US Republican Tim Pawlenty drops bid for 2012 race - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14522579[/url] [quote]The Minnesota ex-governor finished a distant third in the Iowa straw poll, an early test of strength for candidates vying to challenge Democratic President Barack Obama. "The pathway forward for me doesn't exist," Mr Pawlenty told ABC TV. Michele Bachmann, a Congresswoman from Minnesota, won the non-binding poll. Ron Paul, a Texas Congressman, finished a close second. Mr Pawlenty said: "I thought I would have made a great president, but obviously that pathway isn't there. I do believe we're going to have a very good candidate who is going to beat Barack Obama." Mr Pawlenty had spent about two years preparing his campaign and building funds. He poured much of that money into Iowa before Saturday's but languished in opinion polls after Mrs Bachmann entered the race. About 17,000 voters took part in the straw poll, in what is considered the first big test of the 2012 presidential race. It comes five months before the first official Iowa primaries in the race for the White House. Mrs Bachmann won 4,823 votes in the straw poll, more than twice as many as Mr Pawlenty. National front-runner Mitt Romney did not actively take part in the Iowa contest and neither did Texas Governor Rick Perry, who announced his candidacy on Saturday.[/quote] [img]http://blewstate.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Rick-Perry-with-gun.jpeg[/img]

Still wish Donald Trump was running.

One less obstacle for Ron Paul

It's funny because he came in third but no one below him is dropping even though they did terribly in the poll.

Bachmann should follow his example.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31725975]It's funny because he came in third but no one below him is dropping even though they did terribly in the poll.[/QUOTE] He did terribly in the debate, despite the poll. For Pawlenty to really make an impact, he had to make it to first. Other than that, he's a no name. Cain did worse than him, but he was expected to come last, so Cain despite being 5th (or 6th, don't remember exactly) technically did much better than Pawlenty. It's a fickle process

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31726084]He did terribly in the debate, despite the poll. For Pawlenty to really make an impact, he had to make it to first. Other than that, he's a no name. Cain did worse than him, but he was expected to come last, so Cain despite being 5th (or 6th, don't remember exactly) technically did much better than Pawlenty. It's a fickle process[/QUOTE]It's not like those other guys did any better, Bachmann came out looking great and so did Paul everyone else just fucked themselves over. I guess that's what the poll reflected.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31725975]It's funny because he came in third but no one below him is dropping even though they did terribly in the poll.[/QUOTE] Polls mean nothing. I mean, it's good that Ron Paul came out at second. But how in hell did that bitch, Bachmann, come out on top? I watched the whole debate. She said nothing impressive. That being said, I'm glad Pawlenty is out of the race. I don't wanna see that dirt bag in office. Now if only Gringrich and Bachmann would drop out.

At least he had the decency to recognize this rather than cocooning himself in an imaginary world where every other Republican seems to be living. That's rather nice.

I always feel bad for the loser in politics.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;31727785]Polls mean nothing. I mean, it's good that Ron Paul came out at second. But how in hell did that bitch, Bachmann, come out on top? I watched the whole debate. She said nothing impressive. That being said, I'm glad Pawlenty is out of the race. I don't wanna see that dirt bag in office. Now if only Gringrich and Bachmann would drop out.[/QUOTE] Gringrich is not a threat, so there is no reason to worry about him.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31728120]I always feel bad for the loser in politics.[/QUOTE] He really dug his own grave after his performance in the debate. He and Bachmann looked completely childish with their squabbling. Ron Paul was my favorite, but I don't think he is electable. He doesn't compose himself in the "presidential" way that Cain or Romney do.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;31730899]He really dug his own grave after his performance in the debate. He and Bachmann looked completely childish with their squabbling. Ron Paul was my favorite, but I don't think he is electable. He doesn't compose himself in the "presidential" way that Cain or Romney do.[/QUOTE] He talks more of ideals than "act" like a president. Personally, I think "acting presidential" is the stupidest reason a man loses an election. It's not the image that should count, only what he thinks and how he goes about enacting what he thinks. Other than that, I 100% complete with what you say there.

