Republican nominations - Page 436

On February 12 2012 16:14 xDaunt wrote:


Getting to six figures isn't the same as wealthy. In fact, it is surprising how little six figures actually gets you, especially when you factor kids into the equation.

On February 12 2012 17:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Being an average professor does NOT get you into the top 1% on its own.

On February 13 2012 03:54 ticklishmusic wrote:


I think the so-called top 1% make around 500K a year, and the top 01% make 2M a year.

Okay, so lemme correct myself, most of the jobs I mentioned can land you in the top 5-10%of wealthiest Americans. Six figures (100K) is still around top 80%. Huh, Americans are richer than I thought.

Out of all my dad's siblings' families, we are admittedly the poorest (I think my dad might make something in the low 6 figures, he's been at his job for 20 years or so). All of the family units consist of a mom, dad and two kids of varying ages. However, we still manage to make a pretty comfortable living, though we don't have Ming Dynasty vases in our not-three story house. It's just about how you spend your money-- spending a little time looking around at the mall can make your money go a long way. We're pretty frugal people generally.



Oops, that's probably true-- I was under the impression the 1% line was lower than it actually is. But a professor at a decent university can pull in 6 figures pretty easily. I know that the professors at the b-school at my uni make like 200K+ a year.

On February 13 2012 04:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Just pulling stats from Wikipedia:

Rank Lowest median[20] Highest median[20] Overall median
Assistant Professor $45,927 $81,005 $58,662
Associate Professor $56,943 $98,530 $69,911
Full Professor $68,214 $136,634 $98,974

Not that Wikipedia is necessarily the most trusted site in the world, but professors definitely do not make six figures "easily".

On February 12 2012 16:00 xDaunt wrote:
For the most part, the only wealthy people who do not work hard are those who get their wealth through inheritance. Most people who are wealthy work their asses off to earn it. No one gets wealthy on a simple 9 to 5 schedule.

On February 13 2012 04:27 SerpentFlame wrote:
Ron Paul not conceding Maine
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/210153-ron-paul-not-conceding-maine

On February 13 2012 06:22 Gorsameth wrote:


Its funny how a country like america can still have election fraud.
Yes this isnt the actual run for president but this might aswell be election fraud all things considered.
No winner can be announced untill everyone has had a chance to vote.

On February 12 2012 11:49 Housemd wrote:
Well, some states have updated to a winner take all system so it doesn't make a difference at the convention. However, caucuses have existed before 1800s and some continue in today's time. However, the source actually does seem legit. If Paul supporters stay, then they do get spots at the convention. Although they "promise" to vote for the candidate that won, they are not required to break that promise and can vote for whoever they like at the national convention where it counts. It does not happen often, heck never, but it can and seems like a slim possibility in this year's election.

On February 13 2012 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:
That has nothing to do with the situation here. A portion of the voting public was withheld there right to vote.
Besides, since this only matters for the county convention or whatever they call it why cant they allow the voters in Maine to vote at a later date and count those votes as normal.

On February 13 2012 06:56 Dapper_Cad wrote:


When has it happened in the past?

On February 13 2012 07:15 BluePanther wrote:


http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1953_1957.html#1952

Happened in the 1956 general election. The electoral college election is similar. Most states have requiered their presidential voters to be bound by law to vote for the elected person. There are multiple cases of this happening in history, although most of them are in the old days before binding pledges were introduced.

Most primary caucuses haven't required this. Also, this is why once someone drops out of the race, the other candidates flirt with the pledgers of the dropping candidate, because they still hold the vote but are no longer bound on who they can vote for.

On February 13 2012 07:27 Derez wrote:


The situation that is being described isn't likely at all tho. Suppose Romney wins a majority of delegates by winning primaries, and at the convention 400 of them flip their vote on the first ballot. That would be circumventing the entire primary process and would be 'undemocratic'. Probably even more so then not counting a county somewhere in Maine. Delegates will vote who their are supposed to vote for, bar a brokered convetion (where things like this could play a role).

If RP wants to make a real run at the presidency without the approval of primaries, he should do so as an independent in the general. Become the republican Ralph Nader.

On February 13 2012 07:31 BluePanther wrote:


It's the rules they play the game by, you can't fault the guy for trying to win with the rules that are given to him.

Also, it's NOT democratic, nor is it pretended to be. It's representative voting. It's built directly into our constitution with the electoral college. How each state wishes to hande their allocation is up to them. If they want direct democracy, they can simply do pledged primaries, either proportional or winner take all.

On February 13 2012 07:42 Housemd wrote:


From what I know, most primaries are binding. Some are not. So it doesn't matter if Romney wins primaries like you said, since delegates are legally bound to to Romney. However, nearly all caucuses are not binding and thus they can vote for Paul. Is Paul cheating? Not really, he's playing by the rules that are set forth for him like another poster already said. The name of the game is winning delegates.