PDA

View Full Version : Elections New Winner In Maine?


Chocolate Hog
02-16-2012, 02:49 PM
Ben Swann WXIX
Breaking: after telling the Daily Caller that he wouldn't release until March, turns out GOP WILL release corrected Maine numbers tomorrow!


Ben Swann WXIX 4:45pm ET
Exclusive: only I have new numbers out of Waterville and Waldo county, why Maine caucus may have a 'new" winner Sat. night ! RC tonight

Ben Swann WXIX
Thanks to @Matt_McDonald_ for helping to break the Maine caucus wide open!

SNR
02-16-2012, 02:50 PM
Too late to make a splash in the media, but at least the right call is being made.

ROYC75
02-16-2012, 03:55 PM
Just what we need, more rocket fuel for the Paulites.

Chocolate Hog
02-16-2012, 04:18 PM
Just what we need, more rocket fuel for the Paulites.

Nevermind it being another poorly ran election by the GOP.

oldandslow
02-16-2012, 05:08 PM
I am not a tin foil hat guy...but c'mon. Two of these elections being called for M. Romney and then not so much...

And here I used to think dems were incompentent.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2012, 05:27 PM
Just what we need, more rocket fuel for the Paulites.

Or it buys enough time for the corrupt, crooked GOP Establishment to rig the totals. Afterall, more than just some areas being called in, there is now clear evidence that
the GOP didn't even call the totals in for some of the counties that did vote. This has been reported in some of the Maine newspapers.

Afterall, they used to caucus in one day in Maine but they broke it up to help Mitt win, eventhough Maine voters rejected this idea. This just hurts Mitt's chances later as it leaves a stain, even if he had nothing to do with it himself.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2012, 05:30 PM
I am not a tin foil hat guy...but c'mon. Two of these elections being called for M. Romney and then not so much...

And here I used to think dems were incompentent.

Well when you have resignations by chair of the GOP in Iowa and Nevada, one has to wonder if it's just incompetence or something more going on.
Rules were changed in the GOP for this primary to help Mitt win. What does this alone tell us?

Mr. Flopnuts
02-16-2012, 05:43 PM
I'm losing faith in our "Democratic" process.

Donger
02-16-2012, 05:54 PM
LMAO

ROYC75
02-16-2012, 05:57 PM
I'm losing faith in our "Democratic" process.

I am too . My tongue in cheek comment about the Paulites was just to rattle their cage that we will never here the end of their lone victory.

I will agree with them that there is too much corruption in politics.

Mr. Flopnuts
02-16-2012, 05:57 PM
LMAO

Laugh. It's all about manipulating the Jersey Shore crowd. Whatever though. 4 more years. It's inevitable.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2012, 06:01 PM
I am too . My tongue in cheek comment about the Paulites was just to rattle their cage that we will never here the end of their lone victory.

I will agree with them that there is too much corruption in politics.

Well, the Paul Campaign thinks a recount is unnecessary and they don't really care about that or a new announcement, because they got the majority of delegates anyway. Personally, I don't agree with that, I think they should announce the true winner of the Beauty Contest part, the straw poll, even if they have the delegates wrapped up. It's the people in Maine that care about this more. It still hurts Romney's squeaky clean image though. However, I don't think he had a hand in it. He may be a flip-flopper on positions but I don't think he is a corrupt man himself. Still this hurts him because of what these GOP'ers did. It hurts the GOP when they need all their credibility since Bush restored.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2012, 06:02 PM
Laugh. It's all about manipulating the Jersey Shore crowd. Whatever though. 4 more years. It's inevitable.

That's just a nervous laugh. You know what that means, right?

Donger
02-16-2012, 06:41 PM
Laugh. It's all about manipulating the Jersey Shore crowd. Whatever though. 4 more years. It's inevitable.

I think that Romney stands a good chance against Obama.

Paul doesn't (even if he stood a snowball's chance in Hell of ever becoming the nominee).

I realize that hypotheticals are fun and all, but I think it's long overdue that Paul followers say "Hi" to a little thing called reality.

Sorry.

Donger
02-16-2012, 06:42 PM
That's just a nervous laugh. You know what that means, right?

What on Earth should I be nervous about, honey? The imminent Paul breakout?

LMAO

Chocolate Hog
02-16-2012, 06:44 PM
I think that Romney stands a good chance against Obama.

Paul doesn't (even if he stood a snowball's chance in Hell of ever becoming the nominee).

