Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

New Forums: Nexus 6 | Nexus Player | Nexus 9
Like Tree34Likes

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old May 6th, 2012, 01:52 AM   #251 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
What benefits do the people at the top reap from the government that the people on the bottom don't?
Education and healthcare for their employees (as opposed to them paying for this themselves lassez faire 1850 style)
Infrastructure for their business
A secure operating environment for their business
Subsidies low paid workers keep business costs down
A stable currency and economy
Government sponsored R&D
Government investment and stimulus
a highly developed society
Social safety net for employees
Legal protections for them and their business
Start up subsidies and tax breaks
Respect for rule of law

Certainly in indirect ways, wealthy people benefit monetarily more from governments.

Advertisements
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Last edited by ElasticNinja; May 6th, 2012 at 01:56 AM.
sponsored links
Old May 8th, 2012, 12:08 AM   #252 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Android26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 507
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S4 & Nexus 7 original
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 299
Thanked 39 Times in 33 Posts
Default

I'll have to go with my man Obama on this one
__________________
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples, then you and I still each have one apple, but if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas."
Android26 is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 04:41 AM   #253 (permalink)
New Member
 
Richard Stallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14
 
Device(s): HTC Rezound + CleanROM 4.0.3
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I voted for Obama in 2008 but I seriously doubt I will again. The man is certainly not doing as poorly as the right-wingers are claiming, but the unfortunate fact is that the US political system as a whole is broken. The entire thing needs to be thrown out before any real "change" can actually take place. By voting with the belief that you are helping bring change, you are merely counting on a broken system to fix what is broken. Quite a glaring paradox, and one that I think is certainly doomed to failure.

Obama's major mistake was the NDAA act. That alone significantly eroded my trust and made it all the more obvious that all presidents are merely tools of the corporate-controlled Congress and military-industrial complex.
Richard Stallman is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 08:54 AM   #254 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Stallman View Post
I voted for Obama in 2008 but I seriously doubt I will again. The man is certainly not doing as poorly as the right-wingers are claiming, but the unfortunate fact is that the US political system as a whole is broken. The entire thing needs to be thrown out before any real "change" can actually take place. By voting with the belief that you are helping bring change, you are merely counting on a broken system to fix what is broken. Quite a glaring paradox, and one that I think is certainly doomed to failure.

Obama's major mistake was the NDAA act. That alone significantly eroded my trust and made it all the more obvious that all presidents are merely tools of the corporate-controlled Congress and military-industrial complex.
I'm probably not voting at all this year and have pretty much lost all faith in system. It's so broken beyond repair at this point it's ridiculous. I continue to be amused by the optimism of the Ron Paul fanboys across the web who are convinced that Paul will mount a serious challenge to Romney at the convention and that if he should somehow manage to get nominated that the party would unite behind him and he's the only one who can beat Obama. Here I am seriously leaning toward staying at home and they're convinced that their guy is the Messiah who can save us all. Have I lost it or have they? Or both?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 09:20 AM   #255 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Ron Paul has a theoretical chance at the convention. He has been less concerned with the primary votes and more concerned with getting delegates who support him going to the convention. If Romney doesn't have a majority to lock up the nomination in the first round, the delegates are no longer bound to voting for Romney in the next round(s) and can switch to Paul...if they want. It'll be interesting to see if he can pull it off, but I'm not going to hold my breath. If he wins, I'll vote for him in the general. If not, I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Of course, being in MD, our delegates are going to Obama no matter who I vote for.
ylexot is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 09:36 AM   #256 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ylexot View Post
Ron Paul has a theoretical chance at the convention. He has been less concerned with the primary votes and more concerned with getting delegates who support him going to the convention. If Romney doesn't have a majority to lock up the nomination in the first round, the delegates are no longer bound to voting for Romney in the next round(s) and can switch to Paul...if they want. It'll be interesting to see if he can pull it off, but I'm not going to hold my breath. If he wins, I'll vote for him in the general. If not, I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Of course, being in MD, our delegates are going to Obama no matter who I vote for.
Romney is virtually a lock to get enough delegates. I've heard rumblings from the Paul camp that they're trying to get delegates who are pledged to Romney to not vote at all on the first ballot. That way they deny Romney a majority.

Paul's strategy annoys me TBH. His strategy seems like he wants to give the middle finger to the voters, scam his way to the nomination, then hope and pray that everyone will unite behind him. Even if all that goes his way, I don't see the party backing him at all.

Sadly, I live in KS and we are voting Republican if Adolf Hitler came back from the grave and ran as a Republican. It makes me sad.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 10:42 AM   #257 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 129
 
Device(s): GS2 Skyrocket
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Ron Paul supporters are standing up for something they believe in, in order to change the system people have to rally behind a candidate that truly wants to change the status quo. Sitting at home won't get it done, I give them props for putting the time in and trying to actively change the political landscape.

Sure, they and Ron Paul alike have a tremendous uphill battle and that's understating things. But if no one tries and just caves in to business as usual, well that's what we'll always have. Ron Paul will probably never be elected to the office of president, but maybe his courage to buck the system and alienate himself will inspire someone that will one day be elected. We need people like him to pave the way, change takes place very slowly but it does happen...in our last election we had a woman and a black man that were very viable candidates, who would have seriously imagined that possibility when Bush was last elected? Who knows what we might see in 2016?
FJR1300 is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 11:01 AM   #258 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Technically, the convention isn't about the voters. It's about the party choosing their candidate...which why I find Dems voting in Rep primaries and vice versa to be a weird concept. It used to be that people didn't even vote in primaries.
ylexot is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 12:07 PM   #259 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FJR1300 View Post
Ron Paul supporters are standing up for something they believe in, in order to change the system people have to rally behind a candidate that truly wants to change the status quo. Sitting at home won't get it done, I give them props for putting the time in and trying to actively change the political landscape.

