The General American Politics Thread

[Emmett L. Brown]

I'm not worried about the idea of some nation putting a doomsday weapon on the moon (hell, any sufficiently large projectile fired from the moon is a doomsday weapon). We've already got doomsday weapons down here, and they're so nasty nobody dares to use them for fear of setting a precedence that would lead to the annihilation of our species. Which would suck.

A moon base is a wonderful step forward for mankind as a whole. Preferable if the task were handled by a nation that can afford it. The one in question would be bankrupt if its creditors ever asked for their loans repaid on the spot.

[SuperStingray]

I'm not worried about the idea of some nation putting a doomsday weapon on the moon (hell, any sufficiently large projectile fired from the moon is a doomsday weapon). We've already got doomsday weapons down here, and they're so nasty nobody dares to use them for fear of setting a precedence that would lead to the annihilation of our species. Which would suck.

Edited January 29, 2012 by SuperStingray

[turbojet]

On the non-celestial side, Herman Cain just endorsed Gingrich. And Romney is celebrating his victory.

Edited January 30, 2012 by turbojet

[Tornado]

On the none celestial side, Herman Cain just endorsed Gingrich.

[Phos]

I am sure must of you have see this either on TV or online, as you know I have be quite outspoken about Rick Perry lets just say I have more respect for my current hard lumpy constipated turds than I do for this douchebag!

He already looked like Davian Thule, so I guess it only makes sense for him to be as bigoted as a Space Marine.

[Emmett L. Brown]

It's not really the idea that they would use it so much as that it would make the moon the world's largest Orwellian propaganda poster. If America put some nukes up there, anyone under its gaze could be a target, so just seeing the moon in the night sky would no longer make people feel peaceful, but terrified.

Ah, just the way I feel whenever I look at an atlas. Gotcha!

[Patticus]

ATLANTA – Last Thursday marked an interesting day in history; one in which three attorneys Van Irion, Mark Hatfield ®, who is also a Republican Georgia State Representative, and Dr. Orly Taitz presented their cases before Georgia Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi regarding Barack Obama’s constitutional ineligibility and their respective requests to have him stricken from the Georgia primary ballot.

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2012/120201/frontpage-Obama.html

This is simultaneously hilarious (Orly Taitz ) and really goddamn deplorable. These people have to have some kind of degenerative brain disorder or something, because you'd need to have one to be that retarded.

In other news, Donald Trump has added his support to the Romney campaign:

Telling Romney supporters that it was his honour to endorse the former Massachusetts governor, Mr Trump said foreign business people he deals with had taken advantage of increased US uncompetitiveness.

In short remarks, Mr Trump said Mr Romney would not "allow bad things to continue to happen to this country we all love".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16861187

What an honour for Mr. Romney... yeah no not really. Hopefully Trump's support will prove to be as toxic as Bush's support was feared to be four years ago.

[The Weeb with No Name]

Is Ron Paul fucked up in any way? He seems pretty straight and narrow.

[Legendary Emerald]

Is Ron Paul fucked up in any way? He seems pretty straight and narrow.

Official RonPaul2012 site, http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

"the Issues", #1 is Abortion. Campaign promises:

"As President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation...

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a "Sanctity of Life Act."

If that's not fucked up enough for you, then you probably need to stay away from the voters booth this election year.

[Tornado]

Yeah, no. Overturning Roe v. Wade does not mean the same thing as making abortion illegal.

[turbojet]

I am not pro-life, but if being so is the only thing wrong with him...

[Legendary Emerald]

Yeah, no. Overturning Roe v. Wade does not mean the same thing as making abortion illegal.

In Ron Paul's 'statement of faith', he says, "We must stand for life -- not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government's approval."

In August 2011, Ron Paul signed a pledge to advance only anti-abortion appointees for relevant administration jobs and to support a federal ban on abortions.

His Sanctity of Life Act would define a newly fertilized egg as a "person under Federal law", which would not only criminalize ALL abortions, regardless of states' laws, but would also place abortion under federal criminal jurisdiction (via several USC clauses) as murder.

I am not pro-life, but if being so is the only thing wrong with him...

If the possibility of him worsening our outright ruining the lives of countless women due to his religious agenda isn't enough to stop you from voting for him, then nothing else will. But I don't know how anyone but the most misguided could vote for him with a clean conscience.

[Tornado]

His Sanctity of Life Act would define a newly fertilized egg as a "person under Federal law", which would not only criminalize ALL abortions, regardless of states' laws, but would also place abortion under federal criminal jurisdiction (via several USC clauses) as murder.

Except that's not true at all. The only thing it would do is:

• Define life as starting at conception for the purposes of areas that make it illegal.
  
• Remove federal oversight by repealing Roe v. Wade and making it a state issue (again).
  
• Strip federal funding of abortions and abortion clinics.
  

