Rick Santorum swept all three contests on Tuesday, even Colorado which is a state Mitt Romney won handily in 2008. Here are the full results for each state.
Report from CBS News:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum swept the nominating contests in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado Tuesday night, putting him back in contention for the GOP nomination.
Santorum now has four victories under his belt in the GOP race, more than any other candidate. His new standing stalls Mitt Romney's earlier momentum and gives Santorum grounds to argue that he — not Newt Gingrich — is the best conservative alternative to Romney.
Speaking from his Missouri campaign headquarters in St. Charles Tuesday night, Santorum looked ahead to the general election.
"I don't stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney," he said. "I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama."
Full results are available below.
| Missouri Republican primary, 2012, 100% Reporting | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage |
| Rick Santorum | 138,957 | 55.2% |
| Mitt Romney | 63,826 | 25.3% |
| Ron Paul | 30,641 | 12.2% |
| Uncommitted | 9,859 | 3.9% |
| Rick Perry | 2,463 | 1.0% |
| Herman Cain | 2,314 | 0.9% |
| Michele Bachmann | 1,690 | 0.7% |
| Jon Huntsman | 1,045 | 0.4% |
| Michael J. Meehan | 364 | 0.1% |
| Keith Drummond | 162 | 0.1% |
| Gary Johnson | 547 | 0.2% |
| Totals | 251,868 | 100.0% |
| Colorado Republican caucuses, 2012, 100% reporting | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage |
| Rick Santorum | 26,372 | 40% |
| Mitt Romney | 22,875 | 35% |
| Newt Gingrich | 8,394 | 13% |
| Ron Paul | 7,713 | 12% |
| Other | 125 | 0.1% |
| Totals | 65,479 | 100% |
| Minnesota Republican caucuses, 2012, 95% reporting | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage |
| Rick Santorum | 21,420 | 44.8% |
| Ron Paul | 13,023 | 27.2% |
| Mitt Romney | 8,090 | 16.9% |
| Newt Gingrich | 5,128 | 10.7% |
| Write-Ins | 140 | 0.3% |
| Totals | 47,801 | 100.0% |
Auto-Generated Tags:
- election for 2012 on february 8
- colorado poll rank presidential candidate
- election2012headquarters
- how many delegates does santorum get from minnesota
- jb seeps 2012
- krauthammer won\t allow ron paul win
- polls in missouri gop vote on 3/17
- santorum election 2012 headquarters
- us republictions election
I am 100% sure the votes have been computer altered. NFW Ron Paul has done so poor. Exit polls don't lie but DieBold counted votes do!
Folks the fix is in. It will be 4 more years of Obama.
Strap yourself in for the ride of your life.
Hyper inflation, rioting, energy bottleneck, foods bottleneck. It will go down like an Ayan Rand Novel!
End game – Slavery under a one world corporate/communist government.
We will have a short window to stop this. Will you Mr and Mrs Sheep put down your I pad long enough to revolt?
The American Revolution was won by only 3% participation. I see this time about the same. Better start by replacing the entire Congress and Senate. If not then better move somewhere else.
If you did not vote for Ron Paul then you will get exactly what you deserve. You sheep got it with Obama and you still don't get it!
Charger John
AGREED Charger JOhn!!!
There is NO WAY RP did this poorly. NO WAY!!!
Here in Texas, if someone has any political interest at this stage, their interest lies with Ronny P. Unfortunately, there are too many folks who are not even considering a candidate at this point.
Too bad fellas..Obama will win, and if there is any revolution, the 98% of us will wipe the wealthy fools out!
Wow. This must really hurt Romney and Gingrich's campaigns. @Tanner You're 100% correct that based only on the positions, Romney has the clear advantage. However, the first question is: can Romney win the republican nomination. Right now he's in the lead but he should be wary of Gingrich and now Santorum. If Romney does win the nomination, can he beat Obama? He'll definitely take hits for "flip-flopping" on many issues.
Darryl, glad to hear that was not what you were saying. Had me worried for a moment there.
