[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Our Governator]

Every four or eight years there's always a radical semi qualified black conservative running.

Carson I think we can actually take seriously. Not that I would ever support him, but he's not a freak like Alan Keyes or Herman Cain.

[Salandriagado]

It would run out of charge too quickly. Use jumper cables wired directly into the powergrid.

We're already having an energy crisis!

Perhaps we can find a way to harness the power produced by politicians? After all, people already use the other variety of bullshit to produce electricity.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Every four or eight years there's always a radical semi qualified black conservative running.

Carson I think we can actually take seriously. Not that I would ever support him, but he's not a freak like Alan Keyes or Herman Cain.

Cain wasn't a freak. He was a bit gimmicky what with the "9-9-9" thing, but he showed more insight and intelligence than a couple of his major competitors.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

GOP's token minority candidate.

The racial disproportion shouldn't be suprising considering like 90% of blacks vote Democrat. I think the radicalness may have to do with how even fairly moderately conservative blacks remain Democrat so it takes a fairly extreme one to go Republican.

It isn't surprising at all. The GOP doesn't exactly have a track record of giving a shit about minorities.

[Romalae]

Carson I think we can actually take seriously. Not that I would ever support him, but he's not a freak like Alan Keyes or Herman Cain.

Cain wasn't a freak. He was a bit gimmicky what with the "9-9-9" thing, but he showed more insight and intelligence than a couple of his major competitors.

I must've missed that.

[Myrensis]

Carson I think we can actually take seriously. Not that I would ever support him, but he's not a freak like Alan Keyes or Herman Cain.

Cain wasn't a freak. He was a bit gimmicky what with the "9-9-9" thing, but he showed more insight and intelligence than a couple of his major competitors.

Considering the Republican field in 2012, think this qualifies as damning with faint praise.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Cain wasn't a freak. He was a bit gimmicky what with the "9-9-9" thing, but he showed more insight and intelligence than a couple of his major competitors.

Considering the Republican field in 2012, think this qualifies as damning with faint praise.

He was able to walk and chew gum at the same time, which put him above Perry, he was significantly more personable than Ron Paul, and he seemed to have some idea of issues that actual people were facing (though his proposed solutions were lacking), which in my estimation placed him far above the eventual nominee. He didn't have the baggage of Gingrich, the batshit balls-out insanity of Bachmann, or the unbearable sanctimony of Santorum. All in all, while a mediocre candidate, he wasn't a freak by any stretch of the imagination.

[Free Sahara]

I like the Jeb Bush's pro-immigration, dislike the anti-defense stances of Rand Paul and want someone who is pro-business, small-state and could lead the military against any enemies. Rick Perry is a captain in the military, so that's an advantage, I suppose.

So, not sure, who that would be. There are too many of them and I don't know which one is the one I support the most.
Edit: I'll say Jeb Bush. He seems to be mediocre on every level.

[Geilinor]

Carson I think we can actually take seriously. Not that I would ever support him, but he's not a freak like Alan Keyes or Herman Cain.

Cain wasn't a freak. He was a bit gimmicky what with the "9-9-9" thing, but he showed more insight and intelligence than a couple of his major competitors.

He also didn't know what Uzbekistan was and said he'd feel uncomfortable appointing Muslims to his administration. He also once said that Obama was raised in Kenya.

[Our Governator]

I like the Jeb Bush's pro-immigration, dislike the anti-defense stances of Rand Paul and want someone who is pro-business, small-state and could lead the military against any enemies. Rick Perry is a captain in the military, so that's an advantage, I suppose.

So, not sure, who that would be. There are too many of them and I don't know which one is the one I support the most.
Edit: I'll say Jeb Bush. He seems to be mediocre on every level.

Explain:
1. How is Rand Paul anti-defense?
2. What defines pro-business and small-state?
3. How is Jeb Bush either of those?

[Geilinor]

I like the Jeb Bush's pro-immigration, dislike the anti-defense stances of Rand Paul and want someone who is pro-business, small-state and could lead the military against any enemies. Rick Perry is a captain in the military, so that's an advantage, I suppose.

So, not sure, who that would be. There are too many of them and I don't know which one is the one I support the most.
Edit: I'll say Jeb Bush. He seems to be mediocre on every level.

Explain:
1. How is Rand Paul anti-defense?
2. What defines pro-business and small-state?
3. How is Jeb Bush either of those?

The conservative view of being pro-defense is rushing to wars.