Sure, they and Ron Paul alike have a tremendous uphill battle and that's understating things. But if no one tries and just caves in to business as usual, well that's what we'll always have. Ron Paul will probably never be elected to the office of president, but maybe his courage to buck the system and alienate himself will inspire someone that will one day be elected. We need people like him to pave the way, change takes place very slowly but it does happen...in our last election we had a woman and a black man that were very viable candidates, who would have seriously imagined that possibility when Bush was last elected? Who knows what we might see in 2016?
I see no problems with people trying to get Paul elected. It's the method they're using to get him elected that I have problems with. While all the other candidates are out trying to appeal to the masses, Paul and company are trying to scam the system. That's my problem with his campaign.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 01:28 PM   #260 (permalink)
New Member
 
Richard Stallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14
 
Device(s): HTC Rezound + CleanROM 4.0.3
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I'm probably not voting at all this year and have pretty much lost all faith in system. It's so broken beyond repair at this point it's ridiculous. I continue to be amused by the optimism of the Ron Paul fanboys across the web who are convinced that Paul will mount a serious challenge to Romney at the convention and that if he should somehow manage to get nominated that the party would unite behind him and he's the only one who can beat Obama. Here I am seriously leaning toward staying at home and they're convinced that their guy is the Messiah who can save us all. Have I lost it or have they? Or both?
I personally can't stand either Paul or his supporters. Most of Paul's ideology is briefly tempting at first glance, but when you really delve deep into his philosophy, he's either completely clueless or correct but helpless to actually effect that change. Libertarian economics seems to me more of a religion than an actual set of proposed economic policies. (The "free market" is their deity that will fix everything.)

I think the biggest problem with Paul and most Libertarians in general is his failure to recognize anything other than the government as the source of all our economic hardships. They blame the government for literally everything. This wouldn't be so bad if they were merely singling out the current US Government's policies specifically (in which case I would be inclined to agree) but Paulites in fact believe government in general is usually always bad. I'm very distrustful of Libertarian economics as I believe it would lead to monopolistic dominance of the market by corporations due to Libertarian unwillingness to regulate the market and thus protect consumers from anti-competitive business practices. And in addition, low wages and prolonging the status of the United States as the only major developed nation without a single-payer healthcare system.

/conclude mini-rant.
Richard Stallman is offline  
sponsored links
Old May 8th, 2012, 01:37 PM   #261 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

This seems like a good time for Keynes vs. Hayek...Round 2:

ylexot is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 02:03 PM   #262 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 129
 
Device(s): GS2 Skyrocket
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I see no problems with people trying to get Paul elected. It's the method they're using to get him elected that I have problems with. While all the other candidates are out trying to appeal to the masses, Paul and company are trying to scam the system. That's my problem with his campaign.
I'm not sure that scam is an appropriate description...is he doing anything that is against the rules or simply using every available tool in the box? If you know of a tactic that he is using that is illegal, I'd honestly be interested in hearing about it, I'd lose respect for what he's trying to accomplish if he can't do it within the rules, though I probably wouldn't blame him since I'm convinced that his opponents have broken some rules at one time or another.

What of the former candidates giving their support to Romney, haven't they let their voters and supporters down? Yesterday they tell us what a terrible president Romney would make, today he's the best man for the job.

Paul takes a lot of flak for his ideas, I think mostly because those ideas cannot work in our present form of government, which really illustrates the problem with our government since he is a constitutionalist. The real problem is that the government that has evolved in this country does not work with the document that is supposed to guide our government's actions.

RP may not be the answer to all that ails our country, but after decades of the same old Republican vs Democrat self-serving politics, I'm ready to try something different. Einstein's definition of insanity has never rung more true than when it comes to politics in America.
FJR1300 is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 10:17 PM   #263 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FJR1300 View Post
I'm not sure that scam is an appropriate description...is he doing anything that is against the rules or simply using every available tool in the box? If you know of a tactic that he is using that is illegal, I'd honestly be interested in hearing about it, I'd lose respect for what he's trying to accomplish if he can't do it within the rules, though I probably wouldn't blame him since I'm convinced that his opponents have broken some rules at one time or another.

What of the former candidates giving their support to Romney, haven't they let their voters and supporters down? Yesterday they tell us what a terrible president Romney would make, today he's the best man for the job.

Paul takes a lot of flak for his ideas, I think mostly because those ideas cannot work in our present form of government, which really illustrates the problem with our government since he is a constitutionalist. The real problem is that the government that has evolved in this country does not work with the document that is supposed to guide our government's actions.

RP may not be the answer to all that ails our country, but after decades of the same old Republican vs Democrat self-serving politics, I'm ready to try something different. Einstein's definition of insanity has never rung more true than when it comes to politics in America.
Perhaps I could've picked a better word. I meant scam in the sense of trying to scam a phone number at a bar, not scam in the sense of trying to scam an old lady out of her life savings. Paul is essentially trying to game the system instead of trying to appeal to the voters. That is what irritates me. The other candidates are no doubt trying some of the same scams, but they're also trying to appeal to the voters as well and their scamming and scheming is a backup plan not a Plan A.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 8th, 2012, 10:26 PM   #264 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I'm probably not voting at all this year and have pretty much lost all faith in system. It's so broken beyond repair at this point it's ridiculous. I continue to be amused by the optimism of the Ron Paul fanboys across the web who are convinced that Paul will mount a serious challenge to Romney at the convention and that if he should somehow manage to get nominated that the party would unite behind him and he's the only one who can beat Obama. Here I am seriously leaning toward staying at home and they're convinced that their guy is the Messiah who can save us all. Have I lost it or have they? Or both?
Hope you have a chance to vote for 3rd party or nonaffiliated candidates. I try to vote for non-lunatic candidates not associated with the duopoly parties or at least one whose funding leads one to believe this is not a bought and sold candidate.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Old May 9th, 2012, 09:04 AM   #265 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Hope you have a chance to vote for 3rd party or nonaffiliated candidates. I try to vote for non-lunatic candidates not associated with the duopoly parties or at least one whose funding leads one to believe this is not a bought and sold candidate.
The Libertarian candidates around here tend to be nutjobs. We've got one guy who runs for Senate or Congress or the governorship every single year. His main campaign platform is that he wants to legalize drugs. He's literally running around in a bright red conservative state that voted for Santorum saying, "Vote for me!! I want to legalize drugs!!!" He gets single digits in the election if that.

