-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
08 Primaries; Super Tuesday Results
- Thread starter Eor
- Start date
omfgomfg
Smash Lord
mitt romney's favorite book is by ron hubbard
that alone disqualifies him for the presidency
that alone disqualifies him for the presidency
Fox P McCloud
Smash Apprentice
Not to be contrary, but Guiliani actually campaigned more in Iowa than Ron did...
I agree with you 100% on that statement....I was determined not to vote this election cycle until I heard about Ron Paul.....before I heard about him, I guess you could say I was a "budding Liberterian", though I had no idea what the philosophy was called (I referred to myself as someone who was really conservative, but at the same time, a little liberal too).
I've half thought about voting for the Constitution party, but I have a few major beefs with them (of course, I have problems with the Libertarian party too...*chuckles*...that's why I like Ron so much, he's a balance).
I hate the constitution party with a passion, for no other reason then their far right Christianity. One of their things is to outlaw homosexuality. Maybe their economic views are compatible with Libertarianism, but their social views are not.
Double post for bump
I just watched the Democratic debate, and Edwards won that one by far. He made the best impression, while Clinton did not. She was strong in the beginning, but became awkward and dodgy in the last half. Obama flipped inbetween playing it cool and going strong at people. Best moment was when Edwards just raised the finger to Clinton (figuratively, if you didn't watch it) and talked about how he stopped change constantly. Clinton did worst by taking Obama's plan of being change and trying to claim she was an agent of change, as well as continuing to perpetrate the fact that she gave national guards health care, which she didn't. Obama gets a second for a few very strong moments, like when he talked about the Surge. Overall, I think Clinton is not going to win New Hampshire anymore. Not at all, it is now a two person race.
Edit: I want to get some more out.
Obama actually did better then I originally thought. Looking back on it, he managed to stay in the fray, but not make any mistakes. He looked tired, but everyone other then Edwards looked tired. Clinton was bad, not only was her joke bad, but she got furious at Edwards, and did not look presidential at all. Even worse was when she played the gender card, saying nothing more then "Vote for me because I am a woman" when asked about change. I think she did bad, and that her storm is over. Of course, the media loves her as much as they don't like Paul, so she'll still be considered in second place, despite getting third in Iowa.
Edwards did very well. He managed to say he had change, as well as experience. He will probably siphon votes away from the Clinton camp, then a few from Obama, who will supplement them with independents that will choose him over McCain. I see another Obama victory, with Edwards in second or close third. Also, by aligning with Obama, he is in a strong position to be Vice President if he looses, and is in a strong position to ask Obama to be his running mate if he does win, whose charisma will help his ticket. A strong win for Edwards, though Obama did not mess up enough in order to loose NH.
I just watched the Democratic debate, and Edwards won that one by far. He made the best impression, while Clinton did not. She was strong in the beginning, but became awkward and dodgy in the last half. Obama flipped inbetween playing it cool and going strong at people. Best moment was when Edwards just raised the finger to Clinton (figuratively, if you didn't watch it) and talked about how he stopped change constantly. Clinton did worst by taking Obama's plan of being change and trying to claim she was an agent of change, as well as continuing to perpetrate the fact that she gave national guards health care, which she didn't. Obama gets a second for a few very strong moments, like when he talked about the Surge. Overall, I think Clinton is not going to win New Hampshire anymore. Not at all, it is now a two person race.
Edit: I want to get some more out.
Obama actually did better then I originally thought. Looking back on it, he managed to stay in the fray, but not make any mistakes. He looked tired, but everyone other then Edwards looked tired. Clinton was bad, not only was her joke bad, but she got furious at Edwards, and did not look presidential at all. Even worse was when she played the gender card, saying nothing more then "Vote for me because I am a woman" when asked about change. I think she did bad, and that her storm is over. Of course, the media loves her as much as they don't like Paul, so she'll still be considered in second place, despite getting third in Iowa.
Edwards did very well. He managed to say he had change, as well as experience. He will probably siphon votes away from the Clinton camp, then a few from Obama, who will supplement them with independents that will choose him over McCain. I see another Obama victory, with Edwards in second or close third. Also, by aligning with Obama, he is in a strong position to be Vice President if he looses, and is in a strong position to ask Obama to be his running mate if he does win, whose charisma will help his ticket. A strong win for Edwards, though Obama did not mess up enough in order to loose NH.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Republicans:
What a cluster-**** the Republican debate was. Everyone attacks Ron Paul on the basis that we shouldn't be allowed to attack any country even if they show a threat. They are all for open war with the except of Paul. Mitt Romney came off as a complete, total, and pompous *** with Huckabee providing decent spin on his ideas.