[Our Governator]

Explain:
1. How is Rand Paul anti-defense?
2. What defines pro-business and small-state?
3. How is Jeb Bush either of those?

The conservative view of being pro-defense is rushing to wars.

Apparently so. Gotta fight "terra".

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Cain wasn't a freak. He was a bit gimmicky what with the "9-9-9" thing, but he showed more insight and intelligence than a couple of his major competitors.

He also didn't know what Uzbekistan was and said he'd feel uncomfortable appointing Muslims to his administration. He also once said that Obama was raised in Kenya.

Eh, I'm not especially motivated to defend Cain, so I'll leave that.

[Oil exporting People]

ISIS exists because it eventually broke away from Al Qaeda. Before it did, it was part of Al Qaeda. Specifically, it was known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, the Islamic State itself came into existence as early as 2006 and the US did fuck all before withdrawing.

Except fight a nearly decade long war, which saw said Al Qaeda affiliate basically destroyed. The only reason ISIS came about is a lack of action with regards to Syria, engendering spillover into Iraq. To say the US did nothing is not only false, it's patently ignorant of the details concerning the Iraq War.

[Our Governator]

ISIS and al Qaeda are different entities who don't even publicly support each other grouping them together is ignorant

ISIS exists because it eventually broke away from Al Qaeda. Before it did, it was part of Al Qaeda. Specifically, it was known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, the Islamic State itself came into existence as early as 2006 and the US did fuck all before withdrawing.

It largely exists because of the dissolution of the Iraqi Army in 2003-2004. If you look at the leaders of ISIS, a large number of them are former members of Saddam's army. It is a direct result of US intervention that it exists. Also, to say the US did "fuck all" isn't very accurate, the US did *too much*, which is precisely why it fell apart when the US left: the US acted literally as a police force, with US troops patrolling the streets. They didn't set up a police force. The US became a crutch for Iraq, and so it was kind of a bad decision either way: withdraw and let Iraq fall, or don't withdraw and tie the US's fate to the fate of Iraq. Honestly, I prefer the former.

[Oil exporting People]

It largely exists because of the dissolution of the Iraqi Army in 2003-2004.

You're going to need to cite this.

If you look at the leaders of ISIS, a large number of them are former members of Saddam's army.

Care to name some of them?

It is a direct result of US intervention that it exists.

Ansar al-Islam's existence years prior to US intervention says differently.

Also, to say the US did "fuck all" isn't very accurate, the US did *too much*, which is precisely why it fell apart when the US left: the US acted literally as a police force, with US troops patrolling the streets.

This tells me you don't understand basic COIN strategy.

They didn't set up a police force. The US became a crutch for Iraq, and so it was kind of a bad decision either way: withdraw and let Iraq fall, or don't withdraw and tie the US's fate to the fate of Iraq. Honestly, I prefer the former.

A status of forces agreement would have been best.

[Our Governator]

It largely exists because of the dissolution of the Iraqi Army in 2003-2004.

1 -You're going to need to cite this.

If you look at the leaders of ISIS, a large number of them are former members of Saddam's army.

2 - Care to name some of them?

It is a direct result of US intervention that it exists.

3 - Ansar al-Islam's existence years prior to US intervention says differently.

Also, to say the US did "fuck all" isn't very accurate, the US did *too much*, which is precisely why it fell apart when the US left: the US acted literally as a police force, with US troops patrolling the streets.

4 - This tells me you don't understand basic COIN strategy.

They didn't set up a police force. The US became a crutch for Iraq, and so it was kind of a bad decision either way: withdraw and let Iraq fall, or don't withdraw and tie the US's fate to the fate of Iraq. Honestly, I prefer the former.

5 - A status of forces agreement would have been best.

1 - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/world ... .html?_r=0
2 - Haji Bakr, former officer in the Iraqi intelligence services, basically the godfather of ISIS. Recently killed, though.
3 - Somehow you're equating a small insurgent group in northern Iraq that rose two years before the US invaded Iraq with ISIS.
4 - This tells me you don't understand that the COIN strategy was a *massive* and *total* failure.
5 - That would've been all but impossible, and would've bogged us down in Vietnam 2.0

[Oil exporting People]

1 - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/world ... .html?_r=0

There was nothing in that concerning what you said.

2 - Haji Bakr, former officer in the Iraqi intelligence services, basically the godfather of ISIS. Recently killed, though.

So just one colonel? That's basically nothing.

3 - Somehow you're equating a small insurgent group in northern Iraq that rose two years before the US invaded Iraq with ISIS.