I think your previous argument simplifies the issue quite well. Great points. Although, language is a powerful mechanism in the thought processes. At one time, what was growing inside a woman was always referred to as 'a baby.' Now we've got technical terms, fetus, embryo, which in my opinion are terms meant to sterilize from our minds, it is a baby. Now, to people who still see it as a baby, it doesn't matter what you call it–it's still a baby. But I'm not so sure about others. There's an interesting pro-choice video made by a teen on youtube and in it the teen states that they (teens who are pro-choice) will not be swayed by graphic pictures of abortions. Clearly, the graphic pictures make no connection to 'life' and a 'baby' for this teen.
I don't think there would have been any tactful way to go about it. People who are pro-choice think differently about the value of an unborn baby's life. And you're either on their side or against them.
I do believe (and you may still disagree), that Gov. Romney did indeed think he had some obligation to support the law that was already in place, when he was campaigning since it was the law. (Although it is an un-Constitutional 'law' since it is a statute written by the Supreme Court and they have NO authority to make laws. They can only execute laws which are in place.)
Just like when Sen. Santorum voted against Right to Work because he represented a non-Right to Work state (and he's been 'questioned' and called a flip flopper about that too). I'm not equating the two, but I am saying that sometimes what may seem a cut and dry decision to one person, for reasons not entirely known, it may be not so definitive to someone else. Gov. Romney realized he could not support abortion when he knew he literally would be adding to the destruction of innocent life by signing that bill. I think it was epiphany moment for him. I can respect that far more than if he had signed the bill because he campaigned 'pro-choice', as you say, and people were 'expecting' him to support its passage. And I am SO SURE it would be used against him if he had signed it. I think that on this issue in particular, since it is about life, people who would nail him to the wall as a flip flopper when he made the right ethical decision are simply looking for an excuse to dismiss him as a candidate.
amazed
As I said, Mitt Romney may have "repented" on his Pro-Choice stance. I'm not taking that away from him. However, his "epiphany" (or testimony) has never been explained in detail. To simply say "I was, but I'm not anymore" simply doesn't do it. And to "not sign a bill" is also not adequate enough to explain the change-of-mind. Once a person takes that "stand" to support the killing of innocent human life via abortion, that person enters into a spider-web of controversy. Sometimes supporting abortion can stem from living a life of callousness which will negate any other options (like your teen video), but most times it is out of Ignorance or because of desperate situations which come from panic.
As to your teen in the video (and as I tell people), Graphic Pictures ARE appropriate, as long as the pictures are TRUE. And if they are TRUE, then I believe they should be admitted as EVIDENCE. And in the quest, for the "Socratic Quest" for TRUTH, none of the EVIDENCE should be "filtered" simply because we may find it "personally" repugnant. So, if something is so HORRIBLE that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps WE SHOULD NOT BE "TOLERATING" IT.
Sadly, the Liberal Media is who DICTATES the "Morality" in this Country, especially on TV. They know (all-to-well) that the public, in general, is just "INTELLECTUALLY LAZY"!
Sorry for the duplicate, it looks like I posted it in the wrong place.
"As I said, Mitt Romney may have "repented" on his Pro-Choice stance. I'm not taking that away from him. However, his "epiphany" (or testimony) has never been explained in detail. To simply say "I was, but I'm not anymore" simply doesn't do it. And to "not sign a bill" is also not adequate enough to explain the change-of-mind."
Darryl, actually he did explain his 'change' during one of the January debates, and personally, I was satisfied with his answer. I don't know if you saw that particular debate, and if you did it must still not have settled well with you. That's okay. It did for me.
You bring up many compelling and strong arguments for pro-life, and for that I am grateful since we obviously need that in society. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about it.
"Graphic Pictures ARE appropriate, as long as the pictures are TRUE. And if they are TRUE, then I believe they should be admitted as EVIDENCE. And in the quest, for the "Socratic Quest" for TRUTH, none of the EVIDENCE should be "filtered" simply because we may find it "personally" repugnant. So, if something is so HORRIBLE that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps WE SHOULD NOT BE "TOLERATING" IT. Sadly, the Liberal Media is who DICTATES the "Morality" in this Country, especially on TV."
I couldn't agree with you more! I thought the young woman's video showed very shallow thinking. She said she wanted the truth, but in reality, she showed anything but that desire.
