2012 Republican Nomination Debates

I know how you can take care of Iran.

Instate a dictator in a country right next door (probably Iraq since it's now yours) to invade them...you know, get the banks to loan him lots of money would boost the economy as well, and then he could use that money to buy old shitty weapons you can't sell.

That way he'll be able to fight Iran, but can't fight you because he owes you money and you have better weapons anyway, and his country could need water supplies and construction services American corporations could sell him such as Halliburton and Bechtol.

However, you have to make sure he wins, otherwise Iran will get super pissed off (again) and Iraq might invade Kuwait. Which we dont want because the amount of oil the UK and the USA get from that country is not only the reason we're so powerful, but also the reason Iran is pissed off at us in the first place! If that happens, you might have to start Iraq all over again.

Yo Saddam, Imma let yo finish, but Castro is the best dictator of all time!

I'd give Ron Paul the Joker face, personally. Watching the world burn is literally his policy on foreign relations.

Isn't the world already burning overseas? Thanks to Obama of course. You seem confused.

Edit: Its as if every other candidate wants to start WW3

stoned

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Isn't the world already burning overseas? Thanks to Obama of course. You seem confused.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is explicitly okay with genocide...

He is exactly of the "watch the world burn" mentality.

There's a huge difference between meddling and nation building and serving as a bulwark for democracy and an insurance policy against atrocities...damned if just about any politician (or the average American that I know of) understands it.

Ron Paul is the opposing vice to that of Santorum's "nuke everyone who doesn't roll over and beg for a treat" rhetoric.

My favorite Ron Paul poster.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/515/ronpaul.jpg/

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is explicitly okay with genocide...

He is exactly of the "watch the world burn" mentality.

I like your Evangelical Republican approach: lay on the falsehoods. You never struck me as such, though.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is explicitly okay with genocide...

He is exactly of the "watch the world burn" mentality.

Which doesn't say much.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not really. In all cases, the Republicans would only interfere with genocide if it benefited American interests (this is true throughout American history; even the great FDR rejected the chance to interfere with the holocaust until it was politically beneficial to do so).

Paul was very clear that if he had been president he would never have interfered with Hitler's right to go through with the Holocaust.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like your Evangelical Republican approach: lay on the falsehoods. You never struck me as such, though.

YouTube video

Actions speak louder than words. He has no interest in stopping genocide. He has no interest in purely symbolic measures to condemn genocide.

It's pretty simple: If you think the US should take a position opposing genocide, oppose Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Paul was very clear that if he had been president he would never have interfered with Hitler's right to go through with the Holocaust.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd give Ron Paul the Joker face, personally. Watching the world burn is literally his policy on foreign relations.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd give Ron Paul the Joker face, personally. Watching the world burn is literally his policy on foreign relations.

No, he's absolutely not. He may watch the world burn, but the point of the Joker is that he WANTS to watch the world burn, very different.

Ron Paul is nothing if not lawful, and the Joker nothing if not chaotic. Whether good, neutral or evil, now there we can have a conversation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actions speak louder than words. He has no interest in stopping genocide. He has no interest in purely symbolic measures to condemn genocide.

It's pretty simple: If you think the US should take a position opposing genocide, oppose Ron Paul.

Really, man? Really?

Cause he kind of explained his "actions" in the video that directly addressed the commonly touted Evangelical Republican criticism (something I get to hear quite often in Oklahoma).

It's quite dishonest and disingenuous to say Ron Paul supports Genocide. It's the type of shit that you would expect someone from Fox News to say, but not anyone trying to be serious.

Here's what the argument boils down to (another strawman):

Husband: Let's go get icrecream, kids.
Wife: No, they can't. They need to eat dinner first.
Husband: WHAT IS THIS? You are going to deny our children the opportunity to eat food??? You evil BASTARD! They are our CHILDREN FFS!
Wife: facepalm

Wait, wait...I know what's up.

Are you trolling for the lulz? If so, you got me. If not...OMFG...I can't believe it's not butter.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt

So the NH exit-polls are starting to come in. Romney seems to be killing the competition with either Paul or Huntsman (?) in a close second place depending on who you ask.

I've never followed these things in much detail before and its crazy how fast poll numbers change. Gingrich's NH numbers spiked about two weeks ago and now he's plummeted. Similarly Huntsman was in the single digits early on and now is a contender. On the other hand Romney and Paul have very consistent numbers. I'm not sure what to take from that. Maybe the others are sweeping voters around with ad campaigns while Romney and Paul are voted for on more of an issue basis?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So the NH exit-polls are starting to come in. Romney seems to be killing the competition with either Paul or Huntsman (?) in a close second place depending on who you ask.

I've never followed these things in much detail before and its crazy how fast poll numbers change. Gingrich's NH numbers spiked about two weeks ago and now he's plummeted. Similarly Huntsman was in the single digits early on and now is a contender. On the other hand Romney and Paul have very consistent numbers. I'm not sure what to take from that. Maybe the others are sweeping voters around with ad campaigns while Romney and Paul are voted for on more of an issue basis?

I tell you what to make of it. The people that vote for Romney and the people who vote for Paul are decided and will stay with their candidates. The rest try everyone that's not Romney (or so far Paul, though they might try Paul still).

This chart from Real Clear Politics of the South Carolina primary says it all:

They tried Perry, they tried Cain, they tried Gingrich, they might try Santorum next. And when the ads come in and more info on the candidates comes out they drop them and cry that it's going to be Romney

I re-thought my position: I think debates between Obama and Romney might be interesting as well. By interesting, I mean, "Romney will be able to contend with Obama."

I still think Ron Paul would be best suited to debate with Obama because he would provide the greatest contrast and criticism of Obama. The problem with Paul is his elocution. He kind of stutters through some of his points and is not as eloquent as I would like him to be.