I'm hearing that 40-41% in Virginia is worth Zero delegates for Ron Paul. If true, that is extremely wrong.

Santorum is the most antilibertarian candidate since LBJ. If he gets the nomination I want the GOP to suffer the most lopsided loss in US history.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk

(03-06-2012 10:24 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 10:11 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  Paul can't pull off ND. It's called for Santorum.

I've already come to terms with the reality that Paul won't win the media nomination. The American people have proven their collective ignorance time and time again. It's a good thing that the most informed citizens who perform their constitutional duty to BE INFORMED will be our delegates.

Kinda expected him to win a state by now. Who knows what would have happened had he won in Iowa or New Hampshire.

(03-06-2012 10:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Santorum is the most antilibertarian candidate since Obama.

Fixed

RealClearPolitics website shows RP getting 3 delegates from Virginia, which is better than 0 but still paltry.

I don't expect or want for delegates to be chosen on a purely proportional basis, but a candidate who gets 40%+ deserves better

(03-06-2012 09:14 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 07:52 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Santorum drop out if he loses Ohio? Shame Gingrich didn't drop out earlier, could have put up a better fight.

No one is gone after tonight. Probably all four (three for sure) will be in it all the way to the end.

Gingrich might have done the worst tonight, but GA's delegates, and assumptions he'll win Alabama and Mississippi (at least) will allow him to continue.

I don't like Mr Rove, but I gotta agree with him on this... Gingrich's performance in GA was NOT enough to stay in the race through Texas. He really should step out by now... what he makes up in proportional delegates in the southern states is lagging him WAY behind in the Winner Take All states.

(03-06-2012 10:41 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 09:14 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 07:52 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Santorum drop out if he loses Ohio? Shame Gingrich didn't drop out earlier, could have put up a better fight.

No one is gone after tonight. Probably all four (three for sure) will be in it all the way to the end.

Gingrich might have done the worst tonight, but GA's delegates, and assumptions he'll win Alabama and Mississippi (at least) will allow him to continue.

I don't like Mr Rove, but I gotta agree with him on this... Gingrich's performance in GA was NOT enough to stay in the race through Texas. He really should step out by now... what he makes up in proportional delegates in the southern states is lagging him WAY behind in the Winner Take All states.

Nonsense. Let the people vote. The delegates are only bound on the first ballot. If Newt can stop Romney from winning the first ballot, it is worth every single day and dollar of his effort.

(03-06-2012 10:44 PM)Claw Wrote:  Nonsense. Let the people vote. The delegates are only bound on the first ballot. If Newt can stop Romney from winning the first ballot, it is worth every single day and dollar of his effort.

If that were the case, can I have Cain back in on the ballots? But unless Gingrich is doing this to force a brokered convention, I really don't see what Gingrich gets out of staying in at this point..

(03-06-2012 10:59 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 10:44 PM)Claw Wrote:  Nonsense. Let the people vote. The delegates are only bound on the first ballot. If Newt can stop Romney from winning the first ballot, it is worth every single day and dollar of his effort.

If that were the case, can I have Cain back in on the ballots? But unless Gingrich is doing this to force a brokered convention, I really don't see what Gingrich gets out of staying in at this point..

I think Newt can substantially influence policy on several fronts.

Idaho nearly 80% Romey????????? HOW MANY MORMONS ARE THERE IN IDAHO??????

(03-06-2012 10:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 10:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Santorum is the most antilibertarian candidate since Obama.

Fixed

No.

Obama at least claims to be for transparency, even though he acts different. Santorum is openly hostile to it.
Obama at least claims to be socially tolerant, even though he only follows through when easy to do so and when it takes no political effort. Santorum is EXTREMELY hostile to social tolerance.
Obama at least claims to be anti-lobbyist and anti-special interest buddy-buddy deals, even though he acts different. Santorum was the whip, a power broker, and blatantly in the pocket of special interests when it was politically expedient.
Obama at least claims to be for a more sensible and humble foreign policy, even though he acts different. Santorum is perfectly happy bombing most of the planet. Especially if your country has oil and brown people in it.

