On January 22 2012 12:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 60% of SC voters said Religion matters, very bad sign for Romney if it carries across state by state.
Most of those people must be hypocrites for booing the Golden Rule in Foreign policy.
It's just the hardcore zealots that make the other (moderate) Christians look bad, pay them no heed.
How can hard-core zealots vote for someone who has committed adultery multiple times. I'm honestly at a loss here. Or is it more that Romney's a Mormon?
On January 22 2012 12:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 60% of SC voters said Religion matters, very bad sign for Romney if it carries across state by state.
Most of those people must be hypocrites for booing the Golden Rule in Foreign policy.
It's just the hardcore zealots that make the other (moderate) Christians look bad, pay them no heed.
How can hard-core zealots vote for someone who has committed adultery multiple times. I'm honestly at a loss here. Or is it more that Romney's a Mormon?
It's exactly that. (the mormon part)
Personally I don't get it. Both groups believe in Jesus, god, the bible, etc. They both are anti-gay marriage, anti abortion, family values, etc.
The only real difference I can think of is that some Mormons believe in having multiple wives...but for all his faults I haven't seen Romney do that. (which is really ironic because thats basically what Gingrich is being accused of)
On January 22 2012 12:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 60% of SC voters said Religion matters, very bad sign for Romney if it carries across state by state.
Most of those people must be hypocrites for booing the Golden Rule in Foreign policy.
It's just the hardcore zealots that make the other (moderate) Christians look bad, pay them no heed.
How can hard-core zealots vote for someone who has committed adultery multiple times. I'm honestly at a loss here. Or is it more that Romney's a Mormon?
It's exactly that. (the mormon part)
Personally I don't get it. Both groups believe in Jesus, god, the bible, etc. They both are anti-gay marriage, anti abortion, family values, etc.
The only real difference I can think of is that some Mormons believe in having multiple wives...but for all his faults I haven't seen Romney do that. (which is really ironic because thats basically what Gingrich is being accused of)
Only the hard-core zealot Mormons have multiple wives as far as I know. Romney is not a member of that particular sect so it must be just the Mormon part.
On January 22 2012 12:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 60% of SC voters said Religion matters, very bad sign for Romney if it carries across state by state.
Most of those people must be hypocrites for booing the Golden Rule in Foreign policy.
It's just the hardcore zealots that make the other (moderate) Christians look bad, pay them no heed.
How can hard-core zealots vote for someone who has committed adultery multiple times. I'm honestly at a loss here. Or is it more that Romney's a Mormon?
Desperate times call for desperate measures, I think SC is slowly becoming a politically irrelevant state even for republicans and will not have any significant overall effect on Romney winning the nomination.
On January 22 2012 12:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 60% of SC voters said Religion matters, very bad sign for Romney if it carries across state by state.
Most of those people must be hypocrites for booing the Golden Rule in Foreign policy.
It's just the hardcore zealots that make the other (moderate) Christians look bad, pay them no heed.
How can hard-core zealots vote for someone who has committed adultery multiple times. I'm honestly at a loss here. Or is it more that Romney's a Mormon?
It's exactly that. (the mormon part)
Personally I don't get it. Both groups believe in Jesus, god, the bible, etc. They both are anti-gay marriage, anti abortion, family values, etc.
The only real difference I can think of is that some Mormons believe in having multiple wives...but for all his faults I haven't seen Romney do that. (which is really ironic because thats basically what Gingrich is being accused of)
Only the hard-core zealot Mormons have multiple wives as far as I know. Romney is not a member of that particular sect so it must be just the Mormon part.
Yeah,
Makes you wonder, if Romney was really really serious about becoming President, he should have just gone ahead and said he had changed from mormon to "protestant". (Obviously not right now, but sometime in the past)
I wrote a long diatribe about how awful Newt Gingrich is, and asking what the hell is wrong with South Carolinians that they'd vote for a comic-book villain. I made reference to George W. Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, where he won by appealing as a "moderate", protecting Social Security and other social programs.
But instead, I deleted most of that, and I'm just going to say thank you. I hope you guys keep this up. I hope you act the same way in the general-election debates as you do in these primary debates.
