it--and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong--but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special. Again, I know most presidents don't talk about those things, and maybe people don't want us to talk about those things, but I think it's important that you are who you are. I'm not running for preacher.

I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues."

- Rick Santorum
Click to expand...

And this man is starting to lead in the polls, ladies and gentlemen!
 
So, sex only in marriage and gay people can't get married, therefore Santorum doesn't even want gay people to have sex. How is this man not a bigot?

Because the Bible tells us so?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']How is this man not a bigot?[/QUOTE]

Because the media won't ask questions like grown ups in search of fact finding and claims making.

The media was silent on the presence of white nationalists at CPAC, and does not spend much time at all discussing Ron Paul's racist pamphlets (though, to be fair, that could be more due to the little time spent covering Ron Paul at all).

He is a bigot, but "fair and balanced" means we can't talk about it.

Just like Obama is not a socialist, the PPACA is a Heritage Foundation idea from two decades ago, and the media won't stand up to that, either.
 
I just don't get the aversion to calling out these people who oppose same sex marriage as bigots. It's such a more clear-cut connection than the Tea Party/Racism thing was and that was all over the place.

I'm yet to hear an intelligent argument of why same sex marriage should be prohibited and that garbage about well it would lead to polygamy, animal marriage, etc. doesn't cut it as an intelligent counterpoint. So help me god if someone goes to "because the bible says its bad" because if you wanna live under everything the bible says, you're gonna be in for a rude fucking awakening...

The simple fact is that opposition to same sex marriage is no less than thinly veiled bigotry.
 
But it's a reflection of a portion of the US culture currently. You call it bigotry, you call your viewers bigots. A portion, anyway.

Ask the public today if the US should repeal anti-miscegenation laws (well, word it so that people know what you're asking), and you'll get a very low % of "yes" responses. The public recognizes overt racism almost as well as they fail to recognize systemic/structural racism.

Ask the same public if same-sex marriage should be legal, and you'll get 30-40+% who say "yes." And they all have rationales (omg, just don't call it 'marriage'; they already can get 'married,' just not to each other; next we'll have man-on-dog marriage, etc.). Shitty, poor, bigoted, they're rationales all the same.

It is indeed bigotry, but over a third of the country are therefore bigots. You can't call them that. Bad for ratings.

Ratings = ad revenue. From large corporations. That's $. More important than anything else in the news.

Liberal media what?

EDIT: It also helps that it is an issue position that can be clearly tied to one of the major political parties. Just like Paul Ryan's budget proposal, just like privatizing social security and/or tying it to the market - the media seems to play by a rule that, no matter how obscene or how absurd, if it a major tenet of Ds or Rs, you can't genuinely express how fucking stupid it is.
 
Yeah, you make sense and I agree completely with your analysis, but at the end of the day it still sucks that we tolerate bigotry in such a blatant and widespread way basically for no other reason than because there's such a large group that supports it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']and does not spend much time at all discussing Ron Paul's racist pamphlets (though, to be fair, that could be more due to the little time spent covering Ron Paul at all).

He is a bigot, but "fair and balanced" means we can't talk about it.[/QUOTE]

Guess you missed the New York Times front page article and tons of cable TV coverage on that issue in late December/early January.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Guess you missed the New York Times front page article and tons of cable TV coverage on that issue in late December/early January.[/QUOTE]

I heard more about Don fucking Imus then Ron Paul.
 
Well, it isn't as if they were released as part of a newsletter carrying his brand of approval or anything. Shit dude, you think Metallica clears every t-shirt design?
 
[quote name='camoor']He's doing it to be controversial. It's like back when Bowie was pretending to be fascist.[/QUOTE]
Well to be fair, Bowie was doing a shit load of cocaine. Then again, maybe Dave is too.:lol:
 
Is he basically saying that the abolishment of slavery should have been left up to the states? Yeah, that would have worked wonderfully here in the south. We had to be pulled kicking and screaming into desegregation for crying out loud, and that wasn't even that long ago. Imagine if the states had been left up to choose whether slavery would be allowed.