Best part was when ever seems to think that ALL Islamic terrorist are anti-American, freedom haters when Paul made a valid point with what would you do if you had another country occupying us and if they were against freedom, why not attack Canada when they have less of an army, pretty much same values and freedoms. All the neo-cons of course replied "We are the leader of the free world" "the strongest nation in the world!" Why would any terrorist who has a limited supply and funds attack "the strongest country in the world when there is no chance at toppling it."
The debate has made me really hate the Republican party and feel sick to support them. I'll finish watching and add my opinions on the rest.
Isn't Obama Muslim? If so, I'd like to see him versus any of the Warmongering Republicans who claim they must stop the "evil Islamic fascists."
What a cluster-**** the Republican debate was. Everyone attacks Ron Paul on the basis that we shouldn't be allowed to attack any country even if they show a threat. They are all for open war with the except of Paul. Mitt Romney came off as a complete, total, and pompous *** with Huckabee providing decent spin on his ideas.
Best part was when ever seems to think that ALL Islamic terrorist are anti-American, freedom haters when Paul made a valid point with what would you do if you had another country occupying us and if they were against freedom, why not attack Canada when they have less of an army, pretty much same values and freedoms. All the neo-cons of course replied "We are the leader of the free world" "the strongest nation in the world!" Why would any terrorist who has a limited supply and funds attack "the strongest country in the world when there is no chance at toppling it."
The debate has made me really hate the Republican party and feel sick to support them. I'll finish watching and add my opinions on the rest.
Isn't Obama Muslim? If so, I'd like to see him versus any of the Warmongering Republicans who claim they must stop the "evil Islamic fascists."
Fox P McCloud
Smash Apprentice
I watched both debates....while I trust no one from either party, except Ron Paul (all but Paul, Gravel, Kucinich, and Hunter are members of the Council on Foreign Relations)...I must say, that I deeply appreciated the things John Edwards had to say.....if I were a Democrat, I'd definitely be voting for him (heck, back when I was a neo-con, I liked him).
Anyway, the Republican debate was horrendous...it was really obvious Romney was trying to take it out on the world that he lost heavily in Iowa ( when you get beat by someone who spend, what, 10 times less than you did...no matter where you place below them, you lost badly)....I don't think there was a single person, with the exception of Thompson, that he didn't attempt to really berate or condescend....he also really tried his best to butt into all the conversations, and even demanded (and he got it) that he would have the last word at the Republican debate.
I'm tired of the stereo-typing of Ron Paul....it's almost like they think that if they all gang up on him at once he'll suddenly change his position on the war....Ron has had the same position for...how many years now? He's not going to change his mind any time soon (if at all)...they should just quietly respect his opinion...and if they must disagree, present some solid factual evidence against his argument (of course...practically none exists, so they fall back on calling him crazy, stereo-typing him, twisting his words, or even totally changing the argument in some way). Even though Thompson and Paul disagree on many things, I really respected him for not trying to single out Paul tonight and make him out to be the "evil Republican" of the pack.....(on that note though, Thompson didn't seem like he was fully "there" tonight....I can't help but wonder if he's just "doing it to be doing it" in this election cycle).
So anyway, the Republican debate really ticked me off......the moderator let them gang up on Ron, he let Romney dominate and pick fights too much, and he let the immigration debate between McCain and Romney go on for way too long.
Still, Ron was calm and collected, and even managed to crack a few jokes....he also gave some very intelligent answers to some issues that no one is addressing; he was a definite stand-out in the line-up, for one....I just hope and pray it strikes a chord with New Hampshire voters.
One thing is funny though...The Democrats don't want to touch Ron with a 100' stick....they showboat themselves around as being for "change", when Ron clearly has that one (abolish the IRS, Federal Reserve, Department of Energy, Department of Education, pull out of the UN, get out of NAFTA, CAFTA, change our economic system to a more Laissez-faire style policy, go back to the gold standard...etc)....that sounds like change to me! If Ron Paul gets the nomination, it'll be interesting to see how Hillary/Obama/Edwards handles him, as he has a very strong potential to get most of the independent vote, the de-facto Republican vote, and a wide number of Democrats too.
Anyway, the Republican debate was horrendous...it was really obvious Romney was trying to take it out on the world that he lost heavily in Iowa ( when you get beat by someone who spend, what, 10 times less than you did...no matter where you place below them, you lost badly)....I don't think there was a single person, with the exception of Thompson, that he didn't attempt to really berate or condescend....he also really tried his best to butt into all the conversations, and even demanded (and he got it) that he would have the last word at the Republican debate.
