President santorum would be so embarassing.

Based on what, really? His money?

The fact is, we have no idea what Romney actually stands for. I guess the best way to explain this is through quotes:

Or if you prefer video form, here's one:


(Fake, but I still laughed)
And are news outlets purposefully using the phrase "Santorum surges"?

This religious interjection into politics makes me sick.

Someone needs to attack them for this. They're getting away with murder. You shouldn't be able to say, "I believe in the sanctity of marriage." or "God influences my political policy." and get away with it. It's absurd that we have people running for arguably the most powerful position in the world following what they perceive is the will of a deity that is purely imaginative.

Mitt Romney is my favorite, and Ron Paul is my least favorite. I don't have to explain why, and this is Null, not LD.

Being in Null doesn't excuse you from behaving intelligently.

I wasn't attacking you; I was just legitimately curious. I really like 2009 Mitt Romney, but I can't stand 2012 Mitt Romney.

Is it because he says what you want to hear? Is it because he "looks" presidential? Is it because he's Mormon? I can't imagine the reason being that you like his platform, because his platform seems to have so little integrity that I wouldn't trust it; it wouldn't matter if I did agree with everything that came out of his mouth.

I have some serious issues with Ron Paul as a candidate as well, but if you don't mind, could you explain why you prefer him least? Is it his anti-federalist stance, or perhaps his non-interventionism approach to foreign affairs?

You're not obligated to explain why, but you're the one who chose to participate in this discussion anyway; I merely want to expand and reflect upon others' perspectives, yours included. We don't need to throw a topic into Lite or Serious Discussion just because we want some valuable feedback, do we? The only reason this is in Null is because we want to poke a little fun here and there while still discussing the topic.

It's not really a question on intelligence as it is a willingness to have your ideas challenged. A lot people don't like to do that on a lot of topics (politics, religion, etc.), and you shouldn't insult them because of it.

If anything, it does.

President Ron Paul would definitely be an interesting 4 years.

How to alienate women voters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV4kcVa2SI

What do you mean? He's accurate in what he's saying. Men in combat don't treat women in their combat team the same way as other men when they're in combat, they often go out of their way to try protect them when it isn't in the best interests of the team. An all-women fightin group would be ok, but mixing men and women is problematic both because of how women are often treated in the military, and because men tend to let their emotions interfere with SOP when there are women in their combat group. He's not being sexist at all.

Look at all the weirdos standing behind him.

Then the men in combat have been poorly trained. Israel has women on the front lines in their army and don't seem to have any insurmountable problems.

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

I'm going to copy pasta what I've already said on other forums on this topic:
I was dating a guy who wanted to be an airborne medic, and I was trying in enlist as an MP. We were talking one night and I asked him if he saw me wounded would he go for me first, or for someone else who was more hurt, and he said me. It disturbed me that he would go for me first...I don't know if he was trying to be romantic or something in saying it. This is the reason my recruiter told me I couldn't enlist in infantry...because men play knight in shining armor. I hope we are getting to a point where that isn't true, and I hope my ex wasn't serious. Or maybe he thought he was being cute or something, which meant he didn't really know me.

Either way, santorum is an ass. But he is gender neutral, I think he's inferring that in different ways we can blame emotions for misconduct.

At the same time, men that serve are not well trained - and up until recently if you could hold a gun they'd find a way to get you in. More recently, when my friend enlisted, they initially DQed him for athlete's foot.

Family members aren't put into the same teams. If you're married, they split you up, intentionally.

You don't have to be a family member to be a knight in shining armor.

I keep trying, but he keeps hiding behind this thing called the "first amendment". It's bullshit!

I'm a huge advocate for separation of church and state. This is going to go slightly off-topic (kind of into this topic's territory), but bear with me:

Your comment is most likely referring to the freedom of speech in the first amendment, which I agree with completely. However, the first amendment also states a freedom of religion, which means there cannot be laws favoring one religion over another (or prohibiting the exercise of a religion). Therefore, to pass the morals of one religion as law for the reason of it being a part of that religion, to me, seems to be a violation of the first amendment, in that it embraces that religion over other religions. There is obviously a gray area as to whether a law influenced by religious beliefs is actually constitutional, because there are naturally overlaps between religion and the morals of society. However, if the only justification for passing a law is that "the Bible says so," I'd say that proposed law is unconstitutional. This whole "sanctity of marriage" thing is not a justification for not giving same-sex couples equal rights by the state, and at the very least they deserve a civil union. Going from there, I'd say that saying "civil union" while not recognizing it as an "actual" marriage is playing into the "separate but equal" doctrine, which has proven to not work (historically speaking).

TL;DR: They have the right to say these things, but they should never be allowed to pass laws favoring their religious beliefs over others'.

Frankly the state should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage anyway. The state should legally bestow upon people a Civil Union, if whatever hokey faith you believe in wants to call that a marriage, that's up to them. You could be married in the eyes of the flying spaghetti monster for all I care, but the state should recognise it as a civil union only. That way everyone is equal under the law.

^ if only

I'd be okay with that too. In fact, I'd be okay with it if it had nothing to do with love. I truly believe that there are some people who could live fulfilling lives with, say, their roommate, never love them on an intimate level that usually comes with love, but still want them to be there for the things that current law bars them from. I could totally see a swinging bachelor wanting his wingman to be in the hospital room if he were terminally ill (usually the only ones allowed are family or the SO). I'm dead serious.

Deregulate marriage, that's all I'm saying. I think these legalizing marriage things are going in the wrong direction. Just make a contract available, with the barrier of exit being so high people won't step into it lightly. People get married for money anyways, so what's the difference in the end?