Republican Primary Megathread (poll now updated)

[Kaeshar]

How the hell could anyone TRIPLE the national debt in 3 years?

Also, it didn't happen.

Some what connected to this post(saying I immediately went looking for the data on Reagan tripling the debt and that is where I found this), why haven't the Democrats hung Paul Ryan with this choice quote of his regarding the debt in 2001.

"It's too small," Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the most junior member of the Ways and Means Committee but a leading House supply-sider, told me. "It's not big enough to fit all the policy we want."

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/86893/remembering-when-paul-ryan-worried-the-debt-was-too-small

Lol, then I'd ask him how big would the debt have to be in order for it to be big enough, 100 trillion?

[Hittanryan]

Ron Paul FTW.
([url=http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/231/949/17d.png]Image)[/url]

Picspam doesn't really contribute anything, but I do wonder why you want to elect someone who advocates authoritarian state governments.

[Wikkiwallana]

Ron Paul FTW.
([url=http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/231/949/17d.png]Image)[/url]

This is "who will win" not "who do you want to win". Paul isn't going to get the nomination. He couldn't beat Romney when he was the only other person on the ballot.

[Vaklor]

Ron Paul FTW.
([url=http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/231/949/17d.png]Image)[/url]

Picspam doesn't really contribute anything, but I do wonder why you want to elect someone who advocates authoritarian state governments.

Just cause.

[Hittanryan]

Picspam doesn't really contribute anything, but I do wonder why you want to elect someone who advocates authoritarian state governments.

Just cause.

All right, as long as we're clear on that.

[Grave_n_idle]

Picspam doesn't really contribute anything, but I do wonder why you want to elect someone who advocates authoritarian state governments.

Just cause.

I wish that wasn't the best and most consistent answer to that question.

[Hittanryan]

Just cause.

I wish that wasn't the best and most consistent answer to that question.

Hey, it satisfies both parties, probably for different reasons, and it pre-empts 20 page arguments.

[Quelesh]

Ron Paul is the best candidate, but he will not win (I might be a little too defeatist!). Let's just hope that the Republicans reunify under one candidate and focus on the general election against Obama, known for tripling the American debt. What else did he do?

What else did Obama do?

And the very first thing mentioned on that site is something that had absolutely no effect, as the Guantanamo prison camp remains very much operational.

[Kaeshar]

What else did Obama do?

And the very first thing mentioned on that site is something that had absolutely no effect, as the Guantanamo prison camp remains very much operational.

He was blocked by congress from closing Guantanamo, plus the fact that many states don't want those people on their soil or something.

[Jedi8246]

Ron Paul FTW.
([url=http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/231/949/17d.png]Image)[/url]

Picspam doesn't really contribute anything, but I do wonder why you want to elect someone who advocates authoritarian state governments.

[Farnhamia]

Picspam doesn't really contribute anything, but I do wonder why you want to elect someone who advocates authoritarian state governments.

You're right, he doesn't actually advocate that state governments become authoritarian, he just wouldn't allow the Federal government from stopping them becoming so.

[The Rich Port]

Ron Paul FTW.

([url=http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/231/949/17d.png]Image)[/url]

The face of a revolutionary.

All he is missing is a cigar, a beard, and a beret.

My sarcasm meter broke. D:

[Wikkiwallana]

Ron Paul FTW.

([url=http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/231/949/17d.png]Image)[/url]

The face of a revolutionary.

All he is missing is a cigar, a beard, and a beret.

My sarcasm meter broke. D:

And a clue.

[Ralphonia]

I am still a Ron Paul supporter, but at this point, Romney's sealed the Nomination up, IMO. He will not beat Obama, however.

[Jedi8246]

You're right, he doesn't actually advocate that state governments become authoritarian, he just wouldn't allow the Federal government from stopping them becoming so.

Also, not true. he has specifically stated that he believes in keeping the 13th, 14th, and 15h Amendments. These force the states to have the Bill of Rights applied to them. Ie, your little state authoritarian doomsday scenario is false and completely incorrect. .

[Laerod]

You're right, he doesn't actually advocate that state governments become authoritarian, he just wouldn't allow the Federal government from stopping them becoming so.

Also, not true. he has specifically stated that he believes in keeping the 13th, 14th, and 15h Amendments. These force the states to have the Bill of Rights applied to them. Ie, your little state authoritarian doomsday scenario is false and completely incorrect. .

Except for the bit about his proposed amendments where the Supreme Court can't strike down discriminatory laws because it can't hear them. And if it does, bye bye justices.

[Wikkiwallana]

You're right, he doesn't actually advocate that state governments become authoritarian, he just wouldn't allow the Federal government from stopping them becoming so.