As for my family, we don't support TV (don't have cable, etc.), or many forms of entertainment because we find them morally reprehensible. We watch videos, occasionally go to the movies, and play video games only if the content and message are appropriate. The liberal media, as you say, may dictate what is out there–but our family doesn't have to view it, promote it, or support it. As a parent I have that obligation and responsibility to make that decision, it's only when parents abdicate, well….I think it's obvious what the results are. (And the young woman who made her video is at the top of my list of examples.)
As happy as I am that the 2 morons (Newt and Romney) didn't win, I wish the right wing extremest hadn't won. Ron Paul should have won all of these by a long shot. I am with all the other posts about voter fraud against Paul. People get a grip on yourself. you only have one option for president, Ron Paul. Mitt is a true politician, he changes what he stands for based on what he wants to win. Also, although a lot of people have disregarded his religion, research it deeply. Mormonism is NOT christianity. Contrary to the main websites, they do have multiple wives. Just research deeper than most obviously have. They do not believe in God, their god is completely different. Newt is not a leader, he is a failure. He was booted out of the house and has archived nothing in his life. When he talks about his accomplishments, he talks about what happened while he was in politics not what he did. Listen folks. Just an aside, I understand that not all marriages work out and we make mistakes. Newt is on his what 3rd marriage. That shows he cannot even keep a promise as simple as only loving your wife. Rick, although the second option for the GOP, is an extremist. He is stuck in the bully days. He thinks you can make people do what you want by force. Yeah you can for a while, but look what happens to people like that in history. They get crushed. He comes across as a typical extreme conservative. (change is bad! That aint how my daddys daddys daddys daddy did it so it is wrong) this is awful politics and an awful way of life. Rick, Newt, and Mitt need to leave. Ron Paul is the best and only option. He wants to uphold the constitution. He wants little government. He wants little to no taxes(which i remind you, the excessive taxes is the reason America was created). Some of the radical changes that Paul wants are quite extreme but if one sits back and thinks, it will make the country better. I hope people start thinking for themselves and stop letting the media make your decisions for you. Be an individual and vote RON PAUL.
Your lack of real research negates any legitimacy your argument may have had. I ran into blatantly false material a few sentences in and didn't bother to read the rest.
I agree. I'm sorry, Zac, but you are either insulting our intelligence or yours. I'm glad you like Ron Paul, he's definitely is a good candidate, but you should really research your info before you go slamming others. Also, it does not reflect well on Ron Paul to say such things.
One particular glaring falsehood is about Mormons having more than one wife. There are people who may apostatize and are excommunicated from the Mormon Church by having more than one wife–but they are absolutely NOT members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and I know enough Mormons and enough about history, current and past, to definitely state that as a fact.
Also, the issue wasn't 'paying taxes' for the colonists, but rather a matter of representation. They had their own colonial legislatures in America who had the recognized authority to levy taxes; however, the colonists did not feel that it was right for Parliament to tax them since their were no colonial representatives in that body of legislature.
I thought I'd better restate my point about polygamy in the Mormon Church, lest my comment be read as my not knowing that polygamy was once practiced in the Mormon Church; however, it has not been practiced in over 100 years.
Seriously folks, who do you REALLY think can go toe to toe against the icy cool persona that is Obama? Santantrum? Gingrich? Both have bouts of anger while Newt has the baggage his daughter is older than his wife. Forget Ron Paul, seriously. Mitt 'the Vulcan' Romney is the only one who can go to the debate, eat Obama's lunch and make him clean the table afterwords. Mitt is the man, deal with it and try to remember it when you're making more $ in 2013.
Well said!
Whole bunch of very difficult issues to tackle. Romney's previous stance on abortion is similar to my own. Although I am a very spiritual person, with a good relation with God, I distrust and dislike most religious organizations.
I never met anyone who did not think that a abortion was the killing of a baby. Yes most will say unborn or fetus, etc, to be able to cope with the hardest decision they will ever make. And knowingly accept to carry that burden for the rest of their life, many will regret it, some will repent, some find other ways to try to comfort themselves, but none take it lightly or well.
A friend of mine had an abortion in her late teens, I remember when she approached me, suspecting being pregnant, she was very upset, scared, confused, and hurt. I was 20yo and I was raising 2 kids already with the mother and no parents to help. I believed Abortion was a criminal act of killing a baby, immoral, and inhumane. But also how hard it was to give up on many dreams. The doubts and fears of most parents of our age. I would never judge her no matter what she decided. It was ILLEGAL in south America, it was done in a small office after hours. She almost dies from bleeding after several days in the hospital. Until recently she still counted that baby as her first child 25 years later as she lights a candle for that baby each anniversary. Some others will not ever admit it openly because of being too ashamed. But I do not believe it's easy on anyone.
