U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dauric » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:41 pm UTC

Garm wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:I don't think that Huntsman has been a phenomenal speaker, but he's certainly been better than Perry. His main problem is that he's selling reality and nobody's buying.


The packaging of reality is unappealing and the price is too high. It's easier to just pick up an alternate reality in shiny packaging from the middle shelves of the giant Walmart in your mind.


Alternate realities have more features and moving parts. Republican Alternate Reality has a button you can press to turn it in to a giant robot that spouts jingoistic phrases and throws nukes like American footballs.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:44 pm UTC

DE-FENCE! DE-FENCE!
Image

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:50 pm UTC

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Belial » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:51 pm UTC

Image
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dauric » Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:12 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Image


"DEATH is a preferable option to COMMU---- <Downloading Update> <Update Installing> ---SOCALISM!"
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:23 pm UTC

Socalism, those evil Californians and their decadent liberal agenda!
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:27 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Garm wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:I don't think that Huntsman has been a phenomenal speaker, but he's certainly been better than Perry. His main problem is that he's selling reality and nobody's buying.


The packaging of reality is unappealing and the price is too high. It's easier to just pick up an alternate reality in shiny packaging from the middle shelves of the giant Walmart in your mind.


Alternate realities have more features and moving parts. Republican Alternate Reality has a button you can press to turn it in to a giant robot that spouts jingoistic phrases and throws nukes like American footballs.

Plus, alternate realities only require you to know like, 3 or 4 numbers tops (mostly 9s). Reality has like... at least two dozen numbers in it. It's a lot of work.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Triangle_Man » Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:39 pm UTC

Does anyone know how to get to the alternate reality where society is actually structured as a meritocracy and people actually recognize that having certain political positions does not necessarily make you an evil scumbag?
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dauric » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:04 pm UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:Does anyone know how to get to the alternate reality where society is actually structured as a meritocracy and people actually recognize that having certain political positions does not necessarily make you an evil scumbag?


I think that one's like those "Concept Cars", the multi-million dollar prototype looks good at the auto show, but after that it gets warehoused with a lot of other beautiful prototypes that never make it to the showroom floor.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby nitePhyyre » Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:44 pm UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:Does anyone know how to get to the alternate reality where society is actually structured as a meritocracy and people actually recognize that having certain political positions does not necessarily make you an evil scumbag?
I think that is the alternate reality where people live in the real world, and not their own little alternate reality.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cleverbeans » Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:46 pm UTC

Garm wrote:I especially enjoyed Obama's Compromise ability.


I enjoyed "Deity: Jesus (The lesser known free market capitalist version)" lmao
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:03 pm UTC

Nate Silver introduces a new (and useful) polling metric that might be useful in extrapolating state advantage based on national polling.

He goes on to say what I've been thinking for a while, only with like, evidence and stuff--that Romney doesn't have an advantage in any early state but New Hampshire, and thus a non-Romney Iowa win will be a monkey wrench thrown into the nominate-Romney process.
Image

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:41 am UTC

I would sell my family into slavery just for the chance to be next to him as he doesn't get the nomination. I need pictures and film to properly document his tasty realization that he can't slither his way into office.

It'd be like Meg Whitman, but sooooo much better.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:54 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:I would sell my family into slavery just for the chance to be next to him as he doesn't get the nomination. I need pictures and film to properly document his tasty realization that he can't slither his way into office.

It'd be like Meg Whitman, but sooooo much better.

In all seriousness though, I get that Romney's campaign is in terrible shape and no one likes him, but isn't it true that everyone else's campaigns are in terrible shape too and no one likes them either? Cain and Perry have both had colossal gaffes recently, Bachmann is a lunatic with defecting staff, I'm under the impression that Gingrich is completely out of both money and friends, Santorum is Santorum, and Paul will never get nominated in a million years. The only candidate so far the primary voters haven't flirted with and then rejected is Huntsman, and they don't seem to be aware of his existence for the most part.

So yeah, Romney's in a lousy position in absolute terms, but relative to his rivals, how bad is he doing really?

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:03 pm UTC

Last I heard Gingrich was the new frontrunner, or close.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
faranim
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby faranim » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

What ever happened to Gary Johnson? Has he dropped out, or is he just invisible because the media doesn't talk about him?

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:27 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:Nate Silver introduces a new (and useful) polling metric that might be useful in extrapolating state advantage based on national polling.

