Republican nominations - Page 418

On February 08 2012 18:22 firehand101 wrote:

Hey, ron paul is not stupid!

On February 08 2012 18:25 Sufficiency wrote:


That is not entirely true depending on how we look at it. After all, Republicans are more likely to have a 4-years degree.

Anyway, perhaps I should have said that Santorum's stance on abortion, intelligence design, and marriage make me cringe.

On February 08 2012 15:17 xDaunt wrote:
So I went to the Republican caucus for northern Jefferson County in Colorado. Jefferson County is one of the more affluent suburban counties making up the Denver metro area. Attendance looked very good. The attendees seemed to skew towards the middle-aged, with a lot of seniors as well.

In my particular precinct, there was a rather spirited discussion about how Romney and Gingrich are both flawed candidates. The general consensus was that people should vote for Santorum -- not because of Santorum himself -- but to keep the nomination process going so that Obama would have less time to dump all over our eventual nominee. This didn't really make much sense to me because Obama is going to have a solid 2-3 months to crap over whomever the nominee is.

As for me, when I sat down at my chair, I still did not know whom I was going to vote for. However, after listening to discussions about the other candidates, I eventually stood up and gave a speech in support of Ron Paul, which isn't something that I suspected that I would ever do. I started out by expressing my discomfort with Ron Paul on a whole host issues, particularly foreign affairs. However, the ultimate point that I communicated was that Ron Paul's general ideas with regards to the proper role and scope of the federal government in our lives are too important to ignore. Even if republicans are not going to vote for Ron Paul, they should at least listen to him and to his ideas to preserve and foster the growing libertarian streak within the republican party. Though Ron Paul will never be a mainstream politician, his ideological successors in the next generation of politicians will be. In short, my speech wasn't so much about this election so much as it was about future elections and the evolution of the republican party. This little speech (probably a little under 5 minutes) was very well received.

The final tally in my precinct was 13 votes for Santorum, 3 for Ron Paul (including me), 2 for Newt Gingrich, and 0 for Romney.

Anyway, to all of you Ron Paul robots: don't say that I never did anything for your boy. =p

On February 08 2012 18:41 vetinari wrote:


What does the 4 year degree stuff mean?

In australia, arts/commerce/science is 3 years for undergrad, 4 years for engineering, 5 years for law and 6 for medicine, with an honours year being an extra year for all subjects, masters being 2 years, and phd obviously being however long it takes.

Santorum's stance on marriage is remarkably self-consistent with respect to its internal logic. Basically, his thought process is that societal welfare is dependent on stable families, and that hence, laws and customs which undermine the stability of families is bad for society. The fact that the poorest sections of society have the least stable families is testament to this, though I would concede that causation runs both ways.

On February 08 2012 22:33 Jibba wrote:
If anyone tells you they can't start families, you should propose that women past menopause be barred from marriage and the attached tax benefits.

On February 08 2012 21:11 nebffa wrote:


Awesome! Yes you have done something for our boy

I now currently consider myself a conservative person - previously I was definitely very liberal. From first seeing Peter Schiff's predictions of the housing collapse and subsequent global financial crisis in 2008 to his endorsement of Ron Paul, I started to find out how destructive the unintended consequences of government intervention can be. Recently this has led me to support Ron Paul very strongly because of his fiscal policies.

Though I am still a socially liberal person - I think fiscal policies are so important I would easily vote Republican so I could vote Ron Paul if I were from the United States.

I think you are very articulate xDaunt, and I think what you say about Ron Paul's ideological successors will have mainstream impact. Though they may not be what you call 'successors' as they are already in office - but Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and politicians like them will ride the wave he has started again, and I think this is very important as we head into another economic crisis around the world after governments have spent a lot more than they've taken in for some time.

On February 09 2012 02:32 zalz wrote:


Well this is awkward.

It seems we are going to have to abolish straight-marriage now. Since marriage is a social contract designed purely for the stability of the state.


I know people don't want to be bigots but can we have a little honesty?

People don't want homosexuals to marry because:

They are gay.


That is really the end of it. It has nothing to do with the children they might adopt. It has nothing to do with the balance of society. It has nothing to do with marriage being some social contract to go forth and multiply.

People don't want gays to marry because they are gay.


I don't mind that people have this opinion. Sure I think it's a repulsive thing to believe, but you can have that opinion. But at least be honest about it. Stop trying to pretend like you don't want homosexuals to marry because you are afraid that gay marriage causes a rise in crime or because they can't have children.

On February 09 2012 03:45 Kiarip wrote:


We won't have to abolish anything. Make it so legally a marriage is simply a contract between two people, and then everyone can get married, but the government doesn't subsidize marriages for anyone, so then it's completely fair for both sides.

On February 08 2012 22:26 Derez wrote:


What?

Most gay marriages are more stable and gay couples have incomes that are generally above the median income in a country. Santorum's stance has nothing to do with 'stable families', it has to do with him disapproving of a certain lifestyle. He's a bigot and a moron, there's no need to try and make it into something else.

On February 09 2012 07:39 vetinari wrote:


Yeah, it does. Santorum believes that the family, as opposed to the individual, is the fundamental unit of society, with "family" being defined as biological father, biological mother + children, and that in general, this is the optimal setting in which to raise children.

As a result, laws that undermine the understanding that the family is the structure stated above, and that make it possible/easier to pursue alternative lifestyles, must not be enacted, if they exist, repealed.

I have no doubt that if Santorum could manage it, post menopausal women would not be getting married, as they would never have been single post menopausal women in the first place! In his ideal world, women would be getting married and having children young, while being supported by their husband. The involuntarily infertile, would be the ones who adopt children, while homosexuals and the voluntarily infertile would be getting married at all.

Finally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

On February 08 2012 18:27 vetinari wrote:


He isn't stupid, but he is definitely idealistic, especially with the desire to minimise government and balance budgets, though thats a major failing of all political parties.

Another name for budget surplus is "private sector wealth destruction". If someone wants a proof, I will show you the math.

On February 09 2012 08:15 vetinari wrote:
You are wrong, zalz. Actually listen to him, instead of listening to the caricature of him that you have fixed within your mind. Try to figure out his internal logic, instead of just believing that he is insane and evil. It would help if you listened to more of him than just the clips posted by homosexuals who hate him enough to turn his name into disgusting slang.

I understand why you don't want to, though. Actually trying to understand someone else is dangerous, as you might be forced to reconsider your beliefs.

On February 09 2012 08:15 vetinari wrote:
You are wrong, zalz. Actually listen to him, instead of listening to the caricature of him that you have fixed within your mind. Try to figure out his internal logic, instead of just believing that he is insane and evil. It would help if you listened to more of him than just the clips posted by homosexuals who hate him enough to turn his name into disgusting slang.

I understand why you don't want to, though. Actually trying to understand someone else is dangerous, as you might be forced to reconsider your beliefs.

On February 08 2012 15:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
When you have to spend 50 million dollars too run negative ads in order to sway voters which each state have less turn out than four years ago. And you still win only half the states, that's a problem a big one. So far this was the nominations largest Caucuses/Primary with just 3 states and Santorum swept it. No matter how much Romney spent on Super PAC's and actual Campaign cash in these states the winner spent much much less.

On February 08 2012 15:20 On_Slaught wrote:
Gingrich has to drop out now if he wants Romney to lose. Staying in will just steal votes from santorum. If Gingrich dropped out tommorow, then Santorum could ride this momentum to a victory imo... Republicans are that meh on Romney. Ofc he won't drop out tho.