I hope Newt Gingrich wins the primary, and teaches all the black people the difference between food stamps and paychecks. People love hearing that kind of stuff.
On January 22 2012 12:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 60% of SC voters said Religion matters, very bad sign for Romney if it carries across state by state.
Most of those people must be hypocrites for booing the Golden Rule in Foreign policy.
It's just the hardcore zealots that make the other (moderate) Christians look bad, pay them no heed.
How can hard-core zealots vote for someone who has committed adultery multiple times. I'm honestly at a loss here. Or is it more that Romney's a Mormon?
It's exactly that. (the mormon part)
Personally I don't get it. Both groups believe in Jesus, god, the bible, etc. They both are anti-gay marriage, anti abortion, family values, etc.
The only real difference I can think of is that some Mormons believe in having multiple wives...but for all his faults I haven't seen Romney do that. (which is really ironic because thats basically what Gingrich is being accused of)
A lot of religious tension is just a matter of "us vs them". "If they identify as something that is not what I identify with, then that means that they do not believe that what I believe is a good set of beliefs". etc.
On January 22 2012 12:04 ryanAnger wrote: In order to win the Republican nomination, a candidate has to acquire at least 1144 delegates. For some perspective, the 3 states that have held their primaries thus far have had a total of 58. There is still a long way to go, and you shouldn't count Ron Paul out just yet.
The two states with the highest number of delegates are Texas and California (~330ish delegates combined). Ron Paul is polling over 50% in each of those states, and if he can maintain those numbers, he's guaranteed about 250 delegates from that alone.
Also, Ron Paul is currently the only person with a campaign organization in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has a significant number of delegates and it's a winner takes all state, as well.
The thing about Paul's campaign right now is this: He's playing it very strategically. We'll see if it pays off or not.
Mitt Romney at 24% and Newt Gingrich at 23% lead the way with Rick Santorum at 15%, Ron Paul at 12%, and Buddy Roemer at 0% rounding out the field behind Perry.
Mitt Romney 27% Undecided 22% Herman Cain 20% Newt Gingrich 14% Ron Paul 6% None of the above 3% Rick Perry 3% Michele Bachmann 2% Jon Huntsman 1% Rick Santorum 1%
On January 22 2012 12:04 ryanAnger wrote: In order to win the Republican nomination, a candidate has to acquire at least 1144 delegates. For some perspective, the 3 states that have held their primaries thus far have had a total of 58. There is still a long way to go, and you shouldn't count Ron Paul out just yet.
The two states with the highest number of delegates are Texas and California (~330ish delegates combined). Ron Paul is polling over 50% in each of those states, and if he can maintain those numbers, he's guaranteed about 250 delegates from that alone.
Also, Ron Paul is currently the only person with a campaign organization in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has a significant number of delegates and it's a winner takes all state, as well.
The thing about Paul's campaign right now is this: He's playing it very strategically. We'll see if it pays off or not.
Mitt Romney at 24% and Newt Gingrich at 23% lead the way with Rick Santorum at 15%, Ron Paul at 12%, and Buddy Roemer at 0% rounding out the field behind Perry.
Mitt Romney 27% Undecided 22% Herman Cain 20% Newt Gingrich 14% Ron Paul 6% None of the above 3% Rick Perry 3% Michele Bachmann 2% Jon Huntsman 1% Rick Santorum 1%
Most recent poll out of California. His numbers don't even add up to 50%. (Straw polls aren't counted because they are laughably inaccurate).
I like Ron Paul and a lot of his policies, but many of his supporters are crazy to the point of being outright delusional. Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination, and that's not his goal anyway. As I have said before, Paul's goal is to build up a libertarian movement within the republican party, which is exactly what he is accomplishing. He's like going to get to speak at the republican national convention because of this success. That's a win for Paul.
On January 22 2012 12:04 ryanAnger wrote: In order to win the Republican nomination, a candidate has to acquire at least 1144 delegates. For some perspective, the 3 states that have held their primaries thus far have had a total of 58. There is still a long way to go, and you shouldn't count Ron Paul out just yet.
The two states with the highest number of delegates are Texas and California (~330ish delegates combined). Ron Paul is polling over 50% in each of those states, and if he can maintain those numbers, he's guaranteed about 250 delegates from that alone.
