softy wrote: I doubt a mormon could get elected to the highest position in any western country, let alone in america with all its racism and intolerance..

I'm pretty sure mormon's face less bigotry than blacks.

Ron Paul, what a joke. Beloved by tinfoil hatters and Redditors.

Murakami wrote: and Redditors.

This is what cracks me up, love academic and scientific rigour when slamming Christians, marked absence of such when it comes to internet nerd faith in "libertarian" candidate.

Murakami wrote: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/...currentPage=all

This is literally one of the most infuriating and disgusting articles I've ever read. It saddens me deeply that New Zealand is sliding towards the same kind of plutocracy and politics of hate.

|_emon wrote: Ahahahahah. Ive seen this post before on Something Awful, they call it the "Paul Bomb". At any point if anyone talks about Ron Paul like he isn't crazy as hell someone posts it

Yeah, that's exactly where I got it, the Reddit thread in Debate&Discussion.

victorious wrote: paulbomb

To be fair you might want to read of some of the counter comments on reddit etc and decide whether each of the statements in the "paulbomb" is actually true/correct/accurate.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/co..._i_give_youthe/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian...d_to_paulbombs/

softy wrote: Romney is mormon, doesn't stand a chance of getting elected unless half the country stays at home on election day. I doubt a mormon could get elected to the highest position in any western country, let alone in america with all its racism and intolerance.

Quite honestly I think the Mormon thing isn't a big deal and definitely isn't Romneys real problem.

People will say these things repeatedly right up until someone is the first to get elected. Same about Kennedy being Catholic, Obama Black, whatever.

eug1404 wrote: .. It saddens me deeply that New Zealand is sliding towards the same kind of plutocracy and politics of hate.

Agree that corruption/lobbying in the US is off the chain but how is NZ sliding towards this?

We had a major cross party select committees on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill changes in 2010 for example, so in NZ we have:
- Candidate expenditure limits
- Third party spending limits
- Party expenditure limits
- Strong disclosure of donations and contributions

Murakami wrote: Ron Paul, what a joke. Beloved by tinfoil hatters and Redditors.

Compared to the other candidates? Who would be your preferred?
From what little I've read, Ron Paul seems like the better choice..

Ragnor wrote: To be fair you might want to read of some of the counter comments on reddit etc and decide whether each of the statements in the "paulbomb" is actually true/correct/accurate. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/co..._i_give_youthe/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian...d_to_paulbombs/

Most of what's posted in those links isn't a rebuttal of anything in the 'Paulbomb', it's just Redditors saying "yeah, so? those are all good things!". It comes down to individual philosophies in the end, you either support him or you don't. For what it's worth I appreciate that Paul doesn't follow the traditional Republican party lines, but I get sick of any politician's supporters claiming that he's some super-human saint who will save the country/world/universe just because they agree with one or two of his campaign promises.

Limit0 wrote: Compared to the other candidates? Who would be your preferred? From what little I've read, Ron Paul seems like the better choice..

Yeah unfortunately a vote for any of the others and even Obama is a vote for more plutocracy.

victorious wrote: Most of what's posted in those links isn't a rebuttal of anything in the 'Paulbomb', it's just Redditors saying "yeah, so? those are all good things!". It comes down to individual philosophies in the end, you either support him or you don't. For what it's worth I appreciate that Paul doesn't follow the traditional Republican party lines, but I get sick of any politician's supporters claiming that he's some super-human saint who will save the country/world/universe just because they agree with one or two of his campaign promises.

Yeah to be honest I don't get how so many people get so starstruck and become rabid fanboi's over individual politicians/celebrities etc.

Ragnor wrote: Agree that corruption/lobbying in the US is off the chain but how is NZ sliding towards this?

Over National's last term we saw some pretty blunt corruption to the benefit of certain large commercial intersts, and a large part of their campaign was heaping hatred upon beneficiaries.

Couldn't agree more. We're seeing some pretty blatant transference of public wealth into private hands.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151814/A...m_term=Politics

Gallup poll shows most Americans find Huntsman is idealogically closest to their political views.