However final judgement is for GOD, not of men. The churches or religious organizations, who believe to represent God, are not Gods, they are men. The churches have been wrong too many times in the past, and has showed many times to commit many kind of barbaric abuses even today. I am a strong believer in God, but not the organizations who believe to represent him.
Similar as with Government, I believe in our Constitution, and the Institution but not in bureaucrats or politicians.
I am against abortion and will tell any who asks me, but only a woman has the right to choose..
The government does not have the right to force on any individual its moral believes, nor the moral believes of any majority.
Steve L
I understand how you can come to your conclusion on abortion, however, you left out some important factors that would turn your conclusion to an "about-face".
First is the abortion "act" itself. Probably the most important factor you're leaving out is that the abortion "act" involves 2 distinct individual human beings – the mother and the developing Human Being within her womb. To say it's only the mother's CHOICE to kill her offspring is to assume that the developing human being within her womb is NOT Fully Human.
Scientifically and Biologically speaking – we are FULLY HUMAN from the point of CONCEPTION. We then continue in an unbroken continuum until natural death. This pro-life position has been proven to be both scientifically and philosophically "sound". In other words, the zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, adolescent, adult, senior adult are ALL "Stages-of-Development" of the Human Species that should deserve protection under the Law.
Second is the "Legislating Morality" Debate. Pro-Choice folks tend to use this argument when defending abortion saying that the State shouldn't legislate Morality. Well, the State legislates against Murder, Rape and Child Abuse – don't they? In essence, the State is saying that it's Morally WRONG to commit these crimes. From the pro-life perspective, the only difference from these crimes and abortion is that the Developing Human Being resides within the womb of another Human Being. However, that doesn't make that Human Being "any less" Human.
There is another way to look at it. When Doctors perform surgery on a Human Fetus while yet in the womb, does that EFFECT it’s Personhood? When the Doctor removes the Fetus to perform the surgery, and then puts it back in the womb, does it become a "person", then revert back to being a "non-person" again? So what are the doctors then operating on? A WATERMELON ???
Third is the "use of force" debate when it comes to abortion. Pro-Choice people will say that the State has NO Right to "force" MORALITY on it's people. When people say this, my question for them is always this: "Do you think that the mother, who is having the abortion, is putting a Moral "Perspective" on her Unborn offspring?”
Usually they answer NO. They sometimes say: "You are ASSUMING that the Unborn Offspring are Human Beings, like everyone else is." My reply is: "and you are ASSUMING that they are not".
You're right in saying that "having an abortion" is "hardest decision" a woman will ever make. But that statement alone should draw a pause as we think about it. Could it be that Abortion ENDS the LIFE of a completely innocent and defenseless Human Being? And with that said, could there be other "Options" other than killing it?
Steve L, thank you for sharing you POV. I can see that this is a subject you have thought about very deeply and have been affected in a personal way by it. I can understand how you might feel that way. However, I do believe the argument that the state has to in some instances 'force' as you say it's moral stance on others for the common good, protection, and safety of society. When the law sanctions behavior whether good or ill there is an impact on society. We've already seen the proliferation of violence in the media through all forms of entertainment in the past 30+ years. I think when society can take the most precious connection between two human beings (that being a mother and her off-spring) and give the mother license to destroy her unborn the elements of Pandora's box are unleashed. Consequently, with each passing year, the rising generation becomes even more desensitized than the previous generation.
That's my point of view and I'm not saying you (or anyone) has to agree with me.
"As I said, Mitt Romney may have "repented" on his Pro-Choice stance. I'm not taking that away from him. However, his "epiphany" (or testimony) has never been explained in detail. To simply say "I was, but I'm not anymore" simply doesn't do it. And to "not sign a bill" is also not adequate enough to explain the change-of-mind."
Darryl, actually he did explain his 'change' during one of the January debates, and personally, I was satisfied with his answer. I don't know if you saw that particular debate, and if you did it must still not have settled well with you. That's okay. It did for me.
You bring up many compelling and strong arguments for pro-life, and for that I am grateful since we obviously need that in society. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about it.