He goes on to say what I've been thinking for a while, only with like, evidence and stuff--that Romney doesn't have an advantage in any early state but New Hampshire, and thus a non-Romney Iowa win will be a monkey wrench thrown into the nominate-Romney process.


I read that differently, and actually it seems somewhat like good news for Romney. Romney losing Iowa and South Carolina and winning New Hampshire is built into his strategy (he decided a while back that being a Mormon was going to keep him out of the winner's circle in fundamentalist states and he's probably not totally off-base there), but the central question is whether Iowa and South Carolina will agree on who the anti-Romney will be for Act 2 or whether they will split and leave Romney without any organized opposition which will give him much easier going in Florida and Michigan and help the narrative that he is the only train leaving the station. Silver's analysis would lean towards the latter hypothesis: Iowa is tending to lean towards the northern conservatives (Bachmann, Santorum, and Paul) while the southern states like the southerners (Cain, Perry, and to a lesser but potentially fluid extent Gingrich).

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby omgryebread » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:11 pm UTC

faranim wrote:What ever happened to Gary Johnson? Has he dropped out, or is he just invisible because the media doesn't talk about him?
Gary who? He's still in, but he can't get an anti-Romney bump since he's more liberal with less name recognition than Romney.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:11 pm UTC

The force multiplier effect of the early primary states has a lot to do with the news coverage generated by each win, and the only early contest that Romney seems poised to win at the moment is the one that he's been poised to win for the past four years. In other words, it won't be news when he wins it (and if he doesn't, it could kill him). It seems doubtful that it's going to give him a bump in the polls similar to what Cain or Gingrich would grab if they won Iowa. There's probably going to be more news made by whoever comes in second.

The most important state in that chart is Florida. It's also the one that any of them can win right now. And Romney is the one whose advantage from having won a prior early state may be the weakest.
Last edited by EsotericWombat on Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby The Reaper » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
faranim wrote:What ever happened to Gary Johnson? Has he dropped out, or is he just invisible because the media doesn't talk about him?
Gary who? He's still in, but he can't get an anti-Romney bump since he's more liberal with less name recognition than Romney.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/ ... tarian.php
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/ ... er-all.php
A day after Gary Johnson told TPM he plans to stay in the presidential race as a Republican, he said he will “not rule out considering” dropping out of the GOP race and running as a Libertarian.

“If I continue to be locked out, I would not rule out considering it,” Johnson told TPM Wednesday.

Yesterday, Politico reported Libertarian leaders are urging Johnson — who polls show has failed to find traction among the GOP primary electorate — to follow his ideological heart and run for the Libertarian nomination.

TPM asked Johnson about it, and he said this Tuesday: “I intend to stay in this as a Republican.”

Johnson didn’t respond to a followup question from TPM about reconsidering that position Tuesday, but texted his new answer Wednesday morning.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:25 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Last I heard Gingrich was the new frontrunner, or close.

Uh buh wha?

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:52 am UTC

IcedT wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote:Last I heard Gingrich was the new frontrunner, or close.

Uh buh wha?

I'm pretty sure this is just some cheap attempt by the media to spin a sufficiently compelling story to keep people keyed into election coverage, I doubt it lasts.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:12 am UTC

I hope Gingrich gets the nomination but chooses Gary Johnson as his running mate, wins the election, and becomes too ill to work just after entering office so Gary Johnson is president.

The media is waging a small war against Paul, Gingrich is lukewarm at best, I'd prefer Huntsman to Romney, and Gary Johnson is the only one where, if he got the nomination, I'd vote for instead of against someone. I'd prefer Obama to Santorum, Cain, Bachman, Perry, and possibly Gingrich.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:39 am UTC

If you can believe a word the man says (and his record says you can trust at least some of what he's saying now) he's just as much of a wingnut as The Other Republican Fleeting Frontrunners Who Are Not Mitt Romney (Perry and Cain, really - Paul, Crazy-Eyes, and Frothy Mix were never even threats). The main difference is he actually appears to be intelligent.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:57 am UTC

Tirian wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:Nate Silver introduces a new (and useful) polling metric that might be useful in extrapolating state advantage based on national polling.