I realize that hypotheticals are fun and all, but I think it's long overdue that Paul followers say "Hi" to a little thing called reality.

Sorry.

Tell us how Romney stands a chance when the 3rd state now can't even properly organize a caucus. You do realize it takes organization to win an election right? The Republican party both national and state has became as organized as the Libertarian Party. That's not a good thing.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2012, 07:04 PM
I think that Romney stands a good chance against Obama.

Paul doesn't (even if he stood a snowball's chance in Hell of ever becoming the nominee).

I realize that hypotheticals are fun and all, but I think it's long overdue that Paul followers say "Hi" to a little thing called reality.

Sorry.
Sorry but polls disagree with you on Paul being able to stand a chance against Obama. Romney stands a chance too....but polls show Romney or Paul. Say "hi" to reality. It's the Republican nomination that's harder for him to win primarily because it's a party of mercantilists and war mongers. Romney is only going to replace Obamacare with something else and he plans of 7% growth in govt. Say good-bye to any spending cuts—real ones. Say "hi" to reality.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2012, 07:06 PM
What on Earth should I be nervous about, honey? The imminent Paul breakout?

LMAO

Not at all. Certain ideas like thinking out-of-the-box, being different or anything that questions the state are the obvious three off the top of my head. You're a shill for the state.
Breaking the mold is tough on you and your use of laughing smilies a l'orange show that.

Donger
02-16-2012, 08:11 PM
Tell us how Romney stands a chance when the 3rd state now can't even properly organize a caucus. You do realize it takes organization to win an election right? The Republican party both national and state has became as organized as the Libertarian Party. That's not a good thing.

Because he's not a nut.

Donger
02-16-2012, 08:12 PM
Sorry but polls disagree with you on Paul being able to stand a chance against Obama. Romney stands a chance too....but polls show Romney or Paul. Say "hi" to reality. It's the Republican nomination that's harder for him to win primarily because it's a party of mercantilists and war mongers. Romney is only going to replace Obamacare with something else and he plans of 7% growth in govt. Say good-bye to any spending cuts—real ones. Say "hi" to reality.

Yes, dear. Paul hasn't won a single contest in the GOP chase, but he's going to clean up the GE.

You people are delusional (which isn't a new thing).

Chocolate Hog
02-16-2012, 08:26 PM
Because he's not a nut.

Do you know him personally? Way to avoid the organizational statement BTW.

Donger
02-16-2012, 08:30 PM
Do you know him personally? Way to avoid the organizational statement BTW.

No, and it's not required.

Look, if you think that Paul stands a chance against Obama in the GE, when he hasn't won a single GOP contest so far, knock yourself out.

He's a fringe candidate, like it or not. He always has been and he always will be. I'm actually envious of your guys' enthusiasm, though.

chiefzilla1501
02-16-2012, 08:32 PM
Paul doesn't stand a chance. Santorum is going to get absolutely smoked.

People don't understand the concept that candidates that veer to one extreme aren't going to be embraced by the other party or moderates. This is the reason why a completely beatable President is pretty much a shoo-in for re-election. The same damn reason why Bush was re-elected.

I'm not a fan of Romney. But the reality is that he's the only one that can appeal to the moderates, which is the only way the Republicans can win the election.

Chocolate Hog
02-16-2012, 08:33 PM
No, and it's not required.

Look, if you think that Paul stands a chance against Obama in the GE, when he hasn't won a single GOP contest so far, knock yourself out.

He's a fringe candidate, like it or not. He always has been and he always will be. I'm actually envious of your guys' enthusiasm, though.

Are the polls lying? He polls just as well if not better than any Republican candidate. If Republicans would get on board he would be ahead in the polls.

I don't get the Mitt Romney appeal. A vote for Romney = Obamacare staying. Atleast Paul and Santorum would fight to get rid of it.

Chocolate Hog
02-16-2012, 08:34 PM
Paul doesn't stand a chance. Santorum is going to get absolutely smoked.

People don't understand the concept that candidates that veer to one extreme aren't going to be embraced by the other party or moderates. This is the reason why a completely beatable President is pretty much a shoo-in for re-election. The same damn reason why Bush was re-elected.

I'm not a fan of Romney. But the reality is that he's the only one that can appeal to the moderates, which is the only way the Republicans can win the election.