(03-06-2012 11:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Idaho nearly 80% Romey????????? HOW MANY MORMONS ARE THERE IN IDAHO??????

(03-06-2012 10:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 10:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Santorum is the most antilibertarian candidate since Obama.

Fixed

No.
Obama at least claims to be for transparency, even though he acts different. Santorum is openly hostile to it.
Obama at least claims to be socially tolerant, even though he only follows through when easy to do so and when it takes no political effort. Santorum is EXTREMELY hostile to social tolerance.
Obama at least claims to be anti-lobbyist and anti-special interest buddy-buddy deals, even though he acts different. Santorum was the whip, a power broker, and blatantly in the pocket of special interests when it was politically expedient.
Obama at least claims to be for a more sensible and humble foreign policy, even though he acts different. Santorum is perfectly happy bombing most of the planet. Especially if your country has oil and brown people in it.

So Santorum is an a-hole who is honest about it, while Obama is an a-hole who lies about it?

(03-06-2012 11:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 11:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Idaho nearly 80% Romey????????? HOW MANY MORMONS ARE THERE IN IDAHO??????

(03-06-2012 10:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 10:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Santorum is the most antilibertarian candidate since Obama.

Fixed

No.
Obama at least claims to be for transparency, even though he acts different. Santorum is openly hostile to it.
Obama at least claims to be socially tolerant, even though he only follows through when easy to do so and when it takes no political effort. Santorum is EXTREMELY hostile to social tolerance.
Obama at least claims to be anti-lobbyist and anti-special interest buddy-buddy deals, even though he acts different. Santorum was the whip, a power broker, and blatantly in the pocket of special interests when it was politically expedient.
Obama at least claims to be for a more sensible and humble foreign policy, even though he acts different. Santorum is perfectly happy bombing most of the planet. Especially if your country has oil and brown people in it.

So Santorum is an a-hole who is honest about it, while Obama is an a-hole who lies about it?

On most things yes. But Obama is genuinely better on social issues and foreign policy, though only when it requires no political effort, and not by much.

(03-06-2012 11:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  HOW MANY MORMONS ARE THERE IN IDAHO??????

Highest % nationwide except for Utah. :-/

Gary Johnson is willing to take on all y'alls libertarians support

Ok GTS, earlier you showed a video of some guy talking about how Paul was getting delegates by having his supporters hang around after everyone left. After tonight, is that stuff still true and we're just not hearing about it? Or is Paul just getting his ass kicked for no apparent reason?

(03-06-2012 11:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Obama at least claims to be for transparency, even though he acts different. Santorum is openly hostile to it.
Obama at least claims to be socially tolerant, even though he only follows through when easy to do so and when it takes no political effort. Santorum is EXTREMELY hostile to social tolerance.
Obama at least claims to be anti-lobbyist and anti-special interest buddy-buddy deals, even though he acts different. Santorum was the whip, a power broker, and blatantly in the pocket of special interests when it was politically expedient.
Obama at least claims to be for a more sensible and humble foreign policy, even though he acts different.

I don't agree with the above-characterizations, but just for the sake of argument let's say that all of it is true. I can't believe any sentient citizen -- and a libertarian, least of all -- would actually consider Obama to be preferable to Santorum, based on the facts given. From the standpoint of achieving ideological clarity in politics, and also from the standpoint of having elected officials who state their views honestly and candidly (this being one of the constant themes of Barry Goldwater's political career, BTW), your version of Santorum is substantially better than your Obama.

Quote:Santorum is perfectly happy bombing most of the planet. Especially if your country has oil and brown people in it.

That's unworthy of you, GTS.

Quote:Obama is genuinely better on social issues and foreign policy, though only when it requires no political effort, and not by much.

