Iowa/New Hampshire Caucus

[Barihawk]

Well, the results are in (Republican data still incoming, but enough info had to declare a winner):

 

 

 

Democrats:

 

Barack Obama wins

 

Hillary and Edwards tied, both arrogantly (pardon my opinion) state that "it's not over)

 

 

 

Republicans:

 

Mike Huckabee flat out winner

 

Rest of votes low tie for Romney, McCain and Thompson

 

Guilianni ignored Iowa, which was kind of stupid

 

 

 

So discuss, if you've been watching them or catch the speeches on Youtube.

 

 

 

If you are a Chuck Norris fan, at least check out Huckabee's.

[indy500fan]

Glad Obama won for the Democrats. Not happy about Huckabee winning Republicans.

[look_its_rob]

i was trying to find out what a caucus is, but i couldnt really understand what the point of it is.

 

 

 

Can someone explain it to me please?

[Barihawk]

A Caucus is kind of a mock-vote held before the elections as a "poll" to thin out the political candidates. It's a way for the Parties to gauge voter reactions before the primary elections in May that will determine who the final candidates for the President will be.

 

 

 

Iowa/New Hampshire are important because they have always been considered the most "on the fence" states with no particular bias towards any particular party.

 

 

 

And Indy, why hate on Huckabee? Are you nervous that he won because he's a bad man or because you think he has a good chance of beating the Democrats :P.

[tryto]

Good, Im glad Obama won, he strikes me as beign the most honest and experienced candidate, and also, I HATE Hillary Clinton. I was actually hoping for Guiliani to win Republican for no particular reason.

[Adam007]

I'm really glad Obama won, and how poorly Hilary did. Pretty disappointed about Ron Paul not placing 3rd though. I'm definitely not a fan of Huckabee right now though. Although the thought of any republican other than Paul getting elected pretty much scares me equally.

[Barihawk]

Why do Republicans scare ya'll? None of the current candidates are anything like Bush, and all candidates on both parties are campaigning along the lines of "cleaning up the mess."

[Adam007]

Why do Republicans scare ya'll? None of the current candidates are anything like Bush, and all candidates on both parties are campaigning along the lines of "cleaning up the mess."

 

Oh of course they'll distance themselves from Bush. Why would they want to be associated with the biggest failure of a president, with under a 25% approval rating? Without even comparing them to Bush, they still have the same neo-con views. For Huckabee any links on this page and especially page 2 will tell you what I don't like about him. I mean if you want abortion illegal and the country to go back 100 years and tie religion into politics he's your guy, but that's not my thing. But I hate the status quo. I hate what the neocons are doing to our country. I want drastic change, and just taking the republican politicians on their word that they won't be like Bush isn't enough for me. Even Clinton isn't enough for me. What we need is a big overhaul to the status quo in this nation and to move forward.

 

 

 

Also, irrelevant to what I'm saying, but I got a laugh out of this (regardless of if you like him or not, the two guys look similar)

 

[SanFranciscoGiants]

I'm really suprised and also really glad that Obama won; he seems really honest and straightforward.

[Range_This11]

I watched an interview with Ron Paul and he said he was shooting for about 8% in Iowa...and there's only 86% of the votes in and he's at 10%. Ron Paul will do better in NH.

[Barihawk]

Well, I do want abortion illegal and I really don't see how having a Conservative in power instantly puts us back a hundred years, unless it's simply your hyperbole.

 

 

 

I will stick to my "neocon" (where did you pull this colloquialism out of?) vote.

[Bloodredsword]

All I care about is that Hillary doesn't become president.

 

 

 

 

 

Other then that, I'm mostly good. :)

[Adam007]

Well, I do want abortion illegal and I really don't see how having a Conservative in power instantly puts us back a hundred years, unless it's simply your hyperbole.

 

 

 

I will stick to my "neocon" (where did you pull this colloquialism out of?) vote.

