[Luis Dias]

We should split the global warming stuff and go back to talking about Perry and how much he sucks.

At least he supports mass effect 3

[SypheDMar]

Not sure if this was discussed, but my political science professor had an interesting take on why Rick Perry might've decided to join in the race this late. My professor guesses that the Republican party does not want Michele Bachmann to have a chance of winning, so they had Perry enter in and split her votes as they are both social conservatives and give someone else with a bigger chance of success to win like Mitt Romney. My professor acknowledges that it's a guess and that he might be completely off, but I never thought of it that way before. Not sure if this was discussed yet.

[Turambar]

Doesn't Romney being a mormon make him unelectable?

[MP-Ryan]

Doesn't Romney being a mormon make him unelectable?

Moronism didn't stop Bush from getting elected...

...oh wait, you said MORMON.  My mistake.

[Luis Dias]

Not sure if this was discussed, but my political science professor had an interesting take on why Rick Perry might've decided to join in the race this late. My professor guesses that the Republican party does not want Michele Bachmann to have a chance of winning, so they had Perry enter in and split her votes as they are both social conservatives and give someone else with a bigger chance of success to win like Mitt Romney. My professor acknowledges that it's a guess and that he might be completely off, but I never thought of it that way before. Not sure if this was discussed yet.

Seems very reasonable in fact. Bachmann scares the **** out of me.

[JCDNWarrior]

Not sure if this was discussed, but my political science professor had an interesting take on why Rick Perry might've decided to join in the race this late. My professor guesses that the Republican party does not want Michele Bachmann to have a chance of winning, so they had Perry enter in and split her votes as they are both social conservatives and give someone else with a bigger chance of success to win like Mitt Romney. My professor acknowledges that it's a guess and that he might be completely off, but I never thought of it that way before. Not sure if this was discussed yet.

Seems very reasonable in fact. Bachmann scares the **** out of me.

Bachmann isn't the real 'problem' though, it's Ron Paul. Bachmann seems to be pretty much status quo like the rest and isnt a particularly interesting candidate to me.

[Luis Dias]

That's because you don't know her.

Know her:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza

[Sushi]

Doesn't Romney being a mormon make him unelectable?

No more than being a Catholic made Kennedy unelectable.

[Turambar]

catholics are a long established tradition.  mormons think some guy found golden tablets with inscriptions from god on them IN THE USA.  I mean, to me that's about as plausible as the rest of christianity, but that must seem out there even for most people who already think there's a god.

[NGTM-1R]

Bachmann isn't the real 'problem' though, it's Ron Paul. Bachmann seems to be pretty much status quo like the rest and isnt a particularly interesting candidate to me.

This is not the dumbest thing in the history of dumb things, but it is getting there.

[karajorma]

She's a lying, homophobic, anti-abortion moron.


Sounds like your average Republican candidate to me.

[NGTM-1R]

She's a lying, homophobic, anti-abortion moron.


Sounds like your average Republican candidate to me.

For this year, perhaps, but I'm still judging them by republican candidates in general.

[Grizzly]

I keep hearing about this 'Ron Paul'. Wasn't there also a 'Rand Paul', and who are they?

[JCDNWarrior]

I keep hearing about this 'Ron Paul'. Wasn't there also a 'Rand Paul', and who are they?

Both are libertarians, constitutionalists, want a return to sound money, non-interventionism (as opposed to empire building or isolationism) and pretty much more freedom for everyone. Ron Paul has been in politics for 30 years, never flip-flopped to be popular, always voted no against unconstitutional bills even if he was the only one to do so. What he said in 1988 is still relevant today. (I don't particularly dislike Bachmann, she's at the least a lesser evil, just that I'm not convinced she'll bring much change if at all). Ron Paul has gotten extremely popular since around 4th quarter 2007, biggest individual donations from military, by far the most grass roots support but was marginalized by mainstream media by omitting victories, acting like he doesn't exist. This was attempted this year at Ames Iowa as well. He's now considered, reluctantly by some, a front-runner in the GOP and for presidency. Also barely came in second at the Ames Iowa poll with only about 200 votes less than Bachmann (4600 compared to 4800, 3rd place got 2500~) Big chance to get the nomination at this rate.
Rand Paul is a Kentucky senator and has succesfully entered politics relatively early, has his father's ideas as well and seems quite a good choice in the future as well. Got smeared and attacked a bunch of times and lied about to try to marginalize and disrupt his campaign by media. He'll still have to prove his worth more for me though, but he won't run for pres till at least 2016 anyway.

