All the liberals are in the tank for Romney...'nuff said.
Romney barely lost Iowan, won New Hampshire, came in 2nd in SC. All of those who voted for him are "liberals"?
Do tell.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
All the liberals are in the tank for Romney...'nuff said.
All the liberals are in the tank for Romney...'nuff said.
Romney barely lost Iowan, won New Hampshire, came in 2nd in SC. All of those who voted for him are "liberals"?
Do tell.
And they, as the Statist Democrats and the Media portend to tell us what it is the people really want.This reminds me of the Hilary/Obama race in 2008. I thought Hilary had it locked up. I was actually hoping the Obama would get the nod, he seemed to be the weaker candidate....how could any American vote for an inexperience man who consorts with known terrorists and felons, attends a racist church for 20 years, and refuses to release his college transcripts and records?? He had so many credibility issues.....He seemed to be a far easier candidate to beat than Hilary......
Again, the GOP forgets that the mechanisms by which most persons vote is much less of a calculus equation than a gut feeling.
For my information can someone tell me;
Are delegates compelled to vote the way of their state's selection when they get to the national convention?
You laugh all you want. Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee would be a dream come true for the White House. I know a dozen devoted Republicans that have vowed to stay at home in November if Newt the Nympho becomes the nominee.
The claim that you know a dozen "devoted" Republicans doesn't pass the laugh test. You just destroyed whatever pathetic level of credibility you may have enjoyed in this forum.
For my information can someone tell me;
Are delegates compelled to vote the way of their state's selection when they get to the national convention?
The short answer is yes. The more complex answer is that the delegates are apportioned by a percentage of the vote (in 08 it was winner take all). The idea of a "faithless" delegate is a non-starter n the GOP.
The upshot is (if I understand it correctly), if there is no winner in the primaries as to delegate count, when the RNC takes place, and they nominate their candidates and allocate the delegates officiall, if there is no one candidate that has enough to clinch the nomination, the delegates are "freed" to vote as they wish.
At this point, what will more than likely happen is a borkered convention where by (not televised) the smoky back room takes hold and the RNC board appoints the nominee.
I could envision Newt threatening to strangle anyone who doesn't vote for him at that point.
For my information can someone tell me;
Are delegates compelled to vote the way of their state's selection when they get to the national convention?
Delegates are simply NOT required to vote the way of their state's selection once they get to voting (and this is particularly so after the first ballot, should it not be decided on the first go 'round).
This is one of the reasons that we have some historical examples of brokered conventions.
The Party (historically) decides on a variety of different bases. One huge factor (again, historically) is "electability." But this time around, there is some reason to believe that the rules are a-changin'. It is a bit more volatile when the populist fervor takes root.
Personally, I prefer it THIS way. I don't want some Party elites deciding for the rest of us. That's how we ended up with unelectable (but establishment favored) nominees such as McCain. I'd rather that the candidate selection process be opened up sufficiently as to permit the common sense of the party faithful to get much more of a voice.
Do we want a candidate who is electable? Sure. It would be foolish to want a candidate who cannot defeat the President. But we also want a candidate who (as much as we can shape the outcome) is most akin to our collective views. IF we permit "tem" to choose the establishment elite figure who is "next in line" then we don't get a guy (or gal) who can move us BACK a bit to the right. We get some figure head who will more probably go along with the Dims to get along.
These are the characters who think (and claim) that if we do otherwise, nothing will happen. We will have gridlock. They actually say this with "alarm!"
Fuckin' A. I WANT gridlock if going along to get along means the ability to pass ever more fucking bills none of which serve to change the wrong direction in which we are moving.
Give me a choice of passing a greater number of bills that continue us down this obviously wrong path OR passing no legislation at all, I will happily vote in favor of the latter; in favor of "gridlock" EVERY time. And I want a President with the gumption to move us along THOSE lines.
All the liberals are in the tank for Romney...'nuff said.
Romney barely lost Iowan, won New Hampshire, came in 2nd in SC. All of those who voted for him are "liberals"?
