The more I think about it, the more diabolical I think Santorum is for taking a hard stance on porn.
It's not like Mitt or Obama would have the balls to argue or defend porn. It's such a divisive topic that I can imagine Christians voting for "family values" even if they whack off to the most disgusting bootlegged porn in the privacy of their own home.
Maybe Santorum is trying to lock up the "hypocrite" vote, LOL.
Eh, on almost all these social issues Mitt's response has just been "Go away, I'm here to talk about jobs." Personally I think that's the best answer. The fact is the only person talking about this is Santorum. Nobody else, including voters, cares.
States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."
lol wat, was not expecting that at all.... i mean 3.6x more likely?
I'm not really a bible thu..... ummmm (trying to restrain oneself) but perhaps this is a way to avoid sinning sexually?
No, reread: 3.6 more subscriptions per 1000 people.
The point is that there is virtually no difference between people that claim to have "old-fashioned" values and everyone else when it comes to porn consumption.
~~derp~~
I have a bach in poli sci I promised myself not to do lazy readings anymore. Well anyways it appears as a centrist myself porn is something is I can share across all political spectrums with anyone I meet!
Washington, DC - It would be easy to dismiss Mitt Romney's Washington Post op-ed of this past week regarding US policy towards Iran as yet more self-serving blather in a political season already rife with it. No doubt, many who read the Republican presidential candidate's harsh criticism of President Obama's Iran policy were inclined to think so, and there were many obvious reasons why they should.
First was the former Massachusetts governor's somewhat imaginative account of the reasons for the Iranians' release of the US embassy hostages some 30 years ago, on the day of President Reagan's inauguration. In Romney's telling, the Iranian government, having toyed with the "feckless" Jimmy Carter for 444 days, was so impressed with the transparently steely resolve of the incoming former state governor and movie actor that it preemptively capitulated, rather than incur his wrath. Precisely how the Iranians were so prescient, given that Reagan had uttered not a word of public criticism of his predecessor's policy on the hostages, is unexplained.
Candidate Romney, though, sees himself in a role analogous to that of his Republican idol, himself also called to save the US from the depredations of Persia's rogue ayatollahs. Only now, rather than merely saving incarcerated diplomats, this latter-day Reagan has received a higher calling, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. How will he do it? Why, by showing "resolve". From his own account, he'd better show a lot of it, for if he doesn't, these "Islamic fanatics", the very ones who took our diplomats hostage, mind, will set about putting nuclear bombs into the hands of terrorists and otherwise trying mightily to annihilate Israel. Or so he would have us believe.
Romney appears to espouse a fantasy held by many, particularly on the conservative right in the US, which holds that the foreign policy approach which, at least in their own romanticised and nostalgic view of recent history, caused the US to prevail in the Cold War with the Soviet Union is also the formula for US leadership and dominance in the multi-polar, post-cold war world which has followed. As one who is himself a believer in the vigorous, if judicious use of US power in the world, I can understand the appeal of such blandishments. The champions and purveyors of this line, however, could not be more mistaken.
Video from outside the St. Charles Caucus in Missouri.
Two Ron Paul supporters were arrested for trespassing after they refused, police said, to leave the caucus site, Francis Howell North High.
Some participants at Saturday's caucus said the crowd — already annoyed by a proposal to not allow video recording devices — became incensed when Stokes named a meeting chairman who may have not had the support of the room.
However, there was also a suggestion Saturday that Paul supporters — forging an alliance with Mitt Romney backers — were so loud as to prevent the meeting from going forward.
Veteran Lake Saint Louis Republican Frank Eggering, who is on the party's county committee, said he was suspicious of both sides, and disturbed by the outcome.
"There was something awry going on that was behind the scenes," Eggering said. "I was embarrassed by what was done and I think we embarrassed the party."
The dozens of other Republican caucuses that were held across the state were peaceful by comparison, though there was some confusion about the process and larger than expected crowds.
Republican-rich St. Charles County was to have assigned more delegates than any other single site on Saturday.
Well, the video shows 200 people, not two unruly RP supporters. The helicopter was cute. Will be interesting to see what happens at their reschedule. Source
Restore Our Future, the “super PAC” supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, doesn’t have language on its website warning federal contractors not to make donations but has accepted $890,000 from companies that receive taxpayer money, the Los Angeles Times reports.
The U.S. has had a prohibition on donations from individuals and corporations with federal contracts since 1940, but the question of whether such a ban is constitutional has been up in the air since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The Los Angeles Times reports that other “super PACs” like American Crossroads and Priorities USA Action (which supports President Obama) have warnings on their websites that say federal contractors cannot make donations.