The other third party candidates that have run in recent years are thoroughly unqualified. I remember one of them was like a 19 year old college sophomore running for Senate. Ummmm. No. I'll pass on the teenage senator thank you very much. The local offices seem to be dominated by the same people every year as well. They change which offices they're running for, but it's all the same people. Our county commissioners voted to raise taxes a few years ago and every single one of them that was up for re-election got tossed out. Then they turned around and ran for city council or mayor or some other local office the next time around. Nothing changed.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 9th, 2012, 02:17 PM   #266 (permalink)
Member
 
gamblor01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 208
 
Device(s): HTC Evo 4G LTE HTC Evo 4G (Retired)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 22
Thanked 110 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
The Libertarian candidates around here tend to be nutjobs. We've got one guy who runs for Senate or Congress or the governorship every single year. His main campaign platform is that he wants to legalize drugs. He's literally running around in a bright red conservative state that voted for Santorum saying, "Vote for me!! I want to legalize drugs!!!" He gets single digits in the election if that.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs back in 2001 and since then their health officials say that their number of "problematic" addicts has decreased by half. Here is a real-world example proving that treatment works better than punishment.

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal - Forbes



But I'm not surprised you're jaded by politics. You're in Kansas you say? Ah yes...Kansas. The state where governors aren't doing any actual work because they are too busy getting teenagers sent to the principal's office for things they post on twitter.
gamblor01 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to gamblor01 For This Useful Post:
pantlesspenguin (May 10th, 2012)
Old May 9th, 2012, 02:23 PM   #267 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gamblor01 View Post
Portugal decriminalized all drugs back in 2001 and since then their health officials say that their number of "problematic" addicts has decreased by half. Here is a real-world example proving that treatment works better than punishment.

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal - Forbes



But I'm not surprised you're jaded by politics. You're in Kansas you say? Ah yes...Kansas. The state where governors aren't doing any actual work because they are too busy getting teenagers sent to the principal's office for things they post on twitter.
That's a completely different thing though because of the cultural differences. In either case, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of legalizing some drugs. It's just that running that as your main platform is stupid because a) we have way more important issues to address than legalizing drugs and b) you're just inviting your opponents to paint you as a whackjob.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 9th, 2012, 06:41 PM   #268 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
The Libertarian candidates around here tend to be nutjobs. We've got one guy who runs for Senate or Congress or the governorship every single year. His main campaign platform is that he wants to legalize drugs. He's literally running around in a bright red conservative state that voted for Santorum saying, "Vote for me!! I want to legalize drugs!!!" He gets single digits in the election if that.

The other third party candidates that have run in recent years are thoroughly unqualified. I remember one of them was like a 19 year old college sophomore running for Senate. Ummmm. No. I'll pass on the teenage senator thank you very much. ...
Sounds like you have a few offbeat candidates to vote for.

Remember, one is trying to disturb the status quo. It's better than not voting, as that helps the status quo.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Old May 9th, 2012, 08:05 PM   #269 (permalink)
Member
 
gamblor01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 208
 
Device(s): HTC Evo 4G LTE HTC Evo 4G (Retired)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 22
Thanked 110 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
That's a completely different thing though because of the cultural differences. In either case, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of legalizing some drugs. It's just that running that as your main platform is stupid because a) we have way more important issues to address than legalizing drugs and b) you're just inviting your opponents to paint you as a whackjob.
Totally agree.
gamblor01 is offline  
Old May 10th, 2012, 02:11 AM   #270 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
That's a completely different thing though because of the cultural differences.
Cultural differences? They have a more relaxed alcohol to alcohol, but thats about it, and it certainly wouldnt account for a having of incidences.
ElasticNinja is offline  
sponsored links
Old May 10th, 2012, 06:40 AM   #271 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

So Romney wants to take credit for the Chrysler/GM bailout and the FOP (Fox Ole Party) claims that Obama can't run on the fact that he issued the order to kill Bin Laden....

Is the GOP and Faux News mad because now they can't claim that Obama and the Democrats are soft on terrorism?

Not to claim that all this political BS posturing isn't one sided. Obama coming out for gay marriage sounds like he's trying to pander to the gay and lesbian voters.

December can't come soon enough....
 
Old May 10th, 2012, 01:14 PM   #272 (permalink)
New Member
 
Richard Stallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14
 
Device(s): HTC Rezound + CleanROM 4.0.3
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Remember, one is trying to disturb the status quo. It's better than not voting, as that helps the status quo.
All of the current candidates would "help the status quo" with their respective policies. Even Paul would have his hands tied even if he were to be elected President. Presidents can't just take office and rule as dictators, there's that pesky Senate, Congress, and Supreme Court that has to approve. And with Paul as radical as he is, nothing would get done.
Richard Stallman is offline  
Old May 10th, 2012, 01:33 PM   #273 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Stallman View Post
All of the current candidates would "help the status quo" with their respective policies. Even Paul would have his hands tied even if he were to be elected President. Presidents can't just take office and rule as dictators, there's that pesky Senate, Congress, and Supreme Court that has to approve. And with Paul as radical as he is, nothing would get done.
That is my main beef with Paul. He has no support within his own party. If your own party treats you as an outcast, it's insane to think they'll suddenly embrace you if you're elected. Obama could skewer Paul just on that alone. At least Obama will sometimes work with the GOP. Paul won't work with either party.

