GOP Primary Race

[Benjamin]

Tomorrow marks the true beginning of the primary race for the Republican Party with the Iowa Caucus. At the moment, Romney seems to be a slight favorite in Iowa but it looks like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (THE FUCK?) have a shot as well. All of the other candidates have had their ups and downs. Newt is the latest candidate to have seemingly been at the top only to see his poll numbers go down gradually. Who do you think will win Iowa? What about the whole race?

Personally, I think Romney at the end of the day will win the primary race because Republicans will recognize him as the only one who can beat Obama in the general election. But if he gets Herman Cain'd, anything is possible I guess.

[Ryo Hazuki]

I'm really disappointed in the lack of any sane candidates this cycle. Not to take away from the fact that I find almost everyone who declares themselves a part of the GOP, insane but really the over the top craziness of the people these days is just too much.

[F-ck Casey]

Ron Paul will gain more ground in the coming months, I think. He's the only REPUBLICAN that makes a bit of fucking sense at all when you watch the debates (Yeah, I've done that, several times). This isn't just me being a Ron Paul nut-hugger, either. Either way, though, I think Obama gets re-elected, so I don't really care. But the only way I'm voting is if Paul is on the bill. And, you can say all you want about me not having a right to complain about the election when the time comes because I didn't "make my voice heard", or whatever. That's like saying you can't argue with the results of the Grammys or Oscars or something unless you participated in the voting process. But, anyway...

Ron Paul for GOP Candidate '12, yes please. But, I'm more interested in the idea that, if any year, 2012 will be the year that a 3rd party can rise to prominence and make a good run at the White House. I forgot where I read that, but, yeah. Already rumblings of an Occupy Party.. :P

[travz21]

Lol yeah, Santorum is coming out of nowhere. Maybe his Iowa supporters haven't Googled his name yet.

Paul's got a good shot at Iowa, but the media has been unfairly downplaying the importance of Iowa just in case Ron happened to win it. Every other election Iowa has been pumped up by the media and has had a pretty good track record at picking the eventual nominees. But now that the media is trying to write it off, even if Ron wins, I'm not sure how that will affect the rest of the race.

Santorum is basically just hype from the latest CNN poll that wasn't very accurate and got people supporting him off that. I think he's basically just statistical noise and won't get near his poll numbers in the caucus. I'd say it's virtually 40% for Romney, 40% for Paul, and 20% for Santorum the frothy mixture. It'll be really interesting if Romney takes third.


The worst part of this circus of a GOP is that the media covers stories that aren't newsworthy, while totally ignoring the National Defense Authorization Act that was in the works, and that was eventually signed the other day by Obama. I bet only 5% of the nation knows about it, and that's being really dishonest to the citizens. Same goes for the Stop Online Piracy Act. Obama is using this GOP buzz as a cover to do all the dirty work before people realize what's really going on. Hopefully that doesn't pass as well.

[Pidgeon]

yeah I'm kinda desperately hoping Ron Paul gets it. Romney's to iffy, I don't think he'll get it done. and Santorum can fuck off and die as far as I'm concerned. If he gets elected Obama might as well push the big red button and put us out of our misery.

[Louis]

Here's the way I see it:

The three most legitimate political candidates in the race for the GOP Nomination are Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman. I think Mitt Romney, despite the fact that he has tried to align himself much more as a true conservative (which we all know he isn't, and is very reminiscent of what happened to John McCain in the 2008 election), is a good candidate because he's more moderate than he'd like to give off. The fact that he passed very liberal legislation in Massachusetts with three very conservative methods (there's an article on this somewhere, Google it) makes optimistic for him as a candidate. With that said, it hurts him in the eyes of Republicans because to compete in the GOP, you have to, for some reason, be as right-wing and as polarized as possible.

Ron Paul simply seems to be the truest Republican, and while I don't have enough knowledge about him, I think there's something to be said about the fact that he doesn't get much coverage. While I don't agree with him idea-wise, he seems to be the most consistent candidate. He knows what he wants, and it's just sad because it feels as though he's always in the Romney shadow and is just left out by the media.

Jon Huntsman is the one I like the most, but God knows he won't get nominated because of how much more moderate he is than the other candidates. He's the one who said that the Republicans shouldn't aim to be this 'anti-science' party. That to me was very indicative of his awareness that the Republican party has a major short-coming because they won't acknowledge something as proven as climate change.

I must acknowledge that I need to look into each candidate more, but right now, I would choose Huntsman if he were the GOP Candidate. He seems reasonable. Romney is a close second. At the end of the day, I would still vote for Obama. Obama's term has been impacted greatly by the divided, and for the most part incompetent Congress he has.

With that said, you'd all better be voting for representatives. It's not enough to just vote in Presidential Elections. If you guys aren't looking to elect your Congressmen, you're doing the United States a great disservice. Congress arguably has more power than the President does (at least, it appears so), and have largely dictated his ability to get anything passed. Republicans say no just to say no. Democrats say no because everyone else says no. It's a bunch of arm-wrapping and no actual thought. The fact that the NDAA passed is absolutely disgraceful considering how much backlash the Patriot Act received, and the possibility of SOPA passing would take our concern for intellectual property to a whole new level, threatening sites such as this one. Congress is sensationalist like the media is, and doesn't seem to pass things that would actually do good for the majority of people in this country. The fact that it took two tries to pass a 9/11 Healthcare Bill to provide healthcare for the first responders suffering from illnesses because of that day is disgraceful. It should have passed the first time, and the fact that it took so long to make an agreement about the Debt Ceiling that doesn't increase revenue is perhaps the most ridiculous thing.

Change Congress, and that's where you'll see change. A president is not enough. Obama couldn't do as much as he did because he has been forced to compromise more than he would have really been willing prior to becoming President. Compromise is good but at this point in time it has rendered bills useless. Obama has been looked down upon because he was given to fix more than he could in four years, and people expected too much of him.

Sorry, I know I went on this rant when we're talking about the GOP Primary Race, but I just think it's important for everyone to keep in mind that as important as electing our President is, every other position in Congress is arguably as important if not more so, especially this time around.

[Timothy]

I've been paying attention to every U.S. presidential election since 2000, and this shit just gets exponentially more ridiculous and embarrassing every time. The cesspools some of these politicians must crawl out of . . . yikes.

