|
On January 22 2012 11:44 Derez wrote:
On energy:
'No American President shall ever bow again to a Saudi king'
Or a Canadian.
|
On January 22 2012 11:41 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:40 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:34 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:30 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:24 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I really hope he runs 3rd party and does well enough to be in the debates with Obama/Republican. I'm just not interested at all in following the general election if it's just going to be Obama vs Gingrich or Obama vs Romney. I hope he does too, If the "Americans Elect" thing works then Paul will have a chance to make a 3rd party run. I'm actually really curious about the idea of Paul as a third party candidate. It's obvious he has a deep following on both sides of the spectrum and this could cause huge ruptures in the National Election. The thing is, if Paul runs, the Republican Nominee is basically fucked, but Obama might not be. BUT, if Paul can pull enough votes off of Obama there is a very large posibility that no one wins the majority and the election goes to the House of Representatives for deciding, something we haven't seen in over 100 years. Well if it goes to house of reps then the republican nominee would win right? and yeah, if he makes a 3rd party run sadly dont think that he could get 51%, but he would definitely make an impact. Thats why we need to use the Alternative Vote that the British tried to change to last year. You never know. A few hundred votes are a lot more variant than a few hundred million. Say Obama gets 125 electoral votes, Romney/Gingrich/etc, 100, and Paul 45. Some representatives (republicans that is) might actually vote for Obama because they believe he technically won the election... Well, err. Thats what I would do if I were a rep, regardless of our repsective parties. Having watched what the house has done for the past 13 months I can tell you there is a better chance of them deciding to vote for me for president than voting for Obama.
I know :/...but man I'd like to think that if was something like
Obama: 269 votes, Republican candidate: 135, Paul: 135, they'd at least try and be logical
|
On January 22 2012 11:42 Corvette wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:40 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:34 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:30 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:24 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I really hope he runs 3rd party and does well enough to be in the debates with Obama/Republican. I'm just not interested at all in following the general election if it's just going to be Obama vs Gingrich or Obama vs Romney. I hope he does too, If the "Americans Elect" thing works then Paul will have a chance to make a 3rd party run. I'm actually really curious about the idea of Paul as a third party candidate. It's obvious he has a deep following on both sides of the spectrum and this could cause huge ruptures in the National Election. The thing is, if Paul runs, the Republican Nominee is basically fucked, but Obama might not be. BUT, if Paul can pull enough votes off of Obama there is a very large posibility that no one wins the majority and the election goes to the House of Representatives for deciding, something we haven't seen in over 100 years. Well if it goes to house of reps then the republican nominee would win right? and yeah, if he makes a 3rd party run sadly dont think that he could get 51%, but he would definitely make an impact. Thats why we need to use the Alternative Vote that the British tried to change to last year. You never know. A few hundred votes are a lot more variant than a few hundred million. Say Obama gets 125 electoral votes, Romney/Gingrich/etc, 100, and Paul 45. Some representatives (republicans that is) might actually vote for Obama because they believe he technically won the election... Well, err. Thats what I would do if I were a rep, regardless of our repsective parties. I agree about that, however I can't really see many politicians seeing past their parties.
It would probably be political suicide to vote for the opposing party if you were in a position to give your party the white house and choose not too. It would put a lot of politicians in awkward situations that's for sure.
|
On January 22 2012 11:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:43 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The format for each debate was: one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute "rejoinder." The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_debates Are they going to do this? Haha no just trying to separate reality from what newt is probably thinking.
Damn, that is somewhat disappointing.
Making one of them talk for 90 minutes is going to tell you a lot more than how they feel about the economy in 30 seconds.
|
On January 22 2012 11:44 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:43 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Two months ago he was complaining about negative political speeches/ads. Now all he's doing is berating people who aren't Newt Gingrich.
Hypocrite much? In his defense he did try to run a positive campaign then Romney spent about 10million dollars tearing him down. I cant really fault someone for fighting back.
Fighting back against Romney, sure. Obama too because obv. he's in the other party. But what about the others? No positivity towards any other candidates.