I'm tired of the stereo-typing of Ron Paul....it's almost like they think that if they all gang up on him at once he'll suddenly change his position on the war....Ron has had the same position for...how many years now? He's not going to change his mind any time soon (if at all)...they should just quietly respect his opinion...and if they must disagree, present some solid factual evidence against his argument (of course...practically none exists, so they fall back on calling him crazy, stereo-typing him, twisting his words, or even totally changing the argument in some way). Even though Thompson and Paul disagree on many things, I really respected him for not trying to single out Paul tonight and make him out to be the "evil Republican" of the pack.....(on that note though, Thompson didn't seem like he was fully "there" tonight....I can't help but wonder if he's just "doing it to be doing it" in this election cycle).
So anyway, the Republican debate really ticked me off......the moderator let them gang up on Ron, he let Romney dominate and pick fights too much, and he let the immigration debate between McCain and Romney go on for way too long.
Still, Ron was calm and collected, and even managed to crack a few jokes....he also gave some very intelligent answers to some issues that no one is addressing; he was a definite stand-out in the line-up, for one....I just hope and pray it strikes a chord with New Hampshire voters.
One thing is funny though...The Democrats don't want to touch Ron with a 100' stick....they showboat themselves around as being for "change", when Ron clearly has that one (abolish the IRS, Federal Reserve, Department of Energy, Department of Education, pull out of the UN, get out of NAFTA, CAFTA, change our economic system to a more Laissez-faire style policy, go back to the gold standard...etc)....that sounds like change to me! If Ron Paul gets the nomination, it'll be interesting to see how Hillary/Obama/Edwards handles him, as he has a very strong potential to get most of the independent vote, the de-facto Republican vote, and a wide number of Democrats too.
Please tell me you're kidding. The idea that he's Muslim was created and spread by Fox news and continued by a few Clinton supporters, it's like Paul's white supremacist thing, except that the only reason people claim he's Muslim is because he's black.
I've given up talking about Paul, so I won't touch that one, because I'd just be repeating myself.
I'm currently seeing an Obama/McCain victory, with Romney being a dead horse, and dropping out soon after. I really cannot tell you will win the Republican nomination, and I could very well see it being an upset. Not as big of an upset as Ron Paul (ok I lied before), but still an upset.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
One of my friends who supports Obama actually told me that one. I assumed it was true.
I loved how McCain and Romney basically just resorted to straight out attacks. One funny one when Mitt said he was misquoted by the AP was McCain saying: "When you change your stance on issues, you will be misquoted."
Aesir
Smash Master
Obamas Christian.
I'll just drop in and say thank you for those elaborate posts on the current situation in America. I'm not a very political person, but this is a subject that really concerns the whole Western world, whether we admit it or not.
So, thank you.
So, thank you.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
To summarize:
Republican Party is too ****ing stupid and essentially evil to get elected. Democrats agree WAY too much with each other so it almost doesn't matter who you elect (I mean out of Obama and Edwards). In the end, November will probably be a lackluster contest, overall, and once again, politics is dead to me. I'll support Paul until he drops, but that about the last time I support Republicans.
Republican Party is too ****ing stupid and essentially evil to get elected. Democrats agree WAY too much with each other so it almost doesn't matter who you elect (I mean out of Obama and Edwards). In the end, November will probably be a lackluster contest, overall, and once again, politics is dead to me. I'll support Paul until he drops, but that about the last time I support Republicans.
Fox P McCloud
Smash Apprentice
once and again, I agree with you Crimson; I was once an avid "Neo-con" Republican...still, over a period of time, I started dropping many of those ideals and started formulating completely on my own individualistic policies...and I also started thinking about abolishing the Fed, amongst other things. Little did I know it, but I was a budding Libertarian....as the elections drew near, I figured that on one would be thinking like this....until I heard Ron speak...I now say I'm a full fledged Libertarian (though, I must admit, like Ron, I lean more towards PaleoLibertarianism than CosmoLibertarianism). If Ron drops, I'll write him in, in the general election, then kiss the US as I know it good-bye......I'd only support the Republican party in the future if someone similar to Ron ran. (Or he ran again).
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Ron Paul in the Spin Room said he'll stay in the election as long as there is support for him, and I don't see support dwindling, so he will be the one to split the Republican vote and that's fine with me.
