Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

I keep looking at the sodding calendar. I am fairly certain that it's early 2015. The presidential election, I keep looking it up, is in November 2016. And yet people keep telling me that the primary season is upon us. I think the whole world has gone mad.And yet, here we are. Here we fucking are. God help us all.So, once again, this is the thread for discussing the primaries, and if you even think we should be doing so at this point, then may you be cursed with a thousand plagues and may angry wombats eat your underwear. Nonetheless ... here we are.I shall write my customary bitterly sarcastic synopsis of the candidates at the first moment when I've recovered from the concept that we should even be thinking about this crap right now.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Return thread to original title.

I would definitely vote for the corpse of Herbert Hoover.

Well, Ted Cruz is the first to officially announce his candidacy, and he's off to a flying start, because in the very speech he did so, he pledged to "repeal every word of Common Core", unaware, apparently, of the fact that it's, y'know, not a federal law.

There are so many fish in that barrel there's no room for the water.

Apparently the President can ignore the Supreme Court, because Constitution, so there. He's no rocket scientist ...

Ignoring it? I quoted it. It's bullshit. The U.S, like the rest of the English-speaking world, has a common-law system in which case law is ... well, law. And of course it's binding on the executive, that's part of the principle of the rule of law. But if you and Ben Carson don't think it should be, then is it OK if (for example) Obama ignores National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius as it applies to Medicaid expansion? 'Cos I bet he'd like to, and it's your opinion that "NOBODY has to obey them". Who needs the judicial branch anyway? Checks and balances, pfft.

Recent? Yeah, it's only been how the common-law system has worked since the reign of King Henry II, so it's one of those new-fangled twelfth-century innovations that'll be here today and gone tomorrow.

Let me help you with that.

No.Here's Blackstone on case law and stare decis: "For it is an established rule to abide by former precedents, where the same points come again in litigation; as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion; as also because the law in that case being solemnly declared and determined, what before was uncertain, and perhaps indifferent, is now become a permanent rule. [...] The doctrine of the law then is this: that precedents and rules must be followed."This is how things have worked for the last eight centuries or so. It's probably too late to change it now, and why would you want to? In favor of what? That the President can ignore judicial review and do as he pleases, as Carson suggests?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, Huckabee started off with "I hear our current president say he wants Christians to get off their high horse so we can make nice with radical jihadists". Now, so far this is the sort of halfwitted lie that any Republican might tell after he's undergone the standard process for removing every last scrap of human decency from his body.And yet as we know, malevolent falsehood is never quite so sweet as when it's tinged with gratuitous racism, so Huckabee continued as follows: "I wonder if he can watch a western from the ‘50s and be able to figure out who the good guys and the bad guys really are."Now Native Americans are pissed at him.

Maybe I should cross-post this to Loony Of The Week.

Let joy be unconfined.

Here's the full text of Trump's announcement speech. I hope you all enjoy it as much as I did.