 

What I'm saying is that non of the republican front runners are really conservatives, nor really republicans (or what republicans used to be). Look to Ron Paul for what a real republican is now. Wonder why his views differ so much? It's because he represents what the republican party has lost. Mainly adhering to the constitution. What I mean by putting us back is people like Huckabee denying evolution, saying things like a women's Role in Marriage is to "Graciously Submit", wanting the ten commandments in the white house, suggesting AIDS patients be isolated, saying things like:

"I got into politics because I knew government didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

 

Those are all linked on that last page I posted. While I'm sure a few are biased, my point is some has to be true, and a lot of Americans are tired of that kind of view. We don't want this nation taken back for Christ. Religion should not play such a role in making political decisions, and all of those things I mentioned are how we'd be going further back. 100 years may have been an exaggeration, but we do have a lot of catching up to do from the past 8 years.

[mchainmail]

The caucus for the Republicans was pretty much a joke. 5 Different candidates have all taken at least 10 percent of the vote, and Giuliani wasn't even in the field.

 

 

 

Basically, the only thing the caucus told us was: Dems are going to be Obama, Edwards, or Clinton and Republicans are not going to be Hunter.

[Barihawk]

Well then, it should only take us back eight years?

 

 

 

Huckabee does not deny evolution, he denies Darwinism. There's a significant difference there.

 

 

 

"Gracious Submission" is a really dirty way to look at the Hebrew and Christian tenet of marriage. In marriage, the woman is equal to the man, but the man has the final word. "Gracious Submission" makes it sound like the woman is being oppressed.

 

 

 

The Ten Commandments are essentially the foundation for law in this Nation. I think it's ridiculous to oppose them being displayed because they happen to be religious (the anti-religious movement in America is absurd in it's own right).

 

 

 

Why shouldn't AIDS patients be isolated in hospitals? It prevents slipups on the hospital's part that might expose a non-HIV patient to a terminal disease. Never mind the fact that it's considered to be Bio-Hazard 4 according to the CDC (with 1 being the common cold and 5 being Ebola).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ron Paul is all right as a Conservative, but his views are just absurd in some regards to the point where he alienates the voters. I kinda looked at him for a while as a candidate, but now I can't imagine myself voting for him.

 

 

 

And trust me, as "liberal" as the Republicans have gotten, the Democrats are far worse. Clinton makes it sound as if she will run a Totalitarian regime.

 

 

 

As for your quote, it's an appeal he's made to Christian voters, and is probably being taken out of context. If you are a Veteran talking to Veterans, you talk about being a Veteran. If you are a Christian talking to Christians, you talk about Jesus.

[Barihawk]

The caucus for the Republicans was pretty much a joke. 5 Different candidates have all taken at least 10 percent of the vote, and Giuliani wasn't even in the field.

 

 

 

Basically, the only thing the caucus told us was: Dems are going to be Obama, Edwards, or Clinton and Republicans are not going to be Hunter.

 

 

 

Err, look again? Huckabee got 35% of the Republican votes.

[lordkafei]

It's my opinion that people didn't so much vote for Huckabee as they voted against Romney.

 

 

 

Fundamentalists perceive Mormonism as a cult, and Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. A lot of the Huckabee support is more anti-Romney than anything else.

 

 

 

I'd be really surprised if Huckabee gets the Republican nomination.

[Powman3]

I'm actually glad Obama won. I'd rather have him as a president then Hillary.

 

 

 

But, yet, I'm too "young" for politics, being 13 and all. :roll:

[Nadril]

I too am really glad Obama won. Out of any candidate I really would not want to see hillary in office.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't like huckabee because I disagree with a lot of his ideals, most of them were covered in adam's post. I mean, some of the things he is saying here are just downright primative. Let me quote some headlines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to Huckabee, Homosexual behavior 'is a choice'

 

Huckabee Wants To 'Take Back This Nation For Christ'

 

Huckabee wants Ten Commandments in the White House

 

Mike Huckabee Denies Evolution

 

Huckabee Equated Homosexuality With Pedophilia, Necrophilia

 

 

 

 

 

This is just from the first two or three pages from digg.

[MasterMarduk]

Im for Romney, I also like Obama but I dont want congress and the white house being both with the democrats, so depending who gets the Republican vote I will for a republican if its not Huckabee or Guilianni. McCain and Thompson are both good but I dont see either getting the vote.