I do like a lot of Paul's policies. My thought is that what we are trying is not working. Why not try something radically different? I don't see anything fundamentally flawed with what he's preaching. It's how he's conducting his campaign that I think is flawed. Attempting to appeal to the delegates despite what the voters are expressing is not a formula for success IMO. I predict that he'll do what he did last time around and take his delegates and hold his own convention for no other reason than to spite Romney. I find that behavior childish as well. But politics is often that way to be fair.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 10th, 2012, 02:53 PM   #274 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 129
 
Device(s): GS2 Skyrocket
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default

I disagree that RP keeping his delegates and holding his own convention is childish, I think he avoids being a hypocrite like all other candidates. Every candidate in the race does / did not think that Romney is the best man for the job. By doing this, RP doesn't pander and he doesn't flip flop, I think that is an admirable trait.

He most definitely could win more mainstream support if he played the game the way it has always been played, but he's trying to offer a different approach. If he was 30 years younger he might one day get his point across to enough people to become a serious threat and I'd be very surprised if he wasn't fully aware of how slim his chances are when he runs for President.

I think it's too dismissive to say that he wouldn't get anything done if elected, if the congressmen and senators deadlocked every single initiative RP brought, they would risk losing re-election, there would have to be some give and take. And let's not forget, there are some things that the President can do without approval of the house and senate. Even if he did not accomplish a single thing that required cooperation, since many of us do not want the same tired old GOP or DNP policies...would that necessarily be a bad thing?

I'm not so much of a Ron Paul supporter as I am an opponent of the status quo.
FJR1300 is offline  
Old May 10th, 2012, 07:42 PM   #275 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FJR1300 View Post
I disagree that RP keeping his delegates and holding his own convention is childish, I think he avoids being a hypocrite like all other candidates. Every candidate in the race does / did not think that Romney is the best man for the job. By doing this, RP doesn't pander and he doesn't flip flop, I think that is an admirable trait.

He most definitely could win more mainstream support if he played the game the way it has always been played, but he's trying to offer a different approach. If he was 30 years younger he might one day get his point across to enough people to become a serious threat and I'd be very surprised if he wasn't fully aware of how slim his chances are when he runs for President.

I think it's too dismissive to say that he wouldn't get anything done if elected, if the congressmen and senators deadlocked every single initiative RP brought, they would risk losing re-election, there would have to be some give and take. And let's not forget, there are some things that the President can do without approval of the house and senate. Even if he did not accomplish a single thing that required cooperation, since many of us do not want the same tired old GOP or DNP policies...would that necessarily be a bad thing?

I'm not so much of a Ron Paul supporter as I am an opponent of the status quo.
I don't think it's hypocrisy to release your delegates. To me, it's like losing a game. You can shake the winners hand in the middle of the field or you can take your ball and storm home. In politics, the party is bigger than the man. By releasing their delegates and endorsing the winner, the candidates show that the party is bigger than the man. It's how the game is played and it's the classy move IMO. You admit defeat, congratulate the winner and go home. By taking his delegates and leaving, Paul makes the man bigger than the party and is basically taking his ball and going home. By attempting to persuade delegates who are pledged to Romney to not vote for him (as Paul is doing) he's attempting to win the game by cheating after he's lost fair and square. (Yes, I realize what he's doing isn't technically illegal, but it's not a perfect analogy)

While you're right that Paul could accomplish some things without Congress, he wouldn't. He's a very strict constitutionalist guy and doesn't believe in passing laws by executive order the way Presidents for the past several generations have done. He doesn't believe the White House and the Congress should sit down and talk about the budget. To him that's something the Congress hashes out and then the President either signs or vetos it. At the end of the guy he's a guy who his own party doesn't care for right now. I can't imagine that changing if he's suddenly in the White House.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 10th, 2012, 09:21 PM   #276 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 129
 
Device(s): GS2 Skyrocket
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Well that's just it, he doesn't believe that the good of the party is what is important...its the good of the country that matters. He's not about to change his philosophy just to help obtain a victory for the republicans over the democrats, that is what is wrong with the system, party politics trumps representation of the people.

He's not attempting to win the game after losing (imo), he's simply refusing to play it on their terms. I'd do the exact same thing, I'd stand on my principles in thinking that my party has lost it's focus on the real job and is only concerned with staying in power. Should he join another party or form his own? In an equal political landscape, yes. But in the real world he would never be heard, so he does what he has to.

My take on his stance would be akin to Rosa Parks not giving up her seat...to hell with the way its always been done, time to do what is right. I just can't take issue with someone for standing up to the big boys even though it makes his life harder and causes him to become marginalized.

I'd perhaps share your view more easily if Romney et al were all playing with sportsmanlike conduct, but if you and I are playing a game where you use every dirty trick in the book to win, I'm damn sure not going to shake your hand afterward!
FJR1300 is offline  
Old May 10th, 2012, 09:42 PM   #277 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

If he doesn't believe that the party is the answer then why is he trying to get the GOP nomination so he can take advantage of the resources of the party? You can't have it both ways IMO. You can't claim the party is corrupt and want to use it's resources at the same time.

Any way you look at it IMO Paul has lost this game. The voters aren't going out to the polls to vote for him. We can debate/discuss why all day long and that's fine and dandy. At the end of the day, the polls are pretty clear. People aren't voting for him. Paul ignores the fact that his message isn't resonating and that people aren't interested in it and tries to steal delegates that voters have decided should be pledged to other candidates. That is what ticks me off.

Romney, Santorum and Gingrich aren't using any political tricks. They were going out and giving the voters reasons to vote for them. That didn't work for Paul. So he's basically ignoring what the voters want figuring that they'll come around to his side eventually.

