AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Syobon wrote:Btw, Rick Santorum, Newt Gringich and (I think) Rick Perry have sworn to BAN porn if they get elected. I think these guys might actually be retarded.

Makes sense for Santorum, but in that case I think he'd be just trying to cover up the only reason he'd get elected in the first place.

Haven't heard Rick Perry saying he'd be against porn, though if asked he'll probably be 100% against it because it doesn't reflect "wholesome values".

Meanwhile passing a law where women have to look at their fetus with a sonogram and describe it before carrying through with an abortion (regardless of how the woman got pregnant), forcing teenaged girls to get a vaccine that hasn't been extensively tested, and paying obscene amounts of cheddar for "rain dances" in a literal and economic drought while closing down schools and financial aid because of budget problems are also wholesome values he upholds.

Wonderful man, that Rick Perry.

You guys are preaching to the choir. Of course we all think they're psychotic, the challenge is convincing the old rich people whose votes matter more than yours.

Perhaps this helps little, but remember that these are still only individual state primaries. We still don't know which candidate will run with GOP support for President, and even then there's good cheddar on saying Obama gets re-elected. Even if you don't like the guy, you must admit that he's more appealing than the most of the GOP candidates.

I must admit that as a European that I haven't seen a single candidate yet who I'd rather see leading the US than Obama. Of course, only the negative extremes get the most focus on the internet, so I can't say I have a good view on all the candidates.

The thing with the Negative Extremes getting the focus is that there are no Positive Extremes to focus on

Because there are none. The good candidates are waiting until 2016 because the chances of a sitting president being ousted by a newcomer is rare. And anyone who loses a presidential race can never return again under their party's banner. They don't accept losers.

So all the opposing candidates are the nutcases we're seeing.

Are they bodaciously not allowed to candidate a second time or is it just the party not letting them?

More often than not the incumbent will be the stronger candidate so that is what the party will choose.

edit: which doesn't quite answer your question
As far as I know there is nothing stopping you from campaigning a second time. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul both ran last election. Name recognition is also a useful thing even if you don't win the first time around.

Losing once generally has momentum, keeping people from even winning primaries in the next election. There are exceptions, of course, but the trend is that if you lose a presidential election, you might as well give up for good.

D-vid wrote:Are they bodaciously not allowed to candidate a second time or is it just the party not letting them?

Party won't let them. This only applies to the real election though, not the one where the opposing party selects their person. Losing there has no real consequences.

Well so far I haven't really found anyone I liked, and neither has anyone I talked to really. I can't vote in the primaries anyway since I didn't register as republican/democrat, so I guess I'll just have to wait and see how this goes.

I'm a registered Republican so I can vote in the upcoming primaries. I'll mostly likely be voting for Ron Paul. Or George Washington.

Truthfully I don't know enough about politics to really know which side I stand on. I might change my mind next time since I just turned legal over the summer so this is all new to me

I don't suppose I can just convince you to vote for Paul then? He's the only Republican candidate who's not certifiably insane.

If he makes it, sure. Once I know who's in I'll probably do more research since it's kinda pointless for me right now