This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
As The GOP Primary Race Goes Into Production, Here Are The Facts
With two days left until the GOP primary circus is fully underway, here, courtesy of Reuters, are the key facts to keep in mind as all that endless talk finally shifts to action. From Reuters: "Voters kick off the 2012 nominating process to pick the Republican Party's challenger to Democratic President Barack Obama with the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday, followed by primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina on Jan. 10 and Jan. 21. The three contests are some of the most watched events in the election process. Here are a few facts about them."
IOWA
- Iowa has been first in the nominating process since 1972 when Iowa Democrats changed the date to meet new rules intended to encourage participation. Jimmy Carter first drew attention to the caucuses in 1976 when he performed unexpectedly well and went on to take the White House.
- The saying there are only "three tickets out of Iowa" comes from the fact that since 1972 almost no candidate has won their party nomination without coming in third place or better in Iowa. In 2008, Republican nominee John McCain took 4th.
- On average only about 6 percent of eligible voters participate in the Iowa caucuses, which bring them together for hours to cast ballots after a surrogate or volunteer from each campaign is given a chance to try to sway their vote. In 2008, that jumped to 16.1 percent but was still much lower than the 53.6 percent who voted in the New Hampshire primaries of direct balloting, according to George Mason University's United States Elections Project.
- The Hawkeye State has chosen Democratic candidates for the White House in five of the last six presidential elections, but political observers say independents could swing the vote. Registered Democrats number about 645,500 to 613,500 Republicans, and almost 718,000 voters were not with a party, according to December data from the Iowa secretary of state.
- In an election focused on the economy, Iowa's 6 percent unemployment rate in October, compared to the national rate of 8.6 percent, is among the lowest in the country.
- The state's Hispanic population almost doubled in the past decade to make up about 5 percent of Iowans. About 91 percent of the population was white in 2010, the last U.S. Census shows.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
- Before the Iowa caucuses grabbed national attention in the 1970s, the New Hampshire primary was the first test for presidential hopefuls. It is known for political upsets starting with Dwight Eisenhower's 1952 win over long-time Republican Senator Robert Taft before winning the presidency.
- New Hampshire primary winners have had mixed success when it comes to getting their party's nomination. John McCain won the Republican primary in 2000 but eventually lost the bid to George W. Bush. In 2008 Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary but the party nod went to Obama.
- Performances in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries have not been consistent. Since 1984, only two candidates have won both.
- The "Live Free or Die" state is not as liberal as some of its New England neighbors. A study released in December by Third Way, a Washington think tank that promotes centrist policies, found the number of registered Democratic voters had fallen 14.6 percent while that of Republicans had declined 13.5 percent.
- Richard Nixon, the Republican president from 1969 to 1973, holds the record for winning the most New Hampshire primaries: three.
SOUTH CAROLINA
- The South Carolina Republican primary was set early in the primary calendar in 1980 by Ronald Reagan's campaign coordinator Lee Atwater to give Reagan a boost and southern conservatives more weight in the nominating process.
- The race has since become known as a firewall for establishment frontrunners against insurgent candidates who perform surprisingly well in the earlier contests.
- Since 1980, every winner of the South Carolina Republican presidential primary has gone on to win the party nomination.
- The Palmetto State has gone for Republican candidates in 9 out of the last ten presidential elections.
- Religion resonates with South Carolina voters. A little over 60 percent of South Carolina residents were identified as evangelical or mainline Protestant Christian, the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey in 2008 found.
- With 10.5 percent of its population unemployed, South Carolina has one of the nation's worst unemployment rates.
- South Carolina is among the country's fastest growing states, fueled in part by a burgeoning Hispanic population. In 2010, 5.1 percent of state residents were Hispanic, up from 2.4 percent in 2000, according to the last U.S. Census. African-Americans made up about 28 percent of residents and whites, 66 percent.
- 18155 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


The problem, you semi-literate moron, is that you don't understand what the word "Establishment" means in the context of the First Amendment. Many of the people who came to America during the 17th and 18th centuries were English "Dissenters" - people who rejected the Church of England. The CofE was established - that is, it was THE OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION OF GREAT BRITAIN. The monarch HAD to be a member of the CofE - no Catholics allowed, and no Quakers, Presbyterians, Calvinists, or Jews either. This may not seem a big deal today, when the monarcy is largely ceremonial, but during Georgian times - you know, when the US Constitution was actually written - the King still wielded a great deal of power. If you had a more than passing acquaintance with your Declaration of Independence (DI), you would know that the latter half is simply an enumeration of charges against George III's abuse of that power. You might also know that Jefferson referred to "God", the "Creator", and "Divine Providence" in the DI. A man who invokes a deity three times as justification for independence could not be considered a man who didn't believe in God - well, not by anyone with any proficiency in logic and the English language.
The importance of the First Amendment - indeed, all of the first ten - is clear when you read the DI's second half. They object to George III's forcing homeowners to accept British soldiers in their homes. They object to a standing army. They object to the suspension of trial by jury. These amendments were meant to specifically prevent these and other abuses.
It's quite a logical leap to go from saying no one religion can be made "official" to saying no public official can even acknowledge a religious holiday. The language of the amendment is specific: "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - I don't see how allowing people to sing carols is a "law"; it's an acknowledgement. I'm Christian, but I'd have no problem with my elected officials acknowledging Yom Kippur or Ramadan, or Sikh or Hindu celebrations. Banning such innocuous items as Christmas trees or menorahs is in fact the ESTABLISHMENT of a single religion, which we know as secular humanism. SecHum is a peculiar form of religion, in that it's notably free of rites and legend, but it still tries to impose a moral code, which is the goal of all religions. People who claim that the First Amendment prevents any religious activity are Fifth columnists for SecHum, and should be ignored as such.