He goes on to say what I've been thinking for a while, only with like, evidence and stuff--that Romney doesn't have an advantage in any early state but New Hampshire, and thus a non-Romney Iowa win will be a monkey wrench thrown into the nominate-Romney process.


I read that differently, and actually it seems somewhat like good news for Romney. Romney losing Iowa and South Carolina and winning New Hampshire is built into his strategy (he decided a while back that being a Mormon was going to keep him out of the winner's circle in fundamentalist states and he's probably not totally off-base there), but the central question is whether Iowa and South Carolina will agree on who the anti-Romney will be for Act 2 or whether they will split and leave Romney without any organized opposition which will give him much easier going in Florida and Michigan and help the narrative that he is the only train leaving the station. Silver's analysis would lean towards the latter hypothesis: Iowa is tending to lean towards the northern conservatives (Bachmann, Santorum, and Paul) while the southern states like the southerners (Cain, Perry, and to a lesser but potentially fluid extent Gingrich).

I read it similarly to Tirian, though I do think it highlights that a Romney nomination isn't "inevitable". Even if it was, you can go ask Hilary Clinton how well inevitable worked for her...

All the same, I'd say Romney has a 2/3 to 3/4 chance of getting the nomination. Silver's analysis would lead me to believe that there is a decent chance of a drawn out primary battle; imagine Romney winning NH, Florida and Nevada, with Cain / Gingrich (or someone else, maybe Perry recovers, somehow?) winning Iowa and South Carolina. If that happens, there might not be enough early consensus for either of them to get a sufficient boost over the other. That'd give the not-Romney candidate a decent chance overall I'd say, as a lot of their competitors for votes would drop out, and they and Romney don't drink from the same well (at least during the primary), so to speak.

As an aside, how is Paul a "northern conservative"? He's from Texas, and doesn't really fit in with any other mainstream conservatives, regardless of location.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:09 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:As an aside, how is Paul a "northern conservative"? He's from Texas, and doesn't really fit in with any other mainstream conservatives, regardless of location.


Ah, crap. I have a mental short-circuit that insists on imagining his district in Michigan. Perhaps I associate libertarianism too much with over-educated Ivy League elitists. (Which, again, has nothing to do with Michigan. Curses!)

The other thing that deserves mention (which I only just saw yesterday myself -- perhaps it was a comment in a 538 post??) is that the states are tending this year towards proportional delegate assignments instead of winner-take-all. So Romney can't try to be Hillary Clinton except a little luckier -- he has to find a way to be at least twice as likable as he is now or else he runs the risk of losing the nomination at the convention in the seventh ballot.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ixtellor » Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:45 pm UTC

Tirian wrote: So Romney can't try to be Hillary Clinton except a little luckier -- he has to find a way to be at least twice as likable as he is now or else he runs the risk of losing the nomination at the convention in the seventh ballot.


No way that happens. 1968 taught both parties, don't have a divided convention.

A deal would be worked out long before that.

I think it has to be Romney that ends up winning. In the moderate states they realize, that if they want to beat Obama they can't go with the unPresidential candidates.

This is the first election I felt like I had no idea how it was going to turn out.
If Republicans fail to win the Presidency it will be a colossal failure, yet if seems like some of them are hell bent on doing just that. (barring some economical miracle between now and nov 2012)
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:37 pm UTC

If Rick Perry goes all in on South Carolina, there's a chance he could take second place there.

I'm not saying that it isn't probably going to be Romney. In fact, I highly doubt that it's possible for anyone other than him to have a first-ballot majority. But he needs to win Florida in order to avoid a protracted nominating contest that could leave the door open for someone to offer themselves up at the convention. While I don't think that that's especially likely, I think it's more likely this cycle than previously (especially given how many well-regarded Republicans sat this one out because of all the crazy combined with the significant amount of anti-Romney sentiment), and I think that it's more likely than anyone currently in the field other than Romney taking the nomination.
Image

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby podbaydoor » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:17 pm UTC

This makes me sick to my stomach.

I didn't hear anything about this until it was linked on Facebook.

Is the United States sliding toward theocracy? That’s what Republican presidential candidates have told us for more than a year. Radical Islam, they’ve argued, is on the verge of taking over our country through Sharia law. But this weekend, at an Iowa forum sparsely covered by the press, the candidates made clear that they don’t mind theocracy—in fact, they’d like to impose it—as long as it’s Christian.