[Benjamin]

Here's the way I see it:

The three most legitimate political candidates in the race for the GOP Nomination are Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman. I think Mitt Romney, despite the fact that he has tried to align himself much more as a true conservative (which we all know he isn't, and is very reminiscent of what happened to John McCain in the 2008 election), is a good candidate because he's more moderate than he'd like to give off. The fact that he passed very liberal legislation in Massachusetts with three very conservative methods (there's an article on this somewhere, Google it) makes optimistic for him as a candidate. With that said, it hurts him in the eyes of Republicans because to compete in the GOP, you have to, for some reason, be as right-wing and as polarized as possible.

Ron Paul simply seems to be the truest Republican, and while I don't have enough knowledge about him, I think there's something to be said about the fact that he doesn't get much coverage. While I don't agree with him idea-wise, he seems to be the most consistent candidate. He knows what he wants, and it's just sad because it feels as though he's always in the Romney shadow and is just left out by the media.

Jon Huntsman is the one I like the most, but God knows he won't get nominated because of how much more moderate he is than the other candidates. He's the one who said that the Republicans shouldn't aim to be this 'anti-science' party. That to me was very indicative of his awareness that the Republican party has a major short-coming because they won't acknowledge something as proven as climate change.

I must acknowledge that I need to look into each candidate more, but right now, I would choose Huntsman if he were the GOP Candidate. He seems reasonable. Romney is a close second. At the end of the day, I would still vote for Obama. Obama's term has been impacted greatly by the divided, and for the most part incompetent Congress he has.

With that said, you'd all better be voting for representatives. It's not enough to just vote in Presidential Elections. If you guys aren't looking to elect your Congressmen, you're doing the United States a great disservice. Congress arguably has more power than the President does (at least, it appears so), and have largely dictated his ability to get anything passed. Republicans say no just to say no. Democrats say no because everyone else says no. It's a bunch of arm-wrapping and no actual thought. The fact that the NDAA passed is absolutely disgraceful considering how much backlash the Patriot Act received, and the possibility of SOPA passing would take our concern for intellectual property to a whole new level, threatening sites such as this one. Congress is sensationalist like the media is, and doesn't seem to pass things that would actually do good for the majority of people in this country. The fact that it took two tries to pass a 9/11 Healthcare Bill to provide healthcare for the first responders suffering from illnesses because of that day is disgraceful. It should have passed the first time, and the fact that it took so long to make an agreement about the Debt Ceiling that doesn't increase revenue is perhaps the most ridiculous thing.

Change Congress, and that's where you'll see change. A president is not enough. Obama couldn't do as much as he did because he has been forced to compromise more than he would have really been willing prior to becoming President. Compromise is good but at this point in time it has rendered bills useless. Obama has been looked down upon because he was given to fix more than he could in four years, and people expected too much of him.

Sorry, I know I went on this rant when we're talking about the GOP Primary Race, but I just think it's important for everyone to keep in mind that as important as electing our President is, every other position in Congress is arguably as important if not more so, especially this time around.

Every word.

Also, the fact that the only GOP candidate to believe in global warming is at the bottom of the polls shows how much trouble we are in as a country and in turn as a whole world.

[Pidgeon]

couldn't agree more with louis and Timothy. I think I'm gonna vote (in vain) for John Huntsman.

[travz21]

Even after Obama signed the NDAA? You'd still vote for him? Even if you don't know all of the other crap he's done, isn't that enough?

[Pidgeon]

Even after Obama signed the NDAA? You'd still vote for him? Even if you don't know all of the other crap he's done, isn't that enough?

he is a thousand times better than any of the GOP candidates except Paul and Huntsman

[Todd]

Even after Obama signed the NDAA? You'd still vote for him? Even if you don't know all of the other crap he's done, isn't that enough?

I don't agree with everything Obama does. I don't agree with everything anyone I've ever voted for does. The only person I'm going to agree with on everything is me, and I'm not running for president, so Obama is the next best thing.

[travz21]

Are you 35 or older? If so, get out there!

[Todd]

Nope ;)

[Benjamin]

All of the bad things Obama has done are things that any typical Republican would have done too. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that his second term will be better (especially since he won't have to "play politics").

[F-ck Casey]

so Ron Paul is projected to finish in the Iowa straw poll pretty strongly. Maybe not win it, but definitely do better than what most people thought he could do.

[Benjamin]

live poll results http://www.cnn.com/

[F-ck Casey]

suck on that boys

[Pidgeon]

the good news is that Michelle Bachman is in last :)

[Todd]

Paul's still not winning the nomination. The Iowa caucus isn't as significant as the media makes it out to be. Huckabee won it in 2008 and his campaign fizzled out like a stale fart.

[F-ck Casey]

You will eat your words.

[Todd]

OK :rolleyes:

[Benjamin]

Experts have given Paul a chance to win Iowa as early as 3 or so weeks ago. It's not much of a surprise. But he won't win the nomination. Ron Paul HIMSELF has shown signs that he doesn't even want the nomination.

[travz21]

Lol. People love trying to discredit Ron's chances. Off to New Hampshire next! Still not sure how the frothy mixture had such a strong showing in Iowa.

Here's some cool stats: Iowa Entrance Polls: How Different Groups Voted (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa/exit-polls)

RP crushing with the younger voters. And apparently frothy gained about 16% of his 25% in the last few days. 35% decided on him today and 33% in the last few days. Pretty gross.

[Louis]

Even after Obama signed the NDAA? You'd still vote for him? Even if you don't know all of the other crap he's done, isn't that enough?

Because a Republican candidate would do any better? Considering all of the good things Obama has done in his term, one poor piece of legislation isn't going to stop me from voting for him. Also, keep in mind that no one on the Republican side will survive in a campaign against him. If Romney gets the nomination, he will be another McCain. Obama has a lot more on his side than people give him credit for. He is our best option for President, arguably.

And you might say Romney could campaign against him. The only reason Romney is successful is because most of the other candidates are incompetent lunatics.

Also, how the hell did Santorum almost win the Iowa Caucus? Can someone explain this to me?

[travz21]

Ron Paul wouldn't have signed that shit. Just like he wouldn't have extended the Patriot Act. Or went to war without congressional approval. Or assassinate US citizens. Or bailout corporations.

