No thread on the Iowa Caucus? Supposedly Rick Perry has dropped out.

[dt43]

Santorum and Romney are in a deadheat for first. Ron Paul came in 3rd, Gingrich 4th, Perry 5th, and Bachmann dead last. 
There are reports that Perry will drop out as a result of his finish. And I can't imagine Bachmann will stick around. 

I'm surprised Santorum finished that high.. reportedly McCain is going to endorse Romney tomorrow, and he more or less has no competition now. 

 

[kiendienn]

NT members don't care about anything outside of pop culture.

 

[yngsimba.sneakershoebox]

Romney just won it.. 
With Bachman and Perry dropping (maybe) I wonder how it will affect the votes, and they say Newt is going to get gullie 

 

[sillyputty]

I guess God changed his mind (mysterious ways, remember) and told Perry, Bachmann, and Herman Cain to drop out after initially telling them to run.

 
Made this just for fun: 

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

I guess this is his (god is a man) way of telling us that Mormons were doing it the right way all along ...

These guys...

Jokes aside...

Basically, my guess is that Obama is going to win because ya'll won't vote for a Mormon who flip flops more than a metal slinky and yall damn sure don't want the closet homosexual that Santorum is (his platform is gays...gays...and gays...

)...Don't forget, he was ranked as the one of the most corrupt politicians of 2006. 

...and I'm not even that big of a Ron Paul fan for my own reason on a few issues he takes up but I think hes an admirable guy in some regards... but the hate the establishment has for him is ridiculous...I don't know how you can NOT believe in the media conspiracies against him.

On a side note, I HONESTLY am expecting a gay scandal to arise from santorum. I'm waiting for him to get caught giving service to strangers in the Denny's bathroom.

There is no way that a man can be that focused on homosexuality.

I mean Obama hasn't even been campaigning that hard...he's been chilling super hard as if the election isn't in 11 months

This GOP field is AWFUL. I mean they are their own biggest threat.

Honestly, in my *opinion* if you're voting republican and NOT for Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman, I really have to question what you value in a candidate or what you value in general. I mean there is no honor in even being a conservative anymore. The vast majority of conservative candidates wouldn't even get respect from the most moderate liberal.




Or maybe this is an attempt at an "Overton Window" by the establishment...who knows...

Anyways...See ya'll at the polls!

Essential1 wrote:

---

Huckabee is probably kicking himself because this would have been a Cake Walk for him...

Yup...AND YOU KNOW DIS, MAYNE!
I remember when they expected him to announce his candidacy on Fox during his Saturday night show...then he just pulls out a guitar and goes into a full-blown country music concert. 

 

 

These guys are a trip 

 

[essential1]

Ron Paul might as well drop out as well... If he didn't get 1st in Iowa... Where he had his biggest organization and support...He won't get first anywhere... With NH, SC, FLA the next 3.. And Paul unlikely to get 1st or 2nd in any of those races he is done.. But that is something we all knew before the race even happened..

No one cares about Gingrich and him being a !*+!*++ from here out will help him even less if he just kept his mouth shut.

I think Perry stays in a few more primaries then drops out

Bachman is done. Don't know how she reacts..

We knew Huntsman had no chance (but may make a serious play in NH if he spends his next week wisely)...

Huckabee is probably kicking himself because this would have been a Cake Walk for him...


Let's go whoever wins because they will get manhandled in the General Election...

 

[Nike Jordan]

Originally Posted by kiendienn

NT members don't care about anything outside of pop culture Iowa.

 

[milestailsprowe]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Ron Paul might as well drop out as well... If he didn't get 1st in Iowa... Where he had his biggest organization and support...He won't get first anywhere... With NH, SC, FLA the next 3.. And Paul unlikely to get 1st or 2nd in any of those races he is done.. But that is something we all knew before the race even happened..

No one cares about Gingrich and him being a !*+!*++ from here out will help him even less if he just kept his mouth shut.

I think Perry stays in a few more primaries then drops out

Bachman is done. Don't know how she reacts..

We knew Huntsman had no chance (but may make a serious play in NH if he spends his next week wisely)...

Huckabee is probably kicking himself because this would have been a Cake Walk for him...


Let's go whoever wins because they will get manhandled in the General Election...

Yep but I still want him to win. He is the only republican I can even stomach. If not him its Obama country for another 4 years 

 

[yngsimba.sneakershoebox]

Originally Posted by sillyputty


Honestly, in my *opinion* if you're voting republican and NOT for Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman, I really have to question what you value in a candidate or what you value in general. I mean there is no honor in even being a conservative anymore. The vast majority of conservative candidates wouldn't even get respect from the most moderate liberal.

The one thing I like about Paul is he doesn't want to be involved in unnecessary wars, but.. 
Not to bash any republican voters in here, but they( R. voters) baffle me. The majority seem to vote against they're personal interests, Why? 

