We didn't forget, we just had so many things going on at the time....
Looks like the Soviets won the Cuba crisis, as the US moved the nukes out of Turkey as part of the deal.
Yikes, this thread is getting out there.
Thoughts on the Michigan/Arizona primaries? Seems like most Republican pundits just can't get behind Romney. Santorum is trying to talk about something that's rationally needed to help this country, so perhaps that's a good thing. Pundits are also throwing out names of folks who need to step into the race.
If I can slightly derail this thread for a second, is there someone out there who could help Romney as a VP nominee (assuming he is the nominee) get the attraction of all Republicans and Independents alike?
I think Romney or Santorum will do fine with independents / centrists. That's what I hate about primaries (D or R) is that the polar extremes of the party weed out what could be good candidates in the eyes of independents because they don't pass purity tests. As far as running mates, Marco Rubio or someone like him comes to mind. Someone who could rally the base but not be too out there to be one heartbeat away from the presidency (e.g. Sarah Palin) in the eyes of the general public.
If Ron Paul gets the nomination, I'd vote for him. If not, I'm voting for Gary Johnson. What we need is a very strict economic conservative. All other issues are secondary.
Do you think Santorum could pick a VP candidate to balance his only social issues matter campaign? I honestly just don't see it. I know Bobby Jindal and perhaps Jeb Bush are names to throw around (perhaps even Guiliani).
To pup, I think it's good to also check out the exit polling results of those who self identify and who they voted for. It is pretty obvious what side of the Repub. party Romney is chosen by and who Santorum is. They seem to be quite dissimilar.
Actually, my hope is that Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination (pretty good chance) and then endorses Gary Johnson for President (I actually like Gary better than Ron).
Very interesting person, and I admit to not concentrating enough on him lately. His record is one that seems to highlight a "voting by issues" mindset rather than voting the party line. He even left the Republican Party and is running as a Libertarian (the kiss of death in a presidential election).
I like what I see. Of course, the other kiss of death is his stated views on pot, wanting to decriminalize it. Republicans will have him drawn and quartered for that.
Well it looks more and more likely that Romney is going to get the nomination, based on the delegate math I have seen. I personally like conviction politicians better (i.e. Paul (although too extreme on Foreign Policy for me) and Santorum (although his fiscal record is less than stellar). But Romney does seem to genuinely want America to succeed as it is (was?). That's good enough for me to be able to vote for him in Nov. without my nose plugged.
I heard that Ron Paul is going to endorse Mitt and then Mitt will return the favor by picking Paul's son for VP. If that happens then I guess Ron Paul isn't above a little bribery and back door dealing.
What I'm going to look for in the primaries is what attacks being levied at each candidate in the GOP are going to be used by the Donks once the GOP has a nominee. I can see a lot of Democratic ads featuring Newt attacks being used against Romney if he's the candidate.
I still think Romney and Santorum represent too much of what's wrong with America's current condition (wealth inequality and religious divisiveness/overt hate of people with different backgrounds) to pose a real threat against Obama. Kind of sad actually, since if Obama takes office again, I can see him trying to pander to the right again, which includes the fringe lunacy of the tea party candidates, which in turn means he won't make any progress.
He's also pro-gay marriage and supports abortion, so that's two more strikes against him with the Republican party. Oh, and he wants to end the wars, bring the troops home, and cut the defense budget.
I actually disagree with him about gay marriage...I think the government should stay out of it completely (gay or straight).
Abortion...I think it really comes down to the definition of life and when it begins.
Cutting defense spending...I'm for it. Everything in the government needs to have some cuts.
If the government stays out of marriage, it has to provide a civil partnership system. The system of marriage can't simply be abandoned, it is a pillar of society.
As for ending the wars (war, now), I think that's a dangerous idea. Granted Afghanistan is not going well. But the problem itself is Pakistan. The military is running Pakistan, and arming, training and funding the Taliban. They are trying to wrestle control from the civilian government. This is a poor country with nukes, full of nutters, next to India and in generally a dodgy place. Can't just leave it go to shit.
What the US *does* need to do is tell Europe to cough up - and get other countries involved too, like Brazil, South Korea, India (who already do a lot of good, but not troop wise), maybe even Indonesia and Malaysia. Right now very few countries are living up to their responsibilities - maybe the US, UK, Canada, Denmark are, but it's difficult to say France or Germany are.
It's a simple contract between two consenting adults. No government approval needed.
A simple contract that directly impacts little things like medical and financial rights and responsibilities...oh, and child care.
Yeah...and? The government doesn't need to be involved in any of those things.
Perhaps not, but I doubt you would find the support to remove the government's involvement in them.
The government is already neck deep in it. I heard there was a lesbian couple that were happily married together until one of the women died. Because the state they live in didn't recognize their marriage and since the house was not in the surviving partner's name, that woman lost all the property she shared with this other woman. It's bad enough that she lost a life partner, but to rob her of all the possessions that had significant meaning to her because of her partner, that's just unconscionable.
Tax reasons, child care, in the event of death etc.
So it shouldn't be my belief because it doesn't have popular support?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Sucks to be her. She could have had a legal contract to give her possession of the house with no government involvement whatsoever.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
There's no reason for married couples to get special tax treatment. Somehow children get cared for in the case of unmarried couples. Death issues can be handled by simple contracts...again, with no government approval needed.
Next argument please.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Not sure if you guys are following the handing out of delegates in MI, but the numbers are kinda interesting.
MI has 30 delegates.
Newt: <70,000 votes (something like 7%)
RP : +110,000 votes (12%)
Santorum: 3xx000 votes (38%)
Romney: 4xx000 votes (41%)
(something like that, it was a couple of days ago)
Well, they decided that anyone over 15% would get equal shares of the delegates. so 15 to each Santorum and Romney. Now I guess, somehow Romney got them to switch it up so he's getting 16 and santorum is getting 14. Not sure how that happens, but whatever....
It's just weird because if they did it based on percentage of vote instead of setting some arbitrary limit, it seems like you'd get not only a more accurate distribution of delegates, but also you'd see some less funded candidates get better chances.
And of course, by 'funded' I mean purchased
Who are they?
Members of a boy band? Although this thread seems to be about US politics.
They're making those changes in election year? How convenient for the richest candidate.
The whole delegate thing only seems valid at all to me if it's fully representative of the vote percentage results for each candidate (+ or - the "half" delegate that might pan out in uneven results).
Actually, you need a license issued by a state to be legally married.
Separate names with a comma.