With Paul I find myself liking his politics, but hating the man. Obama seems like a great guy. Father of two. Likeable. Doesn't seem to have any skeletons in his closet. Can't stand his policies. I'd get a drink with him any day, but wouldn't vote for him. Paul I could see myself voting for, but wouldn't want anything to do with because of the underhanded way he plays the game and his seeming disregard for what the people want.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 11th, 2012, 05:10 AM   #278 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Romney’s former classmate: ‘You have to take it into account’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN

Washington (CNN) – Phillip Maxwell wishes he had done something to stop it.

Maxwell, a Michigan attorney, is still haunted by what he claims he witnessed on the campus of the state's elite Cranbrook School in 1965: a young Mitt Romney and a group of friends holding down a classmate named John Lauber and cutting off chunks of his long hair.

"It was not an event you take a lot of pride in. And it was that way for all of us," Maxwell told CNN.

Maxwell confirmed the story, first reported in the Washington Post. However, he insisted the incident was far worse than a high school prank.

"I'm a lawyer. I know what an assault is. This kid was scared. He was terrified. That's an assault," Maxwell said.

Romney said in an interview with Fox News Radio he does not recall the incident described in the Post article. But the former Massachusetts governor acknowledged he engaged in pranks that "might have gone too far" and apologized for any harm done during his time at Cranbrook.

"Back in high school, I did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that," Romney said.

Maxwell told CNN he is disappointed in Romney's response to the story.

"He says he doesn't remember it and I find it difficult to believe," Maxwell said in a telephone interview.

"It's unfortunate that Mitt simply hasn't owned up to his behavior," he added.

Maxwell, who told ABC News he is a registered independent who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, said the episode is "relevant" in the campaign as a window into Romney's character.

"I guess you have to take it into account. Are you the kind of person who would stop the abuse of an innocent person?" Maxwell asked.

To this day, Maxwell regrets he will never have the chance to make amends with Lauber who, according to the Post, died in 2004.

"I wish I could have apologized to him," Maxwell said.

Late in the day, the Romney campaign provided statements from other former classmates of the GOP contender.

"Mitt was a thoughtful guy with a great sense of humor who cared about his classmates. He had a good perspective on how to balance all the pressures high school students face. He would never go out and do anything mean spirited. Clownish, yes. Never mean," Richard Moon, one ex-classmate said in the statement furnished by the campaign.

"Mitt never had a malicious bone in his body – trying to imply or characterize him as a bully is absurd," John French, another former classmate, said in another statement released by Romney's staff.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said French "wasn't involved in incident and doesn't remember it happening." She did not elaborate on the statement issued by Moon.

It would make for some interesting foreign policy, I can see Nato holding someone like Gaddafi down while Mitt cuts his hair.
 
Old May 11th, 2012, 06:09 AM   #279 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post

While you're right that Paul could accomplish some things without Congress, he wouldn't. He's a very strict constitutionalist guy and doesn't believe in passing laws by executive order the way Presidents for the past several generations have done. He doesn't believe the White House and the Congress should sit down and talk about the budget. To him that's something the Congress hashes out and then the President either signs or vetos it. At the end of the guy he's a guy who his own party doesn't care for right now. I can't imagine that changing if he's suddenly in the White House.
The budget process starts at the White House.


Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
ylexot is offline  
Old May 11th, 2012, 08:27 AM   #280 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
Romney’s former classmate: ‘You have to take it into account’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs




It would make for some interesting foreign policy, I can see Nato holding someone like Gaddafi down while Mitt cuts his hair.
I don't see how that story is even relevant unless you want to argue that a 65 year old man hasn't changed at all since high school. Let's be honest, is there anyone here who didn't do something foolish and stupid during high school? Next think we know we'll pull up the fact that Obama pulled a girl's pigtails in elementary school.
A.Nonymous is offline  
sponsored links
Old May 11th, 2012, 11:47 AM   #281 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,197
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

The Romney story brings up an interesting point that I'd like to note: why has a thread that is supposed to focus on candidate vs. candidate talked almost exclusively about general economic policy and theory? I saw that a mod brought this up previously and understand that no political discussion can be complete without economic ramifications; however, can we focus more on the candidates' beliefs and stances on social issues? Without this, we are in danger of simply thinking of the election as party vs. party, which should not and cannot happen. Romney, for example, is an exceptionally poor candidate, even by Republican standards, I don't think I need to hash out every reason why.

I see posts from libertarians and Ron Paul supporters that seem to indicate that should (when) Ron Paul fail to secure the nomination, that their votes will go to Romney instead, which I find interesting. Can some libertarians discuss this, particularly from a social perspective? For example, I understand that most Paul supporters believe that issues like abortion and gay marriage should be left to the states; however, Romney as President would go directly against this. What's the reasoning for Paul supporters to go with Romney?
__________________
These teeth are razor sharp...
RazorSharp is offline  
Old May 11th, 2012, 01:34 PM   #282 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 129
 
Device(s): GS2 Skyrocket
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default

On March 24th, at a fire station in Marysville, the Paul campaign held a training session for delegates in the 39th LD. This event was promoted on the Snohomish County Ron Paul Meetup site and email invitations were sent out to county Paul delegates.

As the meeting was about to begin Lil Erickson recognized a Romney supporter sitting in the back. This wasn’t just any Romney supporter, it was Bob Williams, the Snohomish County Romney campaign coordinator. When asked to leave, he refused, claiming that he was in a public place and had a right to be there. Lil considered getting some of the attendees to physically remove him, but fortunately, Maggie Ries preferred to use persuasion rather than force. Discussion ensued for about 10 minutes, during which, it was reported that Bob was shaking. After lengthy negotiation, Bob agreed to leave after being promised a copy of the training materials.