I'll be thankful Romney can appeal to moderates after 2013 when I'm paying more for my health insurance.

chiefzilla1501
02-16-2012, 08:45 PM
Are the polls lying? He polls just as well if not better than any Republican candidate. If Republicans would get on board he would be ahead in the polls.

I don't get the Mitt Romney appeal. A vote for Romney = Obamacare staying. Atleast Paul and Santorum would fight to get rid of it.

Yes, the polls are lying. No republican is going to attack his track record.

Obama's deep pockets will eat him alive.

Chocolate Hog
02-16-2012, 08:50 PM
Yes, the polls are lying. No republican is going to attack his track record.

Obama's deep pockets will eat him alive.

Tell us more about Mitt's outstanding record.

chiefzilla1501
02-16-2012, 09:06 PM
Tell us more about Mitt's outstanding record.

I'm not a Mitt supporter. I am only supporting his nomination because it's brutally obvious he's the only candidate who can actually beat Obama.

Ron Paul's got a lot of nice ideas. But the fact is that while in Congress, he didn't have the leadership to turn those ideas into action. And there is too much about his track record that Obama would have an absolute field day with. Liberals will come out in droves to vote against him. And independents are going to slaughter him in a general election.

Taco John
02-16-2012, 09:23 PM
I think that Romney stands a good chance against Obama.

Paul doesn't (even if he stood a snowball's chance in Hell of ever becoming the nominee).

I realize that hypotheticals are fun and all, but I think it's long overdue that Paul followers say "Hi" to a little thing called reality.

Sorry.

Reality is most of the Paul supporters will do what they can now, and vote for Paul come November regardless of what 'reality' is.

Chiefshrink
02-16-2012, 10:29 PM
Or it buys enough time for the corrupt, crooked GOP Establishment to rig the totals. Afterall, more than just some areas being called in, there is now clear evidence that
the GOP didn't even call the totals in for some of the counties that did vote. This has been reported in some of the Maine newspapers.

Afterall, they used to caucus in one day in Maine but they broke it up to help Mitt win, eventhough Maine voters rejected this idea. This just hurts Mitt's chances later as it leaves a stain, even if he had nothing to do with it himself.


BINGO BINGO BINGO !!!!!!

BucEyedPea
02-16-2012, 10:36 PM
Yes, dear. Paul hasn't won a single contest in the GOP chase, but he's going to clean up the GE.

You people are delusional (which isn't a new thing).

Apparently not only do you not read posts, but you don't read their titles either.

No, it's the NeoCons that are delusional. Over 70% of the American people are sick of your wars. You guys think you can make-over the world using the violence and force of govt perpetually!

Like I said, shill for the state. But face it, not enough want you keyboard warriors guys back either.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2012, 10:38 PM
Look, if you think that Paul stands a chance against Obama in the GE, when he hasn't won a single GOP contest so far, knock yourself out.
What's the name of this thread again.

Paul's chances are far more difficult in the Republican primary than in the national—polls more than one have indicated this.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2012, 10:41 PM
Yes, the polls are lying. No republican is going to attack his track record.

Obama's deep pockets will eat him alive.

Romney has deep pockets too. In fact from some of the same sources — like Goldman Sachs.
How's that for change, 'eh?

I think both Romney or Paul have a shot at beating Obama. The fact that Donger thinks Paul is a nut or fringe tells us he's not really a Conservative. Not unless he thinks being a conservative in America is the same as one in Britain—because they are vastly different. Donger is left of center.

DementedLogic
02-17-2012, 12:01 AM
No, and it's not required.

Look, if you think that Paul stands a chance against Obama in the GE, when he hasn't won a single GOP contest so far, knock yourself out.

He's a fringe candidate, like it or not. He always has been and he always will be. I'm actually envious of your guys' enthusiasm, though.



Paul would do much better in the GE than the republican primaries. Paul will get more votes from outside the republican party than any other chandidate would. Not only would Romney get less votes from outside of the Republican party than Paul, he is going to lose 15-20% of the Republican vote, because we are all going to vote for Paul regardless. Romney = Obama, so I don't care who wins in that contest.

Donger
02-17-2012, 07:52 AM
If Republicans would get on board he would be ahead in the polls.

No kidding? Well, good luck with that.

