Republican Primary Megathread (poll now updated)

[Tmutarakhan]

This was the single worst decision the court has ever made, Dred Scott not excepted;

No, Dred Scott was worse. Seriously, it was way worse.

I suppose you are referring not just to the content of the decision, but to the huge pile of corpses that followed. Well, yes, there is THAT...
But the United States did recover. December 12, 2000 was when the United States stopped its uphill and started its downhill, and I am gloomy enough to wonder whether they will ever get back to before, not only in terms of the ruined economy and loss of prestige, but in terms of the functioning of the institutions. Democrats who voted against Reagan twice, and mocked him mercilessly during both terms, still never questioned whether he was the legitimate President-- that had not been the kind of thing that people thought to question before. The very legitimacy of the President being in office at all has remained an issue ever since.

Part of the issue is that neither the state or either candidate requested a state-wide recount. The only studies I've seen that actually give the election to Gore would have required that. It's significant because it means that in point of fact, Gore won Florida.

However, if you're talking about what would have happened if the Supreme Court, or any court, stayed out of it?

It was the duty of the state of Florida to determine who won, in point of fact. The courts of Florida did order a statewide recount, and it was being conducted when it was stopped, for no legitimate reason.

[Ralphonia]

I'm a devout Ron Paul supporter, and the night before and of Iowa I was extremely optimistic. After Frothy won, a big chunk of my optimism died, and seeing how we couldn't win Maine, Washington, or Alaska makes me feel that this election is lost for the good doctor. Most Paulites are still thinking that a brokered convention, if one happens (and it does seem at the very least likely at this stage) would lead to an outright Ron Paul victory in the second stage of voting.

But, if a brokered convention doesn't happen, I would say that Romney has the Nomination pretty much tied up. At least he won't win against Obama, and I can laugh with some satisfaction that a whole year and millions upon millions of dollars in campaigning went to utter waste.

Still, I would prefer to be a citizen under President Paul. Obama is OK though, I suppose, given the circumstances, but his blatant disregard for the Constitution, such as the NDAA, scares me.

I've gotta ask, what is it about Ron Paul that appeals to you? Be honest here. His charisma? What he believes in? You yourself just said that you don't like his blatant disregard for the constitution.

There may be a misunderstanding here, I was referring to President Obama's disregard for the constitution. I support Ron Paul mostly because he is a strict follower of the Constitution, a Libertarian by principle, has the record and consistency to back up what he says, and not to mention having had a well-rounded life being a veteran, prominent doctor, and 12-term Congressman.

[Kaeshar]

I've gotta ask, what is it about Ron Paul that appeals to you? Be honest here. His charisma? What he believes in? You yourself just said that you don't like his blatant disregard for the constitution.

There may be a misunderstanding here, I was referring to President Obama's disregard for the constitution. I support Ron Paul mostly because he is a strict follower of the Constitution, a Libertarian by principle, has the record and consistency to back up what he says, and not to mention having had a well-rounded life being a veteran, prominent doctor, and 12-term Congressman.

*shakes head*

Have you even done your research?

[Ralphonia]

I'm a devout Ron Paul supporter...

And right there, half of what is wrong with America's political climate.

Could you please elaborate?

Were you around for the Patriot Act? Did that scare you as well?

That was entirely different. That was the Repunlicans!*

*I have decided to leave this misspelled.

I don't see what you're getting at, both presidents were completely out of line when implementing such acts. But Bush was far worse than Obama.

[Revolutopia]

I support Ron Paul mostly because he is a strict follower of the Constitution, a Libertarian by principle, has the record and consistency to back up what he says, and not to mention having had a well-rounded life being a veteran, prominent doctor, and 12-term Congressman.

Nope, sorry Rep. Paul has routinely ignored various articles of the constitution and has actively supported initiatives that he admits are unconstitutionally sound. Nor, do I see how being a veteran, doctor(don't know what makes him prominent), or a career politician makes him better then anyone else.

[Salandriagado]

And right there, half of what is wrong with America's political climate.

Could you please elaborate?

I think he's referring to the use of the word "devout".

[Grave_n_idle]

There may be a misunderstanding here, I was referring to President Obama's disregard for the constitution.

Oh, that's not a good start...

I support Ron Paul mostly because he is a strict follower of the Constitution,

No, he's not. He's in favour of talking about following the Constitution, but he only personally adheres when it suits him.

... a Libertarian by principle,

No, an authoritarian social conservative theocrat by principle. He's 'libertarian' only in as much as he likes to claim the name.

...has the record and consistency to back up what he says

Not to anyone that's payed any actual attention to his record or consistency.

[Grave_n_idle]

And right there, half of what is wrong with America's political climate.

