G
greenmatter
any theocracy blows! ....... i don't care what country you are talking about.
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
any theocracy blows! ....... i don't care what country you are talking about.
any vote NOT for RP is a vote for obomney..
it does not matter which one wins if it's obama v. romney. they are identical with the lights off
santorum has no shot at the delegates to make it. and thank god because he is the only choice worse than obomney!
Last edited:
Mickeyspliff
Member
Someotherguy, you haven't convinced me. Too bad the warmongers are the majority, or so it seems. I guess that's where a lot of money interests lie. Ron Paul will protect the United States from real threats, why rush to war, again?
Please explain (IE elaborate)
Do you ACTUALLY know how a President is elected? (because i doubt it). Its not just who gets the most votes.
Mickeyspliff
Member
Santorum: Big spending, liberty taking, self righteous war monger.
because the answer is never coming....
If
Obama gets 40% of the electoral votes
Romeny gets 30%
and Paul gets 30%
No one reaches a majority; the Presidential Election is thrown to the House of Representatives (like 1824) and they can vote how they damn well please.
Do you think a GOP controlled house is going to pick Obama right off the bat when 60% of the votes went to other candidates?
No one has a fucking clue what would happen, but you certainly cant say a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.
If
Obama gets 40% of the electoral votes
Romeny gets 30%
and Paul gets 30%
No one reaches a majority; the Presidential Election is thrown to the House of Representatives (like 1824) and they can vote how they damn well please.
Do you think a GOP controlled house is going to pick Obama right off the bat when 60% of the votes went to other candidates?
No one has a fucking clue what would happen, but you certainly cant say a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.
Essentially, a 4 man race is going to ruin the chances of a Republican from gaining a MAJORITY of the delegate votes for their election.
And
A 3 man race can ruin the chances of a candidate from gaining a MAJORITY of the electoral votes.
Perot was the second republican running against a sitting Rebub; Paul is the only christian running against a hieratic and an Kenyan (i dont believe that shit, but you get the point).
Brokered elections are a pretty piss poor excuse for 21th century Democracy.....
And
A 3 man race can ruin the chances of a candidate from gaining a MAJORITY of the electoral votes.
Perot was the second republican running against a sitting Rebub; Paul is the only christian running against a hieratic and an Kenyan (i dont believe that shit, but you get the point).
Brokered elections are a pretty piss poor excuse for 21th century Democracy.....
Maybe your to tied into what others are saying and not seeking the truth...You can buy in if you want to....I REFUSE! I KNOW THE MASSES WANT RON PAUL!
P.S. I know Ross Perot, "Your going to here a big sucking sound of jobs leaving this country" I love him too Some of the people are waking up to the media, more and more everyday. So I spread the truth not what the media states!! RON PAUL HAS A CHANCE TO WIN! I don't care that you disagree but don't use bs media bias to support your argument and if you were a REAL RON PAUL SUPPORTER you would know better than to spread the media bias.
You are so INCORRECT! That is main lie they want to keep up so that is what every aspect of the media is trying to sell! The sad part is your buying it and trying to resell it to me! It AINT GONE WORK! You better go back to page one of this thread because you sure haven't read much of it!
P.S. I know Ross Perot, "Your going to here a big sucking sound of jobs leaving this country"
I love him too Some of the people are waking up to the media, more and more everyday. So I spread the truth not what the media states!! RON PAUL HAS A CHANCE TO WIN! I don't care that you disagree but don't use bs media bias to support your argument and if you were a REAL RON PAUL SUPPORTER you would know better than to spread the media bias.
You've got to be fucking joking!
You sure about all that? Clinton won with only 43% of the vote. A majority doesn't have to be more than half. We're just used to it because so many contests consist of two opponents, basic policy, etc.
If Ron Paul won the Republican primary, voting for Paul isn't a wasted vote. But the current dynamics suggest an independent run would mimic the Perot result, splitting the Republican vote.
I'm not suggesting that Paul's considering running under another banner. He says he's staying with the Republic party and so far I believe it.
oldbluedog
Member
I first voted for Reagan's first term as a kid graduating in 1980. I've voted Republican pretty much since except for local races. This election I'm Ron Paul, but since it looks like another nazi police repuke is going to get the ticket; I might even vote for obamatheliar. Better than the storm troopers moving in.
Clinton won a MAJORITY of the electoral votes. (currently 271).
Popular vote doesnt matter.
If Obama wins 269
Romeny wins 268
And Paul only gets 3 votes (just one state)
The whole thing goes to the House of Reps.
(George Bush only got 271 electoral votes in 2000)
All Paul needs is to win ONE state.
-
Anything could happen in the House of Reps. Neither Obama, nor Romney have any current power brokers there (neither does Paul, but at least he is there).
If the (26) small states banded together, they could throw the election to the 'American' with 'christian' values...
Not likely... perhaps... if anything one could see the GOP dominated House voting Romney into office. Making a vote for Paul likely a vote for ROMNEY!
No one knows what will happen.
-
Im not saying Dr paul wins one state, and then becomes president either, that would be abusrd.