Is it because the conservative side is very religious?? imo That doesn't seem like that should have more weight than your own economical(?) well being. I'm not religious, so it bothers me that religion has such a strong roll in politics.

I just can't see any of these peeps being Pres honestly.. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by yngSIMBA

Originally Posted by sillyputty


Honestly, in my *opinion* if you're voting republican and NOT for Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman, I really have to question what you value in a candidate or what you value in general. I mean there is no honor in even being a conservative anymore. The vast majority of conservative candidates wouldn't even get respect from the most moderate liberal.

The one thing I like about Paul is he doesn't want to be involved in unnecessary wars, but.. 
Not to bash any republican voters in here, but they( R. voters) baffle me. The majority seem to vote against they're personal interests, Why? 

Is it because the conservative side is very religious?? imo That doesn't seem like that should have more weight than your own economical(?) well being. I'm not religious, so it bothers me that religion has such a strong roll in politics.

I just can't see any of these peeps being Pres honestly.. 

I love this topic.
My subjective and completely biased opinion?
A combination of...

- Hanging onto the vestiges of White privilege

- "Dog-Whistle" politics...word to Lee Atwater

- The fundamentalist religious take-over in the 80s

- Xenophobia and Jingoism    (...plus, do you ever notice how much religion and extreme nationalism go hand-in-hand? Its almost like they're the same thing in many cases.)

- & (my favorite) Essentially, every republican thinks they're a millionaire temporarily down on their luck. Thats why they defend people who make WAY more money than them. 

But when you throw a conservative even remotely close to Reagan or Nixon in there...you know...one that was actually concerned about being fiscally conservative in ways that might be beneficial...like Huntsman, who actually believes in Evolution and Climate change, and is moderately mormon (loosely claims it only as a something he "grew up with") AND has foreign policy experience as an AMBASSADOR to a super power like...I dunno...CHINA...

...then hes the crazy one... 

EDIT:




This is a good book and the documentary is dope too:

 

[swendro]

Why would there be a thread? The republicans don't have a single candidate that can challenge Obama. Romney's had the nomination locked up since Perry's "oops" debacle.

 

[00david00]

All this support for a candidate like Santorum

 

[witnessmycalm21]

WOW @ Rick Santorum! 

 

[yngsimba.sneakershoebox]

All good points, but this last point is definitely true, and it frustrates the hell out of me. People need to wake up 

 

[dt43]

Originally Posted by swendro88

Why would there be a thread? The republicans don't have a single candidate that can challenge Obama. Romney's had the nomination locked up since Perry's "oops" debacle.

I agree, but some of us find it interesting to discuss these things. Plus, it's fun to laugh at Repubs. 

Originally Posted by Nike Jordan

Originally Posted by kiendienn

NT members don't care about anything outside of pop culture Iowa.

It's not just about "Iowa".. educate yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

smh... NT I love you, but this is literally the least-educated/socially aware forum I visit. I swear everyone on here is like 16

 

[maelstroom]

VA Primary will only have Paul and Romney on the ticket since no other candidate gained 10k signatures.Im guessing it will come down to Paul and Romney once everyone goes on the attack on Santorum. He will just be the candidate of the week like everyone else before him imo.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Maelstroom

VA Primary will only have Paul and Romney on the ticket since no other candidate gained 100k signatures.

EXACTLY...

These candidates SUCK... can't even get them ALL on ALL the ballots.

 

...some of them could not even file the paperwork right. 

...THEN dudes like Gingrich got caught faking a bunch of signatures 

...like THOUSANDS of them 

...THEN had the AUDACITY tried to act like he was being hated on and file a lawsuit to get on some ballots in those states. These guys are awful. 

Paul in this one will only be interesting because VA might help determine the amount of gov't support he has. 

 

[maelstroom]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Maelstroom

VA Primary will only have Paul and Romney on the ticket since no other candidate gained 100k signatures.

EXACTLY...

These candidates SUCK... can't even get them ALL on ALL the ballots.

 

...some of them could even file the paperwork right. 

Paul in this one will only be interesting because VA might help determine the amount of gov't support he has. 

Haha I edited, i think its actually 10k xDPretty sad how theyre all complaning they didnt get on the ballet after lol

 

[respect finesse]

Seen this while looking through teamcoco earlier

Andy Richter is usually a hit or a miss, but this one got me ...

 

damn advertisements

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

this +*$# is the most entertainment television has provided me in years, b.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Ron Paul might as well drop out as well... If he didn't get 1st in Iowa... Where he had his biggest organization and support...He won't get first anywhere... With NH, SC, FLA the next 3.. And Paul unlikely to get 1st or 2nd in any of those races he is done.. But that is something we all knew before the race even happened..