Source and more on Romney supporter tactics: Underhanded Tactics of the Mitt Romney Campaign UPDATED www.TheReaganWing.com

Ron Paul's supporters and delegates are the ones trying to force a brokered convention (from what I've found in researching the claims that he's trying to steal delegates). Romney's supporters and delegates are engaging in their own shenanigans. Is either candidate behind the moves? In Romney's case I just don't know whether I'd believe he is unaccountable, but he probably isn't directly aware simply because he's too busy to be involved. Ron Paul's integrity is easier to identify (for me), I find it easy to believe that he is not the puppet-master behind his supporter's tactics.

The campaigns of Romney and the other candidates routinely engage in underhanded dirty tactics, this is politics in America. Be disgusted by Paul, or more accurately his supporters, but be equally disgusted by his opponents' supporters.
FJR1300 is offline  
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:21 PM   #283 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

The difference between what Romney and what Paul are doing is that Paul has basically lost. If Santorum was still in the race and doing the same thing, I would feel differently. Santorum and Romney were running very close and Santorum would not have needed to sway a whole lot of delegates to swing things his way.

Paul is different. He can't make the claim that voters want him when he hasn't carried the popular vote in a single state. He can't make the argument that the party really wants him because he is widely disliked in his own party. He strikes me in many ways as essentially a sore loser. He is like an MMA fighter who has had the snot beat out of him and now he's on the mat and Romney has him locked tightly in a submission hold but he refuses to tap out. He has clearly lost. No judge or spectator is going to argue that he is the winner. Yet here he is locked in a submission refusing to tap out if for no other reason than to force Romney to win by a referee's decision and deny him a submission or knock out victory.

Personally, I think the buck has to stop at the top. To me Romney's supporters started the underhanded crap because Paul supporters were doing it first. Doesn't mean it's right for either of them, but I feel like that's where it starts at. Paul's campaign is much smaller than Romneys which makes me more inclined to think that he is at least aware of what is going on. I personally think he's of the opinion that he's not doing anything wrong by scamming delegates from other candidates.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:27 PM   #284 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,197
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Paul is different. He can't make the claim that voters want him when he hasn't carried the popular vote in a single state. He can't make the argument that the party really wants him because he is widely disliked in his own party. He strikes me in many ways as essentially a sore loser. He is like an MMA fighter who has had the snot beat out of him and now he's on the mat and Romney has him locked tightly in a submission hold but he refuses to tap out. He has clearly lost. No judge or spectator is going to argue that he is the winner. Yet here he is locked in a submission refusing to tap out if for no other reason than to force Romney to win by a referee's decision and deny him a submission or knock out victory.
Your analogy implies that Paul ever really stood a chance. Besides a very brief period at the beginning, he's been in the basement of the voting in nearly every state. He isn't even in the ring. He's the guy on the sidelines heckling, shouting "I bet I could take all you guys on!!!"
RazorSharp is offline  
Old May 11th, 2012, 05:03 PM   #285 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,354
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 247 Times in 193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
can we focus more on the candidates' beliefs and stances on social issues........... Romney, for example, is an exceptionally poor candidate............. I don't think I need to hash out every reason why.

so what youre saying is you would like to discuss the candidates specifically...... but you wouldnt like to discuss them
copestag is offline  
Old May 11th, 2012, 05:08 PM   #286 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 129
 
Device(s): GS2 Skyrocket
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default

I've done a little research and I'm still having difficulty understanding how RP is scamming delegates, can you explain how this is occurring so that I can understand it?

Is he obligated to give his delegates (that he won through the votes cast for him) to Romney? I don't understand how not giving Romney his earned delegates is scamming, is he somehow stealing delegates earned by Romney?
FJR1300 is offline  
Old May 11th, 2012, 07:26 PM   #287 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
The Romney story brings up an interesting point that I'd like to note: why has a thread that is supposed to focus on candidate vs. candidate talked almost exclusively about general economic policy and theory? I saw that a mod brought this up previously and understand that no political discussion can be complete without economic ramifications; however, can we focus more on the candidates' beliefs and stances on social issues? Without this, we are in danger of simply thinking of the election as party vs. party, which should not and cannot happen. Romney, for example, is an exceptionally poor candidate, even by Republican standards, I don't think I need to hash out every reason why.

I see posts from libertarians and Ron Paul supporters that seem to indicate that should (when) Ron Paul fail to secure the nomination, that their votes will go to Romney instead, which I find interesting. Can some libertarians discuss this, particularly from a social perspective? For example, I understand that most Paul supporters believe that issues like abortion and gay marriage should be left to the states; however, Romney as President would go directly against this. What's the reasoning for Paul supporters to go with Romney?


I think you answered your own question. You can discuss each individual candidate, but since we're really discussing a Democratic candidate vs a Republican candidate, you have to take into account party lines, and party track record. I replied to the mod's post and stated that I would personally like to see the flow of the conversation continue without it being artificially guided. I think the OP also stated that he doesn't mind it veering off the main topic because he felt all input has been relevant up to this point, even discussions about Ron Paul even though he's not in really in contention.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
OutofDate1980 (May 12th, 2012)
Old May 11th, 2012, 08:00 PM   #288 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 129
 
Device(s): GS2 Skyrocket
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Turns out that the GOP has set up their election rules similar to the presidential election, popular vote doesn't count and is not needed to carry the delegates. So RP (nor any other candidate) doesn't need the popular vote according to the GOP's own policies.

I also found that he has been completely open about his delegate strategy and that it is perfectly within the rules. So where is the scam? Of course no one has to like his strategy, but to say that he is pulling a scam just simply isn't true when he's following the rules set forth by the GOP themselves. As a perennially disadvantaged underdog he's using a clever and legal strategy. Romney is using the best strategy of all, because it is available to him...money.