You are so correct. Don't know who would junk the truth?
Republicans? Democrats?
They are just similar cheeks on the same corrupt ass.
mmmmmh... you just brought back excitement for the elections.
(that is, of course, if you're talking about the behind of a brazilian beachvolley player from the ladies' national team)
Outstanding Cheeks C.D. Can we get those two nominated...surely they could'nt do any worse...
Unless they are members of the GLBT crowd. I just don't understand how they can be a political movement. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
And then there's the GBLT crowd. They're gays who enjoy a really good sandwich.
of course, a child molestor like you would know, right?
That's a really bizarre response to an innocuous joke.
My reward for reading the comments.
Thank You Thank You!
Thank you C.D.
Ok, who's the dumbshit who down arrowed this???
prob a sexually repressed chick.....or priggish guy.....Robot Trader would have been more popular if he had stuck with this theme instead of lame trading advice.........
Some dumb fella who has absorbed too much feminizing bisphenol-a obviously.
@ woollymammoth, I can't help it if I have an aversion to lesbians. I didn't all of a sudden decide that I am uncomfortable around them or anything. Besides, it's not like they don't like cylindrical objects for pleasure, they just seem to be man haters. Pardon me for being honest, it has nothing to do with any kind of prejudice. It is just like the time at pizza hut(not my preference) when I got a retarded waiter and found that I didn't have the stomach to eat the pizza when he served it. I was hungry all right, but I felt kind of sick all of a sudden. Can't explain why.
Shame on whoever hit the red arrow. SHAME I SAY!
Sandra is a dude
I prefer curvier women -- to each their own. +2 for the nice, firm tans! :>D
These asses are nicer than the ones running for President.......
Exactly...there is no difference between the parties. Everyone is pointing at BHO for signing the NDAA....well who put it on his desk? Congress, with the harty support of both parties. There is no difference.
a very hearty support from the R-team, with some "NV" to pad out the "yays."
there is no difference, but there are stats.
Exactly.
Corporations elect our politicians, and determine their votes.
Top All-Time Donors 1989-2012 both parties: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Good link. Both parties are beyond corrupt. Buddy Roemer 2012!
http://voteronpaul.us/
RP will be stymied by DRE voting machines in most of the states he's running in. Polls could indicate a 97% majority for him, and the machines will pick up a mysterious last minute trend for Santorum.
... at least until Anonymous hacks into the DRE network in some Kentucky county and the winner is Robot Chicken ...
Do many states use voting machines during primaries/caucuses?
Caucus states use paper ballots. Results are tallied at the precinct site/gathering and phoned/reported directly to the party officials.
Primary states use machines.
I read a couple of days ago on another ZH thread comment that Iowa calls in its votes to be tallied to a firm who is owned by an ISRAELI high-tec conglomerate. Wish I had saved the info, but I'm sure it can be "googled".
THAT doesn't bode well for RP, unfortunately!
From Black Box Voting about the 2004 election:
Iowa uses paper receipts from Ethanol stations.
Yes, the paper is made from genetically modified corn and the ink contains bisphenol-a.
Or Robo Trader...maybe his mom...
Fact:
The US was never intended to be a Democracy under the founding fathers. Rule by the people has ALWAYS led to Anarchy followed by Plutocracy. [This is the plan if not already the case].
The US constitution does not mention the word Democracy once. Neither does the Bill of Rights. A framework for a Republic is one of small government under the Rule of Law.
Republicans, with the exception of one candidate, have hijacked the word Republic and transformed it into a Democratic party. Same devil, different head.
I don't recall the Constitution or Bill of Rights mentioning bananas, either.
;-)
Yet here we are:
"The Dirty Dozen, How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom" ISBN: 978-1-935308-27-0
"The Creature From Jekyll Island, a Second Look at the Federal System", 5th Ed., G. Edward Griffin, ISBN: 978-0-912986-45-
RP will get a ticket out of Iowa.
He'll get thrown from thet train post-NH...or jump after Feb. 7th with empty pockets.
Super Tuesday will certainly be the end.
Ron Paul did not withdraw in 2008. He had enough funds to stage a counter convention to the GOP and to launch Campaign for Liberty. He has far more support today. So why would he drop out?
So if supposedly had all this cash to stage a third party counter convention, why didn't he proceed?
Yeah, he's a gadfly, a dillatante, etc...
No one ever said it was a third party convention. Why do you attack Ron Paul for things which you made up out of thin air?
And you will flatline.
Nope feeling just fine...and I'll live another election cycle to watch him burn through a bunch of small dollar contributions by the faithful and then crash his mainstream campaign post Iowa and go third party.
Go Paul.
Here is my outlandish prediction for 2012 : Ron Paul will win the presidency if he wins Iowa on Tuesday
Just like President Huckabee...
For Reps, this is a better barometer--
>>>Since 1980, every winner of the South Carolina Republican presidential primary has gone on to win the party nomination.<<<
Though in RP's case, money is a better barometer.
Bearish for Mitt Zombie.
For the past 30 years, Iowa (at least on the Republican side) has served to identify the far right ready to fall off the edge of the earth candidate for the Reps (President Huckabee in 2008 and a host of others going back further) and winnow down the field. Nothing more.
All the RPBots here hope he wins. Good for them.
That will mark the beginning of the end of his run for the WH.
Go Paul.
