EPT
Let's keep it to the viable candidates please ;p. As much as I sympathise with the libertarian idea, the welfare state (not meant negatively) isn't going anywhere. The republicans like to flame Obamacare, but neither party is willing to touch either medicare or social security because of how supported it is overall in society.
Republican nominations - Page 574
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
Let's keep it to the viable candidates please ;p. As much as I sympathise with the libertarian idea, the welfare state (not meant negatively) isn't going anywhere. The republicans like to flame Obamacare, but neither party is willing to touch either medicare or social security because of how supported it is overall in society. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On April 17 2012 04:23 Derez wrote: Let's keep it to the viable candidates please ;p. As much as I sympathise with the libertarian idea, the welfare state (not meant negatively) isn't going anywhere. The republicans like to flame Obamacare, but neither party is willing to touch either medicare or social security because of how supported it is overall in society. I think you are taking things for granted, and baiting. The name of the game is delegates, and information. Romney isn't gaining ground on his nomination. If you got facts to the contrary, I would love to hear them. Link me, I'll read anything. Libertarians may not be viable in your opinion, but the GOP has had to break it's own rules, or use questionable practices in at least 7 states I can name offhand to stem the tide of this unviable phenomenon. Ben Swann has covered these for me. There is also a Reality Check on the racist newsletters(yawn). Enjoy. Real reporting...yummy! + Show Spoiler + http://www.fox19.com/category/208878/reality-check-with-fox19s-ben-swann-from-wxix-cincinnati Romney could have locked it up, but he hasn't. If anything, he's slipping while pundits blab af it's sealed. Now he can't stop putting his foot in his mouth as evangelicals start to drift Paul's direction if the wake of Santorum's exit. Paul may well not get anything. A cabinet, his son in, anything. His influence, however distasteful, could result in a third Bush, just as fast as Romney. Assuming no laws are broken. Voting round 1 at the nation convention is locked for bound delagates, round 2 is where the GOP wants to avoid at all costs. Can we get there? Yes. Will we? I don't know, and we won't know till the votes are counted. Romney versus Obama is all your hearing. I'm just presenting the case all is not so. Trying to keep this factual. Not force an opinion. + Show Spoiler + The Iowa GOP leadership has previously acknowledged that Paul may win Iowa as well. Iowa holds its state convention on June 16. These are all states where Ron Paul lost the popular vote by a wide margin. In states like Maine, Alaska, Minnesota and others, where Paul finished a close 2nd or at least did much better, he could win the final delegate counts by wide margins. All of this is important information for voters in states that have not held their primaries or caucuses yet. Voters often make their decisions based at least in part upon their confidence in a candidate’s “electability.” They may choose not to vote for the candidate they like best if they think he can’t win. The media wrote a narrative at the beginning of the primary season that Ron Paul could never win the nomination. That likely affected his performance in subsequent primaries. The new media narrative says that the nomination race is over and Romney has it locked up. That conflicts with the facts. Voters in upcoming primaries should know that this race is far closer than they’re being led to believe. Source | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 17 2012 04:23 Derez wrote: Let's keep it to the viable candidates please ;p. As much as I sympathise with the libertarian idea, the welfare state (not meant negatively) isn't going anywhere. The republicans like to flame Obamacare, but neither party is willing to touch either medicare or social security because of how supported it is overall in society. If you value freedom then both parties are the opposition. Neither side is in favor of individual liberty. Sure, make the people think the only game in town is the D's or the R's and have both parties nearly identical. Throw a few wedge issues in there and have the people fight each other instead of the guys running the show. It's as old as prostitution. All they want is power & control. They're deathly afraid of being powerless. Why do you think they both agree on all the large freedom destroying issues? You can either take the red pill or the blue pill. You are no more free by choosing a new master every four years. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On April 17 2012 07:27 BioNova wrote: I think you are taking things for granted, and baiting. The name of the game is delegates, and information. Romney isn't gaining ground on his nomination. If you got facts to the contrary, I would love to hear them. Link me, I'll read anything. Libertarians may not be viable in your opinion, but the GOP has had to break it's own rules, or use questionable practices in at least 7 states I can name offhand to stem the tide of this unviable phenomenon. Ben Swann has covered these for me. There is also a Reality Check on the racist newsletters(yawn). Enjoy. Real reporting...yummy! + Show Spoiler + http://www.fox19.com/category/208878/reality-check-with-fox19s-ben-swann-from-wxix-cincinnati Romney could have locked it up, but he hasn't. If anything, he's slipping while pundits blab af it's sealed. Now he can't stop putting his foot in his mouth as evangelicals start to drift Paul's direction if the wake of Santorum's exit. Paul may well not get anything. A cabinet, his son in, anything. His influence, however distasteful, could result in a third Bush, just as fast as Romney. Assuming no laws are broken. Voting round 1 at the nation convention is locked for bound delagates, round 2 is where the GOP wants to avoid at all costs. Can we get there? Yes. Will we? I don't know, and we won't know till the votes are counted. Romney versus Obama is all your hearing. I'm just presenting the case all is not so. Trying to keep this factual. Not force an opinion. I do not think Ron Paul stands a realistic chance, but that is a personal opinion. Mathematically it is still possible for Paul or Gingrith to win. I am interested in the questionable states: Is anything on the move, that could change the outcome (Courtcases, reelections planned, protests whatever is procedure) or is it just pure speculations/concerns with no possible immediate consequenses? If nothing will be done it is less of a factual statement, since your argument is that Ron Paul could win. A lot has to go completely wrong for mr. Romney not to win and it seems unlikely if the results from previous states are upheld. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
He actually has a change to beat aboma because everyone who is few up with todays politics in the usa would vote for him, Romney has no change at all. Whats this new isue we hear about btw WAR ON WOMEN, wth? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On April 17 2012 07:53 Rassy wrote: Paul would actually have a better change to get elected president then to get nomited for the gop. He actually has a change to beat aboma because everyone who is few up with todays politics in the usa would vote for him, Romney has no change at all. Whats this new isue we hear about btw WAR ON WOMEN, wth? Have you been paying attention to the loads of crazy bills being proposed and passed around the country? Women's rights are being attacked all over the place. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 17 2012 07:58 Haemonculus wrote: Have you been paying attention to the loads of crazy bills being proposed and passed around the country? Women's rights are being attacked all over the place. I guess Women's rights only mean the right to abort the unborn, who I guess have no rights at all, unless of course you happen to be the unlucky son of a bitch who killed the mom before she had the chance to axe the life herself. Funny that. In any case, women don't have rights. Men don't have rights. Individuals have rights. Groups do not have rights. A right is an endowment by our humanity that everyone enjoys. Life, liberty, property, you know, those sorts of things. We can quibble over the fact of the unborn and them never getting a chance to say if they want to live or die, but one things clear suffrage is not under attack. The privileges women enjoy in the courts are certainly not under attack. I think a more accurate and more dire revelation is the fact that individual liberty IS under attack in this country, and has been for a good long time. Everyone fighting everyone else. Their little groups all at each others throats unaware of the fact that you are being manipulated. If we don't all come together and fight for our liberties, we won't have any, and we'll all be pawns and property of the State. We practically live in a large prison all ready. Just think about all the things you have to ask permission to do. All the things you can get thrown in a cage for -- in fact, so many they are uncountable and that's the own stinkin' G-men saying it. You have drones flying over head being used for 24/7 surveillance, you have billion+++ dollar NSA/CIA domestic spy centers being built that house every single thing you utter on the internet. You have them openly violating Posse Commitatus, writing their own search warrants, taping your phones, etc. Hell, the President can now assassinate American citizens, and the kicker, you get your genitals felt up just for traveling. You don't think they are conditioning the populace for the Police State with the TSA? Well, go ahead and worry about the piddly shit. Make hay over it. We'll all be wallowing in the pits if we don't get our heads out of our asses and take a long hard look at where we are headed. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
Let's also ignore the GOP attacking the VAWA. Let's ignore the repubs in Wisconsin repealing the equal pay act. Let's ignore Title IX spending being slashed across the country. Let's completely ignore that some states are down to a *single* family planning clinic. Legislators in Arizona passing laws allowing doctors to lie to women's faces regarding the health of their pregnancy if they feel like it. Let's ignore the personhood amendments being passed and proposed in 12 states now. Let's ignore bills allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions on "moral" grounds. Ignore the forced invasive medical procedures we want to subject women trying to pursue things which weren't an issue four decades ago. Ignore Romney babble on about how hard stay at home moms work, as if working mothers somehow have it easy. Ignore the proposed spending cuts to day care and assistance programs for low income families. I could go on for hours, but clearly my panties are just in a knot and I'm making a big fuss over nothing. And for the record, you've been warned countless times for the derailing crap you post in political threads. I know every website has its quota of mandatory anarcho capitalist nutjobs, but I really think TL could do without you. | ||