And yet he's polling at 2%

victorious wrote: Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.. (Not my material, got it from here)

This post is retarded, and the fact you guys are feeding off it is embarrassing. You are providing opinions for voting for or against things that he does not hold. This is the same as me saying Ghandi wanted his people to die and linking pacifism and non-retaliation as sources.

Santorum and Romney look to clean up in Iowa

http://google.com/elections/ed/us/results

Hamish_West wrote: This post is retarded, and the fact you guys are feeding off it is embarrassing. You are providing opinions for voting for or against things that he does not hold. This is the same as me saying Ghandi wanted his people to die and linking pacifism and non-retaliation as sources.

Which parts of it aren't true?

- Gingrich - too much baggage (global warming, serial flip-flopper, booted out by his own guys in 1997). Was caught having a dip in the Freddie Mae cookie jar.
- Romney - Mormonism isn't the issue. He's a serial flip-flopper as well. His record in Massachusetts isn't particularly inspiring.
- Santorium lacks charisma, but does well overall. Probably the ultimate "Not-Romney" candidate at this point.
- Perry just reminds someone of Bush. Has charisma but doesn't orate well
- Bachmann - tin-foily. Her HPV debacle pretty much killed her chance.
- Ron Paul just reminds everyone of that crazy uncle who shouldn't go near a gun.
- Huntman used to be Obama's ambassador to China. "Obama lite" for the most part.

If Santorium improves wins the nomination, there might be a chance that he'll beat Obama. Everyone else is going to get their arse kicked by the Obama political machine come election.

Is there anyone in the GOP field with more actual foreign policy experience than Huntsman?

The Romney Superpac really came through.

Amoki wrote: If Santorium improves wins the nomination, there might be a chance that he'll beat Obama.

LOL, Santorum would be a dream come true for Obama, while he'll win the odd state and might get a solid voter base, he'll never be mainstream enough to win over enough votes to win the big show. Hardcore conservative, borderline delusional:

Quote: The Santorum Amendment was an amendment to the 2001 education funding bill which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act, proposed by then-Republican United States Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, which promotes the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in U.S. public schools.

bradc wrote: LOL, Santorum would be a dream come true for Obama, while he'll win the odd state and might get a solid voter base, he'll never be mainstream enough to win over enough votes to win the big show. Hardcore conservative, borderline delusional:

On the other hand if the democrats decided to go negative, Santorum has given them the perfect soundbite.

"I don't want to make black people's lives better..."

bradc wrote: LOL, Santorum would be a dream come true for Obama, while he'll win the odd state and might get a solid voter base, he'll never be mainstream enough to win over enough votes to win the big show. Hardcore conservative, borderline delusional:

I disagree. A good combination of being able to handle smear (c.f. Herman Cain), pushing the right fiscal conservative buttons as well as continual exposure of poor Obama/Democrat policies (Solyndra, NLRB-Boeing, Canadian pipeline, Too Fast Too Furious, Obamacare waivers etc.) and Obama is toast. Did I mention pork-barrel spending? The sesame street spending for Pakistan is worth a laugh, though I don't think a jobless Yank would.

No one gives a crap about a social conservative when joblessness is close to 9% in the States, the foreign debt is 15 trillion, there's virtually no growth in the economy, Democrat policies failing to stimulate the economy after 3 years and there's a massive trade deficit in the States. If Santorium can produce sound fiscally conservative policies, he'll win. Get distracted, and he'll lose.

Will be an interesting race though. Personally I think all the Republican candidates suck.

Santorum doesn't have the machinery required to win a national primary race. Romney would be a much better pick anyway. He polls well with the independents. Put him with someone like Marco Rubio (who would be strong in key states like Florida) and you would have serious competition for Obama.

Why are you all rating Obama's chances of re-election so highly?

Everything I've seen suggests he's going to get trounced at the next presidential election unless he can pull another 'yes we can' gimmick, which seems unlikely given the whole 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...' thing. The republicans don't even need to field a half-way decent candidate, pretty much anybody who isn't Obama, or completely batshit insane(c.f. Ron Paul, Rick Perry), should be a shoe in.