I tried to sign up for intrade.com and was going to bet everything I have (which isn't much) on Ron Paul. Intrade funds for US folks must be sent via physical check. Could not figure out why. Then I saw an interview by Max Keiser describing the new political exchange beeing set up in chicago for political outcome trading. In the discussion he pointed out that it is a bad idea cause it is just open financial manipulation of government. (big timers, small timers, insiders, etc)
So I am just going to send some money to ronpaul2012.com and look forward to a better, free, rest of my life instead of the monetary windfall.
You are no fool wise one!
Roger that!
Prediction - Ron Paul will have a "Dean moment" by South Carolina, where the media and the GOP PTB decides that he's surging too fast, and will do everything they can discredit him. He then jumps ship, runs as a third party independent in the general election - probably picking up enough key votes from the independents and disgruntled progressives to send the election to Romney. Obama wrote his own ticket home last night.
You think it's actually possible for the coporate media to try harder to attempt to discredit him? I think they're giving all they got at this point..............
Unfortunately, Paul as a third party candidate favors Obama. There are fewer economically literate liberals than open-minded conservatives.
Progressive/Socialist/Decepticrats think they're smart because they passed Kindergarten:
The Six Problems With Modern Progressive/Socialism
1) You really didn't learn everything you needed to know in kindergarten: Progressive/Socialists love to think of themselves as sophisticated, nuanced intellectuals, but the truth is they have a kindergartner's view of the world. If it has been defined as "nice" to people they like, they're for it. If it has been defined as "mean" to people they like, they're against it -- and that is about as deep as it gets. Unfortunately, that lack of adult perspective isn't so cute in political leaders who are making life and death decisions that may still have ramifications fifty years from now.
2) "Progressive/Socialists hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for Progressive/Socialists and they can't stand the competition." -- Ann Coulter: Somewhat ironically, given the hostile relationship that has developed between the Left and Christianity, Progressive/Socialist beliefs have more in common with religious doctrine than a political agenda. There is no significant debate on the Left about the aims of their agenda -- and the only "sins" believers can commit against their religion are no longer being politically useful, deviating from doctrine, or worst of all, cooperating with conservatives in some fashion. No matter how much evidence piles up that big government doesn't work, that welfare destroys families, and that socialism doesn't bring prosperity, it makes no impact on Progressive/Socialists because their dogma is based on faith, not logic.
3) "It is not human nature we should accuse but the despicable conventions that pervert it." -- Denis Diderot: There is no dream more eternal in the Progressive/Socialist heart than completely remaking human nature. If we could all just care about the person across the world as much as we do our families, we could live in a utopia! Unfortunately, in practice, human nature tends to be quite a bit more difficult to subvert than in the Progressive/Socialist imagination. That's why, despite more than 5,000 years of human civilization, very little progress has been made in this area - but, oh, the Left is still trying. One day, if they just spend enough money on the right government programs, all the wars will end and everyone will be living in identical million dollar mansions while we spend our days humming tunes from the latest Woodstock Tribute Album.
4) "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive." -- Sir Walter Scott: Like freaky religious cults, Progressive/Socialists have become adept at hiding their more abhorrent views from the public until it's too late. It's common to see Progressive/Socialists adamantly deny that they hold a position over and over again only to completely switch sides the moment they have one more vote than they need to pass legislation. Whether it's lying about their opponents or what they believe, honesty is certainly not considered to be the best policy on the Left.
5) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye." -- Matthew 7:3-5: Despite the fact that Progressive/Socialists love few things better than to cry "hypocrisy," there is a rather bizarre disconnect between what modern Progressive/Socialists seem to believe about themselves and how they behave. Progressive/Socialists believe that they're compassionate, but only with other people's money. They tie themselves in knots trying to come up with valid reasons why terrorists hate the United States, but they never give a moment's thought to whether the people who dislike them might have a point. They pat themselves on the back for helping minorities, but never stop to consider that Progressive/Socialist policies have done more damage to black Americans in the last fifty years than the KKK could have done in a millennium. Somehow, stunning hypocrisies of this sort, which are too numerous to recount without doing a whole other column, never seem to be bother anyone on the Left.
6) "Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do." -- Benjamin Spock: It's great to have a healthy self-image, but there's not much to be said for thinking you're smarter than the collective wisdom and traditions passed down through human history just because you happen to read the Daily Kos. Unbecoming arrogance of this sort permeates modern Progressive/Socialistism. The most grave of decisions are undertaken by the modern Left without the slightest regard for the potential consequences. Past disasters created by similar bouts of whimsical thinking, of which there are many, are treated as acts of God untethered from mere human decision making and prompt no self reflection whatsoever. That's because to the modern Progressive/Socialist, the real world results of their policies are secondary in importance to the amount of positive self-esteem generated by supporting that policy.
1 problem with stychokiller: he's a moron.
Spock, like a lot of smart people, overestimated the intelligence of those around him
...Some Other 'Facts'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C2wP-5L2EY0#!
NP, that video is just F in sad........ We deserve what we get.
most foreigners don't know that shit either. Hell, I've met brazilians who didn't know their own states
BHAAAAAAAAA......BHAAAAAAAAAA......BHAAAAAAAAAAA.....
NONE of these people should be voting!!! (Obviously.)
I was watching a similar one this morn with my 14 yr old, and even HE was speechless at the sheer ignorance and stupidity of the people.
One reporter had a "map" with Iran's name over the country of Australia....and people acted like that was correct!
Screwed......