"Graphic Pictures ARE appropriate, as long as the pictures are TRUE. And if they are TRUE, then I believe they should be admitted as EVIDENCE. And in the quest, for the "Socratic Quest" for TRUTH, none of the EVIDENCE should be "filtered" simply because we may find it "personally" repugnant. So, if something is so HORRIBLE that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps WE SHOULD NOT BE "TOLERATING" IT. Sadly, the Liberal Media is who DICTATES the "Morality" in this Country, especially on TV."
I couldn't agree with you more! I thought the young woman's video showed very shallow thinking. She said she wanted the truth, but in reality, she showed anything but that desire.
As for my family, we don't support TV (don't have cable, etc.), or many forms of entertainment because we find them morally reprehensible. We watch videos, occasionally go to the movies, and play video games only if the content and message are appropriate. The liberal media, as you say, may dictate what is out there–but our family doesn't have to view it, promote it, or support it. As a parent I have that obligation and responsibility to make that decision, it's only when parents abdicate, well….I think it's obvious what the results are. (And the young woman who made her video is at the top of my list of examples.)
What people don't understand about Ron Paul is that is political philosophy is cohesive and consistent. He does not waver even a little because it would undermine and unravel his stance on everything. Foreign policy, domestic policy, and economic policy are ONE and the SAME.
We have been brainwashed for so many decades into the 'piecemeal' approach to leadership that we do not recognize the correctness and soundness of Dr. Paul's approach, one of consistency and lack of compromise.
As a nation we have been led to believe that government holds the solutions, and not our own self-reliance and ingenuity. WE CAN solve our own problems by getting up off our duffs, putting down the remote and the cell phone and actually working together to create a free society which automatically creates a sound economy. Prosperity and liberty go hand in hand. Ron Paul is the only choice if we are to preserve our republic.
Ron Paul is correct and sound and consistent. Unfortunately he doesn't know how to work with people. With him as president we'd only be in gridlock and end up accomplishing nothing.
Governing a country is all about compromising for the best good. Not compromising sound values, mind you, but compromising just the same. The problem happens when you get liberals in there and twist things up. I've seen Republicans get in there and do idiotic things too. We need someone with economic know how, sound principles, who promotes small government and self accountability, who loves freedom and his country and knows how to be an executive – and that's Gov. Romney.
I just hope we can undo all the damage done in the Obama era!
Bama's worst nightmare would be debating Ron Paul (without a tele-prompter Bama can hardly put two coherent statements together, let alone an unscripted hour+ debate)!
Ron Paul's Constitutional knowledge, accurate historical data, superior by ten fold intellect, and good nature as a genuine caring person — even though not an orator (RP) — will by SUBSTANCE destroy the small-minded narcissistic Bama's empty Rhetoric and the Bankrupt Socialist Dogma he spews in ANGER when "displeased"!
Bama had some worries in debating Newt (the two can out-lie each other, on any given occasion). But now that Newt is nearly done — Bama is happy.
Bama is on top of the world NOW — since his reelection is about to be GUARANTEED by the GOP's choice to do whatever it takes (legal or illegal) for tepid Mitt to challenge him (Romney-Money is what the out-of-touch GOP hopes may counter Bama's billion dollars campaign)!
This will be the best outcome for Bama — to face flip-flopping Romney (since Bama can make Mitt turn any way he wants…after all Mitt stands for everything (and nothing)…depending on the audience)! Bama's writers have already scripted what Bama needs to remember, so he can rip Mitt apart on Bain Capital and Cayman Islands accounts!
Prediction: Bama wins by virtue of GOP's idiocy!
It is estimated that nearly 500,000,000 as of 2010 — about 1/2 billion — NEGATIVE Laws are on the books, meaning: "You, the US Citizen, cannot do 1/2 billion things, because we, the Government, have deemed such actions to be contrary to your well-being."
In other words: "If you don't do what we think is for YOUR OWN GOOD, we have approved 1/2 billion ways to punish you!"
More Laws (about 500,000,000) telling individuals what NOT to DO, than the total count of all the US Citizens alive (about 312,000,000)!
The Arrogance of Office is best displayed by this pernicious Sophism: "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse".