Props to Romney for congratulating Newt on his speech tho.
|
On January 22 2012 11:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:44 Derez wrote:
On energy:
'No American President shall ever bow again to a Saudi king' Or a Canadian.
We all know that Canadians are just terrorists-in-waiting. They will radicalize soon.
Now he's objecting to NOT provoking the Iranians.
|
Newt is Pro Canada/Harper!
|
On January 22 2012 11:45 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:41 Adreme wrote:On January 22 2012 11:40 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:34 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:30 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:24 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I really hope he runs 3rd party and does well enough to be in the debates with Obama/Republican. I'm just not interested at all in following the general election if it's just going to be Obama vs Gingrich or Obama vs Romney. I hope he does too, If the "Americans Elect" thing works then Paul will have a chance to make a 3rd party run. I'm actually really curious about the idea of Paul as a third party candidate. It's obvious he has a deep following on both sides of the spectrum and this could cause huge ruptures in the National Election. The thing is, if Paul runs, the Republican Nominee is basically fucked, but Obama might not be. BUT, if Paul can pull enough votes off of Obama there is a very large posibility that no one wins the majority and the election goes to the House of Representatives for deciding, something we haven't seen in over 100 years. Well if it goes to house of reps then the republican nominee would win right? and yeah, if he makes a 3rd party run sadly dont think that he could get 51%, but he would definitely make an impact. Thats why we need to use the Alternative Vote that the British tried to change to last year. You never know. A few hundred votes are a lot more variant than a few hundred million. Say Obama gets 125 electoral votes, Romney/Gingrich/etc, 100, and Paul 45. Some representatives (republicans that is) might actually vote for Obama because they believe he technically won the election... Well, err. Thats what I would do if I were a rep, regardless of our repsective parties. Having watched what the house has done for the past 13 months I can tell you there is a better chance of them deciding to vote for me for president than voting for Obama. I know :/...but man I'd like to think that if was something like Obama: 134 votes, Republican candidate: 68, Paul: 68, they'd at least try and be logical
Small aside the total is 538 electoral votes and not 270. 270 is 1 over half so its the magic number for winning the presidency.
|
On January 22 2012 11:45 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:41 Adreme wrote:On January 22 2012 11:40 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:34 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:30 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:24 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I really hope he runs 3rd party and does well enough to be in the debates with Obama/Republican. I'm just not interested at all in following the general election if it's just going to be Obama vs Gingrich or Obama vs Romney. I hope he does too, If the "Americans Elect" thing works then Paul will have a chance to make a 3rd party run. I'm actually really curious about the idea of Paul as a third party candidate. It's obvious he has a deep following on both sides of the spectrum and this could cause huge ruptures in the National Election. The thing is, if Paul runs, the Republican Nominee is basically fucked, but Obama might not be. BUT, if Paul can pull enough votes off of Obama there is a very large posibility that no one wins the majority and the election goes to the House of Representatives for deciding, something we haven't seen in over 100 years. Well if it goes to house of reps then the republican nominee would win right? and yeah, if he makes a 3rd party run sadly dont think that he could get 51%, but he would definitely make an impact. Thats why we need to use the Alternative Vote that the British tried to change to last year. You never know. A few hundred votes are a lot more variant than a few hundred million. Say Obama gets 125 electoral votes, Romney/Gingrich/etc, 100, and Paul 45. Some representatives (republicans that is) might actually vote for Obama because they believe he technically won the election... Well, err. Thats what I would do if I were a rep, regardless of our repsective parties. Having watched what the house has done for the past 13 months I can tell you there is a better chance of them deciding to vote for me for president than voting for Obama. I know :/...but man I'd like to think that if was something like Obama: 134 votes, Republican candidate: 68, Paul: 68, they'd at least try and be logical
I don't think you need to worry about Ron Paul getting any electoral votes unless there is a (R) beside his name this November.
|
If Newt does well in Florida I think he will smash Romney even Santorum in the bible belt.
|
On January 22 2012 11:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Newt is Pro Canada/Harper!