Wow! My lack of edgycation hasn't hurt me none. To be technical the U. S. was not at war with Libya. The "good" Al Qaeda attacked Libya under the direction and financing of NATO. It was a humanitrian effort to spread democracy. There were no civilians killed nor did any genocide take place. Chris Matthews said so and that's good enough for me!
I tink you mispeld edumacashun.... and you forgot "kinetic military action."
We are so doomed because americans are so stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
F the Greedy Ole Pigs. I am sick and tired of the 2 party system/. Same shit different bowl.
Rp for President. RP for President. F the others. Enough crap already. I hope RP walks with a tall stick. F the Greedy Ole Pigs and the Dumbos
The Steveo Telescope Project 2012
Posted pictures of "The Beast" set up in the frozen tundra
Figure we better find an alternate planet pretty soon, this one is toast.
Stop by, only 1300 more kliks needed
http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/2011/12/perspective-via-telescope.html
Obama is fully aware of the iron fist rule of the military financial (industry is powerless) ogliarchs and also aware that their Ponzi scheme is destined to fail sooner than later. He also aware that Presidents who take a combative stand against them are replaced by their VP one way or another. I suspect that is why Obama is giving them all the rope they want to hang themselves.
Seriously,$1.4 Trillion per year debt during a recession impaired $10 trillion GDP,while Congress circle jerk each other: I can't be awake this must be a dream (nightmare).
This will speed up the end of the Ogliach's Ponzi scheme. Call it political suicide for the greater good. Tear the gangrenus band-aid off now. Kind of like your Dad making you smoke a whole box of cigars you stole when you were 10 until you puke. Can't wait for the Ogliarchs to puke.
Obummer is only aware of the back nine until he reads his daily reggie notes; he wouldn't know a Ponzi scheme from a Maloff scheme unless he reads it on a telepromter, anybody calculating on replacing Obummer with Joe Biden has either a bottle in front of me or a recent frontal lobotomy; the actual debt is increasing @ $5 trillion a year per shadowstats, your not dreaming, just not paying close enough attention. Unless you are teacher jail bait, the oligarchs will be toasting your demise because they (them that ain't us) are/shall be in control, forever. I'm reconciled, git some.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that has come out strongly in opposition to the NDAA. We either elect (and protect) him or our country is done.
Strangely enough he didn't vote on that one.
He was campaigning for President. If he had voted he would have voted "no" and the bill still would have been passed. So your point was...?
My point was he didn't vote either way.
RAND Paul was one of just 7 Senators to vote against this abomination. If Ron Paul goes 3rd Party and gets Rand on board as VP it'll strengthen his candidacy in many ways...not the least of which is bio-credibility: Ron is very, very old. Paul + Paul could get up to 30% nationally, and raise holy hell with the whole corrupt one-party-pretending-to-be-two System.
which "third party" would the Paul duo go with? as Christian Republicans, do they have any interesting options?
Fewr lies and better music than any austrian economist ever.
http://nyceducator.com/2012/01/christmas-carol-for-mayor-mike.html
Now the Virginia Attorney General is stepping in to rush emergency legislation that will update Viginia's ballot access requirements.
'"Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient," Cuccinelli said in a statement to Fox.'
'Later Saturday, Cuccinelli said, “Any proposal is still in flux. Some sort of requirement for ballot access – such as candidates being eligible to receive presidential election campaign federal matching funds – is still needed, whether for 2012 or beyond.”'
Of course we need some sort of requirements for ballot access, just not the ones that keep out good Virginians like Newt Gingrich.
2012, Pulling out all the stops.
Scary Stuff isnt it? Mitt's son said a couple of days ago "My dad will release his tax returns when Obama releases his academic transcripts and birth certificate" No outrage from either conservative or liberal outlets. This is absolute tyrrany when the "acceptable" candidates are able to shove it in our faces like this.
This is exactly how rome burned.
Chill out bro, the only thing burning is cars in LA. Besides; what would you learn from these records that you don't already know, Obuma majored in African American cognitive dissonance of the interpertation of the US Constitution (gotta C) and Romney is worth a billion or two which he raped and pillaged from companies/layed off working stiffs whilst a businessman.
Yeah I guess I do need to relax. But my beef with the Romney thing is: back in the america I loved, successful people bragged about how much tax they paid. I can not fathom the idea of a guy like Mitt will have the nuclear football, and the NDAA powers when he himself wont release his 1040s? That really is nero type stuff.
The president of the United States is second string. His nuke football is a play toy.
I am still waiting for Bill Clinton's medical records. Snort, snort!
Did Mitt's son say that via Skype from an outpost in Afghanistan?
He's since reconsidered. Says it would take too long to get the process in place, and it wouldn't be fair to the Romney and Paul campaigns. He put a statement on his Facebook today.
Rick Perry assured his supporters yesterday that "he was never for global warming"
That's comforting.
I wouldn't have thought it was possible to have someone even dumber than Sarah Palin, but I have to admit that Perry's very likely one of the dumbest people I've seen who's managed to get elected governor (sigh).
But it IS Texas, after all. Just look at what that state has "blessed" us with politically.
given Perry's been elected numerous times - and took over from Dubya - I'm thinking there are some people even dumber than Palin & Perry combined.
yeah, go Texas.
There are surely many folks in Texas who embrace similar ideals to yours. You'll never have the opportunity to interact with them due to your prejudice. But that is your right.
And of course, he (and most people) will be right.
be sure you're sitting down Crock - I have "news" for you - friends, in Austin!!! long-term Texan friends!!! that I visit!!!
'course, they're anarchist musicians, so they probably don't count. . . lol.
