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.
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.
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.
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.
Honestly? Obama is going to win anyways. The moderate independants such as myself will likely flip to the democrat side for this one. And many of the moderate republicans will also flip if it's Santorum or Gingrich. At least a Paul nomination will bring talk about some of these issues; it would have a huge impact on politics in general.
In the primaries, Republicans are forced to appeal to their bases, eg, the far right/ ultraconservatives. Unfortunately, the things they say to appeal to them are aired so independents and more moderate voters see them. It's about finding a balance between appealing to the base and not alienating the people who you need in the general election. This is part of the President's "home field" advantage-- he can go straight to wooing the middle.
Unfortunately, the Republican candidates are really shooting themselves in the collective foot. It's why many polls say that the more they learn about the candidates, the less they like them.
On February 12 2012 09:31 Dapper_Cad wrote: The wealthy are hard working and the poor are lazy. Non-whites are disproportionately poor. Therefore non-whites are disproportionately lazy.
I don't think it's a straw man, it's a conclusion which is difficult to escape given his initial assumptions. I was really looking forward to watching him try, or not.
In deference to Stealth Blue and the thread itself...
I disagree, just because A = B and B = C, does not mean that A = C.
On February 12 2012 09:31 Dapper_Cad wrote:
On February 12 2012 08:25 Yongwang wrote: Ron Paul is actually winning the GOP race! Take a look at this:
Is this accurate, or is this just spin?
It seems legit, especially coming from a source that is ideologically opposite to that of Ron Paul.
A doesnt = B and B doesnt = C. It requires all 3 statements to be true. If you only take the first 2 premises, you prove nothing, if you take the second premise and the conclusion you prove nothing, but if you put the three together you do. For some people its easier to understand in a statement, because logic is not their strongsuit, so here you go.
If you believe that rich people are only rich because they work hard, and poor people are only poor because they are lazy, and you believe that non-whites are disproportionnately poor, you believe it is because non-whites are disproportionately lazy.
But the point I made above, which everyone seemed to completely ignore to focus on my first sentence, was that calling rich people hard working does not necessitate that all poor people are lazy. There are multiple factors that go into a person's wealth, including education.
Since we've got some pseudo logic in here, perhaps I can appeal to your format.
Wealthy people are hard working. Bob isn't wealthy. Therefore, Bob isn't hard working.
Do you see the error now?
The issue with this is that were arguing against a poster who stated that wealth is directly proportional to how hard you worked. I agree the premise is false. Were just showing him how he is wrong about that, and how hes racist. I agree with you that the statement isnt true.
Mitt Romney scored two minor but symbolically important victories on Saturday -- a first-place finish in the CPAC Straw poll and a win in the Maine caucus -- each of which set off accusations of foul play from the second place finisher.
In an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) suggested that Romney had doctored the results of the CPAC contest.
"I don't try to rig straw polls," he said. "You have to talk to the Romney campaign and how many tickets they bought... We've heard all sorts of things."
Meanwhile, late Saturday night, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sent an email to supporters that essentially alleged collusion between the Romney campaign and the Maine Republican Party without actually mentioning Romney by name. A portion of the email is below:
In Washington County -- where Ron Paul was incredibly strong -- the caucus was delayed until next week just so the votes wouldn’t be reported by the national media today. Of course, their excuse for the delay was "snow." That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches -- that turned into nothing more than a dusting -- was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight. This is MAINE we’re talking about. The GIRL SCOUTS had an event today in Washington County that wasn’t cancelled! And just the votes of Washington County would have been enough to put us over the top.
Mitt Romney scored two minor but symbolically important victories on Saturday -- a first-place finish in the CPAC Straw poll and a win in the Maine caucus -- each of which set off accusations of foul play from the second place finisher.
In an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) suggested that Romney had doctored the results of the CPAC contest.
"I don't try to rig straw polls," he said. "You have to talk to the Romney campaign and how many tickets they bought... We've heard all sorts of things."
Meanwhile, late Saturday night, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sent an email to supporters that essentially alleged collusion between the Romney campaign and the Maine Republican Party without actually mentioning Romney by name. A portion of the email is below:
In Washington County -- where Ron Paul was incredibly strong -- the caucus was delayed until next week just so the votes wouldn’t be reported by the national media today. Of course, their excuse for the delay was "snow." That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches -- that turned into nothing more than a dusting -- was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight. This is MAINE we’re talking about. The GIRL SCOUTS had an event today in Washington County that wasn’t cancelled! And just the votes of Washington County would have been enough to put us over the top.