I disagree with him on "No Amnesty for Illegals" because Illegals run the economy. I have several economy doctorates who can vouch for that one, but the rest, I pretty much agree with.
I disagree with him on "No Amnesty for Illegals" because Illegals run the economy. I have several economy doctorates who can vouch for that one, but the rest, I pretty much agree with.
Tryptomine
Smash Journeyman
"The biggest issue in this election is something called flip-flopping, and all candidates are accused of doing it. A strong leader is expected to maintain steadfast resolve in his opinion even if the environment changes or he gets new information. In any other context, that would be considered the first sign of a brain tumor. When presidents do it, it's called leadership, and frankly, we can't get enough of it." -Scott Adams
I can't tolerate TV "debates," its just such a horrible format they use, with the public encourage to choose the leader of their nation based solely on catchy 2 second sound bites.
I always love when they say this, like everything is still just as it was in the 1950's. America's power has been eroding out from under us for well over a decade, an they're just too blind or stupid to notice.
Fox P McCloud
Smash Apprentice
*chuckles* I agree with no amnesty, personally, but I don't think we need to take on the Tancredo mentality of completely blocking all immigration, or else we will have an economic meltdown.
Oh wait, we're going to have an economic meltdown in 2008 anyway....meh..*shrugs* go figure.
The "debates" are a farce and don't represent anything close to an intelligent discussion at all. It's contrived, biased, and commercialized. They more closely resemble American Idol elections except at least American Idol accepts that they're a popularity contest.
A couple months back or so I was really busy with school, so I knew almost nothing about any of the candidates. My parents (extreme-conservatives) were watching a republican debate and I saw Ron Paul talking, something to do with foreign policy. My dad turns to me and says "That Ron Paul is a wacko! He believes that the US deserved to be attacked on 9/11!" Of course Paul never said anything like that, but it doesn't really matter. The media as decided to label him with that (and other) stereotypes and there's no going back now.
Seriously, this is democracy? We're going to war to spread this?!
A couple months back or so I was really busy with school, so I knew almost nothing about any of the candidates. My parents (extreme-conservatives) were watching a republican debate and I saw Ron Paul talking, something to do with foreign policy. My dad turns to me and says "That Ron Paul is a wacko! He believes that the US deserved to be attacked on 9/11!" Of course Paul never said anything like that, but it doesn't really matter. The media as decided to label him with that (and other) stereotypes and there's no going back now.
Seriously, this is democracy? We're going to war to spread this?!
Aesir
Smash Master
It isn't Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic.
I'm well aware of the fact that the US is technically a Constitutional Republic. But the concept of voting for a president is Democratic idea, and that's what I'm getting at. (And yes, I know you don't directly vote for president. It's an indirect vote with the electoral college. But you know what I'm saying.)
Aesir
Smash Master
I wouldn't call it technically, I would say it is. as it isn't a true democracy and it fits the definition of a constitutional republic very well.
Very well, then. I retract my statement of
and replace it with
...it just doesn't sound as good...
Aesir
Smash Master
as a person who is very much against Hillary, I hope she doesn't win so I don't hear my mom saying "I told you so" >_>
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Honestly, listening to these people talk, I can see none of the frontrunners (Republican of course because I don't agree with Democrats on many issues) actually leading the country. McCain made me detest him completely with his comments about Iraq where when asked how long we should stay in Iraq and President Bush or someone said "50 years," McCain, emphatically, replied "Make it 100," to the visible shock to several people in the front row. Guliani's ads freak me out with his anti-Islamic mentality, and Romney seems happy with the war.
The issue seems to be the only thing of concern to ANY of the men there as they seem to have no solution to immigration that is workable, no stance on the deficit, etc.
I really just want to switch back to Independent so I don't have to be associated with these thugs.
The issue seems to be the only thing of concern to ANY of the men there as they seem to have no solution to immigration that is workable, no stance on the deficit, etc.
I really just want to switch back to Independent so I don't have to be associated with these thugs.
Fox P McCloud
Smash Apprentice
If it's any comfort, the Republican party was once filled with people like Ron Paul....and, in general, the party was, for all practical purposes, Libertarian....sadly, that was wiped out later.
The results of the primary were disappointing on the Republican side....I knew McCain would get 1st, and Romney a likely 2nd, but I didn't have any idea that Huckabee would get 3rd, of all things....and Guiliani even beat out Ron Paul.
So much for "Live Free for Die"....let us hope that 48 other states are far wiser.