So you're like the person who says that blacks are stupid but then points out that he does have a black friend?
dude, seriously, you are such an his-teric!
you just go from one to ELEVENTY!!!! with virtually all your replies to me.
at no point did I mention "blacks" - my reference to the voters in Texas who repeatedly elect Perry was jumped on by you as if I'd typed "every person in texas is a moron!!!!" - when in fact that was no where near what was actually typed - comical!
don't you have a "Defense of Life" protest you could lend your newfound visionary zeal to?
I'm sorry if truth and fair play upsets you.
I'm sorry if reality, morals and compassion upsets you.
(this is an easy game to play, isn't it)
Go vote for a Muslim slaying candidate (or oppose the one anti-war candidate) and then come back and tell me how compassionate you are.
CathartesAura, while you are clearly a very intelligent and usually a very thoughtful poster here, I must say that I am profoundly disappointed in your blinkered, one-issue focus on abortion as the sine qua non of any and every political discussion and candidate. There are VASTLY many more important issues facing our society than abortion, which is one of the classic "wedge issues" that the power elite use to divide the masses --- and one in which you are only too happy to oblige them. Stop acting the victim, and playing the fool.
So not being a mouth breathing total abject retard is being prejudiced now? I'm actually fine with that, shockingly enough.
Prejudice based on inaccurate stereotyping is its own punishment. Enjoy.
Uhm, RP represents distrct 14 of Texas.
Old joke... Where men are men and sheeple are sceered.
What any candidate for President should be platforming....
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/7792675/top_10_campaign_promises_for_the_2012_presidential_election/
The Iowa caucus is really exciting, now that the vote counting is secret to keep people from disrupting. The GOP has determined that people voting is actually a hinderance to the process of getting a GOP candidate. I would like to be a fly in the room where the banksters and military along with various corporations decide who will be the winner that everyone will think they voted for. I hope they remember that they need to decide in time to program the computers with the results.
Just came out the 'secret location' is located in Illinois. Yeah, folks in Chicago will be fair with the vote count.
Ron Paul is the only Captain that can begin to turn the US America around. All other candidates are estabishment muppets. Choice is simple really.
Other choices are: Flip-Floper Romney, Rick "Al Gore" Perry or NWO Newt G.
I am voting for Ron Paul for President. I will check the box if he is Republican. I will check thebox if he is Independent. I will write in his name if he is not on the ballot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcuvbAZEjX0
Here is a dirty little secret the establishment press doesn't want anyone to know: Ron Paul is the only republican candidate who is winning over disenchanted democrats and independants, fed up with the empty promises of "Change and Hope" from Obama. When their support is factored in, it isn't even a contest. The media and press only want us to focus in on republican voters.
I voted for Obama and the guy was just overwhelmed with the trash heap Bush left. Ron Balls for me...the only guy who isn't a sold out congressman. He's right up there even with all negative press. Look around on Foxs website to see if there is any mention of Paul. It's outrageous how they (the press) have attempted to marginalize. The rest of congress is like boogers. It feels nice when you remove them.
you're a moron if you voted for Obama and are trying to blame the last guy for his failures.
yep
Imagine the mindset of a loser that pretends he is winning and really realizes he is a loser.
Senor Congresista, el estimable, el verdedero, el Doctor Ron Paul necisita muchos votantes Latinos. Por favor ayudanos y ayuda a ustedes mismos y sus familias.
Viva Ron Paul!! Viva Estados Unidos!! Derechos de libertad para todos.
Iowa Ron Paul 38%
Paulistas beetchez!
Ohdale compadres!
Nothing would be more revealing about who runs US society than a Ron Paul Presidential win.
I wonder what he would do when the owners of society sit him down and tell him how it will be which will include;
1) more overseas military engagements
2) the same Fed power
3) the same Lack of Civil Rights etc etc.
At least "WE the People" would understand that the president is nothing more than a figurehead.
I can't imagine a more exciting time.
I agree with you that a Paul presidency would be revealing to anyone paying attention - but I wonder if those same voters would continue to be disenchanted into voting for yet another derivative of candidate?
personally, I think ole ship USSamrka may not hit the port of elections this time around, with so much power in place that undermines even the idea of a "nation" anymore. . .
Ron Paul says his favorite president was Grover Cleveland because he vetoed and vetoed and vetoed. If the corrupt congress wants to pass more draconian legilsation (I can't imagine any worse than NDAA.) the traitors would have to override his veto.
Which they would most certainly do, and with Gusto. (override Ron Pauls vetos)
The wierd thing is, both neo-cons (Newt, Mitt, Bachman, Santorum) and neo-libs (Hillary, Obama, Krugman, Kerry) always say "congress does not need to declare war, the president must act under the war powers act, and then when the boots are on the ground, we will of course authorize funding for their safety, even if we are against the war."
Really? you mean kicking off decade long wars with 1 million casualties, trillions of dollars in expenditures really needed to be done at 02:30 via presidential hunch, cause it would take to long before you congress critters could board your tax payer funded gulfstreams to D.C., have a 24 hour all nighter debate, and then vote up or down? Were you really afraid the Iraqi republican gaurd was going to Roll tanks into Saudi Arabia? And if they did, when saudi declared war, that the american people would not rally around a declarations of war to protect a soveriegn state? That trick worked in gulf war 1 when we told sadam it would be okay if he invaded kuwait, just like we told him it would be ok if he wanted to fight iran. But we wont get fooled like that again.
Back to your point. If congress declares war, the president can not veto it. He must fight. If our allies with defensive pacts are attacked he must fight. And Ron Paul would fight. he's the only one who was drafted and did not come up with some excuse like the rest of this bunch of chickenhawks did .....