[Unknown Target]

Oh, and Rand Paul totally flipped on a ton of his positions and basically acts like the opposite of his dad in practice if not rhetoric. There was one spectacular incident when, actually sticking pretty hardcore to libertarian values, said that he would have voted against the Civil Rights legislation because it represented a growth in federal power that was not constitutionally mandated (which is actually true), and that business owners of course had the right to refuse people service based on ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Of course there was a pretty hard backlash. Afterwards he basically got sucked up by the GOP party leaders and has been towing the line ever since.

Ron Paul wants to ctrl-alt-del the federal government.

[Flipside]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14553127

Perry criticised for calling the option to print more money 'treason'.

See, this is my problem with the current Republican talking heads. There's nothing wrong with different opinions, it's healthy, but to start accusing everyone who disagrees as traitors and various other deliberately confrontational insults does absolutely nothing other than make the situation worse and create a growing friction between the various factions.

Seems to me that, across the Western World, there needs to be a lot less finger-pointing and name-calling, and then maybe, just maybe, there might actually be some constructive discussion about where to go from here.

[JCDNWarrior]

Oh, and Rand Paul totally flipped on a ton of his positions and basically acts like the opposite of his dad in practice if not rhetoric. There was one spectacular incident when, actually sticking pretty hardcore to libertarian values, said that he would have voted against the Civil Rights legislation because it represented a growth in federal power that was not constitutionally mandated (which is actually true), and that business owners of course had the right to refuse people service based on ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Of course there was a pretty hard backlash. Afterwards he basically got sucked up by the GOP party leaders and has been towing the line ever since.

Ron Paul wants to ctrl-alt-del the federal government.

Hm... I remember the case about Rand Paul and the Civil Rights legislation, but are you certain he wasn't misinterpreted about it? Nonetheless I am a little on the fence about Rand Paul, hope he'll learn a lot more from his dad in the time to come. Nonetheless he did get attacked for other things he didn't say or do, like kidnapping a woman. But I guess that's part of what Flipside just called, coming up with things of no substance to critisize someone about instead of actual things they did that may be much more damning.

[Unknown Target]

Agreed. It's encouraging to see so much good discussion on internet forums, it's sad to think that this is probably better discussion than in almost any of the world's legislatures.

I wish forums and communities, like HLP, Reddit, other forums you may browse, etc, would come together to form an alternative - like I suggested, an Internet party, founded on a lot of the ways the Internet works. Freedom of information, total openness and transparency, merits of an argument based upon the structure of the argument and not all the usual crap that's attached to it (oh my god, nude photos in e-mail?!? banish him!). Add in a strong platform of accountability and I think you'd really have a winner. You'd definitely rock the candidate base by playing to home field - it's a funny thought, I imagine no one would take what I'm going to seriously, but I really think that a LolCat or whatever in a campaign ad would definitely get a lot more people interested in a candidate - especially if it was used properly and not just as a cheap cash-in (hello Verizon "...and even MORE CATS!"). Most of the people who peruse modding communities and whatnot are obviously talented, could make educational videos, organize to get them seen, make flyers, etc. Big advantage of being based off of forum communities and whatnot would be the ability to invite people to discussions. You could actually, *gasp*, have people discuss the issues they care about, instead of just voting for the biggest mouthpiece.

I guess I just look for resources where I see them. :\

[Grizzly]

The problem is that that party would be even more divided then the ones who concentrate around one leader, who subsequently gets shot.

[JCDNWarrior]

As you brought a possible assasination attempt before, on a new popular president like Ron Paul;

I don't think it would help the establishment at all if they were to panic and order the assasination of Ron Paul when he wins the presidency. It would be a catalyst for a violent revolution (as the peaceful revolution has been made impossible). Not that they haven't prepared themselves for years against such. What differs between revolution in disarmed Europe and the USA is that you've got so many gun owners, trained veterans, etc. that could fight toe to toe with most forces. You'd probably see a wide war against foreign troops (mexicans at the least) if D.C. wasn't captured in a relative short amount of time.

..Or people would grieve and sit on their behinds as the system goes in damage control mode scared of phantom revolutionaries that never showed up, establishing a massive police state and a dictator for fear or revenge for performing a coup like that on a newly elected president.

Above scenarios seem fantastical but it's not uncommon that an assasination triggered a war nor the transformation of a country to a police state.