What im saying is... if he can syphon off ~10% of Obamas backers (and i think he can), and he can run as the 'Christian' vs a 'Mormon' and syphon off ~15%, he is in a virtual dead heat with them.
If Iowa, kanas, oklahoma, arkansas voting goes something similar to:
38% obama
32% Paul
30% Romney.
If it reaches the House, i dont see the 'bible belt' banding together behind Obama or Romney. They might not 'band together' at all, but they COULD, it is their option, and Paul (and his States Rights stance) would be as good a reason as there ever was.
(Conversely, the 10 biggest states could 'band together', but its hard to get NY, CA, TX, etc to agree on anything.)
Lots of IF's, but it is a much more plausible path to the Whitehouse than Perot, Wallace or Thurman's.
What im saying is... if he can syphon off ~10% of Obamas backers (and i think he can), and he can run as the 'Christian' vs a 'Mormon' and syphon off ~15%, he is in a virtual dead heat with them.
If Iowa, kanas, oklahoma, arkansas voting goes something similar to:
38% obama
32% Paul
30% Romney.
If it reaches the House, i dont see the 'bible belt' banding together behind Obama or Romney. They might not 'band together' at all, but they COULD, it is their option, and Paul (and his States Rights stance) would be as good a reason as there ever was.
(Conversely, the 10 biggest states could 'band together', but its hard to get NY, CA, TX, etc to agree on anything.)
Lots of IF's, but it is a much more plausible path to the Whitehouse than Perot, Wallace or Thurman's.
oldbluedog
Member
That whole electoral college shit needs to be eliminated now in the age where real votes can be counted. To hell with the "political influence" and "big business" lobbyists affecting the vote. imo
Thanks, Shroom Dr.
Wasn't trying to nitpick your analysis. I got mixed up on the majority thing.
Wasn't trying to nitpick your analysis. I got mixed up on the majority thing.
Captain Ginyu
Member
I really believe the elections are/have been corrupt, and nothing more than a big pipe dream to show us hope. Sure I'll put in my support for RP, but I'd bet the rent Obama is going to get another term...It's just that way. That's why I don't get get caught up in these politics anymore, unless it's something about an overthrow. And I'll probably be dead & buried by the time that happens anyway. Obama's nothing more than a puppet doing the deed of the devils. Even if he lost, the only change that will happen will be a face.
Don't forget why the EC is there. Something about densely populated urban cities could disproportionately decide elections and potentially disenfranchise rural America.
I don't really understand how it works but without the EC, we'd theoretically get more democrat presidents.
I don't really understand how it works but without the EC, we'd theoretically get more democrat presidents.
FWIW no one would disagree that Dr Paul understands The Constitution (he should be fully aware of these possibilities).
His staunchness, and unwavering conviction to 'pick up delegates' as opposed to 'win primary states', point towards his understanding of how the intricacies of the political process work.
Dr Paul KNEW he cant win the GOP primaries outright. Flatly, no one can convince me he is trying to win outright, nor has he ever tried. Florida sucks they are expense and lost half their delegates, but you have to win there (ask Giuliani). Dr Paul never tried.
But what Dr Paul did know, is if he could get just one other challenger to Romney (the Anti-Romney), he could force a plurality (most votes, but < 50%). Then anything goes at the Republican National Convention.
The convention delegates are only pledged to their canidate the first vote, and if the 'winner' only reaches a plurality, they can vote for whom they wish (and many are PAUL supporters).
Clever Old Fart
-
His staunchness, and unwavering conviction to 'pick up delegates' as opposed to 'win primary states', point towards his understanding of how the intricacies of the political process work.
Dr Paul KNEW he cant win the GOP primaries outright. Flatly, no one can convince me he is trying to win outright, nor has he ever tried. Florida sucks they are expense and lost half their delegates, but you have to win there (ask Giuliani). Dr Paul never tried.
But what Dr Paul did know, is if he could get just one other challenger to Romney (the Anti-Romney), he could force a plurality (most votes, but < 50%). Then anything goes at the Republican National Convention.
The convention delegates are only pledged to their canidate the first vote, and if the 'winner' only reaches a plurality, they can vote for whom they wish (and many are PAUL supporters).
Clever Old Fart
-
Thanks, Shroom Dr.
Wasn't trying to nitpick your analysis. I got mixed up on the majority thing.
NO one is saying what i am saying.
I havent heard one 'talking head' say it, or lay down a path for a Dr Paul Presidency. But that will work, and he seems to be 'running' that gameplan.
I did read somewhere about the '26 smallest state', but that only makes sense.
Im only 95% sure it is the 'lame duck' House that gets to vote on the President (as opposed to the incoming class).
It is an interesting distinction that CNN does all these "what if's" with their interactive board, but they dont point out the obvious 'hell fire and brimstone' that could come from Dr Paul winning a handful of small states.
The night Nevada had there election, they showed how important it would be in the national election.
If Dr Paul could actually win Kentucky (his son is Senator, 3 way race means potentially only needing 34% of popular vote to win ALL of that states electoral votes), North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Maine, etc, NOBODY is reaching 271 electoral votes.
Wish they would highlight the chaos that would cause. The shakeup may loosen some voters for Paul (who think like someotherguy).
- Status
