Iowa Primary

Bangpuss

Bangpuss

Well-known member
Over on Rick Santorum's website -- his official candidate page, not this one -- the race for the GOP nomination takes another tasteful turn. Rick is proposing a MONEYBOMB to propel him to the nomination, like a wad of semen spurting towards a hairy arse hole.

Interestingly, one of the perks of donating more than $100 to the only gay candidate in the Republican race (who of us hasn't already?) is that you get a free sweater vest. This part of his website is called Rock the Vest, and explains the vest's qualities: "Perfect for demonstrating solidarity with true conservatives, this vest is a great way to show your support for Rick."

May the vest man win!
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
latest news is rick perry drops out today and endorses newt, which is a bummer for santorum.

i almost feel sorry for the guy: romney originally finishes 8 votes ahead in iowa and is declared the winner, yet when the recount shows santorum up by 34, they call it a split decision. apparently there are districts where votes were lost permanently, doesn't bode well for iowa's image as a bellwether for primary candidates when they can't get an accurate vote count or declare an actual primary winner.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
But if it's that close then doesn't each candidate get the same number of representatives? So it doesn't really matter - although admittedly it doesn't look very good.
 
Bangpuss

Bangpuss

Well-known member
A caucus isn't even a proper election, so it certainly doesn't bode well for the real thing in November. But the gerrymandering that has taken place in recent years, with Republicans enacting laws at state level to make it harder for minorities to vote, means if the election is close, we're looking at another Bush vs. Gore scenario. But I don't think Romney, or anyone else, will get close enough to Obama for it to matter too much.
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
yeah, it's not an actual primary, but it (along with new hampshire) has historically acted as the big PR springboard for a frontrunner and set the tone for the early stages of the campaigns.

i'll miss rick perry's missteps and corndog photos, now he can go back to texas and declare war on turkey.
 
lanugo

lanugo

von Verfall erzittern
God, you guys discussing all this primary race gossip in good earnest is more ridiculous than people talking endlessly about their favourite reality TV show.
 
trza

trza

Well-known member
I was at the State Fair when Rick Perry got his Corn Dog on. I thought he had it all figured out. I read the whole issue of Texas Monthly with his image drawn in a Superman outfit, with his history of being handpicked from dozens of conservative Texas Democrats by Karl Rove over twenty years ago. He had avoided debates for his entire career, never losing an election while barely bothering to campaign. His advisers were Rove proteges and he was the only guy with the fundraising ability to match Mitt Romney in this cycle. Six months after his initial rollout, they all look incompetent.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"God, you guys discussing all this primary race gossip in good earnest is more ridiculous than people talking endlessly about their favourite reality TV show."
Click to expand...
Well it's kind of a soap opera and it's fun and... basically you're an irritating prick.
 
lanugo

lanugo

von Verfall erzittern
IdleRich said:
Well it's kind of a soap opera and it's fun and... basically you're an irritating prick.
Click to expand...

Why anyone would find this grotesque spectacle of fakeness anything but mind and soul raping is beyond me.

Point out the outrageousness of politics degenerating into entertainment and people become angry with you for spoiling their oh so ironic and refined ways of finding pleasure in the absurd.

Infinite Jest, anyone?
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
lanugo said:
Why anyone would find this grotesque spectacle of fakeness anything but mind and soul raping is beyond me.

Point out the outrageousness of politics degenerating into entertainment and people become angry with you for spoiling their oh so ironic and refined ways of finding pleasure in the absurd.

Infinite Jest, anyone?
Click to expand...

what's "ironic" about the above conversation? a group of politicians contending to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world have spent the past few months saying and doing some very ridiculous things, i think that's worth discussing and mocking as needed.

also, i doubt anyone is "angry" at you. occasionally annoyed, perhaps, since your tone is often one of pretentious superiority, but not angry. just lighten up a little.
 
Bangpuss

Bangpuss

Well-known member
If you haven't already seen it, this week's Daily Show Global Edition on 4OD is fantastic on the subject of the primaries.
 
Bangpuss

Bangpuss

Well-known member
Also, Stewart made the point to Napolitano that we have often pondered: Why is state government inherently less tyrannical than federal government? And Napolitano gave a pretty good answer: Well, he said, the states would still have to adhere to the Bill of Rights. And there would still be federal courts. So Alabama could not roll back civil rights legislation because it would get struck down in the federal courts.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
But isn't that just a reason why it's not worse rather than a reason why it's better?
And it still sidesteps the idea that the person who climbs higher up the pole is presumably better than the person who doesn't manage to get higher than state level.
 
Bangpuss

Bangpuss

Well-known member
I agree with your argument mostly (since it's one that I often make). But I don't agree that higher levels of government always work better than local govs. Is the EU, for example, a preferable form of government than national governments? Would you sooner our healthcare be run by the EU? And is Peter Mandelson a favourable politician than someone like Tom Watson or Dennis skinner, simply because he climbed the greasy pole to become an EU commissioner?

There is a valid argument that the outer layers of government are furthest removed from the people they represent, and are more prone to cronyism and special interests hijacking the decision-making process.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Bangpuss said:
But I don't agree that higher levels of government always work better than local govs. Is the EU, for example, a preferable form of government than national governments?
Click to expand...

Not sure that comparison is really valid - the EU makes no pretence to being a country, does it? Yes, it makes laws that its members (at least notionally) have to conform to, but the individual sovereignty of member states is respected.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Yes but I don't declare that the EU is the greatest country in the world, that anything that doesn't fit with my views is Un-EU etc etc What I'm asking about is the contradiction between loving the US as a whole but not wanting it be governed as a whole.
Of course I don't really think that the higher you climb in politics the more talented you are - but that is the theory I suppose.
 
Bangpuss

Bangpuss

Well-known member
But part of the US being the 'greatest country on earth' is the notion that it's a federal state. Part of the appeal is that states have a level of autonomy to decide their own affairs, but are protected by the umbrella of the federal government mostly for national security reasons. The reason Ron Paul votes 'no' to 99% of bills in congress is that he believes the Constitution -- and when you read it, he's right -- only gives a few explicit powers to the federal government. Of course, this is all based on the assumption that the US should still be governed by a bunch of guys' ideas codified in a document written in 1776, when they still had slavery and abortion didn't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top