Summary of 2012 GOP Candidate

[loopholbrook]

Mit Romney- One of the biggest flip-floppers in politics right now. He has changed his stance on several issues including, but not limited to: gun control, raising minimum wage, don't ask don't tell, both Bush's and Obama's bailout, and abortion.

Michele Bachmann- This woman is crazy. She makes Sarah Palin seem intelligent. She blamed the democrats for the swine flu. She believes that our legal system encouraging antipatriotism, while promoting sexuality(what?). She thinks without minimum wage our unemployment rate would be 0%. Finally, she claims to have raised twenty three foster children. Now she's out too. Great job!

Herman Cain- Undeniably, Herman Cain is a great business man, but that doesn't necessarily translate to knowledge of our economy. From strictly an economic stand point he is one of the best candidates, which is sad. However, the man knows nothing about the social issues which we are facing. He also has complete ignorance of our foreign relations. Welp, just saw that he dropped out, so nevermind.

Newt Gingrich- The man has thirty eight breaches of ethics. The man flip-flops almost as much as Romney. A few issues which he has flip-flopped on would be medicare, engaging in Libya, and Obama's bailout.

Ron Paul- I will admit I have some bias with this candidate as I haven't many issues in which I disagree with him. I have been a supporter for around 5 years now, but I'll try to be as unbiased as possible. You will see no other Presidential candidate want to follow the constitution as strictly as Ron Paul. Some of his stances are a flat sales tax, legalizing all drugs, pulling all American troops out of every foreign country, leaving abortion up to the state, going back to the gold standard, making marriage a religious issue instead of a legal issue, and leaving payment of social security up to each individual.

Rick Perry- This man has some INSANE ideas, others not so crazy. For one, he wants to build a literal wall around the US-Mexico border. He wants a flat income tax. He would keep the troops in Pakistan and send even more to Israel. In case you forgot or are not aware, Israel is one of our greatest allies.

Jon Huntsman- Out of all of the Republican candidate he seems to one of the most intelligent. It seems that he doesn't make decision based on his morals as almost every other candidate does. He would like to remove the majority of our troops from foreign countries, more specifically leave the Middle East completely. One of his main issues is expanding global trade. He is a strong believer that the more countries that we will trade with, the more money and allies our country will gain. Huntsman also believes that we should end "Too Big To Fail", and shut down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Rick Santorum- In all honesty, I don't know much about this man. Here are some of his issues which I am aware of. He would like to make abortion illegal in every state. He would like to end social security. He thinks we should stay in the Middle East and not leave until we end Al Qaeda. Like I said, I'm not too familiar with him, but he seems like the average Neo-Conservative.

As a whole, I would not vote for any of these candidate, except Ron Paul, if they were to get the nomination. The main problem is that none of them would really change much, OR they would go back to being exactly like Bush. I am not a supporter of Obama, but with this group of people he is looking like he will get my vote.

[Hasbinbad]

I like Ron Paul as far as his fiscal and responsibility politics go, but he is pretty backwards on several social issues. It's almost as if he doesn't have a moral code sometimes.. Attractive in his honestly, yet simultaneously draconian and repulsive.

He is still head and shoulders the best in the republican field.

[loopholbrook]

I like Ron Paul as far as his fiscal and responsibility politics go, but he is pretty backwards on several social issues. It's almost as if he doesn't have a moral code sometimes.. Attractive in his honestly, yet simultaneously draconian and repulsive.

He is still head and shoulders the best in the republican field.

Actually on a moral stance he doesn't agree with many of his political views. Like with abortion for example, he wishes it weren't legal, but he thinks it's the states choice. Very similarly he thinks it's sad that people do drugs, but he doesn't think that the government should tell you not to take them. Also, from an economic stand point it's much smarter to have all drugs legal. That will cut down on over 55% of the prison population as well as seriously hurt all the drug cartels.

[Hasbinbad]

Just taking the abortion thing as an example, that he feels it is a states right to control females' lives based on.. ..what? ..antiquated religiosity? ..human rights?

..noooooo..

What about the female's rights?

Why does he wish it weren't legal?

He is pandering to what he wants to make his base. Pure and simple.