No president with approval numbers this low has ever been reelected. But Romney and the rest of the GOP field, minus Paul, are nearly identical to Obama, so there's really not much of a choice for the people.

What significant things has Obama done that were good?

Obama is in bed with corporations, just like Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, etc., so I don't think he has that much more on his side than those people. There is so much power behind the corrupt politicians that it's going to be a long road for Ron. Basically the only way he pulls off getting the nomination is if people do the research on their own, because the higher power is doing everything it can to either ignore him entirely or slander him. And this is pretty apparent, considering he's the favorite with younger voters. They are likely the most self-educated.

[Pidgeon]

I'll say this if paul gets the nomination I definitely have some thinking to do but I think Romney is probably gonna get it

P.S. If Santorum keeps doing this well it will truly show just stupid Americans are. If they really think he is the answer then they are out of their minds. I don't understand why Huntsman, a guy with REAL foreign policy experience being the ambassador for China, is losing out to fucking Santorum. It makes me so fucking angry my head could fucking explode. If he gets elected president I'm moving to Sweden cause that is exactly what his name means (google it)

[Derek The Infamous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/michele-bachmann-dropping-out-concedes-iowa-caucus_n_1183120.html

Yeah you're a crazy bitch,
But you performed so bad that you're dropping out...

:trollface:

[Louis]

Ron Paul wouldn't have signed that shit. Just like he wouldn't have extended the Patriot Act. Or went to war without congressional approval. Or assassinate US citizens. Or bailout corporations.

No president with approval numbers this low has ever been reelected. But Romney and the rest of the GOP field, minus Paul, are nearly identical to Obama, so there's really not much of a choice for the people.

What significant things has Obama done that were good?

Obama is in bed with corporations, just like Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, etc., so I don't think he has that much more on his side than those people. There is so much power behind the corrupt politicians that it's going to be a long road for Ron. Basically the only way he pulls off getting the nomination is if people do the research on their own, because the higher power is doing everything it can to either ignore him entirely or slander him. And this is pretty apparent, considering he's the favorite with younger voters. They are likely the most self-educated.

Sure, he probably wouldn't have signed the NDAA, and perhaps he wouldn't have extended the Patriot Act. However, let's be honest. It's been several decades since we've gone to war with congressional approval. Even the Republican idol, Reagan, did similar things without congressional approval. There's no guarantee that Mr. Paul wouldn't do the same thing if the circumstances were right. Also, don't be quick to talk about how Ron Paul wouldn't assassinate American citizens, because if he's willing to let people die because they can't get health care coverage, I'd argue there's a level of equivalence there. I don't think Obama had much of a choice in regards to bailing out corporations because a lot of Americans would have been absolutely fucked. What needs to happen is the passing of legislation to check the powers of corporations, but of course, the Supreme Court didn't seem to give a shit about that with Citizens United, and I don't think Ron Paul would care much either considering he considers himself a conservative and a libertarian. Obama's hand was forced there, and some good things came out of the bailout legislation.

None of the candidates are 'identical' to Obama. Obama, at the very least, is competent. Yes, has he been our best President? No. But the reason why people disapprove of him so much is because you have people who scaremonger, who say that he hasn't made the changes he promised. Obama has done a lot of what he's said. May I remind everyone that with the sort of Congress that he has, he's had a very difficult time passing what he's wanted to. When your Congress is filled with a bunch of incompetent people who say no just to say no, you can see why people look at Obama saying he hasn't done anything. This is why I stated earlier that Congress has more power than he does. They dictate what legislation passes, essentially. I'm not as worried about people electing one of the Republican candidates as I am about how many people we keep in Congress who aren't doing their jobs the way we expect them to. Also, let's also recognize that Obama, as I've argued many times, was given perhaps some of the shittiest circumstances. What was broken in 8 years cannot be fixed in four. Things don't work that way in our socioeconomic system. People need to be realistic. Republicans, on the whole, have not been very realistic. That's why my vote is going to Obama.

Obama passed the Affordable Care Act. Obama passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has actually done some very good things, including taking some revenue and placing it into education, building roads, and other arguably good projects. He's created more jobs in the private sector than Bush ever did. He signed the START Treaty. He signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act. He repealed the restrictions Bush set on stem cell research. He passed the Health Care Reform Bill. He issued the order to kill Osama Bin Laden. We are out of Iraq. He did a lot of good things. I also think he issued an executive order to close Guantanamo. I'd say that he's been pretty successful.

Yes, I agree that Ron's road to the nomination will be difficult because like you said, the media ignores him. No one seems to care about him because he's a true Republican. With that said, I don't think he's a better candidate for the presidency than President Obama. Obama is on a positive path and has done good things for this country. He, to me, stands above the other GOP Candidates. It's unfortunate that the possibility of him losing this election stands only on the sole fact that people just want something different and aren't willing to look at the positives.

[.Amanda.]

As much as I like Ron Paul, his lack of foreign policy is pretty scary.

[Benjamin]

Santorum (essentially) tied Romney in Iowa because he wasted a year of his life going to literally every county in the state. That effort won him pretty much all of the Evangelical Christian votes along with the some of the "not Romney" votes (which a month ago belonged to Gingrich).

As for Paul, he's a candidate that will always get somewhere between 18-24% in primaries. Not more, not less. Why? Because he's the only true ideological candidate in this race. People either have loved him or hated him from the start. Unfortunately for Paul, he just isn't going to get his "haters" to suddenly like him. His foreign policy (which is liberal as fuck) in particular has permanently scared away most of the GOP primary voters. But it's interesting to wonder what would have happened if Cain was still in the race. He would have further polarized the field which may have led to a Paul victory in Iowa.

Going back to Santorum, his only chance at getting anywhere is if he can somehow place highly in South Carolina. There is a high concentration of evangelicals there and with Bachmann and Perry (most likely) out by then, he may get some of their votes as well. With that said, Romney will win New Hampshire (latest poll shows him winning by 47%) which is going to make it tough for Santorum to have a chance.

Never in U.S. history has a candidate ever won a party nomination without winning Iowa or New Hampshire. If Romney didn't get the nod it would be historic.

[Todd]

Never in U.S. history has ever won a party nomination without winning Iowa and New Hampshire. If Romney didn't get the nod it would be historic.

Plenty of nominees have lost Iowa but gone on to win the nomination:

On the Republican side, McCain, Daddy Bush and Reagan have lost the Iowa caucuses. On the Democratic side, Clinton, Dukakis, Carter and McGovern lost it.

