Who's going to win?
As a British man I am looking at this solely from my perspective, and your events affect ours in two ways: your economy being good will make our economy good, and if you declare war with Iran or Uzbekistan then our leaders will follow you like a lapdog, diverting crucial resources from the country. All candidates seem to want to declare war with Iran except Paul. Thus, I support Paul.
As a communist I must support any action to go to war with an Arabic country.
Answer the question. Being an American and therefore making your guess better than mine, who's going to win?
I've heard about you being a communist a million times but I've never heard what your views on the Iowa Caucus are.
I like Newt and Ron, they are pretty much the only ones electable in any sort of fashion, I still despise them but they are the best out of a rotten bunch. I have a feeling Newt taking the moral highground (ironically) when facing other candidates might make him the winning candidate, that and he is up int he polls at the moment.
Honestly no one gives a fuck that he had like 5 wifes.
He divorced his wife because she wasn't pretty enough to be the First Lady.
Newt and Ron are literally the only candidates that have ANY chance of beating Obama, any sane republican would vote for either of them. If they don't it's an easy election for us.
Why do you want Obama? Ever heard of the NDAA?
Nope, please enlighten me.
Also, most republicans are so far over from politcal views from me, Obama could wish to kill all communists and I would probably still have more in common with him than republicans.
The National Defence Authorisation Act, signed by Obama, allows the indefinite military detention without trial of terrorists and also U.S. citizens according to the ACLU. This is a man who said he'd end Guantanamo and he's violated your Bill of Rights so he can detain you indefinitely. Vote Paul!
He did it over the Christmas holidays so you wouldn't notice.
He had to do something that the house wanted. Its a give and give situation.
guys guys guys. im worried about you people being too easy on ron paul. he's less insane socially and somewhat militarily(at least policy wise, personally he's a gigantic racist homophobe. and even some of his foreign policy is crazy, like when he says if the US can have a nuclear weapon any country can. im not one to trust the auspices of the US but saying a nuclear Iran is as stable for the world at large as a nuclear america is ridiculous) but you really discredit just HOW bad he is economically. if the gilded age came back he wouldnt be satisfied.
Actually I suppose it doesn't matter if your economy's good. If I was supporting a candidate solely on the effect it would have on the UK, it would be Ron Paul. Obviously I know he's terrible and his ideas would be terrible for you.
He is terrible economically. Right-wingers today are not aware of the fact that nothing has ever been simple and that conditions have not been perfect throughout most of history. The gold standard is retarded, Winston Churchill returned to it as Chanceller of the Exchequer to dreadful results. Abolishing the Federal Reserve would be a terrible idea.
There's also the fact that he doesn't believe in evolution or climate change.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
Newt. Economically total libertarianism is a totally shit idea. So is socialism but you know. The 1950's were a great time so I vote we bomb the fuck out of Iran.
hmmm buckweat why is socialism a shit idea