Posted on 06/01/2012 3:23:27 PM PDT by JohnKinAK
So, the vote held on February 4th wass non-binding?
Was that the convetnion? That vote ended up with Romney getting 2,373 and Paul getting 2,258.
How did that vote, where Romney got 2% points more than Paul end up with Paul getting 700% the delegates Romney got?
Seems like they larger vote was non-binding and that they had later votes locally.
Or did the local votes produce the tally above, and then at the convetnion the people voted so differently?
I just know on the night of the vote, Romney ws declared the winner, and then later the delegate count was completely lopsided and was told that happened at local “caucus” like meetings. set me straight, I honestly would like to know.
Didn’t say I had any, said the other guy didn’t. Learned to read the new fashioned way, did we, can’t quite comprehend what is going on we fill in the blanks with what we perceive to be so. Now that I’ve explained it to you, butt out.
Go to the following link and read the info provided. It
may provide some understanding or may confuse more.
Scroll down and start at the following:
Sunday 29 January - Saturday 3 March 2012:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ME-R
FRiend, if Clinton had won with a majority, OR if HW had won, the Republican Revolution would probably never have happened. I've come to realize we owe a debt of gratitude to those Perot voters.
Moralizing that politics is "the art of the possible" is how folks rationalize voting FOR a politician who HAS A RECORD OF ADVANCING ALL THE THINGS THEY'RE AGAINST. Windflier puts it absolutely correctly when he says this is all and ONLY about voting for a guy just because he's wearing the team jersey, even though when it comes down to reality, the guy is advancing all the wins FOR THE OTHER TEAM. But you'll vote for him because he's got an R on his uniform instead of a D.
Come the summer and fall of 2013, the only thing that will matter is what you voted FOR -- if Romney wins, Obama would be completetly forgotten and you'd be looking at a guy YOU wanted, doing just what we and others here warned you he would do because his record shows it's what he has always done: grow government toward authoritarian amorality and treat conservatives with contempt. You can very understandably rationalize it as voting "against" Obama -- but bigger government from Republicans what you're voting FOR when you vote for Romney, and THAT is what you would get. Think about it.
Anyone who votes FOR that is aking for trouble. I refuse to vote for either one -- I will vote official ballot third party and hope that voters sick of big government join me BECAUSE if Obama won again but entered office with, say, only a 38% plurality, where 62% of Americans OPPOSED him, them you are talking REAL "politics is the art of the possible."
Because Obama would be so loathed and hated by the majority of voters, he would be hugely politically vulnerable, embattled, weakened, and could be dominated. AND as important, conservative Republicans would be validated, liberalism will have LOST in the Republican party, and conservatism would certainly grow stronger. There'd be a fight ahead, but our conservative side, if Romney lost, would be greatly strengthened.
Romney, on the other hand -- do you really believe that conservative Republicans could dominate a liberal Republican with a liberal Democrat congress and a Republican faction half of which are inclined to be moderate and would cringe at defying the most powerful Republican in the party?
What this really boils down to is three options: vote for cyanide, vote for arsenic, or vote to dilute as much as possible whichever poison wins.
Based on your petulant responses clearly you are a hero worshiping touchy feely follower.
I’ll try to remember that next time you post a foot stamping screed suitable for a six year old retard and simply skip it as reading it would be a waste of time.
Because Obama would be so loathed and hated by the majority of voters, he would be hugely politically vulnerable, embattled, weakened, and could be dominated. AND as important, conservative Republicans would be validated, liberalism will have LOST in the Republican party, and conservatism would certainly grow stronger. There'd be a fight ahead, but our conservative side, if Romney lost, would be greatly strengthened.
Wonderful post, Finny. Your thinking is logical, strategic, and clear. It's unfortunate that there aren't enough cool thinkers on our side for this concrete logic to take hold as the majority view.
The fact that your post lays out the actual dynamics at work in this fight, won't do a thing to raise our side's awareness. People are simply too frightened about the prospects of Obama assuming absolute dictatorial control of the US, to grasp the fundamental relationships of warfare (which this is).
They fail to see what the decrepit and degraded, yet cunning and powerful, are maneuvering them into. There's a reason that the wind seems to suddenly be filling Romney's sails, and it has nothing to do with events in the media over the last week. Well, it does, but the timing of those news events was no doubt orchestrated behind the scenes, and they were launched onto the front pages by the same corroded personalities who control both factions in this game. It appears to me that they've concluded that their current puppet is a loose cannon who is engendering far too much opposition to their long term agenda with his radical over-reach, and awful incompetence.
They need a puppet who will get the job done, but who can also extinguish the fires of the gathering rebellion.
To do that, they need a reliable, big government liberal, with an R on his sleeve.
One who's already demonstrated that he'll 'do business' with them, and who has a record of accomplishment in forwarding their political and social goals.
One who can sell himself as a conservative without having even the barest of conservative bona fides.
Someone who's already got name recognition with the public.
Someone the left isn't mortally terrified of.
A blue blood, Northeastern pedigree would also be helpful.
Perhaps some demonstrated proficiency in business and finance would lend gravitas to such a person's resume.
If that person had also held high elective office in the past, they'd have the sort of stature that would attract the conservative vote.
If that former office were in a blue Northeastern state, all the better for the masters' comfort.
Naturally, the ideal candidate couldn't be tainted by any contact with the burgeoning rebellion known as the Tea Party. That would be an absolute disqualification for consideration.
In short, such a candidate would be the perfect vehicle to forward the masters' near-term strategy, and secure the continued progress toward their long-term goals.
How lucky for them, that such an ideal candidate exists, and is applying for the job.
Absolute spot-on BULLSEYE.
The ONLY thing we have going for us (if it's R v O in the general) is that we do wield influence over the winner's vulnerability. If the next term's President, no matter which one, enters office on a 38% plurality with 62% of voters aligned against him because they either voted for the opponent or a third party, it will put him on defense, make him politically vulnerable, and will give conservatives the upper hand.
My FRiend Windflier and everyone else, please ponder the disaster if Romney wins in a landslide. You think Obama is bad -- if Romney got in on the pretense of a "mandate," to quote Ripley of "Aliens," "You can just kiss all this goodbye."
If Romney got in on a landslide, it would be the kiss of death for conservatism in the Republican party.
When, halfway into 2015, you began to realize that Romney was methodically and "bi-partisan" spiritedly with liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans in Congress laying down track on government-run health care, the homosexual agenda, on-demand abortion, and the environmentalist agenda of harsh regulation of energy AND food production, succeeding, as he and his organized elite tell you conservatives who voted "against" Obama, and conservative Republicans in Congress, to sit down and shut up because moderate "won" in a landslide!!! -- when you see him playing the same conniving hardball with Republican conservatives who oppose him as how he played it in order to get the nomination in the first place, you will be squealing, "But we had no choice!"
And that would be, and is, a lie. You have a choice, zero to lose and the best bet to gain: vote so that whichever poison wins is as diluted and weak as possible.
Voting ABOorR will be my first act of resistance to the 'new' regime.
Amen.
That post deserves an
....................”outstanding”.............
The Shadow knows...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.