And there's precedent for losing both Iowa and New Hampshire and winning the nomination. In 1992, Bill Clinton lost both and still got the nomination. Neither Iowa or New Hampshire are as crucial as the media makes them out to be. If Romney goes on to win NH, then his chances of winning the nomination are pretty good, but he could still lose the nod, especially in the south where evangelicals don't like Mormons too much.

[Benjamin]

Typo on my part. I meant to say Iowa OR New Hampshire. But I guess you're right about Clinton in '92. Either I was lied to or maybe I heard that was the case for Republicans.

[Pidgeon]

just the fact that santorum came second just shows how fucked we are as a country.

[Louis]

just the fact that santorum came second just shows how fucked we are as a country.

Let's be fair, it was one state. I also heard that Santorum did a lot of touring of the state. It makes sense. While other candidates have been going around the country, he centered in on Iowa. Smart move on his part, and it explains why he got a lot of votes. However, he's not doing the same for New Hampshire. Considering he didn't technically win the Iowa Caucus (despite the fact that it was only by eight votes), he only stands a chance if he pulls out a 1st or 2nd place victory in New Hampshire, which is unlikely if he's not going to center on NH for a while. At this rate, New Hampshire will go to either Romney or Paul, and I don't think it's an unfair prediction that Romney will take NH a bit more convincingly than he did Iowa. If that happens, then Romney will be the GOP's choice to run against President Obama.

And if that happens, Obama has less of a chance of winning, but will also be in a good place to win a second term because of he fact that Romney, in the eyes of many, is too moderate to be the Republican Candidate (which is why I wouldn't be all that upset if he won, although I'd still prefer Obama any day of the week). People say he flip-flops, and right-wing Evangelical Republicans don't like that he is a Mormon. He's the best candidate (besides Paul and Huntsman) in my opinion when it comes to the GOP, but ultimately Obama has more to say and less working against him. He's done too much and while Republican support has increased in the past few years, people are more upset about Congress than they are about Obama (check the approval ratings). I just don't think Obama will lose this election because the GOP just doesn't have the guns to make it happen.

[Pidgeon]

Let's be fair, it was one state. I also heard that Santorum did a lot of touring of the state. It makes sense. While other candidates have been going around the country, he centered in on Iowa. Smart move on his part, and it explains why he got a lot of votes. However, he's not doing the same for New Hampshire. Considering he didn't technically win the Iowa Caucus (despite the fact that it was only by eight votes), he only stands a chance if he pulls out a 1st or 2nd place victory in New Hampshire, which is unlikely if he's not going to center on NH for a while. At this rate, New Hampshire will go to either Romney or Paul, and I don't think it's an unfair prediction that Romney will take NH a bit more convincingly than he did Iowa. If that happens, then Romney will be the GOP's choice to run against President Obama.

And if that happens, Obama has less of a chance of winning, but will also be in a good place to win a second term because of he fact that Romney, in the eyes of many, is too moderate to be the Republican Candidate (which is why I wouldn't be all that upset if he won, although I'd still prefer Obama any day of the week). People say he flip-flops, and right-wing Evangelical Republicans don't like that he is a Mormon. He's the best candidate (besides Paul and Huntsman) in my opinion when it comes to the GOP, but ultimately Obama has more to say and less working against him. He's done too much and while Republican support has increased in the past few years, people are more upset about Congress than they are about Obama (check the approval ratings). I just don't think Obama will lose this election because the GOP just doesn't have the guns to make it happen.

Yeah I know he still has no chance but just the fact that people like his politics enough to vote for him disgusts me

[Louis]

Yeah I know he still has no chance but just the fact that people like his politics enough to vote for him disgusts me

Oh believe me, I'm as surprised as you are that people voted for him at all. However it makes sense considering how heavily he campaigned, and how people have been trying to bounce around, avoiding voting for Romney, trying out every candidate possible. We all know Romney is pretty much set for this nomination.

[travz21]

Frothy got about 2/3rds of his support the final few days before the caucus. It was purely media hype that created his surge. His campaign is pathetic and he has no money to seriously campaign from here on out unless donations start flying in. He couldn't draw a crowd of 50 people when he was campaigning in Iowa and was polling at around 4% up until a couple weeks ago.

[F-ck Casey]

Ron Paul is really the only candidate that's worth a shit in these debates.

[Will]

Ron Paul is really the only candidate that's worth a shit in these debates.

Ron Paul's also the only candidate who seems to sincerely want to help the country.

[F-ck Casey]

Oh, don't let Todd or any of the other people in this thread hear you say that. That's like heresy 'round these parts, son.

[Timothy]

I'd be interested to see who Paul would choose as a running mate. My vote? Kucinich, bish.

[F-ck Casey]

A crack rock, probably.

[Derek The Infamous]

Oh, don't let Todd or any of the other people in this thread hear you say that. That's like heresy 'round these parts, son. Just because we don't agree with Ron Paul's political views doesn't mean we're not going to allow you or Will to post things in support of him. That's your choice. Just be prepared to have us disagree, that's all. Still doesn't mean its heresy around here.

[Timothy]

I think it's obvious that the LPA staff hates Christians and white people.

[F-ck Casey]

Don't forget Orcs.

[Derek The Infamous]

Don't forget Orcs. Or dolphins. Fuck dolphins man.

[F-ck Casey]

Hey, whoa now. You're crossing a line.

[.Amanda.]

Or dolphins. Fuck dolphins man.
I wouldn't if I were you. They'll just grab you with their prehensile penis and drag you into the rape cave...

[Benjamin]

Anyways, the New Hampshire primary is tomorrow. Looks like a sure win for Romney. If so I think this primary race is over.

[Pidgeon]

I wouldn't if I were you. They'll just grab you with their prehensile penis and drag you into the rape cave...

sounds hot. . . jk jk. . . kind of ;)

edit: seriously jk XD

[Will]

I don't think I support Paul -- yet -- but he seems like the best person to challenge Obama. If the Republicans don't get their shit together they won't have to worry about being in the White House for the next four years.

