[jbock13]

Phrasing it the way you did Haize, I can agree with you on that point.

Funny thing is Huntsman just about stole the win from Romney.

Of course, that's if you believe that the RNC didn't mysteriously find 15 Romney ballots in the trunk of someone's car, which gave him the victory. (a la Minnesota style)

[Liberty4Life]

Funny thing is Huntsman just about stole the win from Romney.

I think you mean Santorum, unless you call losing by 24 points "just about stealing a win".

[jbock13]

No. Huntsman's votes were Romney's votes. Had 13 more people voted for Huntsman, Santorum would have won.

[ALUmnus]

It doesn't matter, I don't think Iowa is a winner-takes-all state, so they'll get the same number of delegate votes. Everyone knows it was basically a tie, and all the headlines were about Santorum, so the fact that Romney was the winner is moot.

[jbock13]

It doesn't matter, I don't think Iowa is a winner-takes-all state, so they'll get the same number of delegate votes. Everyone knows it was basically a tie, and all the headlines were about Santorum, so the fact that Romney was the winner is moot.

correct. Even though no actual delegates were up for grabs in this caucus.

[ALUmnus]

True, and I read that one of the Paul campaign's strategies is to make sure they had tons of people stay late at the caucuses to potentially get even more Paul supporters elected as delegate representatives. Since the delegate rep can vote for whoever they want at the convention, regardless of what happened at their caucus, he could get more votes than the results show. We'll see if that pans out, or even if it's true.

[From the class of 09]

True, and I read that one of the Paul campaign's strategies is to make sure they had tons of people stay late at the caucuses to potentially get even more Paul supporters elected as delegate representatives. Since the delegate rep can vote for whoever they want at the convention, regardless of what happened at their caucus, he could get more votes than the results show. We'll see if that pans out, or even if it's true.

On an unrelated note, doesn't the delegate thing seem kinda antiquated? I know delegates typically do what they're told but why have the system at all? Seems like you're tying to set it up for fraud.

[jbock13]

I think it's a pretty good system. It's sort of like an electoral college. Which I like the electoral college. But reasonable people can disagree.

[Purple Haize]

Interesting how no one is pointing out how Romney is running circles around the field in New Hampshire. Romney spent most of his resources in New Hampshire and only concentrated on Iowa when polls showed he was in striking distance. I mean he only had 5 full timers, compared to 50+ last tie, in Iowa!

[jbock13]

Romney will sweep New Hampshire because they love milktoast moderates. Always have, always will. New Hampshire is completely irrelevant to the primary process.

Adressing the point you made earlier Haize, I actually like the fact that Paul has only authored a few pieces of legislation. Don't you think we have enough laws and regulations already?

[Purple Haize]

Romney will sweep New Hampshire because they love milktoast moderates. Always have, always will. New Hampshire is completely irrelevant to the primary process.

Adressing the point you made earlier Haize, I actually like the fact that Paul has only authored a few pieces of legislation. Don't you think we have enough laws and regulations already?

I think you missed my point. What I'm saying is look at his agenda. I think we can all agree with his desire to shutter some federal agencies. What has he done, other than talking about it, to get it done? Why didn't he ever take the lead and say Hey, this Department needs to be eliminated, here is why, and go get the votes to make it happen? There is plenty of public support for this and would have, IMO, been the easiest one of his agenda items to implement. THEN as he runs for President he could say 'Look, this is what I have done. If you want more of that hen I'm your guy.'. Instead all we have is his rhetoric.

[jbock13]

Because nobody in Washington supports his plans. The problem with most Republicans is that they want to be the ones to spend the money. They think it's bad when the Democrats spend money, but good when the Republicans do. Romney is part of that crowd. Socialized medicine is okay when he does it, but not Obama.

The answer needs to be NO. NO more spending. In fact, we need to cut spending. NOW. That's why I support Paul right now, and yes, his supporters are still annoying. I support Paul because I've heard what he's said, not his crazy supporters whom some of which advocate civil war.

But part of the problem is the American public. They vote for politicians (like Romney) who get nothing done in regards to cutting programs and departments, then the American voter whines about it when nothing changes.

[RubberMallet]

Romney will sweep New Hampshire because they love milktoast moderates. Always have, always will. New Hampshire is completely irrelevant to the primary process.

Adressing the point you made earlier Haize, I actually like the fact that Paul has only authored a few pieces of legislation. Don't you think we have enough laws and regulations already?

I think you missed my point. What I'm saying is look at his agenda. I think we can all agree with his desire to shutter some federal agencies. What has he done, other than talking about it, to get it done? Why didn't he ever take the lead and say Hey, this Department needs to be eliminated, here is why, and go get the votes to make it happen? There is plenty of public support for this and would have, IMO, been the easiest one of his agenda items to implement. THEN as he runs for President he could say 'Look, this is what I have done. If you want more of that hen I'm your guy.'. Instead all we have is his rhetoric.

do you understand how congress works?

