Presidential Election: 2012

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Kentucky got what they wanted. Well, I did. I haven't heard a single person who voted for him say they are disappointed.

You should know by now that I'm a Rand Paul fan. I didn't mean him for the most part though those elected by the tea party haven't come through. That man (like his father) is the exception

 

[Biggles]

Dapper: Keef, you have never proven an argument. You are the one who continually refuses to accept reality.
Granted you aren't alone, which includes about every frequenter or this sub forum, but you can't back up any view you have.

Keefe, I'm afraid Dapper is right. You made this statemen:

Keefe: As for "the South was right"...well, they were.

Could you please explain why you believe the right of the southern states to secede was of greater weight than the right of human beings not to be enslaved?

 

[Danoff]

Don't mind me for picking nits but I can't help myself.

Could you please explain why you believe the right of the southern states to secede was of greater weight than the right of human beings not to be enslaved?

There is no conflict of rights here. The southern states had the right to secede and the northern states had the right to attack over human rights violations. The government that the south was trying to set up was illegitimate.

 

[Omnis]

And the north didn't fight the south over slavery. Lincoln is quoted as not having given a damn about slavery. He invaded the south because they exercised their right to secede.

 

[Famine]

Here's an interesting tidbit I just read. Vote fraud confirmed in Nevada and a video where a reporter reads the real vote count live on tv and effectively catches his own station in the act of broadcasting manufactured and fraudulent election results as fact.

About 4:10

I'm confused...

The vote shown in the video was only for certain religious groups (Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and some Jewish groups) who couldn't vote earlier in the day. The result of that ballot had about 240 votes in total, 150 of which were for Ron Paul, 40ish each for Romney and Gingrich and 10ish for Santorum. I'm told the final count was around 320 (180/60/60/20ish), so Ron Paul won this special caucus. Since there were 33,000 votes across the State in total, how does Ron Paul winning a single, special ballot comprising 1% of that vote for specific groups constitute a State-wide electoral fraud if he doesn't win the whole State?

 

[Liquid]

I'm confused...

The vote shown in the video was only for certain religious groups (Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and some Jewish groups) who couldn't vote earlier in the day. The result of that ballot had about 240 votes in total, 150 of which were for Ron Paul, 40ish each for Romney and Gingrich and 10ish for Santorum. I'm told the final count was around 320 (180/60/60/20ish), so Ron Paul won this special caucus. Since there were 33,000 votes across the State in total, how does Ron Paul winning a single, special ballot comprising 1% of that vote for specific groups constitute a State-wide electoral fraud if he doesn't win the whole State?

I was thinking the same thing but I guess if it can happen in one local vote, it can happen on a much larger scale. As we know, it's not the first time the Republicans have tried to rig an election.

 

[Famine]

I don't know what's alleged to have happened in this small vote. The reporter read out the vote twice (~ 150 Paul, 40 Gingrich, 40 Romney, 10 Santorum) though it hadn't been completed at that point. It's been published after it completed and looks very similar to what the reporter read out (~ 180 Paul, 60 Gingrich, 60 Romney, 20 Santorum). I don't see what's been covered up or misreported here.

 

[Liquid]

I'm not taking the video at face value, but the link to the news article(s) was interesting. I don't think it's a case of, "Woah, wait! The Republicans are commiting electoral fraud! I am so surprised." It's more a case of proving it.

 

[Dotini]

Last night's sweep of caucuses and beauty contest by Santorum really sets the cat amongst the pigeons. Paul even pushed Romney down to 3rd in Minnesota.

This is going to set in a state of extreme jitters, blood-spitting and deep agonizing amongst the party pros, financiers, pundits and media elites. They literally have no idea what to do, so I expect anything, possibly including would-be savior figures like Mitch Daniels to suddenly appear on the screens.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Joey D]

It concerns me slightly that Americans would actually vote for Rick Santorum.

I mean this is a man that tells women if they are raped, they should just make the best out of a bad situation because it's a "gift from God". He is also a man that doesn't believe women should be president because it is against God's will. He also told the mother of a sick child that sick people are to blame for their own conditions and that insurance companies should charge them more.

I understand the rest of the candidates suck, but Santorum is in a whole other league.

 

[Dotini]

It concerns me slightly that Americans would actually vote for Rick Santorum.

I mean this is a man that tells women if they are raped, they should just make the best out of a bad situation because it's a "gift from God". He is also a man that doesn't believe women should be president because it is against God's will. He also told the mother of a sick child that sick people are to blame for their own conditions and that insurance companies should charge them more.

I understand the rest of the candidates suck, but Santorum is in a whole other league.