Everyone should be happy. Tim Pawlenty was a fucking bad governor.

Tim Pawlenty was a great governor, I'm truly afraid what Ron Paul would do to the structure of our federal government. And I fucking want Bachmann out, maybe Pawlenty will try again. However, if I have to compromise, I will take Ronny over the others.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31725958]One less obstacle for Ron Paul[/QUOTE] Now we just need common sense to drop out and ron paul can run unopposed

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31731463]Now we just need common sense to drop out and ron paul can run unopposed[/QUOTE] Because common sense tells us to not vote for someone who's - Not been bought Has served in the Military Is a licensed Doctor Has served in the Government over several decades Is a constitutionalist Wants out of other county's business Believes in peace through trade Wants to end corporatism Believes the government should stay out of marriage Predicted the economic collapse(the housing bubble) Is against bailouts on failed banks that acted irresponsibly Understands cause and effect in terms of America's actions on foreign nations(Iran 1954) Will use the full power of the president to bring the troops home(all of them) etc, etc.... Fuck man, I'm done listing. I guess common sense is not so common between people.

[QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31732024]Because common sense tells us to not vote for someone who's - Not been bought Has served in the Military Is a licensed Doctor Has served in the Government over several decades Is a constitutionalist Wants out of other county's business Believes in peace through trade Wants to end corporatism Believes the government should stay out of marriage Predicted the economic collapse(the housing bubble) Is against bailouts on failed banks that acted irresponsibly Understands cause and effect in terms of America's actions on foreign nations(Iran 1954) Will use the full power of the president to bring the troops home(all of them) etc, etc.... Fuck man, I'm done listing. I guess common sense is not so common between people.[/QUOTE] Thinks gay rights should be left up to the states (last time civil rights were left up to the states you needed a war for the right thing to be done) Thinks using gold as currency is a viable idea Believes unchecked capitalism totally won't screw everyone over Thinks 95% of Washington DC blacks are criminals Thinks charges could be brought against abortion doctors Is a republican, so if you think he "hasn't been bought" you're a joker Thinks prayer in public schools should be okay Doesn't believe in a seperation of church and state at all Introduced a constitutional amendment making it a crime to deface the flag Said Don't Ask Don't Tell is a "decent policy" Wants to do all he can to "offset the effects" of Roe V Wade Pro death-penalty "Free market environmentalist" Thinks climate change isn't a problem

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Thinks gay rights should be left up to the states (last time civil rights were left up to the states you needed a war for the right thing to be done) Thinks using gold as currency is a viable idea Believes unchecked capitalism totally won't screw everyone over Thinks 95% of Washington DC blacks are criminals Thinks charges could be brought against abortion doctors Is a republican, so if you think he "hasn't been bought" you're a joker Thinks prayer in public schools should be okay Doesn't believe in a seperation of church and state at all Introduced a constitutional amendment making it a crime to deface the flag Said Don't Ask Don't Tell is a "decent policy" Wants to do all he can to "offset the effects" of Roe V Wade Pro death-penalty "Free market environmentalist" Thinks climate change isn't a problem[/QUOTE] Ron Paul would be a good president president in all of one aspect of one area, which is war. Other than that, he holds awful and sometimes deplorable views.

