Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XII

[RustyCage]

Again, Paul consistently gets crowds multiple times the size of Romney's. Stadiums are flooded past capacity, people climb up into trees to peek over and get a glimpse of him.

So, in the face of that, people don't care about him? People don't care about ending these wars (including the drug war) or any of the other ideas that are so extreme to the Neo-Cons and Democrats, like ending the Federal Reserve? -Really-? All these big topics and stances that no one else is taking?

-None- of that is attention grabbing?

Why is the movement so strong if nobody cares?

[enterthemadness]

CISPA sucks. Forgot about it.

Ron Paul won't endorse Gary Johnson, but still leaves option of endorsing Mitt on the table.

....I lost what respect I had left for Paul. Traitor.

[RustyCage]

Regarding the media and their agenda regarding Dr. Paul... Take a listen to this, all:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[enterthemadness]

Something about 2/3rds of us would be laid off if Ron Paul was President.

Good, the guy that said it sounded like a douce anyway.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

CISPA sucks. Forgot about it.

Ron Paul won't endorse Gary Johnson, but still leaves option of endorsing Mitt on the table.

....I lost what respect I had left for Paul. Traitor.

He's said it would be hard for him to endorse Mitt's policies because they're polar opposites of each other - basically a polite way of saying no.

Or - and I'm not saying I think this has to be the case - maybe he thinks Mitt, since he's such a blatant flip-flopping panderer, will be able to be reasoned with if he wins the convention, so he doesn't want to sabotage that possibility by trashing him too hard. Meanwhile, he rallies support for himself.

Plan A: Win. Plan B: Try to shape the winner's policies as much as possible.

Johnson is my second choice after Paul, but it is unlikely it will come down to that. Johnson also stands far less of a chance, unfortunately. He doesn't have a movement behind him like Paul does. This would make fence-riding on Romney favorable for Paul to get some Libertarian ideas into play in the White House.

Just a thought, don't take what I'm saying as Paul's mindset. He could also just run independent of the parties and hope for a write-in win. His movement can certainly back him substantially there. And I wager they would be more likely to support that than they would a Paul-influenced Romney presidency.

So there's two ideas to play with.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

CISPA sucks. Forgot about it.

Ron Paul won't endorse Gary Johnson, but still leaves option of endorsing Mitt on the table.

....I lost what respect I had left for Paul. Traitor.

He's not being a traitor, you have to take into account various things.

First of all, Paul still wants to be able to influence the Republican Party platform with his presence in the convention. Which was his goal all along. Paul endorsing Gary Johnson will kill that.

Second, Paul wants to build a political future for his son and probably allow his son Robert to have one if he so chooses to ever run for political office. Endorsing Gary Johnson will paint targets on their backs with the GOP establishment and will work to make them as ineffective as possible.

Third, if Ron Paul endorsed another candidate and actually made an impact in the race this way, he would be blamed for giving Barack Obama a second term. Something that he does not want to tarnish his legacy with.

And finally, you also have to take into account that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are friends on a personal level. While Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum personally loathed Romney, hell even going back to 2008 where Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani disliked the man, Paul actually liked him. Endorsing another candidate would be a dickish thing to do to your friends. Sorta like how in Parks & Recreation, Ron Swanson supported Leslie Knope despite the fact that Swanson is an exaggerated version of Paul and Knope clearly has liberal tendencies.

[Pink Ranger]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Sorta like how in Parks & Recreation, Ron Swanson supported Leslie Knope despite the fact that Swanson is an exaggerated version of Paul and Knope clearly has liberal tendencies.

In all fairness, the only candidates in that election that were close to being libertarian were the pornstar and the "gunbelievable" guy, so Paul didn't have a lot of good choices.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Pink Ranger

In all fairness, the only candidates in that election that were close to being libertarian were the pornstar and the "gunbelievable" guy, so Paul didn't have a lot of good choices.

If Lesile weren't running, Ron probably wouldn't have cared to vote or would have gone for the gunbelievable candidate. He supported Lesile because he cares deeply for her.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Sorta like how in Parks & Recreation, Ron Swanson supported Leslie Knope despite the fact that Swanson is an exaggerated version of Paul and Knope clearly has liberal tendencies.

Whenever I watch Parks & Rec I imagine Chris (Rob Lowe) as a extreme version of Gary Johnson, in terms of all the biking and exercise and health eating.

I dunno what Paul sees in the failure of the Republican Party. The two-party system needs a third party. I will never vote Democrat again or even consider Republican. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the samething over & over? That's the two party being elected. Nothing but debt & civil liberties gone or being threatened. Even the few good people in those parties will never get elected. Wall Street, Corporations, and Banks pull strings behind the scenes with their donations. Sickening. It should be illegal for Corporations, banks, Hollywood to donate money to any party.

[hippie_hunter]

As long as we have a FPTP electoral system we will almost never see a third party develop.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

As long as we have a FPTP electoral system we will almost never see a third party develop.

Unless I win the lotto. Win 300 million. Take lump sum. Get like 120 million...give 50 million of 120 to Libertarian Party. Imma thug. That or I'll buy General Hospital from ABC. Yeah, probably buy a soap...

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

Unless I win the lotto. Win 300 million. Take lump sum. Get like 120 million...give 50 million of 120 to Libertarian Party. Imma thug. That or I'll buy General Hospital from ABC. Yeah, probably buy a soap...

No matter how much money you give, it isn't going to change things. Any impact third parties can have is that their platform gets absorbed by one of the two major parties.