[Purple Haize]

Because nobody in Washington supports his plans. The problem with most Republicans is that they want to be the ones to spend the money. They think it's bad when the Democrats spend money, but good when the Republicans do. Romney is part of that crowd. Socialized medicine is okay when he does it, but not Obama.

The answer needs to be NO. NO more spending. In fact, we need to cut spending. NOW. That's why I support Paul right now, and yes, his supporters are still annoying. I support Paul because I've heard what he's said, not his crazy supporters whom some of which advocate civil war.

But part of the problem is the American public. They vote for politicians (like Romney) who get nothing done in regards to cutting programs and departments, then the American voter whines about it when nothing changes.

Yes. I understand how congress works. Ang JB you summarized the problem with a Ron Paul Presidency. If he can't convince his current colleagues to support him NOW how much less will they be inclined later? He isn't going to wheel and deal any thus will not be able to get any of his agenda passed
I agree ad infinitum that govt problem is spending money. The end of Ws term was bad enough, but this administration is on a whole new level. Will a Romney administration cut tons of spending? Probably not, but he will spend less and cut more then Obama. The reason I'm optimistic on this point is the influence of the Tea Party in the House and Senate.
I will disagree with you on health care. I don't have a structural problem with what he did with healthcare in Mass. If I lived in Mass I would have been against it. What he DOES say is that it is not a federal responsibility. If states want to do something like that fine. So the difference is that his healthcare spending stopped at the state level. I'm against it, but I live in VA and what they do in MASS is up to them.

[jbock13]

Haize, will the real Mittens please stand up? Funny McCain endorsed him after this

It's from 08, but hey, still rings true today.
[youtube]

[/youtube]

[jbock13]

I know I double posted here, but I find this interesting, and it really shapes up my feelings as a Libertarian Republican, how unwelcome libertarians truly are. This sums up my feelings nicely, the frustration that I feel. It's well worth a listen.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[Purple Haize]

Dude that's politics. I think every politician flip flops. These are the primaries this is what they do.remember how insulting Joe Biden was to Obama. What's he doing now? How about Hillary and Obama slinging mud at each other? And her job? It's politics.

[jbock13]

nah, standing for principles, why? It's just politics!

[Purple Haize]

nah, standing for principles, why? It's just politics!

See you are learning!

[luk_fish]

Paul will not run third party, that would be a bad move for his son's future. Rand has a much better chance of being a serious candidate in the future. Rand is better in front of the cameras and his foreign policy is more likely to be taken seriously.

In the grand scheme, I am not certain it matters, as I think economic collapse is inevitable. No body wants to vote for somebody who promises to take their candy away.

[jbock13]

I find it funny that talk radio is now going after Rand Paul. What he did, I'm really not sure, probably because he's Ron Paul's son, even though he's not even like his dad on many issues. One of my favorite talk show hosts, Mark Levin, I can't even stand anymore. All he does is rail against Paul, just cause he doesn't want to bomb 1.5 billion Muslims.

But I agree with your overall point luk fish. We need to elect people who will stand up, and say NO. Scott Walker in Wisconsin had the nuts to stand up to the entitlement crowd.

[Purple Haize]

Two points.
First, I think the media is doing a great job of painting Romney as a liberal, just like Obama. While he is not an arch conservative he is no where near Obama. I think this signals what to look for from the general election. Again, I think people will be pleasantly suprised when the clutter is removed and Romney can compare and contrast better with Obama.
Secondly, if Rand Paul were to run. For President in the future, I'd take a good long look at him. So long as he tames the curly hair!

[RubberMallet]

I find it funny that talk radio is now going after Rand Paul. What he did, I'm really not sure, probably because he's Ron Paul's son, even though he's not even like his dad on many issues. One of my favorite talk show hosts, Mark Levin, I can't even stand anymore. All he does is rail against Paul, just cause he doesn't want to bomb 1.5 billion Muslims.

But I agree with your overall point luk fish. We need to elect people who will stand up, and say NO. Scott Walker in Wisconsin had the nuts to stand up to the entitlement crowd.

it was interesting driving through wisconsin during the holidays. old suburus with "RECALL WALKER" stickers you would drive through cities and homes would have "RECALL WALKER" signs in their yard, and once you made it out into rural areas, it was all walker support.

[ALUmnus]

old suburus

Dead giveaway right there. Suburu drivers, especially Outback owners, can be stereotyped more than anyone else.

VW, Saturn, and Mitzubishi owners are also pretty easy to categorize, but nothing like Suburu people.

[RubberMallet]

old suburus

Dead giveaway right there. Suburu drivers, especially Outback owners, can be stereotyped more than anyone else.

VW, Saturn, and Mitzubishi owners are also pretty easy to categorize, but nothing like Suburu people.

go to any school and there are always 3 or 4 old suburus in the staff parking lot.