|
SySLeif
United States123 Posts
On April 17 2012 08:54 Haemonculus wrote: Yeah, that's clearly all I'm referring to. Disregard the fact that bodily autonomy is important to women in the first place. Make it all about murderin' babies. Totally what abortion is. Let's also ignore the GOP attacking the VAWA. Let's ignore the repubs in Wisconsin repealing the equal pay act. Let's ignore Title IX spending being slashed across the country. Let's completely ignore that some states are down to a *single* family planning clinic. Legislators in Arizona passing laws allowing doctors to lie to women's faces regarding the health of their pregnancy if they feel like it. Let's ignore the personhood amendments being passed and proposed in 12 states now. Let's ignore bills allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions on "moral" grounds. Ignore the forced invasive medical procedures we want to subject women trying to pursue things which weren't an issue four decades ago. Ignore Romney babble on about how hard stay at home moms work, as if working mothers somehow have it easy. Ignore the proposed spending cuts to day care and assistance programs for low income families. I could go on for hours, but clearly my panties are just in a knot and I'm making a big fuss over nothing. And for the record, you've been warned countless times for the derailing crap you post in political threads. I know every website has its quota of mandatory anarcho capitalist nutjobs, but I really think TL could do without you. Guess when your a moderator you feel all powerful to hijack threads and discredit and lie about organizations / people. Keep hiding behind your computer troll. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On April 17 2012 09:00 SySLeif wrote: Guess when you're a moderator you feel all powerful to hijack threads and discredit and lie about organizations / people. Keep hiding behind your computer troll. Guess when you're a shit poster you feel all powerful to hijack threads and discredit and lie about organizations / people. Keep hiding behind your computer troll. | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
On March 24 2012 00:28 xavra41 wrote: Huh? corporations don't regulate the economy... Well they do write the laws the politicians pass. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On April 17 2012 07:46 radiatoren wrote: I do not think Ron Paul stands a realistic chance, but that is a personal opinion. Mathematically it is still possible for Paul or Gingrith to win. I am interested in the questionable states: Is anything on the move, that could change the outcome (Courtcases, reelections planned, protests whatever is procedure) or is it just pure speculations/concerns with no possible immediate consequenses? If nothing will be done it is less of a factual statement, since your argument is that Ron Paul could win. A lot has to go completely wrong for mr. Romney not to win and it seems unlikely if the results from previous states are upheld. RE: Questionable states. Did you watch any of Mr Swann's material? It's in print and video form. Romney filed complaints, not just Paul, if that lessens the conspiritorial aspect a notch. Things are moving in those states. My argument isn't that Paul can/should win, it's that the media is doing a great disservice with it's half-ass reporting. @ Women and War-I've seen just this week, both parties, accusing the other party, of a war on women. Just an hour ago I had to listen to Hannity(hate him) on the radio talking about the Democrats 'War on Women". It's a PR shell game. I listen to both sides, don't believe either without some facts. Facts, not suggestions. Romney's war on women. Obama's war on women. You can sure find your own links on that one. Google/Bing whatever. With both parties parroting 3-4 counter stats to who's 'war' it is...who do we believe? What you heard first, or just the most recent? Most just believe their own party, which is extremely gullible. I spend a lot of time reading. You can call me a libertarian, but I am really a Independent with only one candidate, once again, who I can trust to do what he says. I would have been a Obama supporter in 08 minus Paul, because I seen McCain/Palin as Darth Vader and Aniqueen. Sorry if that makes my point of view a source of irritation. I'm not as absolutist, or anarchist as you might assume. I believe in law and Order. | ||
|
yule
Belize1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
The GOP bills targeting women though... those are very real. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