I'd bet some serious money that if RP somehow managed to pull off a brokered convention and win the nomination, the GOP would change their rules before the next election, that would be taking your ball and going home!
FJR1300 is offline  
Old May 11th, 2012, 11:40 PM   #289 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
Romney’s former classmate: ‘You have to take it into account’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs




It would make for some interesting foreign policy, I can see Nato holding someone like Gaddafi down while Mitt cuts his hair.
Paul Begala on Romney: Once a Bully, Always a Bully - The Daily Beast

"A less-commented upon part of the Post's story on Romney's teenage years is nearly as cruel as the bullying of his classmate. Cranbrook, Romney's elite private academy, had a teacher who was so visually impaired the kids called him "The Bat." Romney and a pal walked The Bat up to a door. Romney beckoned The Bat to walk through first, making a sweeping motion toward the door as if it were open, but it wasn't. The Bat walked into the closed door as Mitt collapsed in fits of sadistic laughter."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Old May 12th, 2012, 01:25 AM   #290 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Paul Begala on Romney: Once a Bully, Always a Bully - The Daily Beast

"A less-commented upon part of the Post's story on Romney's teenage years is nearly as cruel as the bullying of his classmate. Cranbrook, Romney's elite private academy, had a teacher who was so visually impaired the kids called him "The Bat." Romney and a pal walked The Bat up to a door. Romney beckoned The Bat to walk through first, making a sweeping motion toward the door as if it were open, but it wasn't. The Bat walked into the closed door as Mitt collapsed in fits of sadistic laughter."
At least now we know he has a personality......not sure it's a good personality. I love how all these people come out of the woodworks near crunch-time.
 
sponsored links
Old May 12th, 2012, 03:15 AM   #291 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

right? i know i'm the exact same person i was when i was in my teens.
batgeek is offline  
Old May 12th, 2012, 03:21 AM   #292 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 24
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

I like both guys, either or at this point really.

As for Romney's high school years, we were all dumb, stupid, idiot kids. He's proven himself past that already.
ReadyForICS is offline  
Old May 12th, 2012, 04:59 AM   #293 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I don't see how that story is even relevant unless you want to argue that a 65 year old man hasn't changed at all since high school. Let's be honest, is there anyone here who didn't do something foolish and stupid during high school? Next think we know we'll pull up the fact that Obama pulled a girl's pigtails in elementary school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by batgeek View Post
right? i know i'm the exact same person i was when i was in my teens.

It may or may not be relevant, but voters will definitely take note. What makes this more relevant is all the anti-bullying kick that everyone is on.

I tend to agree that what has happened in the past may not be an indicator of someone's current character, but when someone is confronted with their missteps of the past, it's good to see what kind of response is given. Romney's "I don't remember, but I'm sorry" sounds like a, "I want to be President so bad that I'll apologize to a long haired hippy if I have to". Not the most sincere reflection on his past IMO, but then again it's not as bad as "I didn't inhale".
 
Old May 12th, 2012, 09:49 AM   #294 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
It may or may not be relevant, but voters will definitely take note. What makes this more relevant is all the anti-bullying kick that everyone is on.

I tend to agree that what has happened in the past may not be an indicator of someone's current character, but when someone is confronted with their missteps of the past, it's good to see what kind of response is given. Romney's "I don't remember, but I'm sorry" sounds like a, "I want to be President so bad that I'll apologize to a long haired hippy if I have to". Not the most sincere reflection on his past IMO, but then again it's not as bad as "I didn't inhale".
We are talking about an incident that literally happened 40 years ago. There is a significant population of voters who weren't even alive when this incident took place. Yet we're supposed to think it reflects on his character today?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 12th, 2012, 11:26 AM   #295 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

I find it humorous that Obama is praised for changing his view (or at least saying he changed his view) recently, but Romney gets attacked for something he did when he was a child. Presumably, Rooney has changed his view on bullying, so shouldn't he be praised for that change as well? Or is the past only irrelevant when it comes to Obama?

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
ylexot is offline  
Old May 12th, 2012, 01:06 PM   #296 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FJR1300 View Post
Turns out that the GOP has set up their election rules similar to the presidential election, popular vote doesn't count and is not needed to carry the delegates. So RP (nor any other candidate) doesn't need the popular vote according to the GOP's own policies.

I also found that he has been completely open about his delegate strategy and that it is perfectly within the rules. So where is the scam? Of course no one has to like his strategy, but to say that he is pulling a scam just simply isn't true when he's following the rules set forth by the GOP themselves. As a perennially disadvantaged underdog he's using a clever and legal strategy. Romney is using the best strategy of all, because it is available to him...money.

I'd bet some serious money that if RP somehow managed to pull off a brokered convention and win the nomination, the GOP would change their rules before the next election, that would be taking your ball and going home!
Paul's strategy flagrantly violates the spirit of the law but not the letter. He's scamming in the sense that he's gaming the system. Voters have spoken and said that they want the delegates to go to other candidates, but Paul doesn't care. What's worse is that he's lobbying delegates who are required by party rules to vote for other candidates to get out of their obligations. He's wanting them to abstain from voting on the first ballot. Then they are free to vote for anyone they choose. Again, this is a flat out underhanded tactic IMO.

As I said, it would be one thing if Santorum was doing it. Santorum was running very close with Romney. If he could sway some delegates he would have a very real chance of having a huge impact on the platform if not being nominated himself. Paul has no chance at all. Why is he doing all of this if not out of spite? Even if he does manage to get nominated, he can't expect the party to back him at all. There's no chance he gets elected. I find the way Paul is conducting his campaign to be spiteful.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 12th, 2012, 06:15 PM   #297 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
It may or may not be relevant, but voters will definitely take note.
some say that the politicians are what is wrong with current politics.

i say it's the voters that are the problem. idiots should be allowed to vote.
batgeek is offline  
Old May 12th, 2012, 07:56 PM   #298 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 129
 
Device(s): GS2 Skyrocket
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Paul's strategy flagrantly violates the spirit of the law but not the letter. He's scamming in the sense that he's gaming the system. Voters have spoken and said that they want the delegates to go to other candidates, but Paul doesn't care. What's worse is that he's lobbying delegates who are required by party rules to vote for other candidates to get out of their obligations. He's wanting them to abstain from voting on the first ballot. Then they are free to vote for anyone they choose. Again, this is a flat out underhanded tactic IMO.