He doesn't give two shits for some young and dumb girl staring at a life changing decision in the face, having to make the better decision for herself. I mean sure, shit gets abused by crack hos that don't use birth control, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (mind the pun).

[loopholbrook]

Just taking the abortion thing as an example, that he feels it is a states right to control females' lives based on.. ..what? ..antiquated religiosity? ..human rights?

..noooooo..

What about the female's rights?

Why does he wish it weren't legal?

He is pandering to what he wants to make his base. Pure and simple.

He doesn't give two shits for some young and dumb girl staring at a life changing decision in the face, having to make the better decision for herself. I mean sure, shit gets abused by crack hos that don't use birth control, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (mind the pun).

By leaving up to the state it means that the people of each state vote for the issue, i.e. prop 8 in California.

If it were up to me abortion would be no issue period. I get to some people it's considered murder, but in my eyes the baby isn't a person until it is born. Not for late term abortion though, that's equivalent to killing a baby. Idk, not trying to defend my postion or his, just clarifying if you look where he stands morally quite often it contradicts his political stance.

[Truth]

I love scrambling the fuck out of developing babies and draining the pourage out.

[Hasbinbad]

By leaving up to the state it means that the people of each state vote for the issue, i.e. prop 8 in California.

If it were up to me abortion would be no issue period. I get to some people it's considered murder, but in my eyes the baby isn't a person until it is born. Not for late term abortion though, that's equivalent to killing a baby. Idk, not trying to defend my postion or his, just clarifying if you look where he stands morally quite often it contradicts his political stance.
The individual state should not have the right to infringe on what should be spelled out as a human right.

I think what you're looking for as far as abortion is "the age of viability." At about 20 weeks, a gestating fetus develops the ability to breathe air into it's lungs, should it suddenly find itself ejected from the womb. Without this ability, the fetus would die, even if one attempted to put the fetus on life support, as the lungs physically cannot accept air into the bloodstream (it has to do with blood pressure in the lungs and the manufactur of a substance called surfactant which allows the alveoli of the lungs to retain a certain pressure. In my opinion (this opinion is shared by many people who support abortion rights) this is the age where abortions should become illegal, because you might actually have to kill an infant, as a live fetus becomes known once alive outside of the womb (this is why some doctors are loathe to complete abortions which have passed 20 weeks but are still legal by the "2nd trimester" laws).

If yer a chick in dire straits, 20 weeks is more than enough time - even in the worst case - to make up your mind on this issue.

[Muchew]

Don't understand how this line up is even a question for anyone. Corporations paying these candidates are not just doing it out of the kindness of there heart. They want something in return if that candidate is elected. So these tards do and say whatever the fuck they want until they get elected. Then when it comes down to the corporations versus the people... they choose the one who gave them millions of dollars.

but he is pretty backwards on several social issues. It's almost as if he doesn't have a moral code sometimes..

Backwards from what? Liberals?
The only thing out of the box from ron paul is the fact that he actually wants to withdraw troops from everywhere, and that is just odd because we are so use policing all these countries that we have an economic interest in.

All the social issues are generally split 50/50, and he is on one side (as been said, though, he defers to the states)... Meaning you think 50% of the US do not have a moral code.

[Hasbinbad]

Meaning you think 50% of the US do not have a moral code.
More than 50%.

[Muchew]

fair enough...

[Humerox]

The GOP has already lost the next election.

[Hasbinbad]

No. WE have lost the next election. :(

[Autotune]

it is more the states rights to tell a woman what she can/can't do than the federal governments right.

Like you i think the woman should have total control. However, the federal government should have no say in anything of that matter. States should be left to govern themselves.

Just my take on it.

[loopholbrook]

Who's the retard that voted for Herm McCain?

[Autotune]

Who's the retard that voted for Herm McCain?

wtb more public polls

[loopholbrook]

wtb more public polls

No, I just mean that he dropped out of the race, so that's like saying you're going to vote for Palin.

[Autotune]

No, I just mean that he dropped out of the race, so that's like saying you're going to vote for Palin.

not what i meant, but okay.

[loopholbrook]

not what i meant, but okay.

Not saying that you said you specifically, just saying you in that use of the word you that doesn't mean you, but whatever.

