Swift_

Kevin856

As for Huckabee, I don't think a candidate who won this caucus because the right wing Christian evangelicals loves him is likely to be good for gaming.

RobTheBuilder

@DaiMacculate: Damn straight! I wish Ron Paul got a bit more of the vote but I still follow the Democrat candidates better. Can't count all the eggs in your basket yet.

agustin2489

Akin

SirGecko

torched

Plsk1n

@s0ulfAce:

Paul supporter victim complex FTW!

WhoreofSpamylon

Signed,
Iowa

P.S. Sorry about the cream on the corn."

Zero_Beat

[en.wikipedia.org]

My advice would be to get used to the reality of realpolitik and learn how the game is played if one wants to have an impact on this nation and world.

WhoreofSpamylon

The link to "federalism" you provided is a distinct political philosophy separate from the platform of Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton.

In your initial comment you specifically said Federalist, with a capital F which implies the organized party, which did seek to reduce individual states rights and expand the power of the national government, hence my mistake.

doubtful

KM91

Stoeck

torched

I would say Romney won our precinct and I would not be surprised if Ron Paul finished 2nd in my precinct, there were many supporters for him and they were very loud.

I voted for Romney.

The only reason Romney didnt win the state is because he is a mormon.

He recieved like 35% of the non-Evangenical vote versus Huckabees like 15%.

While Huckabee got like 45% of the Evangelical vote versus Romney's 15%.

kgetz3

Federalist/Libertarians are the ones who preserve your right to play the games you want without government involvement...

Federalists and Libertarians are polar opposites. The Federalists prefer a strong central, or Federal, government while Libertarians prefer strong local and state governments. The Federalists are probably the closest thing to the 'nanny state' you are opposed to, but since they haven't been around since the early 1800s, I think you can put your fears to rest.

@cactaur:

Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris on his side. How can he lose?

It all depends on where Mr. T stands. An epic battle is on the horizon!

doubtful

torched

kw4k

cactaur

ErickTheRed

torched

Stan LS

s0ulfAce

baked ham

ErickTheRed

cebukid(im rick james, bitch)

Tepoz

IMHO Huckabee won because he's got the geographical advantage...would put his home state...near Iowa...

Well, the same could be said about Obama, too, though, and if you look at the precinct map (which I saw on TV, so no link) then you'll see Obama did very well along the Illinois border (which isn't really his home state since he was born in Hawaii, but is Hillary Clinton's home state).

Protip: No states border Hawaii.

I think Huckabee's win, if exit polling is to be believed (2004 anyone?), is due the significant number of evangelicals among Iowan Republicans. Obviously, that group isn't overwhelmingly comfortable with a Mormon. It will be interesting to see how Huckabee fares in states with less self-identified evangelicals.

doubtful

ca$h

We live in a representative government, but I don't want it to be a government represented by people I don't elect! Howard Dean and Mike Duncan are not running for president. They may help massage a view for the public at large, but each candidate is unique and some candidates along 'my party line,' I would not vote for. Chuck Schumer is different from Russ Feingold is different from Harry Reid.

We do not want to organizations with low accountability running this country and I don't think we're there quite yet (looking at Joe Lieberman's ability to get re-elected against his party's wishes).

SuedeGopher

Huckabee is a scary candidate. He is folksy, has charisma, and has done a few good things as governor of Arkansas, but he tends to come off on closer examination as very uninformed about World history, cultures, governments, leaders, etc. He is also an ex Southern Baptist minister, and wears his faith and religion on his sleeve. The one thing that this country does NOT need is a Theocracy (particularly since George W. Bush, who looked for advice and guidance in his most important decisions from a "higher source" than his very knowledgeable, experienced, and intelligent father, has run slipshod over even the most basic of human rights). My fear is not necessarily who is elected president, but the types of personnel that he will put into power over our lives. Bush appointed 240 people whose credentials were a Law degree from ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY! There you only need to know one book to earn a law degree.
The Republicans really do not have a viable candidate. Huckabee has no chance getting support from independents and moderate democrats, Romney has no chance of ever getting the Evangelical vote (or, for that matter, from anyone who actually listens to what he says), Guiliani has had three wives and in the past supported a women's right to choose, and not acceptable to conservative Republicans (who think that morality is more important than the ability to govern), McCain is no longer viewed as the pragmatic maverick that he once was, and Ron Paul, who though is very popular among the young, gets no support from he Republican establishment.