Not surprising when it's Harper's den of charlatans that has fostered and have been fostered by American style right-wing radicals.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On January 22 2012 11:46 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 22 2012 11:44 Derez wrote:
On energy:
'No American President shall ever bow again to a Saudi king' Or a Canadian. We all know that Canadians are just terrorists-in-waiting. They will radicalize soon.
Oh you know it. We have public health care, our flag is red... proletariat unite! It's time we overthrow the bourgesois.
Actually, not only oil, but water and hyrdo power as well. There are a couple taps we could shut off to make our neighbour mad, but we will never do it.
|
Okay pretty much Newt won the speech contest tonight followed by Paul then Santorum and Romney.
|
Yeah, after all that pro-Canadian sentiment... suddenly ONLY IN AMERICA!
|
On January 22 2012 11:48 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:45 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:41 Adreme wrote:On January 22 2012 11:40 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:34 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:30 1Eris1 wrote:On January 22 2012 11:24 Corvette wrote:On January 22 2012 11:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I really hope he runs 3rd party and does well enough to be in the debates with Obama/Republican. I'm just not interested at all in following the general election if it's just going to be Obama vs Gingrich or Obama vs Romney. I hope he does too, If the "Americans Elect" thing works then Paul will have a chance to make a 3rd party run. I'm actually really curious about the idea of Paul as a third party candidate. It's obvious he has a deep following on both sides of the spectrum and this could cause huge ruptures in the National Election. The thing is, if Paul runs, the Republican Nominee is basically fucked, but Obama might not be. BUT, if Paul can pull enough votes off of Obama there is a very large posibility that no one wins the majority and the election goes to the House of Representatives for deciding, something we haven't seen in over 100 years. Well if it goes to house of reps then the republican nominee would win right? and yeah, if he makes a 3rd party run sadly dont think that he could get 51%, but he would definitely make an impact. Thats why we need to use the Alternative Vote that the British tried to change to last year. You never know. A few hundred votes are a lot more variant than a few hundred million. Say Obama gets 125 electoral votes, Romney/Gingrich/etc, 100, and Paul 45. Some representatives (republicans that is) might actually vote for Obama because they believe he technically won the election... Well, err. Thats what I would do if I were a rep, regardless of our repsective parties. Having watched what the house has done for the past 13 months I can tell you there is a better chance of them deciding to vote for me for president than voting for Obama. I know :/...but man I'd like to think that if was something like Obama: 134 votes, Republican candidate: 68, Paul: 68, they'd at least try and be logical Small aside the total is 538 electoral votes and not 270. 270 is 1 over half so its the magic number for winning the presidency.
Ahh wow that's embarassing. >.< let me go edit that
|
Obama is going to regret blocking the keystone pipeline. That issue is gonna be hung around his neck throughout the campaign. Hell, you know it's bad when the Washington Post says it was a bad move.
|
On January 22 2012 11:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If Newt does well in Florida I think he will smash Romney even Santorum in the bible belt.
How does Newt ever win a general election. Just look at favorable/unfavorables (link). Twice as many people have an unfavorable view of Newt than a positive. That's much worse then what's Obama is facing. You can't go into a general like that, especially when your opponents have so much material to work with negatively.
|
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Newt Gingrich now leads the race by ONE delegate...?
|
On January 22 2012 11:52 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If Newt does well in Florida I think he will smash Romney even Santorum in the bible belt. How does Newt ever win a general election. Just look at favorable/unfavorables ( link). Twice as many people have an unfavorable view of Newt than a positive. That's much worse then what's Obama is facing. You can't go into a general like that, especially when your opponents have so much material to work with negatively.
You can when Romney is taking a nose dive in the same poll and with a party that doesn't care as long as Obama is a one term President.
|
On January 22 2012 11:52 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2012 11:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If Newt does well in Florida I think he will smash Romney even Santorum in the bible belt. How does Newt ever win a general election. Just look at favorable/unfavorables ( link). Twice as many people have an unfavorable view of Newt than a positive. That's much worse then what's Obama is facing. You can't go into a general like that, especially when your opponents have so much material to work with negatively.
That's why all the dems are hoping Gingrich wins 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