As I said, it would be one thing if Santorum was doing it. Santorum was running very close with Romney. If he could sway some delegates he would have a very real chance of having a huge impact on the platform if not being nominated himself. Paul has no chance at all. Why is he doing all of this if not out of spite? Even if he does manage to get nominated, he can't expect the party to back him at all. There's no chance he gets elected. I find the way Paul is conducting his campaign to be spiteful.
The GOP set up their rules, RP is a GOP member, he is following the rules that his party put in place. That is the long and the short of it, no matter how much you disagree with it or despise it, it is not a scam.

Who are these voters that have spoken, and why does anything they say have any relevance?

You probably already know this, but perhaps the conversation merits a quick recap;

In States with a primary the delegates are assigned based on a percentage of votes (unless its a winner take all State like Florida) the delegates RP collected are his. Further, delegates can state their support for a candidate or remain uncommitted.

Caucuses are simply meetings, open to all registered voters of the party, at which delegates to the party's national convention are selected. When the caucus begins, the voters in attendance divide themselves into groups according to the candidate they support. The undecided voters congregate into their own group and prepare to be "courted" by supporters of other candidates.

Voters in each group are then invited to give speeches supporting their candidate and trying to persuade others to join their group. At the end of the caucus, party organizers count the voters in each candidate's group and calculate how many delegates to the county convention each candidate has won.

As in the primaries, the caucus process can produce both pledged and unpledged convention delegates, depending on the party rules of the various states.

As I stated earlier, the voters are inconsequential once delegates are chosen and those delegates can choose to remain uncommitted. In other words it wouldn't matter if 100% of the primary and caucus voters wanted RP to win the nomination, if the delegates choose to remain undecided they can pledge their support for Romney at the convention. The voters have no voice, just as in the general election.

There must be a reason why the GOP made their rules this way, I'm sure it wasn't an accident, in fact I'd wager its so that delegates can be bought if need be, reap what you sow.

I hardly think he's doing it just for spite, he gains two things by doing this; he gets more free publicity / media coverage and gets his message out. If he'd dropped out back when Perry did...well, are we talking about Perry anymore? He also sends a message to young people with political aspirations...one man with very little money, no party support and a brain, can make a difference. What good is publicity if its negative you say? Better than no one knowing you even exist, many people have walked to the bank from negative PR.

Romney and the GOP have known about RP's plan for months, either they aren't worried at all or they're idiots for not sitting down with RP and making a compromise to avoid a brokered convention.

I hope he is able to make it a brokered convention, that will effectively end the Republican bid for the White House and I'd much rather deal with the known factor of another 4 years of Obama than the uncertainty of Romney. People that vote for a candidate based on his party affiliation rather than his qualifications are as much a part of the problem as the two parties in power are.

I'm tired of politics as usual, I want real change and I'll support anyone that can do it legally. (at some point I'll probably support a physical revolution, right to overthrow a tyrannical government and all, defining tyranny is the problem)

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is not only insane, it's just plain stupid.
FJR1300 is offline  
Old May 12th, 2012, 08:09 PM   #299 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Paul is running by the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. The voters are the voters who have gone to the primary. Many times so far they have voted for Romney or Santorum or Gingrich and Paul's people have stuck around to make sure that even though the voters are pledged to Gingrich, for example, they are really Paul supporters. He's not just trying to win a certain percentage of the delegates in states where delegates are allocated he's trying to get delegates that VOTERS have decided should be allocated to someone else to vote for him instead. That's the problem. Currently he's trying to get delegates who are required, by party rules, to vote for Romney to not vote for Romney. No candidate has tried to do that since the 70s.

I agree with you that if he gets a brokered convention the Republican party loses in a landslide. If he somehow gets the nomination (which I don't think is likely actually), then I think that will effectively split the party in two if not three parts. The conservatives won't vote for Paul. The centrist wing backing Romney won't back Paul either. I could see Romney running a fairly successful 3rd party bid.

The party won't negotiate with Paul. The flat out do not like him because he doesn't play the political game at all. Some people say this is a good thing so you can take it as you will. They won't negotiate with him because he is not likely to give up anything in the process.

What Paul is doing is just as much a scam as the guy scamming free drinks at a bar. At least I know why the guy at the bar is doing it.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old May 12th, 2012, 09:01 PM   #300 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 129
 
Device(s): GS2 Skyrocket
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Why are RP's tactics in the GOP playbook if they don't want anyone to be able to use them? They've had 4 brokered conventions in the past and all resulted in a loss in the presidential election. You'd think that they'd change their rules after the first couple of times, unless of course they are sometimes used to the benefit of the most popular choice among the party members. There has to be a reason why these rules are in place. I think the GOP are getting exactly what they deserve. Although I'm probably more irritated with them than usual (and biased) since they're coming to my neighborhood to clog up the roads and act like royalty.

I think Obama wins in a landslide if the convention is brokered, regardless of what Romney does. If he goes third party it'll be just one more relentless flip flop ad attack barrage from Obama.

If they won't at least try to negotiate with RP, its just more proof of how ill-suited the Republicans are to run the country. Running the risk of losing it all versus trying everything you can to save the election is typical of the GOP, although we could probably say the same about the Democrats too.

And if we actually have a close election, look for voter fraud issues in Florida to spice things up again, the Republicans have been been busy trying to eliminate non-citizen (illegal) voters...with a broad brush.
FJR1300 is offline  
Closed Thread


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.