Is that when they roll out the video of Kennedy being assassinated from a totally different and close up color camera position that has never seen the light of day in public?
Romney will win the Nomination and choose Christie for his VP.
Then Romney will lose to Obama.
Here are a few additional "facts":
The President is not the President.
All of the policies that we have known, and loved, over the last 4 decades are waiting patiently for the new guy coming to the White House to work HIS special magic to give them a new and temporary respectability.
Presidents don't choose their cabinet heads, especially Treasury, State, Defense nor even their chief of staff. Reagan learned that the hard way in his second term.
There is a permanent federal bureaucracy in Washington that is "entrenched" and literally can not be removed. They hold real power. When a new administration comes to town they have to meet with these permanent power brokers as they know nothing about the circuit workings of the system and they are kept on a very short leash. Generally speaking the new administration is only allowed to add approved new statutes and not allowed to undo any of the existing statutory edifice.
This is why the true believers of either party always end up frustrated and dissappointed with the actions of their reverred candidate.
In a sense Obamma is the first president who acts as though all of the above is true. Always on vacation, taking advantage of every perk he can. And looking forward to the deferred bribe circuit he will surely be on giving 150K speeches worldwide for years after his presidency ends. He is visibly frustrated with the reality of his actual role, almost petulant, even appearing angry at times, but there is a pot of gold in his future.
And what about Congress? The same.....they don't even bother to read the "bills" they vote on, and believe me THEY ARE BILLS. You will suffer economically in perpetuity, paying the bill. Your con-gressman spends his valuable time being a good team player, going along to get along.
The difference between the two parties is roughly equal to the difference between the SF 49ers and Oakland Raiders or the difference in taste between Budweiser and Pabst Blu Ribbon beer. Within the two parties there is a rivalry over who actually gets to control the levers of cronyism in government and in punishing perceived enemies, settlling scores or benefitting the likes of Solyndra.
AHH...I could go on, but what's the use. This will be the system long after I am gone. Most people seem to like it.
So you're saying a Ron Paul win won't matter/won't change anything?
mrgneiss,
I wrote in Dr. Paul last time around after donating four or five hundred dollars to his campaign and I will be doing the same this cycle, if I can.
The british sitcom Yes Minister shows exactly how it works. I couldn't agree with you more.
was a big fan of that show. . . *nods*
+1776
Hard to believe your taste buds are that indifferent to the difference between Pabst and Bud. PBR tastes skunky no matter what, Bud at least when cold enough is almost like water with a slight burned taste.
Then again I have Irish friends who can tell you the difference between different batches of Guinness, an amazing feat that I would never hope to duplicate.
Even worse is your comparison of the Raiders to the 49rs, it is completely wrong.
As to the difference between the Rebubs an Dems you are right they are the same. I would liken the difference as like looking at cars painted silver and cars painted grey at dawn.
For those talking about Ron Paul and abortion i believe he wants to leave the decision to the states and so there could be some states where this is authorized and some not . Given the progressive state of the US on the issue i doubt that many states would have an overwhelming majority of voters to agree on outlawing the procedure - even if some do , you could always cross state lines to another more friendly state. This is how american states were envisonned, as a giant laboratory for ideas
I'd be very interested to read Ron Paul's actual words clarifying this, as it has been argued here, and it would be great to have more clarity - I'm not really all that trusting of what politicians SAY when campaigning, but if he was very clear on the issue, that would be helpful in the debate.
for now though, this is as "clear" as we get:
codifying into LAW a right to body sovereignty, the right to make a decision about your own body. . . it's more incremental claw backs of human rights. from the (2) statement, it would appear to give "each State" the authority to prosecute, but the actual legislation would be Federal? yes, clarity would be very important here. . . I'm sure should Ron Paul get the nomination, he'll have a chance to be very clear. . .I do believe that Ron Paul sees his stance as the most libertarian, when other libertarians disagree with the abortion issue, because in his eyes if you don't protect unborn life when it has no say in its own liberty then you protect no life. Other libertarians believe it's the woman's body and up to her to decide and anything else restricts her liberty. That being said, the whole idea that life begins at conception is the crux of this specific issues and if that never gets passed then most if not all of this policy is moot. I don't think it would ever pass personally. Which then leaves it to the states to decide.
One thing that is left out of this discussion usually is that under a Ron Paul administration it is possible the birth control pills will be readily available and cheaper for young women to access, as well as the "morning after" pill, so that it would be less necessary to perform an abortion in the first place.
Of course this whole issue is slanted in that 99% of people don't think abortions are good to begin with, they just think they are necessary and should be available as an alternative to going to quack abortion doctors or taking matters into their own hands somehow. The debate has not kept up with the times though as because there are other options now, and free condoms available everywhere really, there is less danger to women looking for alternatives to pregnancy.
thanks for your reply Temporalist, and for keeping the drama out, appreciated.
I think a problem here is that what you "believe" and what "other libertarians believe" is just that: beliefs. And beliefs are individual, should not be made into laws IF one's core "libertarian beliefs" are to respect the rights and "beliefs" of each individual. how is it that any ONE libertarian feels the right to make constitutional amendments or laws to regulate a single human body? that does not "belong" to them?
and if one is arguing for "protecting the life of the foetus" how is this consistent with the subsequent abandonment of that same care and concern once the foetus leaves the body of the mother and is considered a "live birth"? complete with birth certificate and *cough* SS#. because that's where the massive concern tapers off to nil - there is very little support offered a newborn baby, unless one is willing to continue paying for the "welfare" of the mothers and babies - and for how long? who is supporting these absolutely necessary births into childhood? the State? the Federal .gov? no one wants to be taxed their monies to pay for these "welfare leeches" but SO much emotion is spent on the zygote. . .