I respect Ron Paul's adherence to his beliefs, but he (and a few people I know support him) seems to be complaining more and more about conspiracies and various things that are kind of out there. Now, I don't know if there's any real basis in his arguments, but it lowers my opinion of him.
Mitt Romney scored two minor but symbolically important victories on Saturday -- a first-place finish in the CPAC Straw poll and a win in the Maine caucus -- each of which set off accusations of foul play from the second place finisher.
In an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) suggested that Romney had doctored the results of the CPAC contest.
"I don't try to rig straw polls," he said. "You have to talk to the Romney campaign and how many tickets they bought... We've heard all sorts of things."
Meanwhile, late Saturday night, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sent an email to supporters that essentially alleged collusion between the Romney campaign and the Maine Republican Party without actually mentioning Romney by name. A portion of the email is below:
In Washington County -- where Ron Paul was incredibly strong -- the caucus was delayed until next week just so the votes wouldn’t be reported by the national media today. Of course, their excuse for the delay was "snow." That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches -- that turned into nothing more than a dusting -- was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight. This is MAINE we’re talking about. The GIRL SCOUTS had an event today in Washington County that wasn’t cancelled! And just the votes of Washington County would have been enough to put us over the top.
I respect Ron Paul's adherence to his beliefs, but he (and a few people I know support him) seems to be complaining more and more about conspiracies and various things that are kind of out there. Now, I don't know if there's any real basis in his arguments, but it lowers my opinion of him.
I understand your opinion, and generally I prefer people who don't whine. However if the "conspirices" are justified, isn't complaining fair? I mean you only have 1 shot at becomming the president, and if your treated unfair I feel like the whining is justified.
Mitt Romney scored two minor but symbolically important victories on Saturday -- a first-place finish in the CPAC Straw poll and a win in the Maine caucus -- each of which set off accusations of foul play from the second place finisher.
In an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) suggested that Romney had doctored the results of the CPAC contest.
"I don't try to rig straw polls," he said. "You have to talk to the Romney campaign and how many tickets they bought... We've heard all sorts of things."
Meanwhile, late Saturday night, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sent an email to supporters that essentially alleged collusion between the Romney campaign and the Maine Republican Party without actually mentioning Romney by name. A portion of the email is below:
In Washington County -- where Ron Paul was incredibly strong -- the caucus was delayed until next week just so the votes wouldn’t be reported by the national media today. Of course, their excuse for the delay was "snow." That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches -- that turned into nothing more than a dusting -- was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight. This is MAINE we’re talking about. The GIRL SCOUTS had an event today in Washington County that wasn’t cancelled! And just the votes of Washington County would have been enough to put us over the top.
I respect Ron Paul's adherence to his beliefs, but he (and a few people I know support him) seems to be complaining more and more about conspiracies and various things that are kind of out there. Now, I don't know if there's any real basis in his arguments, but it lowers my opinion of him.
I understand your opinion, and generally I prefer people who don't whine. However if the "conspirices" are justified, isn't complaining fair? I mean you only have 1 shot at becomming the president, and if your treated unfair I feel like the whining is justified.
Yup.
But I dunno, I've got a friend who supports Paul who's been pretty classy about this stuff, and all of a sudden he starts insisting that Nevada was rigged. I know that the caucuses there were a shitshow with the coutning problems, but still... He's not the only Paul supporter I know who has started ranting about how RP is being jipped. They're complaining like the Russians, lol.
The thing about Paul's chances of getting a lot of non-bound delegates at the Convention is quite... odd as well. Now, his people also are complaining about this Maine caucus thing, which I admittedly should and will look into more at a non-4 AM time.
Eh, you get plenty of shots to be be president. Paul's been trying for years, though this is his best showing so far.
Mitt Romney scored two minor but symbolically important victories on Saturday -- a first-place finish in the CPAC Straw poll and a win in the Maine caucus -- each of which set off accusations of foul play from the second place finisher.
In an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) suggested that Romney had doctored the results of the CPAC contest.
"I don't try to rig straw polls," he said. "You have to talk to the Romney campaign and how many tickets they bought... We've heard all sorts of things."