Do tell.
Uh...irony alert...I was talking about you.
For my information can someone tell me;
Are delegates compelled to vote the way of their state's selection when they get to the national convention?
The short answer is yes. The more complex answer is that the delegates are apportioned by a percentage of the vote (in 08 it was winner take all). The idea of a "faithless" delegate is a non-starter n the GOP.
The upshot is (if I understand it correctly), if there is no winner in the primaries as to delegate count, when the RNC takes place, and they nominate their candidates and allocate the delegates officiall, if there is no one candidate that has enough to clinch the nomination, the delegates are "freed" to vote as they wish.
At this point, what will more than likely happen is a borkered convention where by (not televised) the smoky back room takes hold and the RNC board appoints the nominee.
I could envision Newt threatening to strangle anyone who doesn't vote for him at that point.
So, if delegates are apportioned by percentage, it's clearly more important to win the biggest states - I understand that the number of delegates a state has is determined by poulation.
That explains to me why some candidates don't even campaign in some states.
Would the Iowa result be judged as a victory for Santorum or are the delegates from there likely to be "freed"?
Debate and discuss the latest political issues in real-time on XXXXXXXXXX- let your voice be heard!
Debate and discuss the latest political issues in real-time on XXXXXXXXXX- let your voice be heard!
Be gone spammer...negged.
Debate and discuss the latest political issues in real-time on XXXXXXXXXX- let your voice be heard!
Be gone spammer...negged.
Reported.
Just hit that red flag up there, tell the mods its spam, and the spammer will be gone soon enough.
Be gone spammer...negged.
Reported.
Just hit that red flag up there, tell the mods its spam, and the spammer will be gone soon enough.
Meh, I've bookmarked his crappy site.... ready to launch a counter attack at your command, Captain.
For my information can someone tell me;
Are delegates compelled to vote the way of their state's selection when they get to the national convention?
Delegates are simply NOT required to vote the way of their state's selection once they get to voting (and this is particularly so after the first ballot, should it not be decided on the first go 'round).
This is one of the reasons that we have some historical examples of brokered conventions.
The Party (historically) decides on a variety of different bases. One huge factor (again, historically) is "electability." But this time around, there is some reason to believe that the rules are a-changin'. It is a bit more volatile when the populist fervor takes root.
Personally, I prefer it THIS way. I don't want some Party elites deciding for the rest of us. That's how we ended up with unelectable (but establishment favored) nominees such as McCain. I'd rather that the candidate selection process be opened up sufficiently as to permit the common sense of the party faithful to get much more of a voice.
Do we want a candidate who is electable? Sure. It would be foolish to want a candidate who cannot defeat the President. But we also want a candidate who (as much as we can shape the outcome) is most akin to our collective views. IF we permit "tem" to choose the establishment elite figure who is "next in line" then we don't get a guy (or gal) who can move us BACK a bit to the right. We get some figure head who will more probably go along with the Dims to get along.
These are the characters who think (and claim) that if we do otherwise, nothing will happen. We will have gridlock. They actually say this with "alarm!"
Fuckin' A. I WANT gridlock if going along to get along means the ability to pass ever more fucking bills none of which serve to change the wrong direction in which we are moving.
Give me a choice of passing a greater number of bills that continue us down this obviously wrong path OR passing no legislation at all, I will happily vote in favor of the latter; in favor of "gridlock" EVERY time. And I want a President with the gumption to move us along THOSE lines.
Brokered Convention Chatter on Rise
Jeez...wheels within wheels!!!There was a Jonah Goldberg column in which he mentioned the possibility of a brokered convention, but according to Scarborough, top conservative leaders, the Republican establishment, want to keep Newt in the race so they can get a brokered convention where they can pick the nominee.
Reported.
Just hit that red flag up there, tell the mods its spam, and the spammer will be gone soon enough.
Meh, I've bookmarked his crappy site.... ready to launch a counter attack at your command, Captain.
The Spammer is in trouble now!