Also, not true. he has specifically stated that he believes in keeping the 13th, 14th, and 15h Amendments. These force the states to have the Bill of Rights applied to them. Ie, your little state authoritarian doomsday scenario is false and completely incorrect. .

We the People Act, Ron Paul's legislative baby:

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--
(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.
-snip-
SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.
A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.
SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.
Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.

[Farnhamia]

Also, not true. he has specifically stated that he believes in keeping the 13th, 14th, and 15h Amendments. These force the states to have the Bill of Rights applied to them. Ie, your little state authoritarian doomsday scenario is false and completely incorrect. .

Except for the bit about his proposed amendments where the Supreme Court can't strike down discriminatory laws because it can't hear them. And if it does, bye bye justices.

You don't even need an amendment for that. Congress can simply pass a law, like Paul's "We The People" Act, that says the Supreme Court may not adjudicate any cases of a particular nature.

[Coccygia]

Except for the bit about his proposed amendments where the Supreme Court can't strike down discriminatory laws because it can't hear them. And if it does, bye bye justices.

You don't even need an amendment for that. Congress can simply pass a law, like Paul's "We The People" Act, that says the Supreme Court may not adjudicate any cases of a particular nature.

Really? I suspect that would be unconstitutional. (Has this ever actually been done before?) What I am quite sure of is that it would be the end of constitutional government. Jeez, Libertarians are idiots.

[Laerod]

Aw, man. What a nutter!

Gingrich wants Santorum's endorsement

(CNN) – While Mitt Romney's campaign tries to secure Rick Santorum's endorsement, Newt Gingrich said Saturday that he also wants the former Republican presidential candidate's support.

"He has to do what he thinks is right for his family, and if he has campaign debt, what he has to do to help pay his campaign debt. I'm not going to put any pressure on Rick, but I'd love his endorsement," Gingrich told reporters at the NASCAR Hall of Fame in Charlotte.

[Quelesh]

You don't even need an amendment for that. Congress can simply pass a law, like Paul's "We The People" Act, that says the Supreme Court may not adjudicate any cases of a particular nature.

Really? I suspect that would be unconstitutional. (Has this ever actually been done before?) What I am quite sure of is that it would be the end of constitutional government. Jeez, Libertarians are idiots.

It's called jurisdiction stripping, and it's something that I generally oppose. The ability to do this comes from the exceptions clause:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

I don't think that Congress should be stripping the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear any case.

[Gauthier]

Aw, man. What a nutter!

Gingrich wants Santorum's endorsement

(CNN) – While Mitt Romney's campaign tries to secure Rick Santorum's endorsement, Newt Gingrich said Saturday that he also wants the former Republican presidential candidate's support.

"He has to do what he thinks is right for his family, and if he has campaign debt, what he has to do to help pay his campaign debt. I'm not going to put any pressure on Rick, but I'd love his endorsement," Gingrich told reporters at the NASCAR Hall of Fame in Charlotte.

Read that as "Gingrich Wants Santorum".

[Tmutarakhan]

Really? I suspect that would be unconstitutional. (Has this ever actually been done before?) What I am quite sure of is that it would be the end of constitutional government. Jeez, Libertarians are idiots.

It's called jurisdiction stripping, and it's something that I generally oppose. The ability to do this comes from the exceptions clause:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

I don't think that Congress should be stripping the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear any case.

It wouldn't quite have the effect conservatives are hoping for. Federal courts would still hear abortion / discrimination / flag-burning / school-prayer / whatever cases, but since they could not go up to the Supreme Court, if different federal courts make different rules in different parts of the country, the disagreements would be left unresolved.

[Wikkiwallana]

It's called jurisdiction stripping, and it's something that I generally oppose. The ability to do this comes from the exceptions clause:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

I don't think that Congress should be stripping the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear any case.

It wouldn't quite have the effect conservatives are hoping for. Federal courts would still hear abortion / discrimination / flag-burning / school-prayer / whatever cases, but since they could not go up to the Supreme Court, if different federal courts make different rules in different parts of the country, the disagreements would be left unresolved.

I've posted this twice already: viewtopic.php?p=9000454#p9000454

It hits federal courts too.

[Tmutarakhan]

It wouldn't quite have the effect conservatives are hoping for. Federal courts would still hear abortion / discrimination / flag-burning / school-prayer / whatever cases, but since they could not go up to the Supreme Court, if different federal courts make different rules in different parts of the country, the disagreements would be left unresolved.

I've posted this twice already: viewtopic.php?p=9000454#p9000454

It hits federal courts too.

Then it's flatly unconstitutional. The legislature does not have the power to take away the judiciary's separate power.