Im hearing GOOGLE is reporting the results are already 100% in for tomorrow and Romney wins. http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results/2012/gop-primary/me Apparently it depends on what country you are viewing it from. People in Australia and Canada it shows 100% reporting with Romney winning. Romney 45.7% 5,489 Gingrich 33.5% 4,022 Paul 10.5% 1,263 Santorum 9.7% 1,165
Rachel Maddow did a segment today on what I was trying to explain before. <object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc23b278" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=46349475&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc23b278" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=46349475&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object> Delegate talk aside, Paul could deal a big blow to Romney if he manages to win Maine tomorrow. Such a result will only make that brokered convention more likely....
is that the one with Doug Wead? just finished watching that one and it was AWESOME. Explains how "rules" were changed to favor Romney.
Santorum......Rick Santorum...... There aren't enough words that are synonymous with insane to describe the bizzaro world Republican politics have entered.
Still pretty sneaky and underhanded on the Paulites part. Totally goes against the spirit of democracy. If he somehow can turn that into winning the nomination, he's going to get slaughtered in the actual election where I'm pretty sure all the republican voters who feel like they were just disenfranchised are not going to bother voting for Paul. Obama could actually win every state.
Sneaky although they're being completely open about it? I knew that strategy well before the Maddow's piece there.
On another note, whoever said a few days ago about having a thing for Maddow even though she likes the ladies. I totally agree, I'd plow into her without hesitation.
No rebuttal was really necessary, you sounded just as ridiculous as the people who say Obama is a communist with no birth certificate. I know many Ron Paul supporters have no idea what they are supporting, and apparently you are unaware what we support also. You jump to extremes yet, supporting a voucher system does not mean there would not be public education... You say he wants to end healthcare for the poor but what he has stated is government intervention in the healthcare system has made it too expensive for doctors to take uninsured cases. Have you ever read anything about him saying someone should be turned down? No you've never read any works by him.You're jumping to extremes on the other points also, he believes free market would help roads, compare Houston and Dallas traffic if you don't believe that. And as far as natural disasters go, doesn't matter who's in office you need good insurance, I live in an area that was trashed by Ike and it wasn't the government that jumped in to fix their houses, it was the insurance companies people paid for. But hey I mean when I talk about why I disagree about other candidates I like to pull stuff out of my butt too.
To be fair, Liltexx would have written a beautifully reasoned rebuttal but he had to be at the gym in 26 minutes,
Not really, that is how the unbound caucus system is supposed to work. It really isn't the fault of Paul supporters that Santorum/Romney don't stay around to elect delegates or that Santorum/Romney supporters don't volunteer to become delegates. It is the fault of the other campaigns and their supporters that this is happening....
Didn't Bigtexxx help you out with some money when you broke your leg and didn't have health insurance?
Actually I think he did help me out. That was very, very cool of him. I hope you weren't insinuating that meant I needed to give him a by forever in a debate forum. Also, I absolutely had insurance. But I also had a 5K deductible and all sorts of expenses that weren't covered (for example, a wheelchair even though I couldn't walk for 9 mo.) so I wound up having to come up with 8-10K when I was completely broke. A lot of people helped me out and I was and am very grateful for that. I'm a very lucky man to have so many friends that the money turned out not to be much of a hardship at all. A lot of others are not as lucky as I and don't have hundreds of generous friends able and eager to lend a hand. They would suffer under Paul. And maybe they just wouldn't receive care at all. Paul's been asked twice about this issue. The first time he just didn't really answer, letting the cheers for 'letting the person die' sort of take the heat for him. The second time he said that everything worked just fine up to around 1965 when the government jumped in. Everything worked just fine until Medicare and Medicaid? Really? Thanks again though to bigtexxx. Very, very cool of him. CCorn: I'm off to a 12 hour work day (and another tomorrow). We're teching a play. If you in Houston, come see it on me. But I may not be able to reply until Monday. Thanks for the response.
Ah screw it, I'll try and get a quick one in. Yes, I am taking it to the extreme because it's an extreme philosophy. If people are generous it works; if they're not, it doesn't. It is GHWB's 1,000 points of light to the literal max. Paul believes in utterly free markets with no regulation but self-regulation. That, to him, is liberty. Nobody checking to see the food is safe or the drugs or the air or the water. If there's no money in tending to such things and it turns out badly, with schools say or with clean water or food or drugs or natural disasters or maybe there aren't enough doctors willing to work charity cases for free, whatever... You are on your own. Welcome to "liberty." He believes the government should involve itself only in national defense and that the markets and charity will take care of the rest. These are his beliefs. I didn't invent libertarianism. I'm just trying to remind people its not all a cocaine and hookers party with a splash of '**** the oppressive government **********s' thrown in. And I use extreme examples to make the point of how dangerous those beliefs can and almost definitely would be. How exactly is that like not believing a person who was born here was born here?
Doug Wead mentioned supporting a Fed audit, while Romney does not. Didn't that already happen? http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
If your talking about an audit then no, it has not happened- Ron Paul was able to push enough to get a partial audit but that's nowhere near a full audit
If Gingrich Drops Out If Newt Gingrich ever were to drop out, Rick Santorum would probably run away with the nomination. At least according to the latest PPP national poll, that is. It has Santorum 50, Romney 28, Paul 15 if Gingrich is out of the race. Romney is really hanging by a thread here...