Also, Ron Paul is currently the only person with a campaign organization in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has a significant number of delegates and it's a winner takes all state, as well.
The thing about Paul's campaign right now is this: He's playing it very strategically. We'll see if it pays off or not.
Mitt Romney at 24% and Newt Gingrich at 23% lead the way with Rick Santorum at 15%, Ron Paul at 12%, and Buddy Roemer at 0% rounding out the field behind Perry.
Mitt Romney 27% Undecided 22% Herman Cain 20% Newt Gingrich 14% Ron Paul 6% None of the above 3% Rick Perry 3% Michele Bachmann 2% Jon Huntsman 1% Rick Santorum 1%
Most recent poll out of California. His numbers don't even add up to 50%. (Straw polls aren't counted because they are laughably inaccurate).
I like Ron Paul and a lot of his policies, but many of his supporters are crazy to the point of being outright delusional. Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination, and that's not his goal anyway. As I have said before, Paul's goal is to build up a libertarian movement within the republican party, which is exactly what he is accomplishing. He's like going to get to speak at the republican national convention because of this success. That's a win for Paul.
Im a ron paul supporter and i agree. A good lot of them are a big turn off for potential supporters.
So that scumbag Gingrich won. Shows how weak the republican field is-- so much of each candidate's support is shallow an easily drawn away (except Ron Paul, but he did come in fourth).
I still can't get over the fact that Romney said he was campaigning on his success in business, and to not focus on the bills that he passed. Not only was it a failure, if it was designed to be such, attack on Newt Gingrich but it sounds incredibly stupid.
Mitt Romney 27% Undecided 22% Herman Cain 20% Newt Gingrich 14% Ron Paul 6% None of the above 3% Rick Perry 3% Michele Bachmann 2% Jon Huntsman 1% Rick Santorum 1%
i thought everyone but santorum, gingrich, romney and paul resigned their candidacy already? + i cant get over the fact that theres even 1 person voting for perry/bachmann
On January 22 2012 20:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Ron Paul needs another moment like this:
On January 22 2012 17:56 Mafe wrote: Do you need an absolute majority of delegates to be elected (as presidential candidate), or is a relative majority enough?
Absolute. Delegates are pledged, not bound tho, so you can have a brokered convention with multiple ballots, where delegates are allowed to change their vote between ballots.
And 1.1% of people voted for Cain/Colbert. That's not bad.
Correct me if I am wrong but, isn't Gingrich the text-book definition of scumbag? how can anyone get away with being two-time adulterer, not only that but he left both wives when they were sick, and still be in contention for the presidency -- a job that requires character more than anything -- you GOPers are nuts, but I guess Romney's tax problem may be more serious than I previously thought.
On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote: I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell.
Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence?
I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all.
I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person.
To keep it relevant too so I don't get banned, here are some politically relevant bullshit quotes from her:
"Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." —Michele Bachmann, 1/26/05, Jobs, Energy and Community Development Committee, testifying against SF 3, a bill to raise the MN minimum wage and advocating the elimination of the minimum wage altogether..
This is one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen said. Removing the minimum wage would put so many people in poverty it's ridiculous, there is a reason Canada doesn't have insane unemployment and that is BECAUSE of the higher minimum wage. It's way too low for most of the USA already. Get ready for US children sweatshops if she ever gets her way!
On January 22 2012 20:59 s4life wrote: Correct me if I am wrong but, isn't Gingrich the text-book definition of scumbag? how can anyone get away with being two-time adulterer, not only that but he left both wives when they were sick, and still be in contention for the presidency -- a job that requires character more than anything -- you GOPers are nuts, but I guess Romney's tax problem may be more serious than I previously thought.
His personal issues are his personal issues. What bothers me is that he built up much of his political career by attacking Clinton's adultery, while he was engaged in the exact same acts. He is just a completely immoral person, worse than even Nixon.
Look, maybe personal issues are personal issues, but maybe there's a correlation between being an asshole and being smart. In my last three years on high school there was this one girl you would steal her best friends' boyfriend, which is a dick move if you ask me. She was also the only one who failed to graduate. it didn't occur to me at the time, but maybe the two things do have something to do with each other.