Could you please elaborate?

I'm a devout Ron Paul supporter...

[Not Kony Run Uganda]

Wanted Paul to win but Romney's going to since he's basically buying it.

[Ralphonia]

There may be a misunderstanding here, I was referring to President Obama's disregard for the constitution.

Oh, that's not a good start...

I support Ron Paul mostly because he is a strict follower of the Constitution,

No, he's not. He's in favour of talking about following the Constitution, but he only personally adheres when it suits him.

... a Libertarian by principle,

No, an authoritarian social conservative theocrat by principle. He's 'libertarian' only in as much as he likes to claim the name.

...has the record and consistency to back up what he says

Not to anyone that's payed any actual attention to his record or consistency.

Could you please elaborate?

I think he's referring to the use of the word "devout".

Could you please cite some legislature or actions he supported that would suggest he's an authoritarian social conservative theocrat, or any flaws in his record or consistency? And I don't see what qualms you have with me being devout, if you were under the impression that I support him mainly due to my religion, then I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I was implying that I support Ron with great enthusiasm.

[Ralphonia]

I support Ron Paul mostly because he is a strict follower of the Constitution, a Libertarian by principle, has the record and consistency to back up what he says, and not to mention having had a well-rounded life being a veteran, prominent doctor, and 12-term Congressman.

Nope, sorry Rep. Paul has routinely ignored various articles of the constitution and has actively supported initiatives that he admits are unconstitutionally sound. Nor, do I see how being a veteran, doctor(don't know what makes him prominent), or a career politician makes him better then anyone else.

Again, please cite some legislature or initiatives he supported that are unconstitutionally sound or contradict what he is said to stand for? And by "prominent" I just mean in the case of how he delivered more than 4,000 babies. Also, he's one of if not the lowest paid congressmen in office, taking only $37,000 from his possible $154,700 which he also has never voted to raise. (correct me if I'm wrong) He also did not accept the pension plan, so he's not really in politics for the career of making money out of it in much any sense at all.

EDIT: He also wishes for the rest of that money from his paycheck to be allocated to the National Treasury.

[Grave_n_idle]

Could you please cite some legislature or actions he supported that would suggest he's an authoritarian social conservative theocrat, or any flaws in his record or consistency?

There's almost 200 pages of it, right here.

[Ralphonia]

Here as in?

[Salandriagado]

Oh, that's not a good start...



No, he's not. He's in favour of talking about following the Constitution, but he only personally adheres when it suits him.



No, an authoritarian social conservative theocrat by principle. He's 'libertarian' only in as much as he likes to claim the name.



Not to anyone that's payed any actual attention to his record or consistency.

I think he's referring to the use of the word "devout".

Could you please cite some legislature or actions he supported that would suggest he's an authoritarian social conservative theocrat, or any flaws in his record or consistency? And I don't see what qualms you have with me being devout, if you were under the impression that I support him mainly due to my religion, then I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I was implying that I support Ron with great enthusiasm.

Sigh. The point was that concepts of being "devout" should not appear in politics with respect to an individual. One should have principles of one's own and stick to them, rather than following some figure regardless of his actual actions.

[Farnhamia]

Here as in?

In the "One Ron Paul" thread out in the forum. His ideas about removing the protection of the federal courts from citizens, about tying the currency to gold again, the racist newsletters, it's all been detailed there.

[Ralphonia]

Alright then, I misunderstood you. Bear in mind that I don't agree with everything he says, or everything he advocates, but I agree with the majority of what he supports, hence why I support him with such emphasis.

[Ralphonia]

Here as in?

In the "One Ron Paul" thread out in the forum. His ideas about removing the protection of the federal courts from citizens, about tying the currency to gold again, the racist newsletters, it's all been detailed there.

Thank you, I'll check it out before I come back here again.

[Confidentialityworld]

I would prefer Ron Paul over any of those other idiots.

[Wikkiwallana]

I'm a devout Ron Paul supporter, and the night before and of Iowa I was extremely optimistic. After Frothy won, a big chunk of my optimism died, and seeing how we couldn't win Maine, Washington, or Alaska makes me feel that this election is lost for the good doctor. Most Paulites are still thinking that a brokered convention, if one happens (and it does seem at the very least likely at this stage) would lead to an outright Ron Paul victory in the second stage of voting.

But, if a brokered convention doesn't happen, I would say that Romney has the Nomination pretty much tied up. At least he won't win against Obama, and I can laugh with some satisfaction that a whole year and millions upon millions of dollars in campaigning went to utter waste.

Still, I would prefer to be a citizen under President Paul. Obama is OK though, I suppose, given the circumstances, but his blatant disregard for the Constitution, such as the NDAA, scares me.