Let's be generous and say Republicans are in a complete dither, and are reduced to grasping at straws.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Omnis]

I'm never moving to Missouri.

 

[Famine]

It concerns me slightly that Americans would actually vote for Rick Santorum.

It concerns me massively that anyone would actually vote for Newt "cheating on my wife while she has cancer; negotiable affections" Gingrich.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I was surprised when Santorum in a speach I saw linked: A true conservative, with someone who brings freedom.

I thought the conservative stand was to impose conservative values and thus not give freedom of values and action.

Clearly the others might also not respect freedom as much as they say, but it was the link that I found surprising.

 

[ChaosStar79]

I'm confused...

The vote shown in the video was only for certain religious groups (Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and some Jewish groups) who couldn't vote earlier in the day. The result of that ballot had about 240 votes in total, 150 of which were for Ron Paul, 40ish each for Romney and Gingrich and 10ish for Santorum. I'm told the final count was around 320 (180/60/60/20ish), so Ron Paul won this special caucus. Since there were 33,000 votes across the State in total, how does Ron Paul winning a single, special ballot comprising 1% of that vote for specific groups constitute a State-wide electoral fraud if he doesn't win the whole State?

The link and the video were meant separately, but I was trying to show the difference in the numbers reported at the bottom showing Paul far from the lead, then upon hearing the actual votes you see that the is winning by a landslide, even if just in that special election. It's just the difference between how easily he won this, as compared to the way they portray it. I swear I can even hear the disappointment and concern in the anchor's voice when they read Paul with a 3 to 1 vote tally over his nearest competitor.

 

[Famine]

The link and the video were meant separately, but I was trying to show the difference in the numbers reported at the bottom showing Paul far from the lead

The numbers at the bottom are the total number of delegates returned for each nominee in all Primaries and Caucuses to date... That's why it says "Delegates to Date, 1,144 to win".

Nothing to do with the vote in Nevada, Clark County or the special late Clark ballot from which the reporter was reading the numbers out loud... He got 180 votes out of 320 cast in that ballot. There were 33,000 (out of 400,000!) votes cast in the Nevada Caucus.

 

[Danoff]

And the north didn't fight the south over slavery. Lincoln is quoted as not having given a damn about slavery. He invaded the south because they exercised their right to secede.

Doesn't matter, totally beside the point.

The reason invading the south was a legitimate course of action was because of slavery. If you reverse roles, and say that the south was seceding to get away from the slavers in the north and start a country without slavery, the north would not have been justified in attacking the south to continue to impose slavery laws.

 

[Omnis]

That's true. It's just unfortunate that they chose war when there were so many better options.

 

[ChaosStar79]

The numbers at the bottom are the total number of delegates returned for each nominee in all Primaries and Caucuses to date... That's why it says "Delegates to Date, 1,144 to win".

Nothing to do with the vote in Nevada, Clark County or the special late Clark ballot from which the reporter was reading the numbers out loud... He got 180 votes out of 320 cast in that ballot. There were 33,000 (out of 400,000!) votes cast in the Nevada Caucus.

I apologize to all who bothered to watch my video then. I guess I misunderstood what i was seeing. Thank you though to all who did watch, I'll be more careful of my posts in the future. <--Me

 

[Keef]

The reason invading the south was a legitimate course of action was because of slavery. If you reverse roles, and say that the south was seceding to get away from the slavers in the north and start a country without slavery, the north would not have been justified in attacking the south to continue to impose slavery laws.

So what you're saying is that currently the United States has the right to invade any country around the world for any human rights violations they might be conducting.

The only reason I can tell that you say the Confederate government was "illegitimate" is because it wasn't recognized by the Union or any other country. This is typical, seeing as people don't want to recognize the Confederates as an actual country, despite the fact that they seceded legally and set up a legitimate government. At the time of the Civil War, the Confederate States of America was a nation of its own, whether the Union wanted to recognize that fact or not, and therefore the only way their war could have been legitimate is if Congress had declared it, which they did not.

So again, the South was right. As Omnis said, the Union was simply butthurt by the fact that secession is allowed by the Constitution. I've explained earlier how the idea of secession being Constitutional threatens the existence of the Federal government, and they therefore refuse to accept the notion of secession.

 

[YSSMAN]

What my fellow Americans are thinking I have no idea.

I'll be honest and just say it:

They're white, christian, middle-aged males who are scared of the rapid changes that are happening in the country. They don't look forward to the America of tomorrow, they want the America of half a century ago.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=

RE: Last Night's Results

What a disaster for Romney. He should have won Colorado and Minnesota, he should have won both handily, and he didn't. He didn't take a single county in Minnesota, nor in Missouri. It is a fairly clear signal that he is going to have a tough time carrying traditional Midwestern states, particularly those that are not either A) Wealthy or B) Moderate in disposition.