I say it's very easy to emote when it's a non-corporeal issue, a thought experiment - once responsibility enters into the equation - *echo* - IF you want to save the life of these "babies" ARE you also willing to take responsibility for their lives? IF you remove that decision - the decision to take responsibility for the full life - then YOU are usurping the responsibility role - OR you're just playing god, and petulantly deciding a FEMALE can't make that decision, and YOU don't want the responsibility either - no one wants the responsibilty for the actual human then. (and by "you" I mean "one" - no finger pointing intended).
as to your other points - yes, RPaul may be okay with dispensing pharma to women - he's a doctor after all. . .these white pills have been shown to have major effects on the bodies of those who use them, and not every woman can use them - as for condoms, that's available, but many men refuse to use them, they break, etc. not much will change with regards these methods. . . a more fool proof solution is for those men who prefer not to be in relationship, but are sexually active, a vasectomy would help with the fertility issue - and some men have taken this responsibility upon themselves, to be commended. . .
but the bottom line, for me, is body sovereignty - either one agrees that each individual has a right to make their own decisions regarding their own body, or one believes they are in charge of making decisions for others, removing personal human rights to liberty.
thanks!
it would appear to give "each State" the authority to prosecute...
This authority to prosecute is the definition of enacting the law. Having a law on the books that's not enforced in not new.
Actual legislation allows for penalties to be assessed for violation but if the penalty is a ticket or wristslap, or even a bailout, the likelihood of a change in behavior will be nominal at best.
yes, theoretically, each State would be allowed to prosecute, fine & imprison any woman found in violation of this law.
why you believe this might be arbitrarily "not enforced" is not part of the issue - the RIGHT of the STATE to penalise the woman for making a personal decision about her own body is the issue.
this is about awarding the State rights to regulate a woman's body.
Thank you for disingenuous rehashing #138,877,101,659 of the abortion debate.
While I am a TOTAL agnostic on the abortion issue, despite having given it a great deal of thought for over 30 years, why is it that you pro-choicers can simply NOT ever bring yourselves to acknowledge that yes, indeed, it COULD be logical and well-intentioned to argue that the fetus/baby MAY have some of their own rights involved in the issue as well?
If it is merely, or only, about "a woman's rights", then why is it not permissible to allow a baby, already born, to die by simply refusing to feed it? Or are the rights of adults to be hamstrung by the rights of a helpless, utterly dependent infant? If killing a fetus/baby/infant one hour before birth is not a crime or a moral outrage, why should it be those terrible things to do so one hour after birth?
In other words, it is perfectly rational to argue that it is in fact NOT "just about a woman's body", even if YOU happen to disagree. But pro-choicers will never even admit that possibility.
Again, I am NOT taking one typical side or the other in this debate, but I find the willful inability of those who take the pro-choice side to even acknowledge the arguments of the pro-lifers absolutely infuriating.
That's where I started a few weeks back and comments by Cathartes Aura have encouraged me to think things through. I'm fairly sure at this point that a fetus is alive and that advocating for its life is a worthy cause. I remain a volutaryist so I fail to understand Cathartes Aura's tone and obvious antipathy for my views.
I can totally understand that argument as well.
On the other hand, I must point out that a hemorrhoid is alive and living tissue as well --- but that by itself is hardly going to stop me from getting one removed should I find myself pregnant with one.
This whole abortion issue, for me, is the most amazing philosophical conundrum --- I have given it a great deal of serious thought for over 30 years, and yet today I am not one iota closer to any conclusion on the political debate surrounding it than I was when I first thought about it (other than being able to point out some of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in the arguments of both sides).
A hemorrhoid is not a human but rather an abnormality affecting some humans. A fetus residing in a woman's body is human. It is not a dog fetus or a horse fetus, it is a human fetus.
A fetus is alive. Those who claim that a fetus is dependent on the mother and therefore is not an individual inadvertently confirm that a fetus is alive. The fetus does depend on its mother for sustenance and shelter. Only living things need food and shelter.
Therefore I have concluded that a fetus is living and human.
I'll leave it there for the moment. Please recall that I am simply advocating for life and not insisting on control over any one else's body.
I understand your argument, Crockett, but I also tend to agree with those who maintain that a fetus is merely a potential human life --- a speck of matter, say, weighing less than one gram is hardly equivalent to an adult, or even equivalent, developmentally or morally, to a self-aware toddler.
By that rationale, is not a human egg, or a spermatozoa, alive and potentially human as well? When I examine the whole issue of conception, gestation and birth from a purely biological standpoint, I see nothing but a smooth continuum of growth and development, with no clear-cut dividing line between "non-human" and "human", hence my ongoing confusion and philosophical dilemma over the abortion issue.
I agree that it's a complex issue and as I said I was agnostic about this subject until recently. I will note, however, that while a sperm has the potential to create life it is not until that sperm penetrates an egg that a zygote is created. This appears to me to be a bright line of delineation -- that between two gametes which in themselves are not potential adult humans and the resulting zygote created in their merger. It is at this point that the life of the entity which will someday become a full grown adult human begins.
In any case, the end of the first trimester is not a particularly logical starting point for life but that's where the matter rests now thanks to Federal regulations.
disingenuous as usual Crock.