[travz21]

Poll: Among GOP hopefuls, Romney fares best against Obama (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57355518-503544/poll-among-gop-hopefuls-romney-fares-best-against-obama/)

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/01/09/Who-Would-You-Vote-For-in-November-if-the-Candidates-Were.gif

Paul is the only realistic one who can beat Obama right now. If Romney wins the nomination and Paul runs 3rd party (or even if he doesn't), Paul will take quite a bit of points from Romney and will basically give Obama the win.

[F-ck Casey]

either way, absolutely no chance anyone but Obama wins, I think.

[Will]

either way, absolutely no chance anyone but Obama wins, I think.

I agree. The Republican party needs to regroup badly.

[Ryo Hazuki]

There is no republican party, there is only a republican circus. A Party is too much a structured and specific thing to be labeled as what these current bozos have.

[Theazninvasion68]

Ron Paul's also the only candidate who seems to sincerely want to help the country.

This. This is exactly the type of leader we need for America.

I can't believe Gringrich and Santorum have what they have right now. Perry as well.

[Pidgeon]

The republican party is a joke. Kitty and Paul are they're only chances

[Benjamin]

I admit that when I see Paul talk I really want to like the guy. I do believe that he truly wants to help the country and not play politics. I have really high respect for him because of that. But with that said, I just can't get on board with his solutions. Simple as that.

[travz21]

Nobody else has solutions, Ben. They are just content with doing the same thing over and over even though it's proven unsustainable. Paul's been studying economics for 30+ years, and we're on the path to a worldwide economic apocalypse with nobody having a clue of what to do. It takes quite a bit of research and understanding to get where he's coming from, as our minds have been ingrained with bs our whole lives through public schooling and corrupt media. The knowledge is out there.

Hopefully this thing gets down to a two-man race soon so people can start getting real facts about Ron Paul. Even a lot of people voting for him don't truly understand his positions unless they extensively research them since the media is told to not cover him. Once it gets down to Mitt and Ron, things should start getting more fun instead of all circus-like.

[F-ck Casey]

Paul is gaining too much momentum not to be in the Presidential race this year. Republican, Independent, Occupy party... one way or another, he'll be there. And he'll cause Romney to lose, as if Romney just existing isn't enough reason for him to lose to Obama.

Came in 2nd at the New Hampshire primaries, which is pretty good for someone who is/was a niche candidate at best. 2011/2012 is by far his best year.

[Pidgeon]

Agreed

[SuperDude526]

I'm hoping Paul runs Independent or something. Obama needs a landslide victory to boost people's confidence.

[Derek The Infamous]

The problem is that even if Paul through a miracle gets the GOP Nomination (which I'm doubting because despite his surprising finish in NH, the media and many GOP candidates have Romney as the potential candidate), he still isn't likely to win the Presidency. Why? Because Obama/the Democrats will use the public's perception of him to their advantage and milk it for all it's worth. Not that I support Paul at all, nor do I want him to be president, but if I was Obama and saw that Paul was my competition, I'd go all out portraying him as an anarchist, and label his ideas as insane/crazy for the country because that is already what most people think of him.

[ernieball003]

Ron Paul is showing the perfect prowess to finish second.

[F-ck Casey]

I don't think anyone in here is saying Ron Paul will win the Presidency, Derek. 'Tis a pipe dream. But he'll be in the race.

[travz21]

Paul has actual ammo to use against Obama if they ever went heads up, especially if we keep starting up all these unnecessary wars that are ruining our country. All Obama could do is lie some more to try and get people to vote for him. The majority of America thinks our government is too big and corrupt, so Paul won't have a hard time resonating with the people if they hear his true message. The establishment is scared.

With that said, Paul is now polling 2nd nationally in the GOP, even before last night's NH showing. This thing should start becoming a clear two-man battle within a week or two, and then things will get interesting.

[Pidgeon]

Done deal I'm votin colbert

[Rebecca Black]

Have you guys seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7c7m37geI
The republican candidates this year (except ron paul) are a joke. But Ron Paul's views are way too extreme for me.

[SuperDude526]

Ron Paul only seems reasonable because he's placed next to such nuts as these. Put him next to Obama or Colbert, he'll just seem like the crazy neighbor.

[travz21]

Freedom is extreme.

[Benjamin]

Huntsman drops out, endorses Romney (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/15/politics/gop-campaign-wrap/index.html?hpt=hp_t1).

Great, the only candidate that I would have considered voting for other than Obama is out.

[Ryo Hazuki]

Well, that sucks. He was the only one semi sane candidate of the republican party(circus) .

Also, Colbert isn't running for President of U.S.A

he's running for "President of the United States of South Carolina" and the reason he's running at anything at all is to show how absurd the laws of Super Pacs can be.

[travz21]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/380467_10150538929884872_367822059871_8491130_1228 119447_n.jpg

[F-ck Casey]

Obama and any white guy has good looking mash-up pictures. C'mon, man.

[Todd]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/380467_10150538929884872_367822059871_8491130_1228 119447_n.jpg
To be fair, everyone has agreed with Romney on everything at some point because he flip flops so much

In other news, you would think someone so opposed to wasteful government spending wouldn't be flying first class on the taxpayer's dime: http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120116ron_paul_fights_washington_spending_flies_ first_class/

[Pidgeon]

I'm out of respect for any of these candidates. Even Ron Paul. I'm done. I dont think I'm voting

[F-ck Casey]

Atta boy! :)

just remember, don't bitch about the outcome of the election after it's all said and done, since you (and me) won't be voting. because, as American citizens, we only have the right to complain about a result if we partake in the voting process! obviously.


Think Ron Paul (or any politician) is going to save/fix "your country"?

In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world's dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA's dominant election results reporting company.

When you look at your local counties posted polls, this program redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

This means that not only are these votes collected by a machine (that can be hacked and tampered with), they are collected and then released by a private corporation with no public oversight or accountability, leaving the window WIDE open for tampering and fraud.

Elections in their current form are illegitimate. They must be fully transparent in all transmittal of the data. The election infrastructure must be publicly held and open for full independent review by anyone. These points are pretty obvious and it shows how corrupt our governments are to allow elections to be privatized.

In the 2012 election make this one of the primary topics.

[Timothy]

Yeah, I think I'll be keeping my ass at the house on election day, too. Let everyone else make that hard choice between War-Mongering Corporate Shill #1 and War-Mongering Corporate Shill #2.