Really, it is up to the democrats to find a way to blow next year's presidential election.

bornonce

Obama : Gravemind

Clinton : Tarturus

McCain : Staff Sgt. Avery Johnson = hell yes

ErickTheRed

Knoxximus (XBL/PSN)

Frank

baked ham

sxp151, the happy-headed nose

Tepoz

The Democrats have a platform, the Republicans have a platform. Every candidate pledges themselves to the platform of their chosen party. There may be individual differences here and there, but basically their ideologies are all the same within both parties.

You'd really have to be a moron to not know who you're going to vote for in the presidential election before the nominees are even known. Do you stand for anything? Do you believe in anything? Or do you just drift around from one candidate to another based on the quality of their haircut and how they dress? (The Onion did a funny video story a little while back entitled something like "Bullshit top issue for 2008 voters", which is totally true.)

I'm a Democrat and I will vote for the Democrat like I always do. I support the Democratic platform, not any individual person who acts as a mouthpiece for it. That person ultimately doesn't much matter. What matters is the ideas they represent.

I still think the primaries/caucuses matter to at least a limited extent because a) I acknowledge that most people are idiots and do vote based on personality and looks in the general election (so you still want the most "electable" candidate), and b) I think the one way that candidates really *can* substantively differ from each other is in their honesty. And I want a candidate who really is fully committed to Democratic principles, not one who blows around in the wind along with the voters.

badasscat

z0mbi

Let's say they're moving to aus if Obama doesn't get in, pretty much.

Aimless

ca$h

@arstal: But don't you think that McCain's age, appearance, and how he talks by barely opening his mouth, and other superficial bullshit aspects of his personage, will get in the way of his chances? I dunno. None of that matters to me, but I've heard it mentioned by Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and others... lots of people vote for stupid reasons. Like evangelicals who vote for the most Christian. I'm sure they choose who NOT to vote for under pretenses equally ridiculous. Maybe.

baked ham

SuedeGopher

altgod

On the Rep Side- I'm thinking Huckabee wins and then blows the election with stupidity. If the Reps really want to win, McCain/Romney.

arstal

SuedeGopher

baked ham

Ron Paul was not expecting any kind of turnout in Iowa, it's a farmers state full of welfare nuts dems, which is why Huckabee won and Giuliani took second last....

Ron Paul got 2 delegates to represent him in the primary, compared to Thompson and Mccains 3, Romneys 18, and Huckabees 20.

So he almost tied for 3rd, and only had 3k less votes than Mccain. New Hampshire will be a much stronger showing because we have ATON of dems that will switch to vote for him, any Republicans in NH need to relise this is a bad war, it was undeclared by the country, and we went after the wrong guys.

The dems cowardice on their positions explaining why we aren't out of there even though they dominate the houses.
Have the right party handle this, the right way, vote right for Paul.

KhaoticAlien

Hillary Clinton & John Edwards
vs
Rudy Gulliani & Mike Huckabee

Tepoz

baked ham

@callahan09: Yeah, I hope Giuliani is so diminished by this and his inevitable losses in NH and SC that by the time time "super tuesday" primary comes along McCain or Huckabee will be too far ahead and those states will diss him too. We can only hope.

DaiMacculate

Earlier than that, you said he's a politician, and therefore skilled in the art of making you believe you matter to him. I'd argue that your definition of being a politician, and your professed concern in regards to Romney, are the same side of the same coin. From what I've seen, politicians play to their audience. It's like... I dunno, certain stoners, the diplomatic ones, who act like a burnout in front of other stoners, and a perfect angel in front of parental figures. Play to the audience. 99% of politicians either have no identity or pay it no regard, they attempt to satisfy a majority of the people with well thought out twinkles of polite of engagement to their desires. All of our national leaders have said what they needed to win, and then a great deal of their promises and proposed policies never come to fruition, or worse yet, they implement policies opposite of what they had initially promised. Very common political game, that.

baked ham

ca$h

People make mistakes and the people running the Party thought their way of doing things was correct/clever/opportunistic/moralistic/whatever but it didn't pan out. The Republic Party is split now because people want to distance themselves away from the leadership.

