US Election!

[Grem]

So, yeah, I'm British, so really haven't looked too much into it.

Anyone care to explain what's going on, who's the favorite, who you support and why?

 

[Romper]

So, yeah, I'm British, so really haven't looked too much into it.

Anyone care to explain what's going on, who's the favorite, who you support and why?

Obama and Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus. Supposedly Iowa is a big state to win as well as Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, and New Hampshire.

 

[Grem]

Wut's a Caucus?

 

[Celvantes]

Think of the caucus as the labor party deciding who's going to lead it... except that instead of the elected representatives in turn electing their leader, the people do it directly.

In the general election, the leaders from each party then go head to head to determine who will be president, unlike in England where the number of seats held by a party determines who's prime minister and who's merely the leader of the opposition party.

Any individual can run in the general election, but there hasn't been an honest chance of one winning since Perot in '92. To realistically have a shot at the Presidency, you have to win a nomination from either the Democratic or Republican parties.

Also, your avatar and sig are disturbing...

 

[Grem]

'Merica, you so crayzay.

 

[Lukas]

Iowa isn't too prominent. It's just the first state to caucus and thus candidates would like a favourable vote so they can generate some momentum. There's also some supersition that Iowa is a solid indicator of who will win leadership of their respective party, as they have voted for the correct candidate the past few terms. I think it's just coincidence really. Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and New Hampshire during his campaign, and I think Reagan and H.W Bush also fared poorly in Iowa.

 

[Grem]

Who's Ron Paul?

And why's he seem popular on internet forums n youtube?

Does he really stand a chance?

 

[Lukas]

Ron Paul is a Republican canditate who has been identified as a "Libertarian". I believe he has mass appeal because although he is a member of the Republican party, he sometimes takes the middle-ground on certain issues. Some find this refreshing, I find he tends to contradict a handful of his ideologies more often than not.

In a nutshell, Ron Paul is: Pro-life, against the Iraq War, against federal income tax, he is an advocate of home schooling, he holds a strong position against immigration, against internet regulation, he is a supporter of the second amendment (the right to bear arms), essentially against most same-sex issues, and arguably against the separation of church and state claiming that the first amendment was imbedded with the religious beliefs of the founding fathers. I'm definitely oversimplifying things here, but I'm lazy so I suggest you find more credible literature if you want a more fleshed out overview ;p

Either way, his politics still veer too far right for my taste, so I would not personally support him but to each his own. I believe he received 9-10% in the Iowa caucus, so he came fifth amongst Republican candidates.

Edit: Oh and he is a former Gyno.

 

[Sharpe]

In a nutshell, Ron Paul is: Pro-life, against the Iraq War, against federal income tax, he is an advocate of home schooling, he holds a strong position against immigration, against internet regulation, he is a supporter of the second amendment (the right to bear arms), essentially against most same-sex issues, and arguably against the separation of church and state claiming that the first amendment was imbedded with the religious beliefs of the founding fathers.

I think i'd rather cut off my testicles than vote for him.

 

[Halifirien]

I think i'd rather cut off my testicles than vote for him.

No fucking way I'd vote for him either, but I'd rather stay home that day than cut off my balls.

Refusing to show up at the polls: It's the American way!

The Democrats are spoiled for choice this time. I'd be happy with Clinton, Obama or Edwards as the nominee (although I most favor Obama). The Republicans are "meh" all around.

 

[Sharpe]

No fucking way I'd vote for him either, but I'd rather stay home that day than cut off my balls.

Refusing to show up at the polls: It's the American way!

The Democrats are spoiled for choice this time. I'd be happy with Clinton, Obama or Edwards as the nominee (although I most favor Obama). The Republicans are "meh" all around.

Last election I went and voted Liberal, this election as they are all completely pathetic (they were last time it's just I agreed with the Liberals wanting to scrap Tuition fees for Uni) I will be spoiling my ballot.

Edit: If a party here says they'll join the Euro and move closer to Europe and further away from the US i'd vote them. Sadly our parties seem to want to move away from Europe and towards America.

 

[Grem]

I voted Lib Dem in the last Locals, and Conservative on the last General.

So Ron Paul is Anti-Abortion, but pro-guns?

Spose you gotta keep the balance somehow.

 

[Romper]

Iowa isn't too prominent. It's just the first state to caucus and thus candidates would like a favourable vote so they can generate some momentum. There's also some supersition that Iowa is a solid indicator of who will win leadership of their respective party, as they have voted for the correct candidate the past few terms. I think it's just coincidence really. Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and New Hampshire during his campaign, and I think Reagan and H.W Bush also fared poorly in Iowa.

No Clinton won in Iowa it wasn't until G.W. and Kerry that Iowa went to a Red.

