What happens IF Romney appoints 3 Roberts?
What happens WHEN Obama appoints 3 Roberts or worse?
They do seem quite enamored with President Obama.You know how all Republicans voted for Hillary in 2008, just to spite Obama? Well, I think that is what is going on here. These aren't conservatives or Libertarians like they want us to believe. That is why they would rather Obama win than Romney, and why they bash Romney every single day, while never saying anything bad about Obama. All this talk is just a cover for the fact that they a progressive Democrats stirring the pot. I'm going to start tuning out this noise.
You know how all Republicans voted for Hillary in 2008, just to spite Obama? Well, I think that is what is going on here. These aren't conservatives or Libertarians like they want us to believe. That is why they would rather Obama win than Romney, and why they bash Romney every single day, while never saying anything bad about Obama. All this talk is just a cover for the fact that they a progressive Democrats stirring the pot. I'm going to start tuning out this noise.
They do seem quite enamored with President Obama.
You know how all Republicans voted for Hillary in 2008, just to spite Obama? Well, I think that is what is going on here. These aren't conservatives or Libertarians like they want us to believe. That is why they would rather Obama win than Romney, and why they bash Romney every single day, while never saying anything bad about Obama. All this talk is just a cover for the fact that they a progressive Democrats stirring the pot. I'm going to start tuning out this noise.
They do seem quite enamored with President Obama.
I think the conclusion that they are progressive Democrats stirring the pot just because they aren't going along with the party is a wide miss.
You know how all Republicans voted for Hillary in 2008, just to spite Obama? Well, I think that is what is going on here. These aren't conservatives or Libertarians like they want us to believe. That is why they would rather Obama win than Romney, and why they bash Romney every single day, while never saying anything bad about Obama. All this talk is just a cover for the fact that they a progressive Democrats stirring the pot. I'm going to start tuning out this noise.
Ok, so someone explain this to me. (I voted for RP in the primary so I am playing Devil's advocate) Assume I voted for Romney as did the Majority of my state in the primary election. BUT the RP supporters were crafty and got their own people elected as delegates. Now, according to the rules, the RP delegates can essentially overthrow the majority vote by "gaming" the system?
IS this or is this not what happened? Except the RNC got wise and said; uh, no, Romney won the Primary, he will be getting the votes. Essentially the went for democracy over republic; so to speak.
Now, while I would prefer to have RP as the candidate, it seems to me in the long run, I would prefer that my vote in the primary actually MEANS something and that clever groups of people can't insert supporters that will overthrow the majority vote in favor of the less popular candidate. At the same time, I want minority blocs to be heard and their ideas to be considered when we're deciding what political principles we're going to support or not support.
So while the RNC/Romney have clearly changed or violated the letter of the law, it seems to me that the RP folks that planned to vote AGAINST the majority of voters in their state, were about to violate the SPIRIT of the law.
Please, rational arguments or points only. I will ignore any emotional outbursts or rages including personal feelings or attacks on anything but the intention of the law and the what matters more the gamesmanship or the will of the individual voters in the primary.
Somehow, I think it'll be the GOP that suffers most from this. I'm feeling more and more confident that we'll have more than two major parties in the future. And if that entails defections from the GOP and alienation of young voters, the GOP will lose influence.
Assign blame where you will, but the fact of the matter is that many former Republicans are seeing that the party just doesn't represent them.
No hard feelings on either side.
I don't see anyone whining about nullifying any support Newt, Cain, Santorum, etc... had. Why is it supposedly only Paul being "nullified"? He was simply another potential nominee, no different than any other in that regard.
Your statement isn't exactly true. If Paul supporters (as some here have stated) decide to vote for Obama out of spite (sour grapes) Romney's outcome could/would be manipulated also. Contrary to the false assumption ideologs want to try to force on everyone, while Romney isn't perfect, he is no Obama. He is unarguably closer to Paul than Obama.
Calling them liberals is just their way of shouting down the opposition. No different than the race card. If you refuse to back Romney, you're a liberal.
Not at all, sir. I would never think of you as liberal nor would I call those who want to vote Libertarian liberals. Misguided, yes, in this election where so much is at stake, but never a liberal.
Not at all, sir. I would never think of you as liberal nor would I call those who want to vote Libertarian liberals. Misguided, yes, in this election where so much is at stake, but never a liberal.
Not at all, sir. I would never think of you as liberal nor would I call those who want to vote Libertarian liberals. Misguided, yes, in this election where so much is at stake, but never a liberal.