Pioli Zombie
02-17-2012, 07:56 AM
Yeah cuz republicans love dismantling the military

Donger
02-17-2012, 07:57 AM
Paul would do much better in the GE than the republican primaries. Paul will get more votes from outside the republican party than any other chandidate would. Not only would Romney get less votes from outside of the Republican party than Paul, he is going to lose 15-20% of the Republican vote, because we are all going to vote for Paul regardless. Romney = Obama, so I don't care who wins in that contest.

Yes, I'm well-familiar with the myopia of Paul followers.

Garcia Bronco
02-17-2012, 08:37 AM
Mitt Romney is another scumbag from the state of massholes. The cocksuckers will lie to anyone.

Dave Lane
02-17-2012, 09:07 AM
Laugh. It's all about manipulating the Jersey Shore crowd. Whatever though. 4 more years. It's inevitable.

And really for the best over all. If there was a middle of the road sensible rep I could change my mind. This group though. Holy fuck.

Dave Lane
02-17-2012, 09:08 AM
Yes, I'm well-familiar with the DementedLogic of Paul followers.

FYP

DementedLogic
02-17-2012, 10:03 AM
Yeah cuz republicans love dismantling the military

You are pretty ignorant.

chiefzilla1501
02-17-2012, 10:47 AM
Romney has deep pockets too. In fact from some of the same sources — like Goldman Sachs.
How's that for change, 'eh?

I think both Romney or Paul have a shot at beating Obama. The fact that Donger thinks Paul is a nut or fringe tells us he's not really a Conservative. Not unless he thinks being a conservative in America is the same as one in Britain—because they are vastly different. Donger is left of center.

I'm talking about deep pockets as in Paul has a gajillion skeletons the GE will feel very uncomfortable with. And Obama has the deep pockets to advertise like crazy to expose them. Those skeletons might be five to a very right conservative but they will be very uncomfortable to everyone outisde of that small sect.

chiefzilla1501
02-17-2012, 10:51 AM
UPaul would do much better in the GE than the republican primaries. Paul will get more votes from outside the republican party than any other chandidate would. Not only would Romney get less votes from outside of the Republican party than Paul, he is going to lose 15-20% of the Republican vote, because we are all going to vote for Paul regardless. Romney = Obama, so I don't care who wins in that contest.

You are out of your mind if you think Paul will have appeal outside of far right conservatives. Outside that group there is a sect that agrees with the principles but the package as a whole scares the shit out of them.

Donger
02-17-2012, 11:17 AM
Reality is most of the Paul supporters will do what they can now, and vote for Paul come November regardless of what 'reality' is.

Yeah, I know. Paul or bust!

LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2012, 11:28 AM
Yeah, I know. Paul or bust!

LMAO

Sounds like True conservatives that stick to real values, no problems there.

Donger
02-17-2012, 11:34 AM
Sounds like True conservatives that stick to real values, no problems there.

Yep. You guys sure are committed.

DementedLogic
02-17-2012, 11:47 AM
Yep. You guys sure are committed.

We have a reason to be. You guys (liberals and pseudo-conservatives) don't. As long as Paul doesn't get the nomination, you guys are in a win-win situation, you get Obama or Obama-lite.

SNR
02-17-2012, 11:47 AM
Yeah, I know. Paul or bust!

LMAOWhatever. You'll pull the lever for Romney and feel bad about it, and then feel even worse when Obama wins later that night.

If Ron Paul runs 3rd party, I'll pull the lever for him, feel great about my vote, and face the same inevitable sting that you will on Election Night.

I'd rather be me, personally.

dirk digler
02-17-2012, 11:51 AM
Whatever. You'll pull the lever for Romney and feel bad about it, and then feel even worse when Obama wins later that night.

If Ron Paul runs 3rd party, I'll pull the lever for him, feel great about my vote, and face the same inevitable sting that you will on Election Night.

I'd rather be me, personally.

I will pull the lever for Obama and he will win.

I'd rather be me, personally. :p

patteeu
02-17-2012, 11:57 AM
You guys are getting too worked up over this ill-advised focus on the sausage making. Just relax and enjoy the delicious flavor of the Mitt Romney sausage that you're going to find on your general election store shelves this fall. Look for it right next to the rancid, Obama processed-horse-meat-product.

P.S. Sell your Mrs. RonPaul stock short because I understand that their fish stick product is going to be discontinued at the end of the summer.

Taco John
02-17-2012, 12:30 PM
You guys are getting too worked up over this ill-advised focus on the sausage making. Just relax and enjoy the delicious flavor of the Mitt Romney sausage that you're going to find on your general election store shelves this fall. Look for it right next to the rancid, Obama processed-horse-meat-product.

