Tmir, on 20 January 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:
It is blatantly obvious, its almost funny but in comparison to the other candidates; noticed youtube is more favorable to this guy than the others, and google searchs and other engines show more hits searching for him. I havent watched the... is it south carolina? where the debate is at... Can't recall, was reading earlier about it, Perry dropped out and now supporting G-man (spell his name? I can't even pronounce); the adulterer you know who I'm talking about. Then there's Romney, Santorum and Hunstman? Not sure on that last guy. Why does the media support Romney? I don't get this, I thought that was the guy always switching positions and agreeing to tax hikes... Santorum is a republican twit, and I don't think I've even seen any vids of Huntsman speaking...
But yeah that's the question why is this guy non electable?
[I'm a total RP fan, he always paints a nice world... but apparently he's racist?] How do you seperate fact from fiction when it comes to politics? What is complete propaganda? Do you think whoever wins will be Pres? (Not even sure I know the politics right, Obama can run again right? But his support ratings are way down, so nows the republicans chance?)
Do you agree or disagree on the idea that US should stop spending for foreign military efforts (Isn't it like in the trillions?)' but not on defense military. I agree that they should lower the spending... but I guess they are getting their things done; recently- drone killed some al quaeda director.
But yeah how much do you trust your news source?
(I sound like a conspirasist... psh nah just an interest in neighbors South. Canadian Politics are a bore, the only electable party really is the Conservatives, they benefit the laborers... Harper is kind of a puss as well...well spoken, but leftist thinking

... love hate relationship, good tax breaks... )
Huntsman is out of the race so don't worry about him. The guy who Perry just threw his support to is Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was the Speaker of the House for a few years back when. He is on Wife #3 I believe. He just had a kerfuffle whereby wife #2 claimed he told her he wanted an open marriage. Or maybe it was wife #3. He also left wife #2 and dallied with wife #3 while wife #3 had cancer. And, yes, he is running, partly, on a family values platform.
Google
Santorum when you get a chance.
Oh and as for Ron Paul having better Google placement, that is mainly due to his organization having been in place for a few years, and they pushed for an online strategy a few years before the others. It can take a while to get what's called a good Google Page Rank. That's more of why he shows up higher than any other reason. It's not necessarily due to merit. He just has a team that's good at getting Google to rank their pages better (that's all totally legal, by the way).
Romney was governor of my state, Massachusetts. He was meh as a governor. He's been doing a lot of work distancing himself from his actual accomplishments while in office because they don't paint a conservative enough picture of him. Massachusetts is a very liberal state, so he swung left to get elected here, and now he's swinging right in order to try to get the Republican nomination, and he will undoubtedly swing more centrist if he gets the Republican nomination. He is mainly seen as the least radical of the Republican candidates. A lot of people see him as being the most electable. That may or may not be correct.
And yes, Obama can run again. We allow two terms for President in the US. Obama is only in his first. Will he be his party's nominee? There is a 99% chance of that, I would say. What is a lot more interesting is whether he retains Joe Biden as his Veep. He does not have to keep Joe. So that is of interest, but that situation is, truly, no race at all. Obama will be the Democratic nominee unless there is a Watergate-style scandal or he reveals he's dying in the next few months.
Do I trust my news sources? Meh, sometimes. I figure it's best to try to look at a spectrum of sources, particularly from more than one country. It can often be interesting to see what other countries think of us.
As for cutting all foreign military spending, that will not happen. A big part of that is how we work with our allies. We do promise them that we will help defend them. Cutting foreign military spending completely, 100%, is probably a horrible idea. Cutting some, though, I can definitely see that. There is waste everywhere, and the military was an untouchable sacred cow for a really long time, never audited and never questioned. A big chunk of every American tax dollar goes to the military. Surely there are areas where there can be some cutting, without making the US or its allies undefended, or impoverishing soldiers or the like. There are other places that can be cut as well. And, by the way, there are problem some areas where there should be more spending - schools, roads, jobs, clean energy - these things aren't free. Cutting military spending isn't likely to cut the average person's tax burden. More likely, the $$ will just get moved around and spent elsewhere.