No sane person can expect an individual to memorize all the names of the 312 million US Citizens — but same individual is expected to know the EXACTITUDE of ALL 1/2 billion LAWS (or be penalized for the IGNORANCE)?!
Only Ron Paul has questioned this EVER increasing "Law" passing — the rest are mute (seems they lack the education to comprehend the truth the Great Roman Statesman Cicero stated: 'The MORE Laws in a Nation, the LESS Justice for the Citizens' — nearly 2000 years later, Cicero's warning rings true: *More Laws = Less Liberty*)!
No wonder the main media is doing their best to black-out Ron Paul — Truth is Bane for Big Brother wannabees.
America – As a frequent international traveller, non-voter but keen observer I thought you might be interested in a view from afar of the current 'circus'. The single most discussed point on the republican nomination process is just how bad the candidates (including Cain, Bachmann, Perry et al) actually are and just how much fun Obama must be having watching the pure and unadulterated insanity that is the republican selection process. On the candidates, while Ron Paul is playing the eccentric professor, he's obviously un-electable given he seems to want to dismantle the US to 50 separate autonomous countries. Newt Gingrich is the most surprising of the candidates still left with his appalling personal history and his staggeringly hypocritical diatribe on family and personal values. Santorum could only exist in America, he'd be laughed off stage from Iceland to Botswana on every issue from 'trust in god' to sensible trade policy. Although most people overseas still think that if November is not to be a complete bloodbath for the republicans, a new voice has to come from somewhere (Bobby J?), Romney is the only relatively sane option you have. Obama will (and in all honesty, should for the betterment of America, wipe the floor with Romney) win easily anyway so what amazes outside observers is that a majority of Americans seemingly can't see this.
But for the sheer entertainment value the rest of the developed and sane world is absolutely horrified at even the possibility that one of the last four standing might become the most powerful man in the world. The race is currently internal within the US, just wait and see how much support Obama will get from Cameron to Gillard, from Putin to Merkal if there is the slightest chance any of these crazies even looking like they might get up.
The president of the united states is NOT the most powerful man in the world. Secondly, I really advise you to research Ron Paul's ideas and also the history of the world/country and you will start seeing the light my friend. Also, do some research on the founding fathers of this country and you will start to understand what it really means to be FREE, and the real meaning of SECURITY. Learn what the founding fathers have got involved with to save the country and also learn WHAT THEY DIDNT GET INVOLVED IN to save the country. Every wise person knows that you can't fight fire with fire… this is what our poor leaders are doing today. For example: printing more and more money to save our financial system. Understand this and learn about Ron Paul and you will truly love this country again. Cause deep down inside you dont. In 08' I was an Obama believer… but only because i was confused. I didnt know what true freedom and true change was.
Larry
So if the president of the United States is not the most powerful man in the world, who is?
On Ron Paul, have read a lot of material on and by him and have to say from an intellectual point of view He’s certainly the smartest of the bunch. That said and why I don’t believe he’s electable are his libertarian views in general and his ideas of the dismantlement of central government specifically. The notion that citizens should be allowed to do to themselves (drugs) whatever they want and it be legal will never fly in the US in a million years. That said, with the US having some 60+% of its prison population incarcerated as a consequence of drugs does prove that the current system isn’t working either.
On the founding fathers, I think this is a uniquely American thing in that I can’t think of another country anywhere that clings so tightly (and interprets so wildly differently) to a mandate written so long ago when the world was such a different place. The question most non Americans always ask is ‘how can they still feel it’s a viable option to depend on a framework from over 200 hundred years ago”? And what is ‘free’ and how do you define being ‘secure’? Nobody outside of third world or abjectly corrupt eastern European countries has any comprehension about security being found through a majority of the population being armed to the teeth, it’s totally insane? The single most basic freedom is to be free from fear. How can Americans be free if you have to lock yourselves in your cars, can’t go out at night without at least being aware of what’s happening around you and having Republicans suggesting an AK47 should be on sale to kids in sweet stores? Bonkers and dangerous with no concept of society, NOT free.
On printing money, the US’s failure to regulate its financial institutions was the cause of the GFC. Packaged up dud mortgages sold with AAA credit ratings by corrupt and greedy bankers (of whom how many are in prison? NONE). The US has to print (or borrow from China) or free market capitalism would collapse. That three of the four candidates (Dr Paul is at least honest about it) suggest the current fiscal situation in the US is Obama’s fault is staggeringly ludicrous! That they are standing on a platform to once again de-regulate the very same institutions that caused the carnage in the first place is beyond comprehension to any sane person, surely?