Never said that. I pointed out the fact that an organization that today is part of ISIS existing years prior to the US invasion suggests ISIL was a long time in coming, and the Iraq War was not the cause of it.

4 - This tells me you don't understand that the COIN strategy was a *massive* and *total* failure.

And this tells me you don't know about the Iraq War. Our COIN strategy worked fine, and achieved good results. It wasn't until a war in a neighboring country spread did Iraq really become strained and after US support was basically ended.

5 - That would've been all but impossible, and would've bogged us down in Vietnam 2.0

Again, this shows a lack of information concerning the situation. SOFA was not impossible at all, as you can see by reviewing the reports at the time. The Iraqis were playing hardball trying to get the best deal possible and Obama just decided to be done with the situation. With regards to "Vietnam 2.0", that wasn't going to happen at all. By 2011/2012, the insurgency was dead outside of a few isolated incidents.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Every four or eight years there's always a radical semi qualified black conservative running.

Carson I think we can actually take seriously. Not that I would ever support him, but he's not a freak like Alan Keyes or Herman Cain.

He thinks being gay is a choice. He's a freak.

[Timmy City]

Why is it that a majority of NS'ers chose Rand Paul?

[Grave_n_idle]

Why is it that a majority of NS'ers chose Rand Paul?

I think it's more a matter of the people who really care to vote in an online poll are more likely to be attracted to extremist positions.

Don't worry, the armchair evangelists of the Paul personality cult don't tend to extend their online bravado to the actual voting booth.

[Patridam]

Why is it that a majority of NS'ers chose Rand Paul?

Many NS'ers (after you sift out from the left/social democrat/socialist majority who'd probably never vote for any republican) who take interest in the republican party are either libertarian/small government types or socially moderate/liberal but fiscally conservative. Neither NS nor the internet has many social conservatives.

[Steamtopia]

Why is it that a majority of NS'ers chose Rand Paul?

For the same reason Bernie Sanders is very popular. The internet tends to drift towards the most extreme options.

[Myrensis]

And this tells me you don't know about the Iraq War. Our COIN strategy worked fine, and achieved good results. It wasn't until a war in a neighboring country spread did Iraq really become strained and after US support was basically ended.

An insurgency in a neighboring country spilled over. You know, the exact thing this great COIN strategy should have been perfectly suited to prevent? ISIS didn't roll into Iraq with armored columns and air support. Yet after 10 years and billions of dollars training and equipping the Iraqi military, they promptly lost control of half their country to the first pack of loons with AK's and pipe bombs to come screaming in from the desert. So what are we figuring, another 20, 30 years tops? Couple trillion dollars more? and then finally maybe an Iraqi military that could handle an unruly house party without overwhelming US support?

Again, this shows a lack of information concerning the situation. SOFA was not impossible at all, as you can see by reviewing the reports at the time. The Iraqis were playing hardball trying to get the best deal possible and Obama just decided to be done with the situation. With regards to "Vietnam 2.0", that wasn't going to happen at all. By 2011/2012, the insurgency was dead outside of a few isolated incidents.

Dead for as long as there were US boots on the ground and rifles pointed in their general direction. And details of those reports please? I've noticed it's a theme among conservatives , much whining about the super-simple-trained-monkey-could-have-done-it steps to an ironclad SOFA amenable to the US, but when asked about what those steps were much coughing and shuffling of feet and "Uh, well, they're so obvious and simple I'm insulted you would even ask! So I'm not gonna tell!"

And of course it does raise the question of why the Administration that started the war, and had an overabundance of trained monkeys, decided they'd rather pass on a deadline for total withdrawal than a SOFA.

[Patridam]

And this tells me you don't know about the Iraq War. Our COIN strategy worked fine, and achieved good results. It wasn't until a war in a neighboring country spread did Iraq really become strained and after US support was basically ended.

An insurgency in a neighboring country spilled over. You know, the exact thing this great COIN strategy should have been perfectly suited to prevent? ISIS didn't roll into Iraq with armored columns and air support. Yet after 10 years and billions of dollars training and equipping the Iraqi military, they promptly lost control of half their country to the first pack of loons with AK's and pipe bombs to come screaming in from the desert. So what are we figuring, another 20, 30 years tops? Couple trillion dollars more? and then finally maybe an Iraqi military that could handle an unruly house party without overwhelming US support? .

Its not that the people Iraqi military was insufficiently equipped or not well enough trained, more that many of them gave up without a fight because they were amenable to ISIS's plans.