Meanwhile, late Saturday night, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sent an email to supporters that essentially alleged collusion between the Romney campaign and the Maine Republican Party without actually mentioning Romney by name. A portion of the email is below:
In Washington County -- where Ron Paul was incredibly strong -- the caucus was delayed until next week just so the votes wouldn’t be reported by the national media today. Of course, their excuse for the delay was "snow." That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches -- that turned into nothing more than a dusting -- was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight. This is MAINE we’re talking about. The GIRL SCOUTS had an event today in Washington County that wasn’t cancelled! And just the votes of Washington County would have been enough to put us over the top.
I respect Ron Paul's adherence to his beliefs, but he (and a few people I know support him) seems to be complaining more and more about conspiracies and various things that are kind of out there. Now, I don't know if there's any real basis in his arguments, but it lowers my opinion of him.
I understand your opinion, and generally I prefer people who don't whine. However if the "conspirices" are justified, isn't complaining fair? I mean you only have 1 shot at becomming the president, and if your treated unfair I feel like the whining is justified.
Yup.
But I dunno, I've got a friend who supports Paul who's been pretty classy about this stuff, and all of a sudden he starts insisting that Nevada was rigged. I know that the caucuses there were a shitshow with the coutning problems, but still... He's not the only Paul supporter I know who has started ranting about how RP is being jipped. They're complaining like the Russians, lol.
The thing about Paul's chances of getting a lot of non-bound delegates at the Convention is quite... odd as well. Now, his people also are complaining about this Maine caucus thing, which I admittedly should and will look into more at a non-4 AM time.
Eh, you get plenty of shots to be be president. Paul's been trying for years, though this is his best showing so far.
On February 13 2012 22:46 Adila wrote: Ron Paul is getting old. This really is probably his last shot. If he tries again in 4 years, whoever he picks as VP would be a huge issue.
It should already be a huge issue.
People complained about John Mcain. Compared to Ron Paul, Mcain looks like a cover model for men's health.
On February 13 2012 22:46 Adila wrote: Ron Paul is getting old. This really is probably his last shot. If he tries again in 4 years, whoever he picks as VP would be a huge issue.
It should already be a huge issue.
People complained about John Mcain. Compared to Ron Paul, Mcain looks like a cover model for men's health.
Odds are he'll pick Rand and we don't have to worry about it at all.
On February 13 2012 22:46 Adila wrote: Ron Paul is getting old. This really is probably his last shot. If he tries again in 4 years, whoever he picks as VP would be a huge issue.
No matter how fit he is, given that he is some sort of iron man champion (can't exactly remember what it was, running marathons or something)? The general public are just too used to associating young with bold and old with... Well, old. In my country the oldest politicians are the most experienced, yet people vote in younger politicians simply because they look better even though they'd had no real work experience.
On February 13 2012 22:46 Adila wrote: Ron Paul is getting old. This really is probably his last shot. If he tries again in 4 years, whoever he picks as VP would be a huge issue.
It should already be a huge issue.
People complained about John Mcain. Compared to Ron Paul, Mcain looks like a cover model for men's health.
Odds are he'll pick Rand and we don't have to worry about it at all.
If someone picked their son as their running mate I am pretty sure they'd lose by default.
Rick Santorum has overtaken Mitt Romney in the race for the GOP primary vote in Michigan, a state long considered a lock for Romney that has become a make-or-break test for his campaign.
New polls from Republican-leaning American Research Group and the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling both give Santorum the lead in Michigan, where Romney grew up and his father was a popular governor.
The PPP poll released Monday found Santorum at 39 percent, ahead of Romney with 24 percent, Ron Paul with 12 percent and Newt Gingrich at 11 percent. Similarly, the American Research Group poll found Santorum with 33 percent, followed by Romney at 27 percent, Gingrich at 21 percent, and Paul at 12 percent.
Oh, and for those that are wondering what real conservative republicans think about Santorum as opposed to Romney, let me fill you in. Santorum, as uninteresting as he is, does stand for things unlike Romney. No one can question his conservative credentials on most key points. Romney simply has failed to make a case for himself as a conservative beyond saying that he's a businessman. He has no vision or bold ideas that would allow people to overlook his transgressions.
That said, the one thing that bugs me about Santorum is that he does have a history "compassionate conservativism," which, loosely translated, is "big government conservativism." Though Santorum is infinitely better than Obama, I'm not sure that he's materially better on the point of fixing the country's fiscal issues than either Newt or Romney.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/985/chart13291151644163113.png)
