Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[HalfLotus]

In the debate, Ron managed to K.O. both Newt and Santorum with ease. Romney will get his beatdown in due time.

Highlights included Perry saying that we should re-invade Iraq, Romney saying that John Adams wrote the Constitution, and Diane Sawyer being completely hammered (as usual).

[Wezil]

It should be easier second time round.

[HalfLotus]

And Paul spent his time attacking Santorum, which is strange strategy.

Paul doesn't pick the questions, ABC does. They asked him about the Santorum ads and he explained, rightly, that Santorum is a big-government conservative and has voted to raise the debt ceiling the 5 times.

[HalfLotus]

And it doesn't matter that Romney won't have locked up a huge delegate lead after Super Tuesday. If he wins all or nearly all of the primaries and caucuses through then, his nomination will be inevitable beyond the dead hooker/live boy scenario.

It is anything but inevitable. The new proportional delegate system means you can throw the conventional wisdom of years past out the window.

This will be a long race, and Paul is taking out the weakest links first so he can grab as much of the Not Romney vote (~75% of GOP voters) as possible. It is a sound strategy.

[molly bloom]

You sound surprised. Take a look at any Conspiracy Theorist forum and you'll see any number of people driven insane by the inflexibility of their own logic.

I just this morning finished re-reading Philip K. Dick's 'Clans Of The Alphane Moon' and there's a great passage where he describes the remorseless self-reinforcing logic of the clans of the Manics and the Paranoiacs.
Amusingly, the Paranoiacs live in Adolfville...

[kentonio]

I'm 28. I'm almost certainly never going to benefit from Medicare. Why should I care if it's eliminated?

So that millions of poor and elderly people don't die horrible slow deaths due to lack of medical care?

It's not a citizen, it's a person. The two are distinct, you ****ing moron. And a cub scout troop or book club certainly may petition Congress, or spend money on political activities, according to the Constitution. Americans have a right to freely associate with one another, and may act as groups to change how our country is run.

There's a major difference between individuals using the weight of their individual rights to petition, and giving an organization of people additional power to petition. If you can't see the difference, then you're not looking very hard.

I realize that you get your information through some sort of third hand route, but Citizens United isn't Walmart.

You have no idea where I get my information from, so lets give the patronizing **** a rest eh?

It's a non-profit organization formed specifically to influence the political process. Denying them the right to express themselves would be an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech.

Sure, which is why in Stevens dissent he said..

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

Furthermore, the Citizens United decision extended the same rights to unions that it did to corporations. Do you think that the Labour Party should be able to work directly with the trade unions, or should it only be able to work with unorganized individual union members?

Who do you imagine has more money, unions or corporations? Your argument is also weak because saying 'Look the other side get to corrupt the political process too!' isn't really a positive.

I think it's worth noting that all indications are that kentonio is one of those morons who believes and insists that the republican party's ultimate goal is to put money in the pockets of rich people.

No, obviously the Republicans care only about saving the sick children, rescuing cute bunnies, and ensuring all Americans live a happy life in a multi-racial, multi-religious utopia, where Christians and Muslims, blacks, latinos and whites all dance together in perfect harmony.

You tool.

[Guynemer]

It's true for both parties, idiot.

[Dinner]

I, for one, can't go on unless Half Lotus tells me what he believes about space aliens and what role they had in 9/11. The Truthers shall out the truth.

[HalfLotus]

This morning's debate has been an all out assault on Romney.

With Newt especially being given plenty of setups by the moderators to smack him around.

[Hauldren Collider]

The harmless position would be a VP. The coveted one is a State Secretary.

Sorry dude. No one would want Ron Paul as their VP, and it wouldn't be harmless.

[OzzyKP]

Wait, what?

What kind of cabinet position would Ron Paul even be interested in, and who the hell would want a loose cannon like Paul in their cabinet anyway?

I mean, I suppose it's possible that's Ron Paul's logic, but I doubt it.

I agree. No way would anyone include Ron Paul on the ticket or in their cabinet.

[onodera]

Sorry dude. No one would want Ron Paul as their VP, and it wouldn't be harmless.

Maybe it's the local news bias, but has Biden actually done anything noteworthy as a VP?

[OzzyKP]

No. Which makes him the perfect VP.

[Felch]

So that millions of poor and elderly people don't die horrible slow deaths due to lack of medical care?

Everybody dies. Why should I have to pay for their free motorized scooters? Why should I pay for a bunch of deadbeat baby boomers who didn't save enough for retirement?

There's a major difference between individuals using the weight of their individual rights to petition, and giving an organization of people additional power to petition. If you can't see the difference, then you're not looking very hard.

We have the right to peaceably assemble. And there's no Constitutional basis for denying a group of people their right to express themselves, simply because they are a group.

You have no idea where I get my information from, so lets give the patronizing **** a rest eh?

I know that your information is skewed at best, and I believe that your sources, whatever they are, are advancing a specific political agenda.

Sure, which is why in Stevens dissent he said..

Stevens' dissent is a minority opinion, and it is unsupported by the Constitution.

Who do you imagine has more money, unions or corporations? Your argument is also weak because saying 'Look the other side get to corrupt the political process too!' isn't really a positive.

Is the Labour Party corrupting British politics by working with the trade unions? I don't believe it does, but you sure seem to think so.

[Boris Godunov]

It is anything but inevitable. The new proportional delegate system means you can throw the conventional wisdom of years past out the window.

This will be a long race, and Paul is taking out the weakest links first so he can grab as much of the Not Romney vote (~75% of GOP voters) as possible. It is a sound strategy.

You still seem incapable of grasping the fact that Paul is unpalatable to just as much of the GOP as Romney is, if not moreso. His foreign policy views alone ensure that. You highlight Perry's insane comment about sending more troops back to Iraq, but Paul's views on Iran are even more horrific from the perspective of Republicans. And then of course there's his economic views. If it's down to a choice between Romney and Paul, Romney wins, easily. If it gets to a brokered convention (which it won't), Romney wins, since he's got the backing of the GOP establishment. Everything that's happened so far in the primaries has been to Romney's benefit. Despite Republicans having such strong reservations about him, he's going to win all of the early contests. By the time we get to the later ones, he's going to have the inevitability thing that the GOP always awards its front runners by March.