General Republican Party/Primary Discussion

[jrrrrrrr]

Actually, liking space exploration is one of the few things I must commend Newt on. He's been pretty consistent about that for a long time now so it's also not like he just said that to appease Floridian voters.

Doesn't he kinda have to fund NASA to do that? Or is there this belief that it will just magically happen?

He believes that the private sector would do this more efficiently and better overall. So he'd probably take the usual Republican route: pump taxpayer money into public universities that do all the research and then let private companies take credit and make all the money in development. Seems to work for the "free market" pharmaceutical industry.

 

[capefeather]

okay so sort of the latter then

 

[Surgo]

The space thing is some of the most shameless pandering I've seen in a long time, and is hilariously hypocritical from such a bastion of "fiscal conservatism". Guess which state lost all the money that the shuttle launches brought them, when the shuttle went away? Right.

 

[danilo]

Mitt Romney won the primary in Florida. Mitt got 46.4% of the vote while 31.9% went to Newt.

 

[Yuki [old]]

i really want to see ron paul win Nevada now

i don't really even like Paul that much, but him winning a state finally would mean that the debates would continue into at least Super Tuesday, and they've honestly been some of the best television we've gotten in years haha.

 

[Deck Knight]

Santorum Sweeps!

Mitt Romney got RickRolled!

Since Newt Gingrich is imploding (or exploding maybe, whatever it is, it's ugly lookin'), looks like the next big fight will be between Santorum and Romney.

 

[iDunno]

I am SO looking forward to legally enforced abstinence and to have my personal beliefs be shitted on by some evangelist bigot!

 

[Crux]

You weren't gonna get laid any time soon anyway.

 

[iDunno]

1. Usually the people that make those types of remarks are reflecting their own experiences of sexlessness onto others in order to glorify themselves and raise their self confidence.

2. Even if I didn't have sex, my concerns would still be valid.

 

[Myzozoa]

vouching for crux's ability to get laid all the time. he's got the swag and it's pumpin out his ovaries. Also Santorum is the best thing for the Dems since Sarah Palin.

 

[Surgo]

Wow. If there was ever a doubt in my mind that this Republican primary was a race to the bottom, this removes it. They really are trying impressively hard to find the least likable candidate.

 

[Stratos]

sweatervests are insanely likeable; what are you talking about?

also anyone who honestly says they'd prefer Gingrich over Santorum is either trolling or Gingrich.

also, iDunno, if you got any stupider in your political views, you would be this guy.

Without the sarcasm
http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...bamas-democrat-opponent-vermin-supreme/304331

 

[Layell]

Can the United States not have a sweater vest president please, Prime Minister Harper already has taken that role in North American politics

It would be too much!

I'm actually very surprised at Santorum managing to stick in for so long, I suppose it's just a matter of waiting for Newt to implode under his huge ego.

 

[Surgo]

I'd take Gingrich over Santorum, but that's a lot like saying I'd take a shit salad with a soda to wash it down over just a shit salad.

 

[Deck Knight]

I am SO looking forward to legally enforced abstinence and to have my personal beliefs be shitted on by some evangelist bigot!

I'm sorry, iDunno, did you say "shitted on by a bigot."

You mean like Barack Obama's HHS mandate, which demands Catholics bow to government's preferences and subsidize contraception and abortifacients in health care policies even in institutions where those completely optional products are against the moral charter of that institution?

Your concerns aren't valid iDunno because they're based in ignorance. Santorum himself has said he personally opposes the use of contraception as a practicing Catholic, he would not support a government ban on it.

 

[Stratos]

Your concerns aren't valid iDunno because they're based in ignorance. Santorum himself has said he personally opposes the use of contraception as a practicing Catholic, he would not support a government ban on it.

God, Deck, L2read. he didn't say he was looking forward to a contraception ban; he said "legally enforced abstinence." because republicans are in favor of stifling personal choice in favor of imposing their own beliefs.

fuckin' duh!

 

[danilo]

Anyone else legitimately scared that Santorum will become the nominee?

 

[DetroitLolcat]

Anyone else legitimately scared that Santorum will become the nominee?

Nah, at this rate nobody's getting the ~1144 (though it's too early to be sure), and unless Santorum gets a majority I think his delegates will drop like flies at the convention. I could see Santorum being a solid second to Romney though.

 

[iDunno]

You mean like Barack Obama's HHS mandate, which demands Catholics bow to government's preferences and subsidize contraception and abortifacients in health care policies even in institutions where those completely optional products are against the moral charter of that institution?

Deck Knight I think you should know that if it were my decision all religious institutions would be banned from the United States so I don't really feel any empathy for any of them, sorry :) (Don't worry, little buddy, I'm never gonna run for president!)