He won the same amount of delegates as Romney and Santorum, got Independent votes 8-1, 40% amount people who IDed themselves Moderate/Liberal and he should drop out and he's unelectable?

 

[maelstroom]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Essential1

Ron Paul might as well drop out as well... If he didn't get 1st in Iowa... Where he had his biggest organization and support...He won't get first anywhere... With NH, SC, FLA the next 3.. And Paul unlikely to get 1st or 2nd in any of those races he is done.. But that is something we all knew before the race even happened..

He won the same amount of delegates as Romney and Santorum, got Independent votes 8-1, 40% amount people who IDed themselves Moderate/Liberal and he should drop out and he's unelectable?

48% aged 17-29 too

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Essential1

Ron Paul might as well drop out as well... If he didn't get 1st in Iowa... Where he had his biggest organization and support...He won't get first anywhere... With NH, SC, FLA the next 3.. And Paul unlikely to get 1st or 2nd in any of those races he is done.. But that is something we all knew before the race even happened..

He won the same amount of delegates as Romney and Santorum, got Independent votes 8-1, 40% amount people who IDed themselves Moderate/Liberal and he should drop out and he's unelectable?

Iowa Caucus... Regardless of delegate count a whole 7.. Whoopdie Doo... You need a lot more than 7 delegates to win... He still finished in THIRD... Where he has his most support.. And had his most coherent organization..

NH he is second
SC he is third
Fla he is third


You know how you win the nomination..... You have to actually win the states...

 

[kickmatic23]

I don't think Republicans fully understand the whole separation of Church and State thing

 

[AZwildcats]

Can someone explain why Iowa is given so much importance in terms of the election? It's a state of 3 million people and IMO should not be this influential. I'm genuinely ignorant to this subject so I would appreciate the assistance

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

Can someone explain why Iowa is given so much importance in terms of the election? It's a state of 3 million people and IMO should not be this influential. I'm genuinely ignorant to this subject so I would appreciate the assistance

Its the "heartland" of america



its a place of "traditional american values"




Its the first primary...etc.




Just google it. Its really not that big of a deal...Someone just HAS to go first is all.




it just kinda sets the tone for much of the election and most voters tend to fall in line with the results over time because of the "hoopla" the media makes about it...




But since i'm a goddamn dirty hippie atheist liberal (or thats what I usually value/find important gets called

), i'm going to share with you what Matt Taibbi thinks of all of this...because I kinda agree with it.
[h1]

[h1]Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins[/h1][h2]Taibblog[/h2][h3]by:�Matt Taibbi[/h3]

Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; Scott Olson/Getty Images

The 2012 presidential race officially begins today with the caucuses in Iowa, and we all know what that means …

Nothing.

The race for the White House is normally an event suffused with drama, sucking eyeballs to the page all over the globe. Just as even the non-British were at least temporarily engaged by last year’s royal wedding, people all over the world are normally fascinated by the presidential race: both dramas arouse the popular imagination as real-life versions of universal children’s fairy tales.

Instead of a tale about which maiden gets to marry the handsome prince, the campaign is an epic story, complete with a gleaming white castle at the end, about the battle to succeed to the king’s throne. Since the presidency is the most powerful office in the world, the tale has appeal for people all over the planet, from jungles to Siberian villages.

It takes an awful lot to rob the presidential race of this elemental appeal. But this year’s race has lost that buzz. In fact, this 2012 race may be the most meaningless national election campaign we’ve ever had. If the presidential race normally captivates the public as a dramatic and angry ideological battle pitting one impassioned half of society against the other, this year’s race feels like something else entirely.

In the wake of the Tea Party, the Occupy movement, and a dozen or more episodes of real rebellion on the streets, in the legislatures of cities and towns, and in state and federal courthouses, this presidential race now feels like a banal bureaucratic sideshow to the real event – the real event being a looming confrontation between huge masses of disaffected citizens on both sides of the aisle, and a corrupt and increasingly ideologically bankrupt political establishment, represented in large part by the two parties dominating this race.

Let’s put it this way. What feels more like a real news story – Newt Gingrich calling Mitt Romney a liar for the ten millionth time, or�this sizzling item�that just hit the wires by way of the Montana Supreme Court:

HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court restored the state's century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations…

A group seeking to undo the Citizens United decision lauded the Montana high court, with its co-founder saying it was a "huge victory for democracy."

"With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy," John Bonifaz, of Free Speech For People, said in a statement.

Now that is real politics -- real protest, real change. Exactly the opposite of the limp and sterile charade in Iowa. This caucus, let’s face it, marks the beginning of a long, rigidly-controlled, carefully choreographed process that is really designed to do two things: weed out dangerous minority opinions, and award power to the candidate who least offends the public while he goes about his primary job of energetically representing establishment interests.