[misterxman]

Glad to see Obama be ahead and Hillary going well below what many people expected.

 

 

 

Surprised Giulliani didn't even get a percentage.

 

 

 

Not happy with Huckabee winning the most in his party.

 

 

 

This is all a small part of the big election system, mostly happy with Hillary's low start.

[warri0r45]

Well then, it should only take us back eight years?

 

 

 

Huckabee does not deny evolution, he denies Darwinism. There's a significant difference there.

 

 

 

What's the significant difference? Any evolution occurs through darwinian natural selection. But if you're talking about darwinism as in some social philosophy then I agree, that's totally different to evolution.

 

 

 

The Ten Commandments are essentially the foundation for law in this Nation. I think it's ridiculous to oppose them being displayed because they happen to be religious (the anti-religious movement in America is absurd in it's own right).

 

 

 

How is it ridiculous to oppose a religiously based view being espoused by any political body? Some people may not want to be told that they shouldn't worship any other gods other than the Christian one in a secular and multi-religious nation, or would you rather the U.S. become what Saudi Arabia is to Islam? If your law is based on the commandments as you claim, why do you need a government sponsored reminder if you have the constitution? And how do you reconcile the first commandment and the first amendment? Or did they just forget that commandment when establishing the bill of rights? If the first amendment states what it does and the founding fathers sought to establish a secular nation whereby religious freedom and no state religion was the aim, how can you seriously argue that the constitution and thereby the nation was founded on religious principles and not secular ones?

 

 

 

I don't think upholding your constitution against any religious considerations is absurd at all, especially considering how much of a Christian nation yours has become in the face of secularism. To me that speaks volumes for secularism, the first amendment and the ability of the marketplace of ideas to freely pursue what it sees fit without the need for state sponsorship.

 

 

 

Source and quotes::: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7500.html

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅBy their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Father_Time89]

I think it's great that Obama won the caucus I hope he does well in New Hampshire. I'm not sure how I feel about Huckabee, although I'm glad it isn't Romney.

[transcript80]

The last thing the USA need is a religious, right wing conservative to improve the country. That will only worsen their foreign politics, and seed more terorism. "Clain the land back for Christ"...for Christ's sake stop that bull and do something for the people hwo have serious mortgage problems, for the people who can't pay for their health insurance etcetcetc. Stop harrassing muslim countries, "axis of evil" countries and sticj that ÃÆÃâÃâämerican EGO" where the sun don't shine....

 

 

 

I hope Obama or Hillary wins, because the USA flourished under the reign of Bill Clinton. So yeah, as far as I'm concerned, take it back to 8 years before.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not a US citizen so I can't speak for your domestic affairs (except for the fact you do need rapid change in key areas like healthcare in order to keep up with the rest of the world).

 

 

 

What I do know however is many of the Islamic countries whose opinions you need to gain favour of see you as a bullying, uber-Christian nation and as such, that you see Islam as the enemy to your nation. Their phobias aren't helped when you stop almost anyone who looks like a terrorist at an airport, and keep them detained for hours while you check them, yet allow whites to just pass by. Nor do your actions in the Middle-East help, which can arguably been seen by Muslims in the region as tyrannical.

 

 

 

A person coming into power with such vehemently strong Christian principles will not be productice and will possibly make the situation more dangerous. Not that that should exclude him from being president, but as a superpower, the image your president gives towards the outside world the is something you have to be aware of.

 

 

 

Say what you like about Hillary or Obama; they (the Democrats) give a much more peaceful message towards the Islamic world than the Republican candidates seem to.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't AIDS patients be isolated in hospitals? It prevents slipups on the hospital's part that might expose a non-HIV patient to a terminal disease. Never mind the fact that it's considered to be Bio-Hazard 4 according to the CDC (with 1 being the common cold and 5 being Ebola).

 

HIV can only be spread through the contamination of bodily fluids. There would have to be severe incompetance to mix the bodily fluids of two patients, and I can't see how isolation (which is almost synonymous with segregation) would particularly reduce that.

 

 

 

The NHS treat HIV patients along-side other patients, and I've never heard of the catastrophic scenario you seem to describe.