P.S. Sell your Mrs. RonPaul stock short because I understand that their fish stick product is going to be discontinued at the end of the summer.

You like Mitt Romney sausage, eh? That explains a lot... :p

patteeu
02-17-2012, 12:34 PM
You like Mitt Romney sausage, eh? That explains a lot... :p

LMAO I should have seen that coming, but I didn't. wp

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 12:42 PM
I'm talking about deep pockets as in Paul has a gajillion skeletons the GE will feel very uncomfortable with. And Obama has the deep pockets to advertise like crazy to expose them. Those skeletons might be five to a very right conservative but they will be very uncomfortable to everyone outisde of that small sect.

Paul does NOT have a gajillion skeletons. This is pure nonsense! He has one and it's been reported, parsed and vetted. Of course Obama has them too. Obama benefited from lack of a voting record and little known about his past which was on purpose to cover for him.

patteeu
02-17-2012, 12:48 PM
Paul does NOT have a gajillion skeletons. This is pure nonsense! He has one and it's been reported, parsed and vetted. Of course Obama has them too. Obama benefited from lack of a voting record and little known about his past which was on purpose to cover for him.

Which one are you talking about? The problem with Ron Paul in the general election is that a lot of his past statements that seem like conservative brilliance to you are effectively skeletons in his closet for the average, government-largess-dependent independent or dissatisfied-with-Obama bleeding heart democrat. As soon as the general comes around and Obama scares people into believing that Ron Paul wants to take a hatchet to all of the government programs that they've grown up with, his anti-Fed and anti-War populism will no longer seem quite so appealing. His polling strength at this point is buoyed by the fact that none of the other candidates take him seriously enough to expose his radicalism.

DementedLogic
02-17-2012, 12:59 PM
Which one are you talking about? The problem with Ron Paul in the general election is that a lot of his past statements that seem like conservative brilliance to you are effectively skeletons in his closet for the average, government-largess-dependent independent or dissatisfied-with-Obama bleeding heart democrat. As soon as the general comes around and Obama scares people into believing that Ron Paul wants to take a hatchet to all of the government programs that they've grown up with, his anti-Fed and anti-War populism will no longer seem quite so appealing. His polling strength at this point is buoyed by the fact that none of the other candidates take him seriously enough to expose his radicalism.


However, he isn't being given the chance to truly discuss those issues. If you want to learn about Ron Paul, you have to head to youtube because the major news outlets refuse to give him his fair shake. If it is just him vs Obama, he is going to be given the face time so that people can understand his positions.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2012, 01:01 PM
I will pull the lever for Satan and he will win.

I'd rather be me, personally. :p

Evil is as evil does.

Donger
02-17-2012, 01:03 PM
However, he isn't being given the chance to truly discuss those issues. If you want to learn about Ron Paul, you have to head to youtube because the major news outlets refuse to give him his fair shake. If it is just him vs Obama, he is going to be given the face time so that people can understand his positions.

Err, isn't being given a chance to discuss those issues? How do you figure that?

patteeu
02-17-2012, 01:07 PM
However, he isn't being given the chance to truly discuss those issues. If you want to learn about Ron Paul, you have to head to youtube because the major news outlets refuse to give him his fair shake. If it is just him vs Obama, he is going to be given the face time so that people can understand his positions.

The more exposure he has to centrists and liberals, the less appeal he's going to have. Sorry, man, I like a lot of what Ron Paul is about, but he's already at his high water mark.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 01:08 PM
Err, isn't being given a chance to discuss those issues? How do you figure that?

O.M.G. :shake:

DL be prepared to get one hundred rhetorial questions and more when he doesn't really read your posts.

DementedLogic
02-17-2012, 01:12 PM
O.M.G. :shake:

DL be prepared to get one hundred rhetorial questions and more when he doesn't really read your posts.

I see that. It's funny because the more people learn about Ron Paul, the more they like him, not the opposite.

Donger
02-17-2012, 01:14 PM
I see that. It's funny because the more people learn about Ron Paul, the more they like him, not the opposite.

I just find that to be a really odd thing to say, considering the following facts:

Paul was at each debate.

Paul is running adds.

Paul is actively campaigning.

So, I fail to see how any rational person can claim what you just did.

Please feel free to explain your reasoning if you want.