Whats the main political view on America at the moment?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31733128]Whats the main political view on America at the moment?[/QUOTE] What do you mean?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Thinks gay rights should be left up to the states (last time civil rights were left up to the states you needed a war for the right thing to be done)[/QUOTE] Because the states are what have the authority. I look at it as, the federal government shouldn't get in the business of gay rights. Gay rights, meaning marriage. Marriage meaning a religious institution. A religious institution meaning that the government shouldn't be involved in it. [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Thinks using gold as currency is a viable idea[/QUOTE] Cool story bro. [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Believes unchecked capitalism totally won't screw everyone over[/QUOTE] States can regulate. While I am not 100% Ron Paul on this, he doesn't say there shouldn't regulation. And we don't have unchecked capitalism in our society. We have corporatism, where the gov gives hand outs to corporations so people can buy votes. You're confusing true capitalism with what we have right now. [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Thinks 95% of Washington DC blacks are criminals[/QUOTE] Lol K... From the wiki page - [QUOTE=Wikipedia] Controversial claims made by an unidentified author in Ron Paul's newsletters, written in the first person narrative, included statements such as "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." Along with "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."[137] Two other statements that garnered controversy were "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions". In an article titled "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."[138] Paul had given his own account of the newsletters during March 2001, stating the documents were authored by ghostwriters, and that while he did not author the challenged passages, he bore "some moral responsibility" for their publication.[139] At the end of 2007, both the New York Sun and the New York Times Magazine reprinted passages from early 1990s publications of Paul's newsletters, attacking them for content deemed racist.[13] These were the same newsletters that had been used against Paul during his 1996 congressional campaign. On January 8, 2008, the day of the New Hampshire primary, The New Republic published a story by James Kirchick quoting from selected newsletters published under Paul's name.[53][140] Responding to the charges in a CNN interview, Paul denied any involvement in authoring the passages. Additionally, Paul's campaign claimed through a press release that the quotations had come from an unnamed ghostwriter and without Paul's consent. Paul again denounced and disavowed the "small-minded thoughts", citing his 1999 House speech praising Rosa Parks for her courage; he said the charges simply "rehashed" the decade-old Morris attack.[141] CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer said that the writing "Didn't sound like the Ron Paul I've come to know."[142] Later, Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the NAACP, also defended Paul.[143] “ Everybody knows in my district that I didn't write them and I don't speak like that... and I've been reelected time and time again and everyone knows I don't participate in that kind of language. The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?' The answer is no, I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and nonviolence. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual. ” — Ron Paul, CNN, January 10, 2008[144] The newsmagazine Reason republished Paul's 1996 defense of the newsletters,[145] and later reported evidence from "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists" that Lew Rockwell had been the chief ghostwriter.[53] Rockwell denies this charge, and "has characterized discussion of the newsletters as 'hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.'"[146] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Thinks charges could be brought against abortion doctors[/QUOTE] Well, this is contextual(like everything else). He was an obstetrician for many, many years. If he delivered a baby, and there were complications, he could be sued. The logic I find in this is, is that because a baby could be hurt at any time during a pregnancy, then the doctor could be held responsible. I do tend to disagree with him on this issue, but I understand his side. [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Is a republican, so if you think he "hasn't been bought" you're a joker[/QUOTE] This is the most stupid thing I've heard. That's like saying because I'm white, that I hate all black people. Horrible, Horrible thing for you to say, and it immediately reduces your levity in this argument. [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Thinks prayer in public schools should be okay[/QUOTE] I'm an atheist, and I think people should be aloud to pray. Why not? You're confusing people being allowed to do something, with the institution mandating it. A school forcing people to pray = Not Fine A child praying during school = Fine [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Doesn't believe in a seperation of church and state at all[/QUOTE] Sigh.... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydxYFl8ZnL4[/media] Get the fed out of marriage, and because he defines marriage as a religious institution, it's removing religious power from the fed. That looks like separation of church and state to me. [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Introduced a constitutional amendment making it a crime to deface the flag[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoZ1D2bylAo[/media] *backhand* [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Said Don't Ask Don't Tell is a "decent policy"[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gBgskII7D0&playnext=1&list=PL46E5E4CE63439F41[/media] Watch the full thing. [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Wants to do all he can to "offset the effects" of Roe V Wade[/QUOTE] This gets back to my earlier point. And once again, it's one of the few things I disagree with him on. But oh noes, a social issue that I disagree with?! For shame, that makes him completely inviable!! Oh noes! [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Pro death-penalty[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAXAsg4RvdI[/media] Ahem* *bitchslap* [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]"Free market environmentalist"[/QUOTE] Removing subsidies from corporations. That means everything, including renewable energy. But that is strictly on a federal level. Also, did you know Oil companies invest in this energy, and get billions in subsidies? Do you think oil companies really need a few extra billion to put down a few wind farms? [QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Thinks climate change isn't a problem[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbMly74cZ8[/media]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31733128]Whats the main political view on America at the moment?[/QUOTE] I'd imagine it's the same as always. Left-leaning in NE and Western states, and Right-leaning in Southern and Midwestern states.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Thinks gay rights should be left up to the states (last time civil rights were left up to the states you needed a war for the right thing to be done) Thinks using gold as currency is a viable idea Believes unchecked capitalism totally won't screw everyone over Thinks 95% of Washington DC blacks are criminals Thinks charges could be brought against abortion doctors Is a republican, so if you think he "hasn't been bought" you're a joker Thinks prayer in public schools should be okay Doesn't believe in a seperation of church and state at all Introduced a constitutional amendment making it a crime to deface the flag Said Don't Ask Don't Tell is a "decent policy" Wants to do all he can to "offset the effects" of Roe V Wade Pro death-penalty "Free market environmentalist" Thinks climate change isn't a problem[/QUOTE] He thinks it should at least be left to the states if anything. His own position is that it should be handled by private contract laws that the courts must enforce. The goal is to make it a non-public issue. Which means you think a fiat currency is a viable idea. Want to give me an example of fiat currency that doesn't have a short life expectancy? A fiat currency that doesn't loose a large part of its value over time? There is actually one example, but the economy was a combination of both. What is unchecked? He believes in the rule of law. Could you give a description of what capitalism being checked in line? I'm guessing it has to do something with unequal distribution of wealth, but I'll wait for your response. Still sticking to those news articles being his opinion? Yes, if the procedure is illegal. You are willing to make that bad of an argument? He does support individuals being allowed to pray in public schools if they choose to, but is not at all for a class led prayer in public schools. He is a cosponsor of an amendment that gives no governmental authority to require prayer or other religious acts, but also allows individuals to retain their right to do so. Completely wrong, especially considering his whole ideal dictates that the government is not at all meant to force you to do anything. Wrong, he introduced an amendment that would allow the states to decide on it. He did this because he did not want the any part of the Federal government deciding this. He voted against the amendment you think he introduced. Now you're really stretching it. Want the rest of that quote? [quote]I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem[/quote] He's not in favor of it and would prefer just to deal with disruptive behavior on an individual basis. He is not at all for DADT. Yes, and this is a states rights issue because the constitution was never intended to apply to the states. You can read about that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights]here[/url]. Even Cenk Uygur holds that position. He upholds the states rights position on everything. Most people only uphold it on things they agree with. The death penalty is something he flip flopped on. It's certainly a better approach, and we are seeing it today. It is now profitable for companies to be green, and it doesn't force smaller companies to go out of business because they can't pay the price for green technology. There is more to this than you think and I can recommend you a good lecture (if I can find it). Oh no, someone who doesn't take Al Gore seriously. He doesn't think regulation is useful for what there are already laws for.

[QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]Because the states are what have the authority. I look at it as, the federal government shouldn't get in the business of gay rights. Gay rights, meaning marriage. Marriage meaning a religious institution. A religious institution meaning that the government shouldn't be involved in it.[/quote] The federal government should be involved in legalizing gay marriage nationwide. Gays should not be expected to move states to be treated as equals and delaying legislation to "let the states decide" on people's rights is preposterous. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]Cool story bro.[/quote] Truly a mature and convincing rebuttal. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]States can regulate. While I am not 100% Ron Paul on this, he doesn't say there shouldn't regulation.[/quote] If you let each state regulate Capitalism differently, it's going to be damaging. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]You're confusing true capitalism with what we have right now.[/quote] Doesn't matter. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is just as bad if not worse than what we have now. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]This is the most stupid thing I've heard. That's like saying because I'm white, that I hate all black people. Horrible, Horrible thing for you to say, and it immediately reduces your levity in this argument.[/quote] He said this not because of some retarded comparison like you made, but because by and large Republicans [B]are[/B] bought out by corporations. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]I'm an atheist, and I think people should be aloud to pray. Why not?[/quote] No, not "being allowed to pray", but "the public school mandating certain kinds of prayer". If it were just letting kids pray, that would be fine, but that's not the case. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydxYFl8ZnL4[/media] Get the fed out of marriage, and because he defines marriage as a religious institution, it's removing religious power from the fed. That looks like separation of church and state to me.[/quote] So tell me then, why can the states regulate it if the separation of church and government is a bad idea? Or is it only a bad idea when it's the federal government? [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]This gets back to my earlier point. And once again, it's one of the few things I disagree with him on. But oh noes, a social issue that I disagree with?! For shame, that makes him completely inviable!! Oh noes![/quote] Yeah, just a note: Don't use "oh noes", it makes you look like an idiot. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]Removing subsidies from corporations. That means everything, including renewable energy. But that is strictly on a federal level.[/quote] Agencies and corporations that work with renewable energy don't need less funding right now.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31733496]The federal government should be involved in legalizing gay marriage nationwide. Gays should not be expected to move states to be treated as equals and delaying legislation to "let the states decide" on people's rights is preposterous.[/QUOTE] Or how about having no governmental involvement and instead having it all be done by private contracts that the public has no say in. That would allow homosexuals to marry and would grant them with all the same rights. Why should the government have any role in marriage other than the court enforcing the private contract? [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31733496]No, not "being allowed to pray", but "the public school mandating certain kinds of prayer". If it were just letting kids pray, that would be fine, but that's not the case.[/QUOTE] Wrong, because he supported the school prayer amendment which would prohibit government entities such as schools from doing so. The amendment would also protect individuals from practicing religion on public property. Yes, there was/is a movement for that.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31733367] Oh no, someone who doesn't take Al Gore seriously.[/QUOTE] denying climate change isn't not taking Al Gore seriously, it's not taking the scientific community seriously. [editline]14th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;31733530]Or how about having no governmental involvement and instead having it all be done by private contracts that the public has no say in. [/QUOTE] that's not what ron paul believes though