President Paul is never gonna happen. His son, maybe, if we are extremely stupid and unlucky. But Ron doesn't have a prayer.

[Wikkiwallana]

I would prefer Ron Paul over any of those other idiots.

What makes him a more appealing idiot?

[Jocabia]

No, Dred Scott was worse. Seriously, it was way worse.

I suppose you are referring not just to the content of the decision, but to the huge pile of corpses that followed. Well, yes, there is THAT...
But the United States did recover. December 12, 2000 was when the United States stopped its uphill and started its downhill, and I am gloomy enough to wonder whether they will ever get back to before, not only in terms of the ruined economy and loss of prestige, but in terms of the functioning of the institutions. Democrats who voted against Reagan twice, and mocked him mercilessly during both terms, still never questioned whether he was the legitimate President-- that had not been the kind of thing that people thought to question before. The very legitimacy of the President being in office at all has remained an issue ever since.

Part of the issue is that neither the state or either candidate requested a state-wide recount. The only studies I've seen that actually give the election to Gore would have required that. It's significant because it means that in point of fact, Gore won Florida.

However, if you're talking about what would have happened if the Supreme Court, or any court, stayed out of it?

It was the duty of the state of Florida to determine who won, in point of fact. The courts of Florida did order a statewide recount, and it was being conducted when it was stopped, for no legitimate reason.

None of the recounts that were started would have resulted in Gore winning. That's what the studies that have been done since showed. The Florida Courts recount and the recounts requested by both candidates, if finished, would have gone to Bush. The recount that would have been most thorough and would have resulted in a Gore win was never requested by any party (or not one with a say in the process, anyway).

Bush also would have had more votes if the limited statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and then stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been carried through.

That is the recount you are talking about and it was conducted after the election by news organizations and they found that Bush still would have won. The court did not request a full recount, but a limited recount that was statewide. Gore would have won if they'd done a full recount while trying to address things like the over-votes (where people both voted for Gore and wrote him in). The overvotes were a windfall for Gore. And the intent of the voter was very clear on each one.

[Alien Space Bats]

Part of the issue is that neither the state or either candidate requested a state-wide recount. The only studies I've seen that actually give the election to Gore would have required that. It's significant because it means that in point of fact, Gore won Florida.

However, if you're talking about what would have happened if the Supreme Court, or any court, stayed out of it? Gore loses. The recounts they started and did not finish, when finished unofficially, favored Bush.

There should have been a statewide recount. It's hard to say why no one tried to actually get one.

My understanding is - and this is relevant when we consider such things in other threads as the ability of the Florida State Legislature to screw things up beyond all recognition - that the election law in operation at that time made no provision for a statewide manual recount.

Apparently the Gore team saw a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court as the only way to arrive at such an outcome.

[Principality of Bill3]

You guys need to back off Ralphonia before I launch airstrikes on you all.

[Wikkiwallana]

You guys need to back off Ralphonia before I launch airstrikes on you all.

General is not in character.

More importantly, no one has harassed him.

[Jocabia]

Part of the issue is that neither the state or either candidate requested a state-wide recount. The only studies I've seen that actually give the election to Gore would have required that. It's significant because it means that in point of fact, Gore won Florida.

However, if you're talking about what would have happened if the Supreme Court, or any court, stayed out of it? Gore loses. The recounts they started and did not finish, when finished unofficially, favored Bush.

There should have been a statewide recount. It's hard to say why no one tried to actually get one.

My understanding is - and this is relevant when we consider such things in other threads as the ability of the Florida State Legislature to screw things up beyond all recognition - that the election law in operation at that time made no provision for a statewide manual recount.

Apparently the Gore team saw a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court as the only way to arrive at such an outcome.

I was no fan of either candidate at the time and it seemed to me that both were trying to twists the rules to their gain.

I'd like to have thought Gore was better than that. I think it's possible, even likely, that he was convinced by his advisers to go with the politically expedient instead of arguing for what was right, a state-wide recount.

To be fair, I thought Bush won, I thought he ran a better campaign, and I thought he overcame a disadvantage because Gore was a VP for a very popular President. However, at no point, did I think enough of GWB to expect to do anything but what politically expedient. I thought more of Gore. I thought Gore wouldn't run away from being part of the Clinton administration. I thought Gore would have the balls to face up to the criticisms and point out that of the two parties, only one wasted buckets of money discussing Mr. Clinton's sex life. But he didn't have balls. He ran a weak campaign, and like Romney, ran away from a very successful political history. If you can't stand up to your own constituency and defend your actions, then how the hell are you going to negotiate with world leaders and fight the good fight.