Tepoz

baked ham

I know very little about politics, the whole game is just a head-scratchet to me... but I'll tell you one thing that I do know: it does NOT take a village to raise a child. Take that Hillary.

baked ham

Should be changed to...

Clinton has long been outspoken against free speech in general, especially when it comes to the entertainment industry, at one time claiming that the entertainment industry was "stealing the innocence of our children...and that parents are too stupid and that the government should intervene."

Seriously though, on the Democratic ticket I like Obama and I'm glad he is the front runner. I like Edwards too. As a resident of Arkansas (unfortunately) I'll admit Huckabee is a decent guy. He did a lot of good for the state. I'm glad Hilary is not the front runner. The Clinton and Bush families have been running this country for far too long.

MantisDragon

To me that's Obama

thoruen

I_Hate_This_Place

He sucks basically.

Glad Obama won that though, I mean, I dislike him yes, but I think the United states could survive him, Clinton would destroy America.
And while Obama, I don't like his ideas, at least he's honest, he actually believes what he says. Clinton just says what she says because its what people want to hear, not because she believes it.

Kaemon

I thought Richardson might have more of a chance/fight than what we're seeing. He does have real world experience, lots of it, and broadcasts much in the way of change. Image and speaking skills are not so polished.

SuedeGopher

Huckabee is an Uberdouchenozzle

NNTPgrip

As for Bush being a tool of the republican party, have to disagree with you there, the republican party has been pretty devided as of late with much of it disagreeing with Bush's policies. Unless they secretly do tell him what to do to make the public dislike/distrust him even more in a bid to make it more difficult for them to get elected in the next race?

SuedeGopher

Guitaratomik

Zombie_Crunch

I wouldn't be too sure about Edwards falling out. He's run this race before to the end, I'm guessing he'll do the same again.

I hope you're right. I believe, win or lose, his message has a positive impact on this campaign, but his decision to take public funding for his campaign has left him behind economically.

He did well in Iowa without much money, but Iowa is a small market were the candidate gets a lot of time on the ground to meet with people, and he's done well there in the past (although in 2004 he finished with 32%, so he's slid a bit).

It's super-duper Tuesday where I think he will suffer due to his weak infrastructure and lack of money. His saving grace is that he has some name recognition, unfortunately most of that recognition is associated with his 2004 loss with Kerry to Bush/Cheney. Not a great mental image.

Dems who are unimpressed with the though of preserving the Bush/Clinton family country and are unsure of Obama (though really, they should be just as unsure of Edwards' derth of experience as well).

To be honest, if experience was important (and no, I don't count being married to the President as experience), then Dodd or Biden would've been the obvious choice. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all slim on experience nationally.

As to the Bush/Clinton 'ping-pong dynasty,' if Clinton were elected and served eight years, a full 12% of this country's Presidency would've have been controlled by those two families. That's particularly scary when you think of Jeb waiting for his turn and then, um Chelsea?

doubtful

Tepoz

I_Hate_This_Place

@Tepoz: There's a difference between doing a job that's for the common good, and having personal beliefs. The presidency is not a ministry. It is imperative that candidates separate themselves from their jobs. It's not about what they believe, it's about what we collectively believe and what collectively serves EVERYONE. I think many candidates have done a good job stating that they understand the difference between themselves and their jobs and refuse to allow their faith to be an overriding factor.

Zombie_Crunch

Tepoz

Bush's issue was that he was selected by the Republican Party because he does what he's told. His faith had little to do with anything. It was a given he was going to the Republican Party candidate. His main reason for winning was the Democratic Party's strong affiliation with Hollywood at each election.

Tepoz

If anything, 2nd in this caucus will give him a boost for the rest as fence-sitting Dems who are unimpressed with the though of preserving the Bush/Clinton family country and are unsure of Obama (though really, they should be just as unsure of Edwards' derth of experience as well).