[QUOTE=Pepin;31733530]Or how about having no governmental involvement and instead having it all be done by private contracts that the public has no say in. That would allow homosexuals to marry and would grant them with all the same rights. Why should the government have any role in marriage other than the court enforcing the private contract?[/QUOTE] The government has to have a role in it, they've already assigned financial benefits to being married. Trying to take those away at this point is nigh impossible.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31733565]The government has to have a role in it, they've already assigned financial benefits to being married. Trying to take those away at this point is nigh impossible.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why married people are treated better than non-married anyway. Seems like a big moral hazard and also seems like the government is giving the finger to single or non-married individuals. [QUOTE=thisispain;31733531]that's not what ron paul believes though[/QUOTE] Actually, it is, he says it pretty plainly in the video.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31733531]denying climate change isn't not taking Al Gore seriously, it's not taking the scientific community seriously.[/QUOTE] My point was to say that he doesn't at all believe that massive legislation is needed to fix the problem. [QUOTE=thisispain;31733531]that's not what ron paul believes though[/QUOTE] Yes it is, he said it in the first debate this year, and he's made that point very in his most recent book. Yes, he recognizes a marriage as between a man and a woman, but he's made clear that there is no reason to enforce that view on others or to get the government involved. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31733565]The government has to have a role in it, they've already assigned financial benefits to being married. Trying to take those away at this point is nigh impossible.[/QUOTE] That's the issue, the government has a role in it. Get the government out of it. You wouldn't even have to stop giving benefits, all you'd have to do is force the government to accept a private contract as proof of marriage, though really, the government shouldn't even be giving marriage benefits.