“I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Mr. Romney said, according to NBC. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.” http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/romney-talks-of-curtailing-specific-tax-deductions/ On the other hand, I was very surprised to hear him considering ending some tax deductions for the wealthy. ^^ | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On April 17 2012 10:51 Haemonculus wrote: Bionova: Except there's absolutely no evidence for a dem-run attack on women's rights. Conservative pundits are wailing about it, but they have nothing to back it up. Fox even ran an article last week about Obama's "war on women" that was titled "White House Wages War on Women, Meets with Muslim Brotherhood". Yet the words "women", nor "female" never appear once in the entire article. They've seriously just reached the "I'm rubber you're glue" phase. I don't pretend to like the democratic party, but at least they're trying to protect women's rights. Biden for example has done fantastic things for women's rights through his entire career. The GOP bills targeting women though... those are very real. I agree with you. I never meant to disagree with you, only to point out the obvious PR/Party line crap. Women's lost jobs under Obama, is a partisian angle. Accounting trick. What have you. I really was only trying to point out hyperbole. As a Paul supporter, I'm sure you can understand that I have a healthy disgust for the 'establishment' GOP. There is a new centrist tendency among both democrats and republicans to tell you how to feel, rather than to tell you the truth and listen to how you feel about it. Have a great night. Seriously. Edit: I suppose it was meant more for the Lay, and less for you, does that makes sense? hehe | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On April 17 2012 07:53 Rassy wrote: Whats this new isue we hear about btw WAR ON WOMEN, wth? well that's the latest and greatest fear-mongering brought to you by our fine friends in the white house and the DNC. see it's really easy and it goes a little bit like this: + Show Spoiler + R: You know, we should pass a bill regulating abortion. NC (normal citizen): Do you think the federal government should be doing that? R: Never worry my friend, we'll have the states do it. NC: Oh. Okay, yeah it does make sense to leave that up to states for now. (enter stage-right: D) D: WHAT!?! How DARE you attack women!?! R: Huh? NC: Huh? D: You suggest regulating abortion!? War on WOMEN!!!! R: Well, you know, we are pro-life... D: NO! You aren't pro-life! You are anti-woman! Woman hater!!! R: But I am a woman. D: Stockholm syndrome. And the best part about this particular tactic? It works for everything! Objection to forcing private organizations, including religious organizations, to provide birth control? War on Women!!! Try to define personhood as a state? War on Women!!! now, we all know such fear-mongering is dangerous and wrong, and serves no purpose other than to get our people elected at any cost, but nevermind that! damn the consequences, I always say! the ends totally justify the means! now you have to be careful though. because one of your people may make some asinine comment about a mother of five never "working a day in her life", which is admittedly insulting and highly pretentious (not to mention sexist), but that's ok. just wait until they defend the stay at home mom, and then scream "War on Women!!" because you see if someone defends being a stay-at-home mom, then they are necessarily saying that working women and mothers are stupid! well, they aren't saying that, but we can still act like they are! alright! high five! on a serious note, this Obama campaign has been one nasty mud-slinging event after another. what happened to all the happy and hope and change from 2008? i mean, yeah, most conservatives and lib-dogs (libertarians) saw through the smiles and knew that he was full of you know what, but damn. he's not even hiding it anymore. he's just straight up going for the low blows. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 17 2012 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote: well that's the latest and greatest fear-mongering brought to you by our fine friends in the white house and the DNC. see it's really easy and it goes a little bit like this: And the best part about this particular tactic? It works for everything! Objection to forcing private organizations, including religious organizations, to provide birth control? War on Women!!! Try to define personhood as a state? War on Women!!! now, we all know such fear-mongering is dangerous and wrong, and serves no purpose other than to get our people elected at any cost, but nevermind that! damn the consequences, I always say! the ends totally justify the means! now you have to be careful though. because one of your people may make some asinine comment about a mother of five never "working a day in her life", which is admittedly insulting and highly pretentious (not to mention sexist), but that's ok. just wait until they defend the stay at home mom, and then scream "War on Women!!" because you see if someone defends being a stay-at-home mom, then they are necessarily saying that working women and mothers are stupid! well, they aren't saying that, but we can still act like they are! alright! high five! on a serious note, this Obama campaign has been one nasty mud-slinging event after another. what happened to all the happy and hope and change from 2008? i mean, yeah, most conservatives and lib-dogs (libertarians) saw through the smiles and knew that he was full of you know what, but damn. he's not even hiding it anymore. he's just straight up going for the low blows. Haemonculus summed up very well why there is an actual war on women waged by the GOP, but I guess it's easier to shut your ears and shout it's all a big lie produced by the DNC than actually address what he mentioned! | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