If that sounds like a glib take on a free election system that allows the public to choose whichever candidate it likes best without any censorship or overt state interference, so be it. But the ugly reality, as Dylan Ratigan continually points out, is that�the candidate who raises the most money wins an astonishing�94% of the time�in America.

That damning statistic just confirms what everyone who spends any time on the campaign trail knows, which is that the presidential race is not at all about ideas, but entirely about raising money.

The auctioned election process is designed to reduce the field to two candidates who will each receive hundreds of millions of dollars apiece from the same pool of donors. Just take a look at the lists of top donors for�Obama�and�McCain�from the last election in 2008.

Obama’s top 20 list included:

• Goldman Sachs�($1,013,091)
• JPMorgan Chase & Co��($808,799)
• Citigroup Inc��($736,771)
• WilmerHale LLP ($550,66
• Skadden, Arps et al�($543,539)
• UBS AG�($532,674), and...
• Morgan Stanley�($512,232).

�

McCain’s list, meanwhile, included (drum roll please):�

• JPMorgan Chase & Co�($343,505)
• Citigroup Inc�($338,202)
• Morgan Stanley�($271,902)
• Goldman Sachs�($240,295)
• UBS AG�($187,493)
• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher ($160,346)
• Greenberg Traurig LLP ($147,437), and...
• Lehman Brothers�($126,557).

�

Obama’s list included all the major banks and bailout recipients, plus a smattering of high-dollar defense lawyers from firms like WilmerHale and Skadden Arps who make their money representing those same banks. McCain’s list included exactly the same banks and a similar list of law firms, the minor difference being that it was Gibson Dunn instead of WilmerHale, etc.

The numbers show remarkable consistency, as Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup all gave roughly twice or just over twice as much to Obama as they did to McCain, almost perfectly matching the overall donations profile for both candidates: overall, Obama raised�just over twice as much�($730 million) as McCain did ($333 million).

Those numbers tell us that both parties rely upon the same core of major donors among the top law firms, the Wall Street companies, and business leaders – basically, the 1%. Those one-percenters always give generously to both parties and both presidential candidates, although they sometimes will hedge their bets significantly when they think one side or the other has a lopsided chance at victory. That’s clearly what happened in 2008, when Wall Street correctly called Obama as a 2-1 (or maybe a 7-3) favorite to beat McCain.

The 1% donors are remarkably tolerant. They’ll give to just about anyone who polls well, provided they fall within certain parameters. What they won’t do is give to anyone who is even a remote threat to make significant structural changes, i.e. a Dennis Kucinich, an Elizabeth Warren, or a Ron Paul (hell will freeze over before Wall Street gives heavily to a candidate in favor of abolishing their piggy bank, the Fed). So basically what that means is that voters are free to choose anyone they want, provided it isn’t Dennis Kucinich, or Ron Paul, or some other such unacceptable personage.

If the voters insist on supporting such a person in defiance of these donors – this might even happen tonight, with a Paul win in Iowa – what you inevitably end up seeing is a monstrous amount of money quickly dumped into the cause of derailing that candidate. This takes overt forms, like giving heavily to his primary opponents, and more covert forms, like manufacturing opinions through donor-subsidized think tanks and the heavy use of lapdog media figures to push establishment complaints.

And what ends up happening there is that the candidate with the big stack of donor money always somehow manages to survive the inevitable scandals and tawdry revelations, while the one who’s depending on checks from grandma and $25 internet donations from college students always winds up mysteriously wiped out.

Thus the guy like George W. Bush, who dodged the draft and lied about his National Guard Service, steams to re-election, while a guy like Howard Dean – really not any kind of real threat to the status quo, whose major crimes were being insufficiently pro-war and finding an alternative source of campaign funding on the net – magically falls off the map and is made a caricature after one loony scream before Iowa.

The reason 2012 feels so empty now is that voters on both sides of the aisle are not just tired of this state of affairs, they are disgusted by it. They want a chance to choose their own leaders and they want full control over policy, not just a partial say. There are a few challenges to this state of affairs within the electoral process – as much as I disagree with Paul about many things, I do think his campaign is a real outlet for these complaints – but everyone knows that in the end, once the primaries are finished, we’re going to be left with one 1%-approved stooge taking on another.

Most likely, it’ll be Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama, meaning the voters’ choices in the midst of a massive global economic crisis brought on in large part by corruption in the financial services industry will be a private equity parasite who has been a lifelong champion of the Gordon Gekko Greed-is-Good ethos (Romney), versus a paper progressive who in 2008 took, by himself, more money from Wall Street than any two previous presidential candidates, and in the four years since has showered Wall Street with bailouts while failing to push even one successful corruption prosecution (Obama).

There are obvious, even significant differences between Obama and someone like Mitt Romney, particularly on social issues, but no matter how Obama markets himself this time around, a choice between these two will not in any way represent a choice between “change

[/h1]