 

[Lukas]

No Clinton won in Iowa it wasn't until G.W. and Kerry that Iowa went to a Red.

Actually, Clinton lost the Iowa caucus in '92 to Harkin by quite a bit. He did win in 1996 when he was running for his second term, but that was only because he ran unopposed.

I voted Lib Dem in the last Locals, and Conservative on the last General.

So Ron Paul is Anti-Abortion, but pro-guns?

Spose you gotta keep the balance somehow.

Yes, what I found strange is that like most conservatives, he is an advocate of minimizing government legislation - he would like to see less government interference, regulation, legislation etc. Generally speaking, right wing politicians like to steer clear of most welfare programs, income redistribution, a lot of forms of taxation and what have you because they supposedly impede on individual rights and freedoms. It also means they don't spend as much as Libs, not because they are clever with their budget, but because they sit on a lot of the monetary rather than you know... use it to improve stuff

Despite this, he seems very interested in what women do to their bodies.

 

[Xalioniaf]

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=902
That's all I have to contribute. Being 17 for three more months, I've yet to register to vote, and since I haven't been keeping up with all the lols that have been tossed around this past year, I don't think I'll be thinking seriously on who I'll be voting for this term.
Next term I'll probably be here pushing some retard everyone hates :/

 

[Halifirien]

Next term I'll probably be here pushing some retard everyone hates :/

What are the odds Ron Paul will run again? /rimshot

(J/K)

 

[Bustaballs]

Despite this, he seems very interested in what women do to their bodies.

I'm interested in what women do to their bodies as well.

(It's a personal issue for him and he doesn't put his personal beliefs above the constitution. I swear Huckabee would ban it at a federal level if he could.)

 

[Celvantes]

What irks me about the abortion issue is that we're making a constitutional argument off of something that really isn't defined in the Constitution.

Roe vs. Wade was won under the Due Process Clause (right to privacy).

Think about that for a second. It's absurd. Yes, abortion can fall under privacy, but that's not the issue at question. It's fishing for an interpretation of the Constitution to support a completely different principle.

Privacy itself isn't in the US Constitution. Right to privacy is an argued extension of the Due Process Clause. Abortion is another argued extension of right to privacy.

What we need is a constitutional amendment. We need to decide, once and for all, where on the spectrum from conception to birth life actually begins.

Abortion before that point would be a medical procedure. Abortion after that point would be murder. There would have to be obvious exceptions for safety of the mother's life (complications in pregnancy) or harming the mother's mental well being (product of incest or rape).

If this country decides that life begins at birth and abortion is OK... I would be fine with that. But the basis of the law needs to be an honest decision of what the definition of life is, not right to privacy. The two issues are not one and the same.

Personally, I think that abortion should be illegal after the time when a baby could reasonably survive on its own under current medical technology. Given that I was born nearly 3 months premature, I'd say the final trimester is the point of no return.

 

[Romper]

What irks me about the abortion issue is that we're making a constitutional argument off of something that really isn't defined in the Constitution.

Roe vs. Wade was won under the Due Process Clause (right to privacy).

Think about that for a second. It's absurd. Yes, abortion can fall under privacy, but that's not the issue at question. It's fishing for an interpretation of the Constitution to support a completely different principle.

Privacy itself isn't in the US Constitution. Right to privacy is an argued extension of the Due Process Clause. Abortion is another argued extension of right to privacy.

What we need is a constitutional amendment. We need to decide, once and for all, where on the spectrum from conception to birth life actually begins.

Abortion before that point would be a medical procedure. Abortion after that point would be murder. There would have to be obvious exceptions for safety of the mother's life (complications in pregnancy) or harming the mother's mental well being (product of incest or rape).

If this country decides that life begins at birth and abortion is OK... I would be fine with that. But the basis of the law needs to be an honest decision of what the definition of life is, not right to privacy. The two issues are not one and the same.

Personally, I think that abortion should be illegal after the time when a baby could reasonably survive on its own under current medical technology. Given that I was born nearly 3 months premature, I'd say the final trimester is the point of no return.

Celv would you honestly consider throwing a woman in jail if abortions were illegal?

I define life as the moment you're out of the womb because until then you are technically a parasite why consider a parasite a form of life if it can not sustain itself?

 

[Xalioniaf]

Celv would you honestly consider throwing a woman in jail if abortions were illegal?

I define life as the moment you're out of the womb because until then you are technically a parasite why consider a parasite a form of life if it can not sustain itself?

He's not saying he'd like abortion to be completely illegal. He's saying that there should be a certain legally-defined point where it stops being abortion and starts being considered murder. And I'd agree.