You can find video of Saturday’s “Thanksgiving Family Forum” on the Web sites of two organizations that sponsored it: CitizenLink and the Family Leader. Here are highlights of the candidates’ remarks.

Continued under spoiler:
Spoiler:
1. Religious Americans must fight back against nonbelievers. To quote Herman Cain:

What we are seeing is a wider gap between people of faith and people of nonfaith. … Those of us that are people of faith and strong faith have allowed the nonfaith element to intimidate us into not fighting back. I believe we’ve been too passive. We have maybe pushed back, but as people of faith, we have not fought back.

2. The religious values we must fight for are Judeo-Christian. Rick Perry warned:

"Somebody’s values are going to decide what the Congress votes on or what the president of the United States is going to deal with. And the question is: Whose values? And let me tell you, it needs to be our values—values and virtues that this country was based upon in Judeo-Christian founding fathers."

3. Our laws and our national identity are Judeo-Christian. Michele Bachmann explained:

"American exceptionalism is grounded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is really based upon the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments were the foundation for our law. That’s what Blackstone said—the English jurist—and our founders looked to Blackstone for the foundation of our law. That’s our law."

4. No religion but Christianity will suffice. Perry declared, “In every person’s heart, in every person’s soul, there is a hole that can only be filled by the Lord Jesus Christ.”

5. God created our government. Bachmann told the audience:

"I have a biblical worldview. And I think, going back to the Declaration of Independence, the fact that it’s God who created us—if He created us, He created government. And the government is on His shoulders, as the book of Isaiah says."

6. The U.S. law should follow God’s law. As Rick Santorum put it:

"Unlike Islam, where the higher law and the civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws. But our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. … As long as abortion is legal—at least according to the Supreme Court—legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law."

7. Anything that’s immoral by religious standards should be outlawed. Santorum again:

"God gave us rights, but He also gave us laws upon which to exercise those rights, and that’s what you ought to do. And, by the way, the law should comport—the laws of this country should comport with that moral vision. Why? Because the law is a teacher. If something is illegal in this country because it is immoral and it is wrong and it is harmful to society, saying that it is illegal and putting a law in place teaches. It’s not just—laws cannot be neutral. There is no neutral, Ron. There is only moral and immoral. And the law has to reflect what is right and good and just for our society."

8. The federal government should impose this morality on the states. Santorum once more:

"The idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong. Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, the states do not have the right to do wrong. … As a president, I will get involved, because the states do not have the right to undermine the basic, fundamental values that hold this country together."

9. Congress should erase the judiciary’s power to review moral laws. Newt Gingrich suggested:

"I am intrigued with something which Robby George at Princeton has come up with, which is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in which it says that Congress shall define personhood. That’s very clearly in the 14th Amendment. And part of what I would like to explore is whether or not you could get the Congress to pass a law which simply says: Personhood begins at conception. And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for. You would therefore not have to have a constitutional amendment, because the Congress would have exercised its authority under the 14th Amendment to define life, and to therefore undo all of Roe vs. Wade, for the entire country, in one legislative action."

Gingrich said the same strategy could secure the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and protects the right of states to disregard same-sex marriages performed in other states. In his words, “You could repass DOMA and make it not appealable to the court, period.”

10. Courts that get in the way should be abolished. Gingrich again:

"The simplest first step which I would take is to propose—and I hope this will be a significant part of the campaign next year—I have proposed to abolish the court of Judge Biery in San Antonio, who on June 1 issued an order that said, not only could students not pray at their graduation, they couldn’t use the word benediction, the could not say the word prayer, they could not say the word God, they could not ask people to stand for a moment of silence, they couldn’t use the word invocation, and if he broke any of those, he would put their superintendent in jail. I regard that as such a ruthless anti-American statement that he should not be on the court, and I would move to literally abolish his court, so that he could go back to private practice, as a signal to the courts."

Biery’s order was an overreach. In fact, it was overturned two days later by an appeals court. But he’s only the first target of the anti-judicial purge. The next words after Gingrich’s threat came from Santorum, who said: “I agree with a lot of what has just been said here. I would go farther—one step farther, Newt. I would abolish the entire Ninth Circuit.”

11. The purge of judges should be based on public opinion. Gingrich once more:

"Part of the purpose of singling out Judge Biery and eliminating his job is to communicate the standard that the two elected branches have the power and the authority to educate the judiciary when it deviates too far from the American people. And I think you would probably take that approach."