If you want other parties to get traction, you'd have to change the FPTP system of voting we have to a model that is more along the lines of an alternative voting system.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

As long as we have a FPTP electoral system we will almost never see a third party develop.

One pops up every few decades, but they'll never win because if they become strong enough they just end up splitting the vote with one of the major parties. 1912 is the classic example of this. If Teddy Roosevelt couldn't get elected as a third party candidate, it isn't going to happen.

The only way we will see a new party truly develop into a major threat is if either the Republicans or Democrats completely implode like the Federalists and Whigs previously, and the new party fills the void.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

One pops up every few decades, but they'll never win because if they become strong enough they just end up splitting the vote with one of the major parties. 1912 is the classic example of this. If Teddy Roosevelt couldn't get elected as a third party candidate, it isn't going to happen.

They never win because of the FPTP system essentially gives everything to whomever wins. Therefore smaller parties will never get a chance to broaden their base because they don't ever win and can't have the chance to spread their message.

If we had a different electoral system that gives a minimum threshold for representation as opposed to winner take all. We'd be seeing more parties than just the Republicans or Democrats.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

They never win because of the FPTP system essentially gives everything to whomever wins. Therefore smaller parties will never get a chance to broaden their base because they don't ever win and can't have the chance to spread their message.

If we had a different electoral system that gives a minimum threshold for representation as opposed to winner take all. We'd be seeing more parties than just the Republicans or Democrats.

Even in places like Canada, Australia and the UK they don't win at a federal level very often and those are parliamentary governments. In Canada it has never happened.

[wiegeabo]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

They never win because of the FPTP system essentially gives everything to whomever wins. Therefore smaller parties will never get a chance to broaden their base because they don't ever win and can't have the chance to spread their message.

If we had a different electoral system that gives a minimum threshold for representation as opposed to winner take all. We'd be seeing more parties than just the Republicans or Democrats.

I did a lot of research into the Electoral College while I was in college.

Instead of the winner take all system, if the States had used a congressional allocation of votes (you get one vote for each district you win, and the 2 votes allocated because of senators to the winner of the State), or proportional Electoral Vote allocation (win the same percentage of Votes as the percentage of votes you got), then Ross Perot would have earned several.

Wish I could remember the exact number.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Third parties can sometimes win electoral votes even under the current system. George Wallace managed it. Actually winning the election is a different matter.

[wiegeabo]

GOP problem: 'Their voters are white, aging and dying off'

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

GOP problem: 'Their voters are white, aging and dying off'

But at least they vote.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

GOP problem: 'Their voters are white, aging and dying off'

That is a very big problem for the GOP. Both the GOP and Democrats have some very flawed electoral strategies to the point where it's utterly mind boggling.

[Kelly]

A good number of the Baby Boomers are strong GOP voters and the youngest of the baby boomers are 48, they will be voting for awhile....and Obama's win in 2008 was a phenomenon not really seen before and add that to the surge in the black vote...shown here....http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us...cs/21vote.html is very, very interesting, I think 2012's vote will show us the possible trend for the next few years, I don't think 2008 was the start of a trend. It will be interesting to see the demographics of 2012. I'm actually very meh about both candidates, just more meh about one than the other.....so I'm more looking forward to the demographics of this election more than anything else.

[hippie_hunter]

I see 2008 as more of an anomaly right now than the start of a trend. Unless things remain consistent, I think 2012 is going to be more of a typical election in terms of demographics.

[Hotwire]

Putting this here because the governor is Republican.

Kansas Governor Signs Bill Banning Islamic Law

Originally Posted by Yahoo! News

KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) - Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a bill aimed at keeping state courts and agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws when making decisions, his office said on Friday, drawing criticism from a national Muslim group.
The law has been dubbed the "sharia bill" because critics say it targets the Islamic legal code. Sharia, or Islamic law, covers all aspects of Muslim life, including religious obligations and financial dealings. Opponents of state bans say they could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims.
Supporters said the law will reassure foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution would protect them. Opponents said it singled out Muslims for ridicule and was unnecessary because American laws prevail on U.S. soil.
Sherriene Jones-Sontag, a spokeswoman for the governor, said in an e-mail that the bill "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation when deciding cases and will not consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions."
Legislators supporting the bill said there were many cases around the country where judges or state agencies cited sharia law in deciding cases, especially involving divorce-related custody and property matters where Islamic code differs from U.S. law.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington denounced the Kansas law and said it is considering legal action.
About 20 states have considered similar legislation but the Kansas law is the only one signed in recent weeks, council spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said.
"It's unfortunate the governor chose to pander to the growing Islam-phobia in our society that has led to introduction of similar unconstitutional and un-American legislation in dozens of state legislatures," Hooper said.
Hooper said legislators have often referred to sharia law in supporting such legislation, but he said they take the word out of the bill to stave off legal challenges. The Kansas bill does not mention sharia.
Federal courts struck down an Oklahoma law voters approved in 2010 that barred state judges from considering sharia law in making decisions. The court called the law discriminatory.
(Editing by Greg McCune and Stacey Joyce)

Link

[wiegeabo]

Originally Posted by Hotwire

Putting this here because the governor is Republican.

Kansas Governor Signs Bill Banning Islamic Law





Link

Hey, if this also means they can't use Christianity, since that's technically non-US law, then I think it's fair.

[Hotwire]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

Hey, if this also means they can't use Christianity, since that's technically non-US law, then I think it's fair.

I agree. Either keep all religion out of law, or let them all in.