It wouldn't criminalize abortions unless the people in a state decided to criminalize abortions, and it sure as shit wouldn't make it a federal crime.

I'm not saying that I personally agree with him over this issue. I don't. But it isn't anywhere near what you are making it out to be, nor is it a sign of some foreboding federal "religious agenda." To assume Paul would make it one implies that he would go against every precedent he's ever set in his political career.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Celestia

[The Weeb with No Name]

If that's not fucked up enough for you, then you probably need to stay away from the voters booth this election year.

I wouldn't call a guy fucked up just because they're pro-life. Personally, I do not believe I have the right to choose for everybody whether or not they can abort, but just because he would doesn't make him a monster.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Jayhawker30

[turbojet]

Being Republican and pro-life is like being a pornstar and having sex. It is one of those things that are just accepted.

[The Weeb with No Name]

Well, more like something that just goes hand and hand.

[SuperStingray]

Abortion's a tricky issue for me. I have a firm stance on it, but at the same time I can't simply dismiss any others. There's no objective qualification to where life "begins," the Judeo-Christian interpretation holds it at conception, but unlike a lot of other concurrently invasive dogma, there are reasons other than "the Bible says so" to believe that. Most religious beliefs can easily be seen as obsolete in modern society; it takes a certain cultural myopia to believe that which sex you're interested in is relevant to the moral spectrum, but so long as a stance says life starts anywhere between the point when food is metabolized into sperm/egg cells to birth, it's not difficult to justify simply because human development is a seamless spectrum. Personally, I don't believe a fetus' life worth any more than, or even as much as, the mother's until its brain development reaches a justifiable threshold, likely somewhere in the third trimester, but it's not really anyone's place to say, as the very act of being alive and mostly/fully developed gives bias on this issue. I wouldn't support a pro-life agenda, but at the same time I wouldn't say Ron Paul's messed up for having that conviction, especially after spending his life delivering babies.

Edited February 3, 2012 by SuperStingray

[TheGerkuman]

It's important to note that as a Libertarian, Ron Paul believes that each state should make a decision on abortion and the federal government isn't letting the more conservative states decide.

The flipside is that a lot of people think that it would be morally wrong to let those aforementioned states ilegalise abortions.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Big Gerk

[Emmett L. Brown]

If life begins at conception, and statistically 50% of all conceptions do not result in birth, then you'd end up covering the entire planet's surface with gravestones. Which would be bleak and depressing.

My conclusion is gross exagerration. So is the premise.

[turbojet]

Before this topic becomes Pro Choice v. Pro Life, I'll try to intertwine it with the topic. Ron Paul being pro life is not bad compared to the general ineptitude of most of the GOP candidates. At least Ron Paul has a clue about international policy. At least Ron Paul doesn't have history of being a bad spouse. At least Ron Paul isn't as crazy as a shit house rat.

[Patticus]

It's important to note that as a Libertarian, Ron Paul believes that each state should make a decision on abortion and the federal government isn't letting the more conservative states decide.

The flipside is that a lot of people think that it would be morally wrong to let those aforementioned states ilegalise abortions.

I think that it would be morally reprehensible to allow hypothetical tyrannical majorities in strongly conservative states to remove the right of every woman in that state to choose whether she wants that baby or not (during an early stage of her pregnancy). I can't think of many worse things happening in the United States than the government allowing that kind of oppression to be inflicted on its female citizenry.

I can't tell if it necessarily would happen even if it were allowed to be decided upon among the several state legislatures, but I don't think that it should be a power devolved to them in the first place because I don't trust people to make the right decision.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Patticus

[turbojet]

I can't tell if it necessarily would happen even if it were allowed to be decided upon among the several state legislatures, but I don't think that it should be a power devolved to them in the first place because I don't trust people to make the right decision.

Spoken like a true Hamiltonian. Or Madisonian. Either/or.

Edited February 3, 2012 by turbojet

[SuperStingray]

If I might change the subject, (and this probably will), Anonymous' hackers have uncovered a string of emails revealing that Ron Paul's campaign team appears to be coordinating with a white supremicist group. And that Paul's actually had meetings with them! I understand that neonazis are constituants too but they're not exactly a group of people I'd try to support with my stances.

His background doesn't appear to be completely devoid of racist statements either.

http://www.ibtimes.c...ymous-jamie.htm

Actual emails:

http://pastebin.com/t8mbyQUS

Edited February 3, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Tornado]

I got about three paragraphs through the introduction before I started laughing. Trying a bit too hard, methinks.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Celestia

[Patticus]

Spoken like a true Hamiltonian. Or Madisonian. Either/or.

I'd rather be Hamiltonian than like the Smithers to Jefferson's Mr. Burns.

Frankly though, I'd prefer to be an Adamite, except I'm probably too partisan to fall into that camp.

Edit: The first line there was tongue-in-cheek. I am fully aware of Madison's excellence.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Patticus