[Todd]

That is so shortsighted. I don't agree with Obama on many things, but I'm not going to abstain from voting because of that. Like I said earlier, the only person I agree with on every issue is myself, and I'm not running for president. He's the person I agree with most. I didn't say all the time, because no candidate meets that criteria. Surely there is some candidate you agree with on most issues even if you disagree with them on others.

[Timothy]

That is so shortsighted. I don't agree with Obama on many things, but I'm not going to abstain from voting because of that. Like I said earlier, the only person I agree with on every issue is myself, and I'm not running for president. He's the person I agree with most. I didn't say all the time, because no candidate meets that criteria. Surely there is some candidate you agree with on most issues even if you disagree with them on others.

Bear in mind, I'm assuming that the election will come down to Obama and Romney, and there isn't enough that separates the two of them for me to feel any sense of urgency to vote. I'm not holding out for the perfect candidate, but I wouldn't feel comfortable voting for someone who's policies and actions go against beliefs that are very important to me. Obama and Romney both fit that bill, unfortunately.

Honestly, there isn't a candidate who I agree with on most issues. Ron Paul is probably the one I agree with the most, but I disagree with him vehemently on a number of points as well.

[Pidgeon]

That is so shortsighted. I don't agree with Obama on many things, but I'm not going to abstain from vopting because of that. Like I said earlier, the only person I agree with on every issue is myself, and I'm not running for president. He's the person I agree with most. I didn't say all the time, because no candidate meets that criteria. Surely there is some candidate you agree with on most issues even if you disagree with them on others.
There is no candidate that I could vote for and not hate myself afterwords. Its bullshit. All these candidates suck ass. I can not morally bring myself to support Obama or worse, any of these GOP candidates. I'm not doing it

[Benjamin]

Trying to over-simplify everything and call Obama and Romney the same guy is complete bull shit. At the very least, they differ completely on social issues. Romney said today that he is for a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a male and a female. Are you guys saying you'll just not go vote and risk that guy being president? As for foreign policy, Obama just fucking pulled out of Iraq last time I checked. Romney would have stayed there and "won the war." As for Iran, I think the president should back off on them a little, but at least he's not starting a fucking war like Mitt Romney says he would do. In regard to the economy, Obama may not have kept some of his campaign promises but at least some of the rhetoric (which is better than nothing) from 08 is still with him. Also, Obama has clearly expressed his wishes for millionaires to pay more taxes. Mitt Romney has clearly said the opposite. Whichever side you are on that issue, there's no denying that they're different there as well.

But of course, they do have some similarities. They're both moderates in their respective parties, why wouldn't they? Yes, the death of Anwar al-Awlaki along with the signing of the NDAA was terrible. But Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are not the same and deciding to not vote at all is an insult to the democratic system. I'm sorry.

[Ryo Hazuki]

"I'm not going to have dessert because I want two cookies instead of one!"

That's exactly how it sounds to me when people say they won't vote because it's pointless.

[Timothy]

Trying to over-simplify everything and call Obama and Romney the same guy is complete bull shit. At the very least, they differ completely on social issues. Romney said today that he is for a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a male and a female. Are you guys saying you'll just not go vote and risk that guy being president? As for foreign policy, Obama just fucking pulled out of Iraq last time I checked. Romney would have stayed there and "won the war." As for Iran, I think the president should back off on them a little, but at least he's not starting a fucking war like Mitt Romney says he would do. In regard to the economy, Obama may not have kept some of his campaign promises but at least some of the rhetoric (which is better than nothing) from 08 is still with him. Also, Obama has clearly expressed his wishes for millionaires to pay more taxes. Mitt Romney has clearly said the opposite. Whichever side you are on that issue, there's no denying that they're different there as well.

But of course, they do have some similarities. They're both moderates in their respective parties, why wouldn't they? Yes, the death of Anwar al-Awlaki along with the signing of the NDAA was terrible. But Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are not the same and deciding to not vote at all is an insult to the democratic system. I'm sorry.

I never said they were exactly the same. When it comes to the issues that matter to me, though, there isn't enough of a difference to justify voting. I'm not against voting outright, but I am against voting for candidates I sternly disagree with. A vote from me for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney would be both intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.

Voting is important. Honest voting. Voting along party lines or for a lesser of two evils isn't what democracy means to me. It sounds like you guys dig Barack Obama. Fine. I don't, so I'm not going to vote for him. I'm struggling to see how being honest with myself in this instance is an insult to democracy, but some of you seem to love hyperbole. :P

[F-ck Casey]

BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA, DAMNIT! YOU MUST PARTICIPATE!

god bless america, etc.

[Derek The Infamous]

It's actually more like this:

Person 1: 'OH MY GOD, OBAMA IS A DICTATOR AND HE'S GOING TO TURN US INTO A SOCIALIST, MARXIST COMMUNIST NATION WITH HIM THE SUPREME LEADER!'
Person 2: "Wow, that's pretty strong wording. Who'd you vote for?"
Person 1: "Oh I didn't vote. :trollface:"

[F-ck Casey]

:rolleyes:

[travz21]

In other news, you would think someone so opposed to wasteful government spending wouldn't be flying first class on the taxpayer's dime: http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120116ron_paul_fights_washington_spending_flies_ first_class/

VIDEO: MSNBC slaps AP for false reporting on Ron Paul's first class flights. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oSRPQ2Dtm4)

Just another case of the media slandering Ron Paul. They do everything they can to make this fight as lopsided as possible since they're in bed with this corrupt government.


And you guys seriously need to do some more research on what's really up with Obama if you think he isn't the same as Romney or any other of the status-quo GOP candidates. Research everyone, actually. The media doesn't tell you what a candidate is really like. You need to look at their records. You need to look at what they're doing and what they've done that the mainstream media doesn't cover.

[Rebecca Black]

Trying to over-simplify everything and call Obama and Romney the same guy is complete bull shit. At the very least, they differ completely on social issues. Romney said today that he is for a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a male and a female. Are you guys saying you'll just not go vote and risk that guy being president? As for foreign policy, Obama just fucking pulled out of Iraq last time I checked. Romney would have stayed there and "won the war." As for Iran, I think the president should back off on them a little, but at least he's not starting a fucking war like Mitt Romney says he would do. In regard to the economy, Obama may not have kept some of his campaign promises but at least some of the rhetoric (which is better than nothing) from 08 is still with him. Also, Obama has clearly expressed his wishes for millionaires to pay more taxes. Mitt Romney has clearly said the opposite. Whichever side you are on that issue, there's no denying that they're different there as well.