And THAT'S the basis of wishing the Republicans "to suffer the most lopsided loss in US history"?

It is fascinating to me how the mere prospect of a right-wing Republican presidency (with all of its hypothetical assaults on libertarianism) is more offensive to you than the flesh-and-blood reality of a left-wing Democrat presidency, with all of its actual assaults on libertarianism. Including most notably the statist-deformation of approximately 1/6 of the national economy, which will become permanent so far as our life is concerned, should Obama win in November. Look carefully at the economies of the countries that have nationalized their health-care industries. You would really wish that fate on America, just because Santorum's not okay with man/man sex?

(03-06-2012 11:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Idaho nearly 80% Romney?????

That % has fallen a bit (68.6) with 1/4 or so of the vote still out.

(03-07-2012 12:24 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I don't agree with the above-characterizations, but just for the sake of argument let's say that all of it is true. I can't believe any sentient citizen -- and a libertarian, least of all -- would actually consider Obama to be preferable to Santorum, based on the facts given. From the standpoint of achieving ideological clarity in politics, and also from the standpoint of having elected officials who state their views honestly and candidly (this being one of the constant themes of Barry Goldwater's political career, BTW), your version of Santorum is substantially better than your Obama.

I see Santorum as Dubya's third term, only even FURTHER to the far right fringe on social issues. Even Jesus wants Frothy to tone it down. And I'm full on scorched Earth for Republican neocon nominees. I want them to lose as badly as humanly possible. More good comes from 4 years of a liberal failing and pissing everybody off than comes from 4 years of a neocon further destroying conservatism and flushing the country only slightly slower than a Democrat would. Reference: 2010 elections

Quote:That's unworthy of you, GTS.

Cheap, yes. But no worse logic than the one used by the Froth for carpet bombing most of the Arabian peninsula. Lindsey Graham and John McCain must masturbate to a Frothy foreign policy talk. Even Oliver North wants Frothy to tone it down.

Quote:It is fascinating to me how the mere prospect of a right-wing Republican presidency (with all of its hypothetical assaults on libertarianism) is more offensive to you than the flesh-and-blood reality of a left-wing Democrat presidency, with all of its actual assaults on libertarianism. Including most notably the statist-deformation of approximately 1/6 of the national economy, which will become permanent so far as our life is concerned, should Obama win in November. Look carefully at the economies of the countries that have nationalized their health-care industries. You would really wish that fate on America, just because Santorum's not okay with man/man sex?

It's not just that. Santorum is THE anti-libertarian running. It transcends individual issues and goes straight to his world view:

“I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”
--- Frothy

"[Libertarians] have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."
--- Frothy

Then there was Frothy commenting on the famous speech by JFK where he detailed separation of church and state and emphatically said that just because he was Catholic wouldn't mean the White House would be taken over by the Pope, and how that speech made him "almost throw up".

Then there was him voting and whip'ing votes for the Medicare Rx Benefit.

Then there was him voting and whip'ing votes for No Child Left Behind.

Then there was him voting and whip'ing votes for the Patriot Act.

Then there was him voting and whip'ing votes for the Iraq War.

Then there was him voting and whip'ing votes for raising the debt ceiling multiple times and (at the time) the largest annual budget deficit in US history.

Then there was him voting against national right to work.


Wrong on civil liberties. Wrong on social issues. Wrong on the debt. Wrong on foreign policy. Wrong on size and scope of government. Wrong on entitlements. Wrong on the Constitution. Wrong on labor. Mostly wrong on economics.

When the GOP trots out another neocon Dem-lite piece of garbage after the unmitigated disaster that was Dubya, they don't just deserve to lose, they deserve to lose in a deeply embarrassing way and by historic margins. I cheer on the destruction of the neoconservative wing of the GOP, because as they crash there is a chance to replace them with liberty wing people, or at least traditional conservatives who actually hold up the financial end of the bargain.