[Aadill]

it is more the states rights to tell a woman what she can/can't do than the federal governments right.

Like you i think the woman should have total control. However, the federal government should have no say in anything of that matter. States should be left to govern themselves.

Just my take on it.

My problem with this is that by leaving it up to the states you immediately affect the quality of statehood for each constituent. It should be a federal government situation because one state should not grant rights while another denies them. That is backwards and goes against what the purpose and spirit of the Bill of Rights was written for. In terms of gay marriage or abortion, it is not right to say, "oh it's okay in Connecticut but in North Carolina the population says they hate you," because of the way a constituency votes on a topic that does not directly affect them. If we are looking to mold and manufacture our society to act a certain way (social evolution) then the majority should work against those in the minority in attempts to weed them out via state-level control on social issues. If we are looking to allow for free rights and no persecution for personal choices, then we are heading down the wrong path because your neighbor is passing judgement upon you.

Social issues should be nationwide as they affect who comes in and enjoys their rights in this country. In relation to other debates involving economics some people argue, "oh well you were born in the US you should consider yourself lucky because compared to the rest of the world you are one of the richest and most powerful people ever." To pull back on that picture, the "luck of the draw" of all economic and social issues comes down to where you are born, not what rights you have as a citizen of the country. So let's apply that same statement to social issues: "You should consider yourself lucky because compared to the rest of the world you have the most rights out of any other nation." Well if I was born here then why is there still a repression of ideas by the tyranny of a majority? Where are those that are in the minority being represented? What power do they have? How does this seem any more reasonable to be born into a location where you have no right to anything except unfair persecution? Wasn't that the intent of leaving the old world in favor of America? Not everyone can move out of North Carolina or California to be somewhere that can accommodate. If Ron Paul wants to transparently say, "this is an option each state must consider and is not ever going to be a guaranteed right," then I can understand where he is coming from politically... he's following the Constitution and not looking at the social implications.

Not only does this apply to abortion and gay marriage but let's look at other state-level vs federal issues. Insurance. Montana, who is looking to opt out of the Obamacare in favor of a socialized plan as seen in Saskatchewan, Canada. Saskatch has service that costs half as much as ours and it supports a fairly large population. If Montana ducks out of Obamacare they may have better service. Good for them. However, it could go wrong if hospitals decide that they cannot make a profit there anymore and move away. The hospital system would fall apart because much like what is seen in the international pharmaceuticals trade, the people will flock to the cheaper areas and the businesses would go to the more profitable areas. If the system works out and entire regions go after it, then there is a support network to reinforce a motivation to continue offering medical service. If every state joins in, hell yeah. they just fixed the old system by replacing it with a more regulated version. As another example, I think Japan only has $10bil in medical insurance yet they support a population of 127 million. The government pays 70% of cost. Not shabby.. everyone is covered and the system is nationwide. With Ron Paul's idea, what could happen is that some states opt in and some states opt out. If a few states that cannot support themselves decide to stay in a now marginalized federal system, those states suffer. The constituents become a victim of poor management. This is no different than with abortion or gay marriage or any other social issue... someone somewhere gets stepped on and everyone else looks the other way because.. well.. it's in the law books.

I'm in North Carolina. We have a vote on gay marriage next May. I registered to vote for the first time because I realized, "wow, my neighbors are shitheads." I refuse to believe it is fair for people who yell, "FUCK YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS," at the people in a local gay bar are the kind of people who should have any heavy-handed power over other people yet a state vote is coming in half a year to allow that to happen.

[Hasbinbad]

it is more the states rights to tell a woman what she can/can't do than the federal governments right.

Like you i think the woman should have total control. However, the federal government should have no say in anything of that matter. States should be left to govern themselves.

Just my take on it.
I appreciate your stance. I digress only in that I feel that human rights is one major set of issues that should be protected from state law by the federal government.

Edit: I just realized Aadill said what I just said, and that what I just said is a tl;dr: of what he said. Kthx.

[Aadill]

^when I put it into perspective for people they feel a little less confident of the idea of a decentralized government.

[Hasbinbad]

We'd make a good team, where you explain something thoroughly to me, and then I refine the whole concept into 2 sentences.