I spent many threads discussing this with subject with you, and you walked circles around any of my questions, answering with wild hairs or off topic questions, but never keeping to the subject at hand.
you've now stated you've "converted to pro-life", and I'm sure you will be very happy there, particularly when you manage to come up with a "libertarian" argument for removing a female's right to make decisions about her own body, based on her own lived experience of it.
there aren't any on the websites I researched, so maybe you'll be famous. good luck!
I believe that no one has a right to kill their own children. So I speak out against it. I do not propose to use force on anyone in order to make them comply with the principles to which I choose to adhere.
Merely suggesting that people shouldn't kill their kids is not incompatible with voluntaryism or libertarianism. Why do you believe that sharing one's opinion with others in the hope that they might voluntary agree is a bad thing?
Crockett - when the lawmakers redefine the words "kid" and "children" to include a zygote, when they decide to issue the zygote a "pre-sex" and even a "pre-birth certificate" and I'm sure they will, when they find the time, think of all the possibilities for the lawmakers! when they get around to this, then your argument here
which sounds so wonderful and heartwarming and fair, who could argue against it??
when you get your wish to protect the zygote with full personhood, so that it too can be called a "children" - I'm sure you'll be a very very happy man.
in the meantime, given the current state of financial chaos about to descend on the homeland, and the world, maybe you and your fellow hopefulls here might want to consider how all these lovely new babies will be provided for - food, clothing, living space, health care, education - and who will be paying for this. . . because the "welfare" state is tits up son, and "austerity" is knocking on the final closet door. . .
oh noes!!! think of the children!!! who will take care of all the children!!!
All I want is for women to be able to hear the reasons why they should voluntarily agree not to kill their kids. Why does that make you so angry?
see, a lot of you dudes are very side-tracked by the, as you put it, "abortion issue" - despite spending 30 years thinking about it?
my argument, made over numerous posts & days, that I'm guessing you've seen some, but not all of? is that creeping government LAWS incrementally remove basic human rights, and once you get the creepy foot in the door, you get the FULL SALES PITCH.
so if you think that a constitutional amendment that defines "life" as the moment the sperm enters the egg, and the RIGHT to LIFE is enshrined in law, irrespective of whether the female was raped, even by her father - which guess what, happens! - she still must hold that sacred zygote inside her body IRRESPECTIVE of how that may affect her health, mentally or otherwise, is an important improvement in amrka's standards of human decency, and that the Congress would just say "phew, job well done, we can leave it at that!" - letting the States decide who and when and why to punish any woman who cannot bear these laws - which, by the way, the Christian RepubRight have been slowly but deliberately chipping away at all through the Dubya years - but if you think Paul's Sanctity of Life is a fair and just law to apply to every woman in ANY circumstance - well then join the pro-lifers and vote!
I, on the other hand, have paid close attention to the erosion of human rights, globally, and now here in the ole homeland. so apologies if you see this as a small, unimportant issue in the grand scheme of surrendered humanity - had you read some of my admittedly MANY posts on this subject over these past few days, you might have read a more nuanced stance - but yeah, at this point I'm back to *shrug* because folk have got their HOPES for CHANGE set on this one man to overcome all the shit they've been ignoring up to now, and need a HERO to come in and fix things, and they haven't yet woken up to the HUGEness of this clusterfuck - they, amazingly, think a single man in the fake position of "president" will have MAGIC POWERS to save us all. . .
a white male christian career republican. on a white charger. with a lance. TO THE RESCUE.
I simply can't image how anyone would consider killing one's own children to be the standard of compassion on which to base one's principles. Any society that openly advocates for the killing of its children paid for by the public purse is a sick and twisted society. Such a policy can only be the first act in a display of community murder-suicide.
There shouldn't need to be any laws banning abortion because ending human life benefits no one. If those who might abort their children would hear a message of hope rather than a diatribe advocating for the death of the fetus as some sort of glorified attainment of feminine freedom then fewer women might chose that option.
Wearing abortion as a badge of honor is not an attractive trait. It is no more compassionate than other means of killing like execution and war. There are more homes wanting babies than there are babies wanting homes. Stop worshiping death.
you're 14 years old, your dad has raped you repeatedly since you were 10, and he occasionally lets his buds have a go. . . you've hit puberty, you're not a kid any more, you're still ashamed and afraid to tell anyone of your life. . . but you realise you're pregnant. . . it's making you sick with fear, with hatred, with despair. . .
this happens, this happens in amrka, it's happening right now.
as to your "wearing abortion as a badge of honour" - seriously, go fuck yourself Crockett, you squirmy pompous little shit.
Such a situation can be dealt with in a variety of ways but none of them requires wide public acceptance of abortion for convenience's sake.
for the record, I'm not even remotely interested in exchanging any more posts with you going forward.
now get your last word in, and find someone else to be passive aggressive with.
and by the way akak,
this is already been decided, that no one can kill a viable human being, including not nourishing it. that would be abusive, and there ARE laws covering these behaviours, as I'm sure you are aware.
there are also laws about "partial birth abortions" - and I'm not in favour of these, unless the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy going forward. . .usually by this time, the female is trying to bring a baby to a full-term, so "abortion" is not even an applicable term for what is needed to preserve her own life, yes?
your paragraph here is a bit over-reactive.
What hasn't ObaMarxist lied about?
Change. He never said, that I recall, that it would be for the better.
Actually, scratch that, the only thing he changed was the velocity off the cliff. And that can be attributed to f=ma.
Frankly, I am terrified that a bunch of six-fingered, look-alike, book- slapping hayseeds might have a say in what I do and how I do it.