But of course, they do have some similarities. They're both moderates in their respective parties, why wouldn't they? Yes, the death of Anwar al-Awlaki along with the signing of the NDAA was terrible. But Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are not the same and deciding to not vote at all is an insult to the democratic system. I'm sorry.

I agree with this. It looks like Mitt Romney is going to be against Obama. And Romney is going to make a terrible president. :/

[Benjamin]

Can somebody explain to me what the fuck just happened in South Carolina?

[travz21]

Some weird folk down there. I've been busy but I'll try to post some stats later.

[Darkspine Sonic]

I'm more disappointed in SC than I am in Iowa and I was pretty fucking disappointed in Iowa given that I'm from Iowa.

[Jayhov]

There is no candidate that I could vote for and not hate myself afterwords. Its bullshit. All these candidates suck ass. I can not morally bring myself to support Obama or worse, any of these GOP candidates. I'm not doing it

Honestly, if you don't vote in the election, you're getting the government you deserve. As simple as that.

[Blackee Dammet]

Can somebody explain to me what the fuck just happened in South Carolina?

Something that made Obama laugh his ass off.

[travz21]

Meh. I haven't found any stats for SC yet. Though I haven't looked too hard. Here's some overall stats I came across:


The race is just getting started, only 37 delegates have been allocated. (37 out of 2,286)


Newt and Santorum are not on the ballot in 5 states which account for 564 delegates. The party is clearly not behind Mitt. This thing is wide open.

[Rocky]

Honestly, if you don't vote in the election, you're getting the government you deserve. As simple as that.
Besides the fact that the government isn't directly a democracy, if the election is Douchebag vs Turd Sandwich, would you vote, and do you think that America deserves any of those?

North Korea and Somalia also hold elections too.



On the other hand, this SC shit is ridiculous!

[Ryo Hazuki]

What the fuck is wrong with the people of South Carolina!?

I mean, how can people be so.. well, fucked up.

[Blackee Dammet]

Besides the fact that the government isn't directly a democracy, if the election is Douchebag vs Turd Sandwich, would you vote, and do you think that America deserves any of those?

North Korea and Somalia also hold elections too.



On the other hand, this SC shit is ridiculous!

The US is a representative democracy. And the thing about democracy in general is that you need to keep paying attention for it to work. If you vote for a liberal Democrat President, then blow off the mid terms while hundreds of hardcore Christian conservative vote in batshit doomsday representatives that are a vital part of the entire system, well, you've fucked up. It's not because the systems flawed, it's not because "the 1 percent" cheated you, it's because you only did half of what you needed to do and the lunatics went though all the way.


What the fuck is wrong with the people of South Carolina!?

I mean, how can people be so.. well, fucked up.

Christian conservatives. They mobilize. Hard.

[Rebecca Black]

Besides the fact that the government isn't directly a democracy, if the election is Douchebag vs Turd Sandwich, would you vote, and do you think that America deserves any of those?

North Korea and Somalia also hold elections too.



On the other hand, this SC shit is ridiculous!

Yeah, but does USA rig elections and make the citizens believe Obama is some kind of God? You simply can't compare North Korea and Somalia with the States. The government of Somalia barely exists anyways.

And in my opinion, everyone should vote. It's a right that doesn't exist in so many other countries. People who don't vote in the elections and then complain about the government get on my nerves.

[Rocky]

The US is a representative democracy. And the thing about democracy in general is that you need to keep paying attention for it to work. If you vote for a liberal Democrat President, then blow off the mid terms while hundreds of hardcore Christian conservative vote in batshit doomsday representatives that are a vital part of the entire system, well, you've fucked up. It's not because the systems flawed, it's not because "the 1 percent" cheated you, it's because you only did half of what you needed to do and the lunatics went though all the way.
You are mostly correct, but....

The country's financial stability is run by special interest groups. That's the flaw. Some states run more campaign ads than others. We have bias/false media news coverage to persuade voters in a certain direction...and then you have corrupt campaigns a la G.W.B.

Most of it isn't cheating, it's being lied to or taken advantage of. When it's done in such a way as that, it isn't really hard to say "Well, you should pay attention more!", because it's true. But if you are an average American that gets the news off of a corporate bias TV network, that's what you are going to pay attention to. That's what makes it so much easier to have "Senator Douchebag" whose campaign is funded by "BullShit Corp." and it's also the reason why the foreclosure crisis happened.

I guess you can say that people are stupid, but when they are lied to and taught to take orders instead or figuring shit out on their own, there will always be less smart people.


Edit: People who don't vote and complain are annoying though. Complaining about something you don't try to change is ridiculous.

[Blackee Dammet]

You wouldn't believe how many Occupy idiots I've talked to that will outright admit they don't vote and haven't in many years because "Well... I want a fundamental change over" and then just ramble. It amazed me that screaming and living in a tent city, pooping in buckets seems that much easier than getting signatures, organizing recall elections and voting, but that's what we're dealing with. All that corperate emdia shit is true, but most of these 'enlightened' children carry their share of ignorance and laziness, and that's just as big a problem. If not more, really.

Think of it this way; The process is indeed sick, and it very well might be cancer, but let's not see if some penicillin works first before we demand to be bombarded with radiation.

[Rebecca Black]

This is wrong.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE

[Rocky]

You wouldn't believe how many Occupy idiots I've talked to that will outright admit they don't vote and haven't in many years because "Well... I want a fundamental change over" and then just ramble. It amazed me that screaming and living in a tent city, pooping in buckets seems that much easier than getting signatures, organizing recall elections and voting, but that's what we're dealing with. All that corperate emdia shit is true, but most of these 'enlightened' children carry their share of ignorance and laziness, and that's just as big a problem. If not more, really.

Think of it this way; The process is indeed sick, and it very well might be cancer, but let's not see if some penicillin works first before we demand to be bombarded with radiation.

Lol true shit, but I think it's more ignorance than laziness when it comes to the Occupy folks. It's like they think that being annoying is a powerful statement....Sure, it's bold, but it doesn't change laws. There's a reason why they don't know that, and a lot of that comes from purposely keeping the public uninformed and letting them believe that they are powerless. At least now that this Occupy stuff is going on, people want to be informed. There have been a couple of Occupy groups who have actually taken legal actions, but I seriously mean, like 2.