Five different companies with federal contracts have given to Restore Our Future, but one of the companies, M.C. Dean, said it would be asking for a refund of the $5,000 it gave to Restore Our Future back in October after the Los Angeles Times started asking questions.
One company that is standing firm is Oxbow Carbon, a major coal and petroleum company founded by billionaire William Koch (of Koch Brothers fame), which gave $750,000 to Restore Our Future last year.
“Oxbow believes it has a 1st Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution to make political contributions to independently support candidates who will best address the deep economic issues facing this country,” spokesman Brad Goldstein told the Los Angeles Times.
Looks like Romney's got this in the bag. I kind of hoped so for the sake of the Republicans, because it would be awkward if Santorum got nominated and didn't get on the ballot for a couple states and was ineligible for a few electoral votes as well.
CBS News projects that Mitt Romney will defeat Rick Santorum and his other rivals to take the Republican presidential primary in Illinois. The estimate is based on early exit poll results and vote totals.
With 18 percent of precincts reporting, Romney had 88,870 votes to Santorum's 44,377. Ron Paul was in third with 14,872 and Newt Gingrich in fourth with 10,934.
It looks like the primary is effectively over after last night. After the Wisconsin primary, the next several will be in easy-win states for Romney such as California and the New England states.
I was impressed with Romney's victory speech last night. It looks like he is finally finding a message and latching onto a big idea to anchor his campaign: economic freedom. I have criticized him for a while for not doing this. This a powerful theme that taps into America's inherent and visceral "leave me the fuck alone" sentiment. Romney will need to work on the message some more to further develop and refine it, but it's a good start.
I feel bad for the repubs laying low from all the shellacking going on lately
Honestly you can't get much worse then this nomination race, any good candidates stayed out for 2016 and the repubs probably hit their peak not long ago.Not only that but the party is facing an identity crisis as religion declines, gay marriage support is now the majority and environmental reform is becoming more accepted. It's probably all down hill from here with dems retaking the House in 2015 maybe. On the bright side if dems do sweep all houses it normally results with a strong dislike of the dominating party in a matter of a year so 2016 could turn out very good.
On March 22 2012 02:12 forgottendreams wrote: I feel bad for the repubs laying low from all the shellacking going on lately
Honestly you can't get much worse then this nomination race, any good candidates stayed out for 2016 and the repubs probably hit their peak not long ago.Not only that but the party is facing an identity crisis as religion declines, gay marriage support is now the majority and environmental reform is becoming more accepted. It's probably all down hill from here with dems retaking the House in 2015 maybe. On the bright side if dems do sweep all houses it normally results with a strong dislike of the dominating party in a matter of a year so 2016 could turn out very good.
You're focusing on the wrong issues. This election isn't going to be about any of those items, which is why your analysis is all wrong. This election is going to be about economic and fiscal issues. Period. The problem for democrats is that they are very weak on these issues. Hell, they don't even have a plan for the country's fiscal issues, which is political lunacy as far as I am concerned.
On March 22 2012 02:12 forgottendreams wrote: I feel bad for the repubs laying low from all the shellacking going on lately
Honestly you can't get much worse then this nomination race, any good candidates stayed out for 2016 and the repubs probably hit their peak not long ago.Not only that but the party is facing an identity crisis as religion declines, gay marriage support is now the majority and environmental reform is becoming more accepted. It's probably all down hill from here with dems retaking the House in 2015 maybe. On the bright side if dems do sweep all houses it normally results with a strong dislike of the dominating party in a matter of a year so 2016 could turn out very good.
You're focusing on the wrong issues. This election isn't going to be about any of those items, which is why your analysis is all wrong. This election is going to be about economic and fiscal issues. Period. The problem for democrats is that they are very weak on these issues. Hell, they don't even have a plan for the country's fiscal issues, which is political lunacy as far as I am concerned.
I understand that however economic weakness as stands now will turn into zero sum or even strength as the economy continues to recover. Gas prices are projected to fall in September and recovery is expected to have a short term bump near November as markets inject optimistic liquidity for election crap.
On March 22 2012 02:12 forgottendreams wrote: I feel bad for the repubs laying low from all the shellacking going on lately
Honestly you can't get much worse then this nomination race, any good candidates stayed out for 2016 and the repubs probably hit their peak not long ago.Not only that but the party is facing an identity crisis as religion declines, gay marriage support is now the majority and environmental reform is becoming more accepted. It's probably all down hill from here with dems retaking the House in 2015 maybe. On the bright side if dems do sweep all houses it normally results with a strong dislike of the dominating party in a matter of a year so 2016 could turn out very good.