Your concerns aren't valid iDunno because they're based in ignorance. Santorum himself has said he personally opposes the use of contraception as a practicing Catholic, he would not support a government ban on it.

My concerns aren't based on ignorance, they're based on a CNN debate where he said explicitly (as explicitly as a politician can say) that he would legally enforce abstinence. He said that since there are studies (obviously by biased religious institutions) that say that those that do not have sex until they are married are 90% more likely to succeed and have an income over 200 thousand dollars per year he would be hard pressed to seriously consider legally obligating abstinence. (or something along those lines at least - I don't have a photographic memory or anything)

 

[TeeJay]

I can't take this any more.

Moral policies are, whether you like it or not, secondary to fiscal policy. No one is going to ban abortions or make it illegal to get it on before marriage. There are too many checks and balances in place (read: re-election) that do a good job of keeping radical changes from taking place.

A President has the most impact on day to day operations of the Executive Branch. Namely, enforcing the law (not making it!) and running government. This means choosing what parts of bills to enforce and what the budget for next year should be.

You may care more about moral issues because you are not directly impacted by fiscal mandates or tax changes yet, but when you start paying taxes and working for companies that have to make real decisions on job openings, export volumes, and health care benefits, you will start to see how these policies eclipse the religious beliefs of a specific candidate.

Stop talking about this nonsense and focus on the topics that will really influence the outcome of this election: fiscal policy.

 

[iDunno]

I can't take this any more.

Moral policies are, whether you like it or not, secondary to fiscal policy. No one is going to ban abortions or make it illegal to get it on before marriage. There are too many checks and balances in place (read: re-election) that do a good job of keeping radical changes from taking place.

A President has the most impact on day to day operations of the Executive Branch. Namely, enforcing the law (not making it!) and running government. This means choosing what parts of bills to enforce and what the budget for next year should be.

You may care more about moral issues because you are not directly impacted by fiscal mandates or tax changes yet, but when you start paying taxes and working for companies that have to make real decisions on job openings, export volumes, and health care benefits, you will start to see how these policies eclipse the religious beliefs of a specific candidate.

Stop talking about this nonsense and focus on the topics that will really influence the outcome of this election: fiscal policy.

This election will do absolutely nothing for fiscal policy. The republican candidates will either shit it up even worse than Obama is or Obama will continue shitting it up as he is now (or possibly do a better job next term having learned from his mistakes). Seriously, presidential elections aren't a magic wand for wishing economic problems away.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

There's a delegate counter here for people who need catching up http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

Right now its
Romney 94
Santorum 71
Gingrich 29
Paul 8
Huntsman 2

It's no surprise to see Santorum and Gingrich splitting the "not-Romney" vote.

Still a shitload of delegates left though

 

[Surgo]

I can't take this any more.

Moral policies are, whether you like it or not, secondary to fiscal policy. No one is going to ban abortions or make it illegal to get it on before marriage. There are too many checks and balances in place (read: re-election) that do a good job of keeping radical changes from taking place.

You may be talking specifically about the presidency, but when it comes to everything politics I live in New Hampshire so this statement is demonstrably wrong.

The Republicans campaigned here in 2010 on a "laser-like focus on the budget" platform. Since taking office, they have proceeded to do everything except focus on the budget, instead preferring to legislate their moral policies. All of which have been, thankfully, vetoed by our governor.

"Moral policy" is fucking important. Obama himself has done a pretty decent job on this, though his sweeping expanse of state power is really troubling. I sure as hell do not want to live in a country with a Republican congress and Rick Santorum waiting to rubber-stamp whatever lunacy they come up with.

 

[Ray Jay]

Nah, at this rate nobody's getting the ~1144 (though it's too early to be sure), and unless Santorum gets a majority I think his delegates will drop like flies at the convention. I could see Santorum being a solid second to Romney though.

The problem is, it wouldn't appear that either in their current state are capable of defeating Obama.

 

[Yuki [old]]

My concerns aren't based on ignorance, they're based on a CNN debate where he said explicitly (as explicitly as a politician can say) that he would legally enforce abstinence. He said that since there are studies (obviously by biased religious institutions) that say that those that do not have sex until they are married are 90% more likely to succeed and have an income over 200 thousand dollars per year

close but not quite

the study santorum likes to talk about a lot, and i think the one you're referring to, pointed out that among people that

1) worked
2) graduated high school
3) got married before having children, if any

only 2% of them ended up below the poverty line

i think the point he was trying to make was that schools should be able to talk to students about things like that in sex education classes and the like and not just be forced to push the "safe sex" agenda on them. i don't think santorum actually wants to prevent schools from talking about condoms or whatever, but rather he wants them to also present the advantages of abstinence realistically to compliment that, and just let the kids make up their minds themselves