DementedLogic
02-17-2012, 01:36 PM
I just find that to be a really odd thing to say, considering the following facts:

Paul was at each debate.

Paul is running adds.

Paul is actively campaigning.

So, I fail to see how any rational person can claim what you just did.

Please feel free to explain your reasoning if you want.

Paul has been given substantially less face time at the debates, and often questions are worded in a negative way towards his ideas. Then he isn't given enough time to answer the question. When your ideas a different than everyone else's, you have to explain more in depth for people to understand.

In states where Paul runs ads and actively campaigns, he wins the independent vote. I know the idea, that winning the independent vote is important to winning the presidency, is a new radical idea, but independents are important. Believe it or not, they determine elections.

Independents, the most important voting group, prefer Ron Paul to the other 3 candidates. Independents have seen Romney/Santorum/Gingrich, and they don't like them. You people are worried that Independents won't like Ron Paul when Obama focuses on him, but they already don't like the other 3.

Donger
02-17-2012, 01:49 PM
Paul has been given substantially less face time at the debates, and often questions are worded in a negative way towards his ideas. Then he isn't given enough time to answer the question. When your ideas a different than everyone else's, you have to explain more in depth for people to understand.

In states where Paul runs ads and actively campaigns, he wins the independent vote. I know the idea, that winning the independent vote is important to winning the presidency, is a new radical idea, but independents are important. Believe it or not, they determine elections.

Independents, the most important voting group, prefer Ron Paul to the other 3 candidates. Independents have seen Romney/Santorum/Gingrich, and they don't like them. You people are worried that Independents won't like Ron Paul when Obama focuses on him, but they already don't like the other 3.

That's odd. I watched most of the debates and he seemed to talk a lot, which was great for a giggle. Now, no, he's not going to be given all the time he wants to go on and on about the gold standard, pilots not needing ATC and such, but neither did the other candidates.

So, he has been given the chance to express his views.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 01:50 PM
I just find that to be a really odd thing to say, considering the following facts:

Paul was at each debate.

Paul is running adds.

Paul is actively campaigning.

So, I fail to see how any rational person can claim what you just did.

Please feel free to explain your reasoning if you want.

:shake: You've missed an awful lot of coverage about each of these things. Like how much time he got to speak in the debates and to a R audience where we just said he didn't do as well. Plus the questions he get are not the ones he is best for.

BTW, I hate to be a spelling Nazi, but I am seeing this so much it bothers me but it's "ads" not "adds." Why o' why do so many people spell this word with a double d?
( another one is rediculous which is spelled ridiculous . Not saying you here but just in general it's commonly mispelled.)

Donger
02-17-2012, 01:52 PM
:shake: You've missed an awful lot of coverage about each of these things. Like how much time he got to speak in the debates and to a R audience where we just said he didn't do as well.

BTW, I hate to be a spelling Nazi, but I am seeing this so much it bothers me but it's "ads" not "adds." Why o' why do so many people spell this word with a double d?
( another one is rediculous which is spelled ridiculous . Not saying you here but just in general it's commonly mispelled.)

Huh. Yes, that was an error/fast typing. I'm aware that it is adds.

DementedLogic
02-17-2012, 01:53 PM
It's going to be hard to win this election for anyone other than Paul or Obama.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 01:53 PM
Huh. Yes, that was an error/fast typing. I'm aware that it is adds.

So why do you keep typing it that way?

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 01:56 PM
That's odd. I watched most of the debates and he seemed to talk a lot, which was great for a giggle. Now, no, he's not going to be given all the time he wants to go on and on about the gold standard, pilots not needing ATC and such, but neither did the other candidates.

So, he has been given the chance to express his views.

Some debates he got more time in; others not as much. He does better when he speaks one on one in an interview and to his base though. I'll give you that. He stammers more in the debate format. But he did jack in Florida. No ads, not direct mail, no commercials—NADA! He polled 15% despite it but FL was never a strong state for him. Some Paul supporters voted for Mitt because they wanted to stop the momentum of Gingrich. So he came in the finals at much less than his poll numbers.

DL you're never going the change the mind of any NeoCon. One telltale sign is how they hate Paul and think he's a nut. Same for other brands of leftists. You're wasting your time with Donger.

dirk digler
02-17-2012, 02:00 PM
Evil is as evil does.