You're focusing on the wrong issues. This election isn't going to be about any of those items, which is why your analysis is all wrong. This election is going to be about economic and fiscal issues. Period. The problem for democrats is that they are very weak on these issues. Hell, they don't even have a plan for the country's fiscal issues, which is political lunacy as far as I am concerned.
Maybe you're the one focusing on the wrong issues? I know plenty of people who 6 months ago had no doubt in their mind they were going to be voting for the republican candidate whoever that ended up being, but now they have resigned themselves to the fact that they will be voting for Obama because all the other issues > economic issues to them. Just because lots of Republicans keep trying to say that this election is only going to be about economic issues doesn't mean that the rest of the country agrees with them, Republicans can't even keep their primaries about economic issues so what makes you think that they'll be able to keep it all about that in a national election when they're so weak in other areas that Democrats would have to be 100% clueless not to focus on those other areas?
On March 22 2012 02:12 forgottendreams wrote: I feel bad for the repubs laying low from all the shellacking going on lately
Honestly you can't get much worse then this nomination race, any good candidates stayed out for 2016 and the repubs probably hit their peak not long ago.Not only that but the party is facing an identity crisis as religion declines, gay marriage support is now the majority and environmental reform is becoming more accepted. It's probably all down hill from here with dems retaking the House in 2015 maybe. On the bright side if dems do sweep all houses it normally results with a strong dislike of the dominating party in a matter of a year so 2016 could turn out very good.
You're focusing on the wrong issues. This election isn't going to be about any of those items, which is why your analysis is all wrong. This election is going to be about economic and fiscal issues. Period. The problem for democrats is that they are very weak on these issues. Hell, they don't even have a plan for the country's fiscal issues, which is political lunacy as far as I am concerned.
Maybe you're the one focusing on the wrong issues? I know plenty of people who 6 months ago had no doubt in their mind they were going to be voting for the republican candidate whoever that ended up being, but now they have resigned themselves to the fact that they will be voting for Obama because all the other issues > economic issues to them. Just because lots of Republicans keep trying to say that this election is only going to be about economic issues doesn't mean that the rest of the country agrees with them, Republicans can't even keep their primaries about economic issues so what makes you think that they'll be able to keep it all about that in a national election when they're so weak in other areas that Democrats would have to be 100% clueless not to focus on those other areas?
You realize that all of the polls show fiscal and economic issues as being the most important, right? Democrats and Obama certainly will want to talk about social issues because they know that they're fucked on the economy right now. Sure, it may improve between now and the election, but it is looking increasingly unlikely that the economy will improve enough to where Obama can seize the issue as a positive talking point. This is a huge liability for him that republicans have not even begun to exploit (and which will not begin in earnest until after the primary is over).
Also, I'd argue that Romney has been very focused on economic issues throughout the campaign. The deviations to discussion about social issues have come either from the media or from the other candidates. It certainly hasn't hurt him much to retain this focus.
On March 22 2012 02:12 forgottendreams wrote: I feel bad for the repubs laying low from all the shellacking going on lately
Honestly you can't get much worse then this nomination race, any good candidates stayed out for 2016 and the repubs probably hit their peak not long ago.Not only that but the party is facing an identity crisis as religion declines, gay marriage support is now the majority and environmental reform is becoming more accepted. It's probably all down hill from here with dems retaking the House in 2015 maybe. On the bright side if dems do sweep all houses it normally results with a strong dislike of the dominating party in a matter of a year so 2016 could turn out very good.
You're focusing on the wrong issues. This election isn't going to be about any of those items, which is why your analysis is all wrong. This election is going to be about economic and fiscal issues. Period. The problem for democrats is that they are very weak on these issues. Hell, they don't even have a plan for the country's fiscal issues, which is political lunacy as far as I am concerned.
I agree with you to a point. We agree on our own perspective of the issues. However, a gay man may feel different.
The issues, are unto themselves. The process in which we choose, is just like about every other section/area of American Life and Law. Outaded, misguided, and long overdue for reform.
Election laws, drug laws, discrimination, corruption in the legal process(plenty of it),as well as administration misdeeds. Flouting one section of International Law while cuddling other provisions like a security blanket.
Telling congress in essence, your optional. Which is direct line bitch slap to voters saying nothing more than "We know better...shut up"
Like Maddow(who is not my pundit of choice) said, if you've just been following the headlines, chances are you don't know anything" So appreciated or not, I will dig for me, and you and everyone else I disagree with. Delegate counts, and projections are wildly innaccurate at this moment. It's a small amount statistics, and a large amount of conjecture. I hope you keep digging for me too
EPT
