The Glade 4.0

How different would the primary have gone if the party and the media were honest with the following:
1. How Iowa's process works.
2. Who won.
3. By what margin they won.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The GOP is trying to hard to make everyone think Ron Paul doesn't exist.

Entire state's delegations were not seated during roll call, two members of the rules committee were refused entry to the meetings, voice votes were counted "aye" when the obvious majority voice were "nay".

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It doesn't matter. The Media wants 4 more years of Obizzle, so that's what we'll get.

Voting doesn't matter one bit.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Really? I coulda sworn "The Media" wanted Romney pretty bad.

Because he doesn't stand a chance of beating Obamamaramalamadingdong.

Come on, you should know this by now

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I for one would love it if the GOP were to nominate Ron. You'd win the election for the dems.

Regardless of what you think of his politics, Ron Paul is unelectable as president.

I think it's time for him to pass the presidential torch to his son, who comes across as more likable/less crazy.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

IIRC Ron Paul's people hate his son and feel that he sold them out (especially after this year).

_________________

Romney cannot defeat Obama, either.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

The funny thing about Ron Paul is that when he speaks - him, and not his supporters - people tend to like what he has to say. That's why he was doing so well in the Republican primaries despite the moderators' best efforts not to give him any questions. That's why we've been told he's unelectable. Ron Paul actually does have a chance, and in fact, can even steal Obama's supporters.

Primaries usually aren't elections. There's no will of the people, just will of the party bosses and will of the media. The 2008 Democratic Primary was an actual race, because the party bosses hadn't decided whether they liked Clinton or Obama best. That's the exception, not the rule. You need to realize that politics takes time. Both parties want candidates who will support strategies set in motion ten to twenty years ago. They do that by making sure you don't get the chance to vote for someone who will enact real change. This is where the media comes in. They tell you who is electable, so that the party bosses get the candidates they want in the presidential election, and your choice in November comes down to picking your favorite color.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

The moment Ron Paul started talking about cutting entire departments out of government I knew he would never ever come close to being nominated. Too many people have too many dollars tied up in our current system in order for it to change.

All that being said, the GOP can eat a bag of ####s. They could have run a principaled campagin of limited government and fiscal responsibility but chose to just try to win by being "not Obama" . Enjoy trying to keep the SCOTUS for the next 4 years you idiots.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

During the primary and currently Paul ties our outperforms Obama in likely general voters.

Paul has always had a better chance in a general than Romney against Obama.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I would vote Paul over Romney or Obama and many of my peers agree. Unfortunately we wont get the option, so +1 Obizzle from us.

O'beezy for four more!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Kind of small but it says:
<---- Racoon City
Silent Hill ---->

_________________

Why exactly? I'm serioulsy curious as to what Obama has done that he deserves four more years in your opinion. You don't seem to be in the "Dem/Lib at all costs" camp that most folks on the left are.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

It's not that I think he's extremely deserving of four more years, or anything. The simple truth of it is that I agree with more of Obama's stances on subjects than I do Romney's. It would be an accurate statement to say that I disagree with Romney more than I agree with Obama.

I don't particularly care for Mitt's stances on science, environment, the gays, domestic policy (patriot act, corporations being people), foreign policy (supporting embargoes / Israel / the war) and... I just don't like him. As a person.

Edit - As Mus has mentioned below, I'm concerned with the Republican party's focus on religion. I'd love to see an atheist POTUS.

For me, they both suck ***, but Obama is far less likely to erode any social freedoms in the name of religiosity.

I am sad that the (R) party has become the party of Fiscal irresponsibility and Jesus.

Both candidates are going to be fiscal nightmares, but only O'Beezy has a lower chance of destroying social freedoms in the meantime.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Wow. You guys are really that afraid of a religion?

That's more scary than anything in my opinion.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

We're not afraid of religion. We're afraid of religion making having anything to do with policy.

How long was Romney gov of Mass? Is there anything he did that made the state more Jesusy?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Wait, it's scary to be afraid of a huge, quasi-organized group of people that are dogmatically adherent to their position, who want to dictate what I can or cannot think, believe, or do in the privacy of my own home?

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I'm not scared of him in particular. I'm scared of the Republican party.

Ohhh..that makes more sense...

How old are you again?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."