I think the worse folks are the ones that eat all of the media bull and help drive the country into the ground. Same with the ones who think that they are powerless and can only watch the country being driven into the ground.



This is wrong.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE

I'm gonna have to totally agree with Ron Paul on that. Why don't you?

[Rebecca Black]

I'm gonna have to totally agree with Ron Paul on that. Why don't you?

I disagree because in today's world, not everyone can afford health care. Just because a person doesn't have enough money to afford it doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to have proper medical care. Health care in my opinion, is something that every US citizen in America deserves, regardless of money. It's not always the person's fault for not being able to afford it. They could be mentally ill, or become unemployed, or whatever.

It's like saying people who can't afford food don't deserve it. There's a reason why there's food banks and stuff like that; people need it to survive. Sure, food is more important than health care, but people need to have access to hospitals. This is a first world country, and people should be able to have that kind of stuff.

I know that universal health care is expensive to run, but hey, many countries can do it such as Canada (where I live). However, I do get what you mean.

[travz21]

A food bank is a charity. It's run by volunteers, not the government. This is the type of stuff Ron Paul is talking about. The morality of the people needs to improve. We need to take care of each other willingly, not through coercion and force by government. That is both immoral and hurtful to the economy. If people can't afford it and need care, that's where charities should come in. Paul has treated many patients for free when they didn't have insurance because he didn't want that cost to be forced upon that taxpayers and because he understands the value of charity.

Responsible adults who choose not to purchase health insurance and think it's wiser to use that money for something else, if they end up needing the care, they knew the risks of going without insurance, which is a choice we should all be able to make. That's not to say they should die, but they should be stuck with the bill. If they can't pay it all, charities can help out or they will be in debt to the hospital.

Health insurance and healthcare would be much cheaper than it is now if we got government out of it entirely. This would virtually allow everyone to afford it.


In a limited government society, people get to make their own responsible choices. If they want to do drugs, they can. If they don't want to buy health insurance, they don't have to. They can keep 100% of their income. They can make any contract/trade/sale they want without government approval. They can marry whoever they please. The list goes on and on. The point is that this society would be able to run their own lives the way they want to instead of having it run for them by an all-powerful, untouchable government. Ron Paul stands for this. He stands for all of us. He fights for our liberty, hoping that one day he or someone else can restore our power over government.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-Thomas Jefferson

[Rebecca Black]

A food bank is a charity. It's run by volunteers, not the government. This is the type of stuff Ron Paul is talking about. The morality of the people needs to improve. We need to take care of each other willingly, not through coercion and force by government. That is both immoral and hurtful to the economy. If people can't afford it and need care, that's where charities should come in. Paul has treated many patients for free when they didn't have insurance because he didn't want that cost to be forced upon that taxpayers and because he understands the value of charity.

Responsible adults who choose not to purchase health insurance and think it's wiser to use that money for something else, if they end up needing the care, they knew the risks of going without insurance, which is a choice we should all be able to make. That's not to say they should die, but they should be stuck with the bill. If they can't pay it all, charities can help out or they will be in debt to the hospital.

Health insurance and healthcare would be much cheaper than it is now if we got government out of it entirely. This would virtually allow everyone to afford it.


In a limited government society, people get to make their own responsible choices. If they want to do drugs, they can. If they don't want to buy health insurance, they don't have to. They can keep 100% of their income. They can make any contract/trade/sale they want without government approval. They can marry whoever they please. The list goes on and on. The point is that this society would be able to run their own lives the way they want to instead of having it run for them by an all-powerful, untouchable government. Ron Paul stands for this. He stands for all of us. He fights for our liberty, hoping that one day he or someone else can restore our power over government.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-Thomas Jefferson

Keep in mind that not everyone chooses to not have health care. There's millions of people who would love to have it, but it's way too expensive for them.

I mean, I don't respect people who would use that money on lets say, video games and stuff. But there's many people who just can't afford it. To some people, it's something that they can't do much about.

[Rocky]

Keep in mind that not everyone chooses to not have health care. There's millions of people who would love to have it, but it's way too expensive for them.

I mean, I don't respect people who would use that money on lets say, video games and stuff. But there's many people who just can't afford it. To some people, it's something that they can't do much about. I don't think that you understand that Ron Paul wants to restore the economy to the point where virtually everyone can afford health care and you can have a choice of whether you want to spend that money or not. Half of US citizens probably can't afford healthcare right now. If for some reason you do not have healthcare, there are places that will take care of you for free. My girlfriend just got her gallbladder out for free because we are poor as shit...it's just that we really need a lot more places like that in the US, but it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. People shouldn't rely on the government. The government should rely on the people. When people are forced to think for themselves, they become more cautious in the decisions that they make, and in the end it works out for everybody. You ever hear of the town that got rid of all of the traffic signs and how it led to virtually no accidents?

EDIT: THIS. IS. AWESOME.

http://youtu.be/Qq-9A9CGTYU

[travz21]

Read these articles. Go to number 4 in the second link for the story.

Ten Years Ago Portugal Legalized All Drugs -- What Happened Next? (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28603.htm)


When the nation legalized all drugs within its borders, most critics predicted disaster. But a decade later, drug use has plunged dramatically.

Georgia (the Country) Fires All Its Cops (http://www.cracked.com/article_19489_5-terrible-ideas-that-solved-huge-global-problems.html)


EDIT: In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak)


You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

[Benjamin]

Florida Primary is tomorrow. If Gingrich somehow wins it would be a big momentum shift for him. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[Apop]

The way I see it, Mr. Gingrich will win the nomination primarily because he is more "extreme," for lake of a better word, than Mitt Romney. The people that go out to the polls for primaries in the US are not all registered members of the party, but in fact only the devoted, more strict party followers. Also, the people voting in these primaries now must be registered Republicans. Mitt Romney is too moderate on the spectrum to win a primary against Newt Gingrich. Now, with Mr. Gingrich winning the Republican Party nomination for President, he will not do as well as Mr. Romney would against President Obama. Voters, mostly independents and ticket-splitters, would rather see a moderate presidential candidate than someone with such "extreme" and "radical" ideas as Mr. Gingrich has, as portrayed by the media. President Obama will be a two-term President.