That Obama sold the hope of a quick fix is a consequence of modern politics; it’s the same the world over. Whether it’s right or not is difficult to judge as under McCain and Palin (what was McCain thinking and do Americans really take her seriously? ) the economic situation would have been catastrophic and the US would have by now initiated yet another pointless war with Iran.
Don’t get me wrong, America is still a great country with great people who are hardworking and sensible, funny and sincere but the rise of the ultra-right religious folks and their dominance in current US politics is truly frightening. The notion that the founding fathers meant its every man for himself is out-dated and unsustainable. If Romney, Santorum, Paul or Gingrich unseat Obama America will be in real trouble.
I probably shouldn't bother asking, but just what do you think President Obama is doing and will be able to do in the next four years that no one else in the GOP can do?
And, BTW, the Founding Fathers would have been classified as far more right-wing in their religiosity than the four current candidates, yet, they somehow managed to found a nation that has been successful for the past 200+ years. The problem is in the truth of the old adage, 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Our Founding Fathers tried to protect the American people from such demise, hence, our Constitution.
Unfortunately we, as a people, have not lived up to Revolutionary War hero George Nicholas' belief that, "An enlightened people will never suffer what was established for their security to be perverted to an act of tyranny." We have not held our political leaders accountable in being true to the Constitution because we have for too long remained constitutionally illiterate!
President Obama is taking full advantage of that ignorance (as others have done) and is pushing our country further into a socialist nation. We DO NOT NEED a FEDERAL WELFARE STATE with cradle to grave entitlements which will bankrupt us and burden future generations with debt. That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you really understand what our Constitution means? Apparently not, if you can say that it is an outdated mode of controlling our government. The two problems we must solve as a nation are: 1) becoming a constitutionally literate people, and 2) taking back our country by demanding our President and Congress follow the Constitution!!
The problem is not the religious right–it is the lack of moral fortitude which will continue to destroy our nation. Freedom is founded upon the wise use of moral agency. When people demand freedom but expect to be absolved from natural and unpleasant consequences, true freedom is impossible. The things that the "religious rights" emphasize—abstinence, family, marriage, fidelity, sanctity for life, hard-work (as opposed to perpetual government handouts), fiscal responsibility (yes, I know not all practice this virtue), and service to God and fellowman—are frequently the target of ridicule. Yet, since these values have been replaced with: per-marital sex as a norm, 'shacking up' instead of marital commitment, rampant divorce, abortion to avoid responsibility, and a what's in it for me attitude, American society over the past 50 years has seen a very rapid decline in being a place of security. In the past, there were times and places where people did not lock doors!
In my opinion, prisons would be far less crowded over drug-use if more families (I know it may seem a quaint organization) were intact. I grew up in a poor, single parent family, I have some experience with the fractured family situation and how it impacts children. If there were two parents in the home with at least one as a primary care-giver there would be more familial stability. Unfortunately, our economy (and out of control spending as a society and government) in many ways certainly makes this hard for many. Yet, my husband I and I are raising our daughters with my primary responsibility being in the home (I work part-time to supplement our income, and believe me more money would be helpful). We don’t take the nice vacations, our kids don’t have cell phone plans and many of the material ‘blings’ that their friends do. But what we have we value far more—and that is time with each other. My daughters have told me so many times (they are teens) that they are so happy they did not have go to daycare!
Most Americans do not want a government that provides for every need!! The Founding Fathers did not intend for a Federal Government to become so big and become the daddy to everyone. They intended for States to control most things, very few things were delegated to the Federal Government. What we have seen since the Depression has been a raw power grab by the Federal government from the States, (Education, Welfare, EPA regulation, etc., and let's not forget about the push for Obamacare)!
We do have a great nation, and it was founded on great principles; we can still have a great nation, but we have to get back to our basics–our founding document, The Constitution of the United States of America, and a greater emphasis on moral behavior which strengthens families wouldn’t hurt either.
to the people that voted for Rick Santorum, do you really know who you voted for , go to Wikipedia.org/Rick Santorum US senate and find the truth, SHOCKING