SuedeGopher

[www.iowacaucusresults.com]

Link for proof. Edwards was second by 0.28%.

doubtful

Zombie_Crunch

2SBs

...And also, I don't think he'll win either.

Zombie_Crunch

@Zombie_Crunch:
The last 7 years might have something to do with this sudden interest too ;). I totally agree with you though. The least you could do is have a little pride as a citizen, pay attention and make informed decisions that you think would make your country better instead of just sitting on your ass playing video games all day (once you've voted, though, that is a completely acceptable course of action for the next two years).

ca$h

He was the maverick guy in his 1st race against Bush and likewise in the senate, but started pandering right after he lost to W. Bush deserved a punch to the face for the way he treated McCain and his service (akin to Swiftboat Veteran's for Truth campaign), but McCain ended up kissing his ring and towing the party line (McCain-Feingold Act notwithstanding).

Had he 'stuck to his guns,' I think he would have been a shoe-in for the nomination and possibly the presidency. As it stands now, I'm not so sure.

SuedeGopher

iamspoo

Its Obama first, then Hilary and Edwards on the Dem side...

Actually, Edwards was second by a hair. He, however, doesn't have adequate fund raising or infrastructure and I think he will fall out of the race because of that.

doubtful

Tepoz

Zombie_Crunch

FranUnFine

Zombie_Crunch

With Romney, I do think he's getting the JFK Roman Catholic treatment. The LDS Prophet will probably not be calling all the shots, especially given Romney's dated political beliefs espoused through his Governorship.

Huckabee reminds me a bit too much of our current Commander in Chief. He speaks from the gut, loves talking about his faith in Jesus, and knows little about the intricacies of foreign policy. I'm afraid it will W all over again, but maybe even worse.

Huckabee reminds me a bit too much of our current Commander in Chief. He speaks from the gut, loves talking about his faith in Jesus, and knows little about the intricacies of foreign policy. I'm afraid it will W all over again, but maybe even worse.

SuedeGopher

JayDiggler

Tepoz

Zombie_Crunch

suntorytime

JayDiggler

His support of eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax alone will likely prevent him from winning.

EvilAng3la

I hope nobody replies, "I'll be too busy playing Call of Duty 4," to that.

Zombie_Crunch

The Sunday edition of Des Moines Register had a page article about each candidate in the opening paragraph it talked about how he was the only one to vote against giving Rosa Parks a congressional gold medal to make him out as a racist. I personally thought he was a kook because of all the negativity until I did some research about him.

iamspoo

Twoflower

Tepoz

Zombie_Crunch

ca$h

Sean Bryant

Zombie_Crunch

SuedeGopher

gergsirronzero

DaiMacculate

Anarchist_Gamer

Yeah, I don't think the Huckster will be in favor of government regulating games though, he probably doesn't love them but I doubt he'd be in favor of legislation. Obama I also think is somebody we can trust to leave gaming alone, in terms of actually legislating anything.

DaiMacculate

Machete_Bear

Ron Paul got 10% I believe, which is still more than what Rudy Guilani got, which I think was 4%.

CyN1caL

And just because Huckabee hasn't said anything about video games, look at the rest of his beliefs...he will eventually...give it time.

Zombie_Crunch

That woman will destroy this country if she ever gets a position higher than Senator.

Norellicus

ca$h

DaiMacculate

HigglyPiggly

ca$h

DaiMacculate

Ive had an incident where someone though I was using Quoted For Truth, when it was the opposite Quit Fucking Trolling lol.

Witzbold

badasscat

I'm glad Obama beat Hillary, and I voted for her in the last two senate elections. I'd vote for her for president if she was the Democrats' choice (believe it or not, there are more important issues in the world than video games), but I'd rather she not be.

I actually think Edwards has the best shot at beating any of the Republicans, but I'll take Obama over Clinton. I really have no idea what any of their stands are on video game issues, though, other than Clinton, who obviously doesn't rate very highly.

badasscat

Witzbold

DaiMacculate

DaiMacculate

ca$h

HigglyPiggly

Oh and where is Ron Paul, Internet? They don't have computers in Iowa?

DaiMacculate