12. Freedom means obeying morality. Santorum concluded, “Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.”

There was one voice of dissent among the candidates. the Ronpaul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, argued that people should be allowed to make bad decisions, that freedom of choice in religious matters should extend to atheists, and that powers not reserved to the federal government should be left to the states. But in a field of candidates bent on legislating Christian morality and purging uncooperative judges, Paul stood alone. Protecting America is too important to let the Constitution get in the way.

Will Saletan covers science, technology, and politics for Slate and says a lot things that get him in trouble.


The video to the forum is HERE.

I particularly enjoy the choice quote from Santorum: “Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.”

FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.
Last edited by podbaydoor on Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:53 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Triangle_Man » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:32 pm UTC

What the hell, Sanatorum? About half of those quotes were yours and then you make a comment about Liberty? How is making the country's legal system conform to a specific set of religious values freedom?

Seriously, just because Western Civil Law grew out of Religion does not mean that Religion has to inform that law. I can't fucking believe this.

Okay, screw it, I'm not a stanch Libertarian but I would not mind having the Ronpaul be the Republican Candidate. He may hold ideas that I don't agree with, but he seems to have a better understanding of what a 'free country' looks like then these candidates.

(Rant Over, time to do schoolwork)
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:38 pm UTC

I really like Rοn Paul and where I disagree with him I can respect his reasons for holding most of those positions. The problem is that he is a conspiracy-theorist nutter.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Radical_Initiator » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:49 pm UTC

The only thing that soothed the rage from the religious lunacy was this line from Santorum:

Rick Frothy-Mix wrote:As a president, I will get involved, because the states do not have the right to undermine the basic, fundamental values that hold this country together.


As a president, Rick, you'll definitely be able to tell them that once you kill the Big Bad Wolf, saddle up one of the Three Little Pigs and fly him around on a 50-state-capital tour, because pigs are going to have to fly before you'll be able to use the title "President" for anything other than your Douchebags Conspicuous meetings.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Xeio » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:01 am UTC

And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for.
So they want to use the legislative (and possibly executive, if they're elected) want to abolish the judicial branch of government...

Wow.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Triangle_Man » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:06 am UTC

Xeio wrote:
And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for.
So they want to use the legislative (and possibly executive, if they're elected) want to abolish the judicial branch of government...

Wow.

My history teacher always told me that if the government ever attempted to and succeeded in abolishing or otherwise trying to force the judicial branch of government to become a tool of the legislative and executive branches, then that means that the government has gone into full-on totalitarian mode.

Okay, this is probably hyperbole, but I'm taking away America's title of being the 'Land of the Free'. It seems as though the nation only cares about the freedom of some nowadays.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:15 am UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:
Xeio wrote:
And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for.
So they want to use the legislative (and possibly executive, if they're elected) want to abolish the judicial branch of government...

Wow.

My history teacher always told me that if the government ever attempted to and succeeded in abolishing or otherwise trying to force the judicial branch of government to become a tool of the legislative and executive branches, then that means that the government has gone into full-on totalitarian mode.


Did we have the same teacher?

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Triangle_Man » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:48 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:
Triangle_Man wrote:
Xeio wrote:
And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for.
So they want to use the legislative (and possibly executive, if they're elected) want to abolish the judicial branch of government...

Wow.

My history teacher always told me that if the government ever attempted to and succeeded in abolishing or otherwise trying to force the judicial branch of government to become a tool of the legislative and executive branches, then that means that the government has gone into full-on totalitarian mode.


Did we have the same teacher?


This was a Grade 12 History Course set up like a University Course, which turned out to be the most useful thing ever in no small part because said History Teacher was awesome.

Does this sound like your teacher?

Also, are you a Canadian?
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:56 am UTC

No on all counts.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Triangle_Man » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:03 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:No on all counts.


Okay then. But he/she did say something similar to you on the topic, I'm guessing.
Last edited by Triangle_Man on Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:09 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:28 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:I particularly enjoy the choice quote from Santorum: “Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.”


Who wants to bet that Colbert creates the word "Liberduty" just for Santorum?

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Decker » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:11 pm UTC

Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.

This is honestly one of the most terrifying things I've heard a politician say in a while.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mashnut, Sabrar and 8 guests