Hillary won on the New Hampshire side....a bit of a surprise to me...but ahh well, that's who "they" want in office. I expect that she'll do well in the upcoming primaries.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Hillary is losing to Obama. I'd bet a lot on that one.
Huckabee and Guiliani got 3rd and 4th by very few votes overall and if they don't campaign more they are fighting a losing battle against McCain and Romney. Paul could easily bide his time until either drop out and move up to 3rd or even better in the states that follow. Sadly, I fear Huckabee won't drop out after winning Iowa.
Huckabee and Guiliani got 3rd and 4th by very few votes overall and if they don't campaign more they are fighting a losing battle against McCain and Romney. Paul could easily bide his time until either drop out and move up to 3rd or even better in the states that follow. Sadly, I fear Huckabee won't drop out after winning Iowa.
Aesir
Smash Master
The only republican I can stand is Ron, unfortunately a lot issues I don't agree with him on, and very few I do.
The one of many things I don't like about Hillary is her idea for health care reform, for one she goes on and on about free health care for everyone and it seems people just blindly follow it. It's like no one stops to think how is she going to do it? I once read that Americans under her reform would be paying an extra 700 a month. what the heck? thats affordable health care?
It just seems like she would drive this country into a deeper whole then it's already in.
The one of many things I don't like about Hillary is her idea for health care reform, for one she goes on and on about free health care for everyone and it seems people just blindly follow it. It's like no one stops to think how is she going to do it? I once read that Americans under her reform would be paying an extra 700 a month. what the heck? thats affordable health care?
It just seems like she would drive this country into a deeper whole then it's already in.
Obama is actually still ahead of Clinton is delegates, as both of them got 9 delegates from New Hampshire. Something interesting.
I like Obama's health care because it's more balanced then Clintons. Its more something you buy into then something that's forced on you.
I like Obama's health care because it's more balanced then Clintons. Its more something you buy into then something that's forced on you.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Negative. As a democrat, she's pretty much pro-tax by philosophy and with Americans paying an extra $700, they would be paying for that. The debt would probably ease by a substantial amount, but really, we would still lose money overall so we'd never really notice the difference.
I can't understand why Americans don't want an end to fruitless expansionism, an end to the war on drugs, and ridiculously less taxes.
Aesir
Smash Master
I would love to see a health care plan similar to other western cultures actually work in the us, but sadly I don't think thats possible.
American is far to individualized then anything else.
American is far to individualized then anything else.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22575934/
The Nevada Culinary Workers Union backed Obama, which is a surpise to some, as they where expected to back the winner of New Hampshire. It's an important endorsement for democratic candidates, so one up for Obama. He's also suppose to be 20% ahead of Clinton in SC, though NH showed us that polls almost mean nothing now. We'll see how it goes.
Edit: And for the non-paul republicans (I know your out there), Romney has pulled all advertisments from SC, and is now using everything he has in Michigan. If he doesn't win it, expect him to drop.
The Nevada Culinary Workers Union backed Obama, which is a surpise to some, as they where expected to back the winner of New Hampshire. It's an important endorsement for democratic candidates, so one up for Obama. He's also suppose to be 20% ahead of Clinton in SC, though NH showed us that polls almost mean nothing now. We'll see how it goes.
Edit: And for the non-paul republicans (I know your out there), Romney has pulled all advertisments from SC, and is now using everything he has in Michigan. If he doesn't win it, expect him to drop.
Bump for news!
Richardson is very likely to drop out today, says many of his close sources. John Kerry is also going to endorse Obama, says some of his close sources. Both may be false, but I see them as likely.
Edit: And heres a small thing about Ron Paul http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22580212/
Richardson is very likely to drop out today, says many of his close sources. John Kerry is also going to endorse Obama, says some of his close sources. Both may be false, but I see them as likely.
Edit: And heres a small thing about Ron Paul http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22580212/
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
New Hampshire GOP can no longer claim "Live free or die" unless it has an elipsis, as Lew Rockwell stated. The Republicans of the supposed Libertarian leaning state basically decided they support the psycho who wants us to stay in Iraq for as long as possible (100 years is an exact quote) which pretty much shows they are officially pro-war.
I'm not sure what I rather: Ron Paul to drop out so I can change my party to Independent and vote Libertarian, or Ron Paul to stay in and split the Republican vote and screw over McCain or whoever gets the nomination.
I'm not sure what I rather: Ron Paul to drop out so I can change my party to Independent and vote Libertarian, or Ron Paul to stay in and split the Republican vote and screw over McCain or whoever gets the nomination.