- This topic has 9 voices and 378 replies.
-
Posts
-
Donnie you are arguing that would sacrifice the good or adequate because we cannot have the perfect. That is a fools argument at best.In other news Drudge is now reporting that Condi is the frontrunner to be picked for VP, given that he is know for significant scoops like this he may be onto something. I don't know if that is a smart idea or not. She has her good points and bad and I cannot decide which outweighs which.
Well neither are "adequate" so I say let the best man win whomever it may be because from where I'm standing, I can't tell.
But do you acknowledge then that if you refuse to take part in the process you have no voice in the results? If you don't vote how can you then later complain that it is not your choice that got elected? Just saying.
I am not sure what I would think of Condi as VP. I'm cautious of politicians who are nominated for high office merely because of foreign affairs experience (think Dick Cheney, or when Colin Powell's name was floating around as a potential POTUS candidate some years ago). Cheney turned out to be pretty good in some respects, but perhaps not so good in others. Powell turned out to be a closet liberal. If I knew Condi was a social conservative, that would go a long way in helping me support her. At this point, I'm not sure that is the case.
But do you acknowledge then that if you refuse to take part in the process you have no voice in the results? If you don't vote how can you then later complain that it is not your choice that got elected? Just saying.
I have no voice now. Choose bad or choose the other bad. I don't care and yes I can complain all I want because the system is rigged. We need new political parties or more parties for more choices. If enough people start to wake up and see things like I do, we can start a revolution and get this country back to what it was intended to be.
Tell me this, though – would you have still said the system was rigged had Ron Paul gotten the nomination over Romney?
Tell me this, though - would you have still said the system was rigged had Ron Paul gotten the nomination over Romney?
How do you know he didn't? There has been reports of ballot tampering in Maine, Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri by Romney backers. Explain to me how Obama got elected without people knowing anything about him? How does a man like that get in unless he was hand picked by TPTB? It's rigged no question about that. If Ron Paul had won it would have gone a long way in restoring my confidence in the system.
There were also reports about Ron Paul teaming up with Romney in the primaries. Notice how Paul had the opportunity to go after Romney but instead focused on Santorum or Gingrich (think of Iowa). I know of someone who said that Paul and Romney were in it together.
With Mitt Romney‘s position as assumed frontrunner on the balance before tomorrow’s primaries, the question of what role Rep. Ron Paul has played in keeping his other competition at bay has brought about talk of a possible deal between the two, which both deny. But statistics show at least some level of symbiosis. ThinkProgress took a look at Rep. Paul’s attacks on fellow Republicans, and found that the Congressman had left Romney completely unscathed, while targeting the rest of the field (and particularly Rick Santorum).
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-ron-paul-has-not-attacked-mitt-romney-in-a-debate-once/How does one explain that? Could Ron Paul have been in the campaign as the bulldog of Romney, so Romney didn't have to do the grunt work of taking care of his conservative competitors (Santorum, Gingrich, etc.)? I think I've mentioned something of this to you before - if Romney is part of the Machine, then Paul may be as well. Yes, this is kind of a conspiracy theory, but it is at least as legitimate as one which asserts that a single, secretive body in power orchestrates all the elections.
You may be on to something because Rand Paul quickly endorsed Romney instead of being loyal to his father until the convention was over because Ron is still technically contending for the nomination even though it's a foregone conclusion he can't win. If there is some form of collusion between the Pauls and Romney, then the system is too far gone to be salvaged.
The NYT is saying it is Pawlenty. I don't know how far I trust them though. I will admit I don't have a clue who it will be. I still think he will announce someone completely unexpected like Allen West.
If I had to guess, I would say Rubio. I don't think Romney would pick Rice, given that she would alienate social conservatives too much (even though she might help bring in some women voters). I doubt it's Pawlenty either, since he doesn't bring an important geographic region to the electoral table and does not bring enough “pizazz” factor. Rubio is young, up-and-coming, and would bring Latino voters to the vote. Florida is also very important electorally, so that would definitely help. His downside is his age and experience.
If he were smart he would take Ron Paul for Texas and his large following of young people. Of course Ron probably wouldn't do it.
I would love to see Paul Ryan only because for once we will have a true fiscal conservative in high office. But then again, I'd rather see him as our next president.
If he were smart he would take Ron Paul for Texas and his large following of young people. Of course Ron probably wouldn't do it.
I would almost think he would pick Rand Paul over Ron Paul. However, even Rand Paul is probably too "controversial" and would be a lightning rod for media investigations.
I would love to see Paul Ryan only because for once we will have a true fiscal conservative in high office. But then again, I'd rather see him as our next president.
The problem is that Paul Ryan seems to be very effective in Congress. If we poach all the good congressmen, who will be left to run the House?
- The topic ‘Election 2012 – The discussion’ is closed to new replies.
