2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Race

[quannum]

ask ron paul about losing virginia or about his supporters not actually showing up to caucus/vote.

[kuronosan]

RP always picks the best music for his videos.

[ronin sparthos]

I think RP would actually take quite a number of votes from both sides. Not just R.

I agree and it'd be quite the statement he makes on behalf of the Constitution if he did happen to do the unthinkable and run as a 'spoiler'.

[Andalusian girls]

Santorum is polling way ahead of Romney in Wisconsin right now. Just because it's a "moderate" state doesn't mean that the tiny sliver of Republican primary voters aren't terribad.

Also, since when does Santorum have an economic message?

eh one possibly two states won out of the eight up for grabs, doesn't change anything the math isn't there for anyone but Romney.

and none to speak of but he paints himself as an economic populist (lower taxes, smaller, government, fairer wages, revive manufacturing, no specifics on how to accomplish any of it), worried about the little man and the average American family juxtaposing his own common image with the financial elitism of Romney's identity and ideology.

it was quite clever really and he's wrought a grievous self-injury on himself by jumping into the culture wars headfirst, the contraception and college-snobbery stuff plays to a very limited amount of the electorate, the part that would have voted for him over a Mormon moderate from Massachusetts no matter what. if he had been able to win over rank and file members that care more about their next paycheck than gay marriage and inherently distrust high finance and blame the crash on the fatcats of Wall Street they view Romney as being he likely could have taken Michigan and Ohio and the race would be very different.

thankfully he lacks disciprine and can't control his words when he starts thinking of gays and unwed teenage mothers

[Churchill]

I think the bigger thing to focus on is what the 2 parties (as Democrats would do this to any similar candidate) are willing to do to maintain their wishes instead of what the voters want. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about Paul or his views, the issue lies in what's being done to ostracize him from the Republican party.

[test123]

How to hack a voting machine:

[Cantih]

KUUUUUUYAAAAAA
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...2-battle-guam/

Has the GOP been touching you in inappropriate places this year?
If not, then lol, guam > you.

[Mazmaz]

I don't really get the deal with puerto rico and guam. Are they like Hawaii but just not states? Or what?

[Kuya]

Puerto Rico, Guam, and a few other islands are what is referred to as non incorporated territories, which means territories which the US has no intention of integrating into states. Hawaii was an incorporated territory before becoming a state. I think the territories possessing party delegates is a recent thing.

[Ragnus]

How to hack a voting machine:

Eureka joked about this in their election episode.

[Talint]

Newt Gingrich says it's time to get out of Afghanistan

Related:

http://www.thegrumpypaladin.com/private/spittake.jpg

[Greatguardian]

Fund NASA? Get out of Afghanistan? Looks like everyone's trying to pull the Progressive vote away from Obama this year.

[kuronosan]

There's an air of desperation about the Republican party.

Guess it's about that time for everyone to start saying whatever they can to get elected.

Then again, it IS time to get the troops out of Afghanistan... so we can send them to Iran!

[Dantrag]

I'm ok with getting out of Afghan.

[Niiro]

Then again, it IS time to get the troops out of Afghanistan... so we can send them to THE MOON!

fixd

[Ragnus]

Tried to find the best source I could on this. Anyway...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/1...s-impeachment/

In a House Resolution introduced last week, Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC) put forward use of the military by the executive branch without explicit authorization from Congress as an impeachable offense: one which some conservatives believe President Barack Obama has already committed.

The bill’s author, Rep. Jones, was once a Democrat who switched parties before seeking congressional office in the 90s. He endorsed former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for president in 2008, and has been one of the Republican Party’s loudest critics of the presidency’s warmaking powers.

“When you talk about war, political parties don’t matter,” he told The New York Times last year.

While not directly calling for impeachment, the bill would declare “that it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war… and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.”

In other words, the bill would, in effect, serve as a trigger mechanism for impeachment proceedings.

Despite the Republican majority in the House, it is not clear if it has a chance at passing. It would have no chance of clearing the Senate, which has remained in bitter partisan gridlock since the 2010 elections.

Following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress handed President George W. Bush blanket authority to make war, and the battlefield has since been classified as anywhere in the world, even on U.S. soil. Both the Afghan and Iraq wars were launched under this authority, and President Obama continues to claim the same executive power to carry on theaters of conflict in other regions.

Similarly, Congress committed the U.S. to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. Following the 9/11 attacks, troops were deployed under NATO authority following a United Nations resolution which declared the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to be in breach of the U.N.’s terms. Congress did not specifically authorize those invasions, but Republicans were adamantly supportive of the president.

It is based upon that authority that U.S. Defense Secretary recently said before the Senate Armed Services Committee the U.S. could attack Syria — but only if the U.N. or NATO decides it appropriate. A similar legal channel was used by President Obama to commit the U.S. military to a supporting role in Libya’s recent civil war, drawing calls for impeachment then, too.

tl;dr version: Can't beat him in an election so change the rules and try to have him removed from office. Which, even if this does freeze hell and pass, probably won't even cover the actions taken in Libya since they were performed before this change was even thought up.

[Andalusian girls]

tldr version: at least someone cares about the constitution

it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war

where exactly do you find fault with that

as you pointed out the actions Obama has already taken won't trigger impeachment, the bill would simply prevent this president and presidents to come from fighting wars without getting Congressional approval, as it should be.

[Andalusian girls]

it's amusing one of the most fundamental constitutional precepts is viewed only through the lens of ideology and has no hope of actually passing

[Ragnus]

I don't. The issue I have is that, as the article pointed out, it's been done before without them giving two shits and yet they want to hang Obama up by the heels for it.

[Mazmaz]

"Ok guys, let's pass this thing that limits the power of the president when a Democrat is in the office"
"No fuck that, we gotta pass it when a Republican is in office"
"No fuck that"
etc.
etc.
It's ok if a Democrat does it
It's ok if a Republican does it
Rhetoric from both sides
It never gets done