God, this fall is going to be a bloodbath. No one is electable.

 

[Danoff]

So what you're saying is that currently the United States has the right to invade any country around the world for any human rights violations they might be conducting.

Yes.

(I'd phrase it slightly differently in ways that aren't really important right now)

 

[Dotini]

What a disaster for Romney.

You know the candidacy is doomed when they start making fun of him.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/08/romney-condoms-offer-protection-for-the-elite-penis/

No one is electable.

That is really splendid news! I think the country might benefit from a term without a President.

Respectfully yours,
Steve

 

[ChaosStar79]

Yes.

(I'd phrase it slightly differently in ways that aren't really important right now)

.....
That's a pretty aggressive stance for any nation to take, let alone one who is already stretched as thin as we are now. Also I don't see how that kind of viewpoint could coincide with what I assume the founders envisioned in the Constitution. This seems to be very much an Interventionist ideology.

That is really splendid news! I think the country might benefit from a term without a President.

It would be a great first step, in my opinion. I (foolishly) dream of a day when we can enjoy a free and voluntary society without a need for any head of state.

 

[Keef]

Yes.

(I'd phrase it slightly differently in ways that aren't really important right now)

Rick Santorum would phrase it differently too.

That is really splendid news! I think the country might benefit from a term without a President.

I really don't see what the trouble would be. It would really force Congress to get off their ass and do their job!

 

[Danoff]

.....
That's a pretty aggressive stance for any nation to take, let alone one who is already stretched as thin as we are now. Also I don't see how that kind of viewpoint could coincide with what I assume the founders envisioned in the Constitution. This seems to be very much an Interventionist ideology.

It has nothing to do with intervening in anything - nor does it have anything to do with whether or not it is a good idea for our country to intervene - and whether we are currently stretched (we are in some ways, aren't in others), has no bearing on it either.

We do have the right to invade any nation currently committing human rights atrocities (enslaving an entire population would certainly count). Should we? Dunno. There are lots of factors. Factors like, what's in it for us? Do we have the resources? Is this the most effective use of those resources? These are questions about whether or not to intervene. None of them have any bearing on whether or not we are justified in intervening.

Rick Santorum would phrase it differently too.

Let's keep the gloves up shall we? You know I'm right.

 

[Keef]

I don't know you're right; in fact, I think you're wrong. The only way their human rights violations would constitute an act of war against the US would be if American citizens were violated in that country. Even so, a diplomatic solution should be sought before a declaration of war.

With all you arguments in support of life, liberty, and property, you should understand that individuals have the liberty to band together under a common interest, form a nation around their own property, and then defend their lives, liberties and properties as a nation from any other nation who might attack them. Human rights are universal, as you know, and therefore the citizens of the CSA, for example, do not need the USA's constitution for these basic human rights to apply.

The South decided they didn't agree with the North, so they seceded Constitutionally from the Union. They set up their own nation with their own borders and their own government. The North then committed the first act of war by occupying the South at Fort Sumter, an act of war which prompted the South to besiege the fort in an effort to force the North out of their lands. The North then proceeded with an undeclared war - against their own constitution - because they were butthurt that the South actually had the balls to leave the Union as they were allowed to.

The Civil War amounts to nothing more than revenge on the North's part.

But it's over now, and the states are united once again under the same constitution which requires Congress to declare a war before going to work, something which we haven't done since World War 2. Never mind the moral hazard of going to war to solve somebody else's problem; every battle we've fought for the last 67 years has been unconstitutional. Illegal by our own body of law. And you know I'm right about that.

 

[Liquid]

And you know I'm right about that.

This is true. These days declerations of war and declerations of peace aren't actually made these days because they legitimise a war, which could have repercussions if the war goes badly; Vietnam, Iraq and so on.

The USA is still technically at war with Korea; a country that doesn't even exist anymore.

 

[Keef]

The Koreas are also still at war with each other because it was ended with a cease-fire, not a peace treaty. All this nonsense that pops up on the news occasionally about cannons going off is not news. It's been routine for over 50 years.

The best way to describe these wars is that they'll never end because they never actually started to begin with. They aren't wars at all as the Constitution defines it. Ron Paul is one of very few politicians in the US that cares about that little tidbit.

 

[Tornado]

With all you arguments in support of life, liberty, and property, you should understand that individuals have the liberty to band together under a common interest, form a nation around their own property, and then defend their lives, liberties and properties as a nation from any other nation who might attack them.

Said property being other human beings invalidated their right to band together out of a mutual interest to keep it.