(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Will any of you guys be voting in your state's primaries for the republican presidential candidate? If so, who are you going to vote for and why? People outside of the U.S can also answer this, just answer with whoever you WOULD vote for if you were a citizen of the U.S.

Comment saying who you're voting for and submit your answer in the poll as well.

Personally I would vote for Ron Paul, but my state's primary is one month before my 18th birthday, so I can't vote in the primary. I will, however, be voting in the presidential election.

At this point I've decided to ignore American politics. A Republican will be leading USA next election anyway, even if Obama wins (bazinga), but for the love of Jesus and dead puppies will everyone shut the hell up about Ron Paul. I mean seriously, I get it, he's for legalising marijianas, but I think it's pathetic that all you single minded single issue stoners just won't stop talking about your new little bum buddy. The fact is, he won't get elected because he's not a typical Republican so he'll split the party. On top of that, while he tops out all the online polls, that's because the 14 year old stoners are all clicking on his name, and they don't get to vote.

Let's face it. No-one's happy about this but Barack Obama will get a second term. Republicans aren't happy because he's black and they're all racists. Democrats aren't happy because Obama is a damn Republican in disguise. Liberals and Libertarians aren't happy because... well, they never get a say in US politics anyway... and the poor Socialists, well, they're just fúcked.

It'll probably be Romney running against Obama, and reguardless... it's unlikely to matter. Most presidents get a second term because Americans consider voting for someone other than the president to be anti-American, or at least, traditionally swing voters do and Obama has good ratings ATM. Really USA is screwed anyway. I'm just going to look on as I watch it all burn... and then I'll laugh.

“the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been,” Fidel Castro

Makes me sad to say this but the more i look into the race the more he right >_>
All of them needs to step away from the old values of the past. And begin to look at the problems along with new ideas which fix the problem at the root.
They all appear to try and fix the problems by returning to old values but don't fix the cause of the problem

Obama right now has done far more right then anybody in this race has put on the table.
It time for the Republican party to grow up ditch the old school ways.
I can be just as critical to obama for missing being able to ruin the Republican party along with fixing the US at it core.
I don't agree with how obama done things i think it a sign of weakness. However he done quite alot of things right so far within reason without fixing the real problems.

Republican party needs to stop letting religion rule it and become less conservative

To be perfectly honest, there was a bubble of time during which I didn't really follow politics at all. But I think it's fair to say that, during an economic recession, promises like these are going to be broken, because new information comes to light, and compromises need to be made. Anyone who has followed American politics over the past year knows that Congress is having a horrid time balancing the budget. This is because both Democrats and Conservatives will not compromise, and therefore there is constant gridlock. Chances are Obama decided to compromise with the NDAA, hoping that Conservatives would give some of his budgetary proposals some consideration.

So he's not only a liar, nor a liar taking away your freedom anymore, he's now a liar taking away your freedom in exchange for a few of his wholly unimportant ideas to get some leeway.

Dude...

What NDAA are you referring to? I'm talking about economic issues here. The NDAA I'm referring to has nothing to do with freedom.

EDIT: Ah, I see what bill you're referring to now. But the bill implicitly states the following:

"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons."

It then goes to define what a covered person is. It's for national security issues, and nothing more. If the President started to use the bill to detain perfectly innocent civilians, the checks and balances of the U.S. Government would most certainly kick in, and the Supreme Court would rule the bill unconstitutional.

Obama passing something like this really isn't a big issue. With the Supreme Court on hand, it pretty much ensures that the Executive Branch doesn't have the power to abuse that passage of the bill. I was referring to something entirely different in my last post, but I hold my ground on this. Being a democratic president with a republican House of Representatives is tricky business, and sometimes compromises need to be made in order to please the other side of the aisle. This bill really is harmless, although I can see where some people are concerned. If the bill was ever brought before the Supreme Court, though, it would be deemed unconstitutional. With that, I think it's safe to say that the bill will serve its purpose, and if it exceeds that, it'll be invalidated.

You can't just expect the president to throw out his political agenda. That's absurd and naïve. The president was elected because a great deal of Americans thought he would take America in the right direction. For him to stop playing to his base, especially on an election year, doesn't make any sense. And also, to claim that his ideas are unimportant is also fairly absurd. If the economy, health care, social security, and foreign policy isn't important, I don't know what is.

We must be at cross-purposes then, or I hugely misunderstood the act I'm referring to.

The act in question that I'm talking about is the "National Defence Authorisation Act", which if I understood correctly allows the US military(or some other branch of potential law enforcement) to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists without trial. The wording is poor though so they could probably get away with detaining Occupy protesters, for example. I think.

I edited my other post. Check it out.

Ron Paul seems to be the man that all the internet guru people like. Point is though he won't win the primaries so does he even matter besides spreading some of his ideas?

Well, to an extent, he does matter, but only in his relationship with the frontrunners. If Ron Paul wasn't in the equation, either Gingrich or Romney would have significantly different standings in the polls. I'm not sure where the younger voters would go, though. Perhaps to Gingrich, or perhaps across the aisle to Obama. I highly doubt the youth community would rally around Romney, though.