It just proves more and more that, that man cares more about the idea of rights than he does anything else. I say "idea" because very few people today would say that anyone has the right to use slaves, yet he apparently thinks that if it's the will of the state government, then it's A-OK. I've got news for Paul and those who think like him, sometimes "the people" are wrong. I don't care if it's their will or not, sometimes the people are wrong.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8

should get the attention and audacity of the media in a way that makes Shirley Sherrod look like nothing.[/QUOTE]

Please spread that video far and wide. Lysander Spooner was possibly the most radical abolitionist in the 19th century. Other parts of the speech also talk about rejecting the use of force to accomplish social goals and disarming the government.

[quote name='Clak']Is he basically saying that the abolishment of slavery should have been left up to the states? Yeah, that would have worked wonderfully here in the south. We had to be pulled kicking and screaming into desegregation for crying out loud, and that wasn't even that long ago. Imagine if the states had been left up to choose whether slavery would be allowed.[/QUOTE]

He touted Lysander Spooner in the opening of the video. Paul also recommends several of Spooner's books in his recommended reading lists, and wrote in a recent book that "all of Spooner's ideas are worth visiting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner#Abolitionism

It just proves more and more that, that man cares more about the idea of rights than he does anything else. I say "idea" because very few people today would say that anyone has the right to use slaves, yet he apparently thinks that if it's the will of the state government, then it's A-OK. I've got news for Paul and those who think like him, sometimes "the people" are wrong. I don't care if it's their will or not, sometimes the people are wrong.
Click to expand...

You've succinctly made the argument against democracy. Ron Paul would agree with the statement you made here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']II've got news for Paul and those who think like him, sometimes "the people" are wrong. I don't care if it's their will or not, sometimes the people are wrong.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

Yep. One of the biggest jobs of a democratic/republic form of government is not doing the will of the people 100%, but rather protecting individual rights and liberties.

And that will sometimes mean going against the will of the people to protect people/groups from the tyranny of the majority.
 
[quote name='Clak']Is he basically saying that the abolishment of slavery should have been left up to the states?[/QUOTE]

Yes, Ron Paul is astonishingly vapid.

His supporters admire his message for the simplemindedness and the guys tenacity (tenacity in the face of overwhelming reality is what I call teanacity).
 
Paul doesn't have a lot of supporters. Just a lot of dedicated supporters.

And you'd also be VERY surprised at the demographics that oppose Gay Marriage in general. Then again, you might not. And I suggest you not limit yourselves to the United States for this one. Also, I ask you please realize why states are going for same sex marriage bills.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']And you'd also be VERY surprised at the demographics that oppose Gay Marriage in general.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you enlighten the board?
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Please spread that video far and wide. Lysander Spooner was possibly the most radical abolitionist in the 19th century. Other parts of the speech also talk about rejecting the use of force to accomplish social goals and disarming the government.



He touted Lysander Spooner in the opening of the video. Paul also recommends several of Spooner's books in his recommended reading lists, and wrote in a recent book that "all of Spooner's ideas are worth visiting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner#Abolitionism



You've succinctly made the argument against democracy. Ron Paul would agree with the statement you made here.[/QUOTE]Nothing in that video led me to believe that Paul and I would agree on much of anything. He acts as if it was wrong for the federal government to act on anything relating to slavery, I watched the video, I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. Paul thinks the states should left to determine damn near everything for themselves, even abolishing something like slavery.

I could sum up the civil war by saying that the south got a libertarian hair up it's ass and decided that they weren't going to let the federal government tell them what to do, on any issue. We all know how well that worked out.
 
[quote name='Clak']Nothing in that video led me to believe that Paul and I would agree on much of anything. He acts as if it was wrong for the federal government to act on anything relating to slavery, I watched the video, I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. Paul thinks the states should left to determine damn near everything for themselves, even abolishing something like slavery.

I could sum up the civil war by saying that the south got a libertarian hair up it's ass and decided that they weren't going to let the federal government tell them what to do, on any issue. We all know how well that worked out.[/QUOTE]

Watch from 1:27 again. After watching, read section XIX of this, the author and work that Paul is referencing:

http://jim.com/treason.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top