Satan would be better than Paul, Mittens, or Ricky :D

DementedLogic
02-17-2012, 02:02 PM
Some debates he got more time in; others not as much. He does better when he speaks one on one in an interview and to his base though. I'll give you that. He stammers more in the debate format. But he did jack in Florida. No ads, not direct mail, no commercials—NADA! He polled 15% despite it but FL was never a strong state for him. Some Paul supporters voted for Mitt because they wanted to stop the momentum of Gingrich. So he came in the finals at much less than his poll numbers.

DL you're never going the change the mind of any NeoCon. One telltale sign is how they hate Paul and think he's a nut. Same for other brands of leftists. You're wasting your time with Donger.


I know I'm not going to convince him to support Ron Paul. I'm just being a nice guy and trying to prevent him from suffering a huge let down on November 6th.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2012, 02:03 PM
Satan would be better than Paul, Mittens, or Ricky :D

:(

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 02:06 PM
I know I'm not going to convince him to support Ron Paul. I'm just being a nice guy and trying to prevent him from suffering a huge let down on November 6th.

Oh, okay. I see.

BTW the latest in — No recount in Maine says the head GOP gangsta in Maine. All the ballots were thrown away:

"There's no way to recount. These were just slips of paper that were thrown away after."

"There's nothing to recount. There's no ballots left," he added.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/17/maine-gop-chair-romney-will-maintain-win/

dirk digler
02-17-2012, 02:10 PM
:(

Please forgive me for I have sinned

Donger
02-17-2012, 02:25 PM
I know I'm not going to convince him to support Ron Paul. I'm just being a nice guy and trying to prevent him from suffering a huge let down on November 6th.

What let down is that? I believe that Romney is the best chance for the GOP to remove Obama from office.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 02:28 PM
What let down is that?
You actually have to ask?:rolleyes: I got what he meant.



I believe that Romney is the best chance for the GOP to remove Obama from office.

We know that already.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2012, 02:39 PM
Please forgive me for I have sinned

Go say 3 "I will vote for Ron Paul"s and you will be forgiven.

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 02:44 PM
Oh, okay. I see.

BTW the latest in — No recount in Maine says the head GOP gangsta in Maine. All the ballots were thrown away:

"There's no way to recount. These were just slips of paper that were thrown away after."

"There's nothing to recount. There's no ballots left," he added.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/17/maine-gop-chair-romney-will-maintain-win/

Good Lord! ROFL

Paul=Gore...LMAO

Taco John
02-17-2012, 02:48 PM
Just out of curiosity... We told you in 2008 the Republicans wouldn't be able to win the election without the Paul vote behind the ticket. The party ignored us, and found out we were right. It's looking like in 2012, the same thing is going to happen - we'll be ignored, and you'll find out once again that Republicans need libertarians as part of the coalition to win elections. Here's my question, will it take all the way to 2016 before they realize this? Or maybe 2020? I'm curious how many presidential cycles you guys are willing to lose before you start considering our worth to the equation.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 02:49 PM
No the Paul Campaign, if you read the thread, has said they don't need or want a recount because they already had a majority of the delegates. This was what some voters in the state of Maine wanted. Besides, Gore did it in a national election as a pretext to cheat and steal an election.


Apples and oranges. You must miss orange mikey. Yeah, I think that's it.


http://ihelpbanks.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/orange_crush.jpg

Donger
02-17-2012, 02:50 PM
Apparently not only do you not read posts, but you don't read their titles either..

Or, maybe I do and am able to make a good judgment of the veracity of the title.

Donger
02-17-2012, 02:50 PM
Just out of curiosity... We told you in 2008 the Republicans wouldn't be able to win the election without the Paul vote behind the ticket. The party ignored us, and found out we were right. It's looking like in 2012, the same thing is going to happen - we'll be ignored, and you'll find out once again that Republicans need libertarians as part of the coalition to win elections. Here's my question, will it take all the way to 2016 before they realize this? Or maybe 2020? I'm curious how many presidential cycles you guys are willing to lose before you start considering our worth to the equation.

All of them.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 02:53 PM
Or, maybe I do and am able to make a good judgment of the veracity of the title.

What?

Donger
02-17-2012, 02:55 PM
What?

Exactly.

patteeu
02-17-2012, 03:24 PM
Satan would be better than Paul, Mittens, or Ricky :D

Well, he has the advantage of incumancy, so you've got that going for you.

Taco John
02-17-2012, 04:14 PM
All of them.

I believe that's where this is headed, and I'm ok with it. Political civil wars are won over time through youth movements.