Republican Primaries

[Angie]

Nice spoof. But with voting machines it is very possible.
Even with this Republican Primaries they are just going through the motions.
Presidents are "made", not elected.

Yup!

[Sly1]

Nice spoof. But with voting machines it is very possible.
Even with this Republican Primaries they are just going through the motions.
Presidents are "made", not elected.

I loved the spoof.
But what is so sad is that it not really a spoof. It is telling the truth in joke form.
For the longest I could not understand how the voting machines could be used to "Make" an election. I have been reading and learning and now my eyes are wide open as to how is done. Even though I am part of the process which is clean at 'my' end then when it is all accumulated at 'Their' end that is where the 'King Makers' take over. With tears in my eyes I do not know how to change it and it hurts to see a nation led by 'Those People'.

[skl]

curious.

now that Ron Paul is losing, his supporters on this thread are talking about election fraud.

[Angie]

Ron Paul like he doh know when to say when ... he should exit the race now.

[Sly1]

curious.

now that Ron Paul is losing, his supporters on this thread are talking about election fraud.

Oh dear!!! Who are the ones talking about election fraud?
SKL you said that now that Ron Paul is losing....WHEN WAS HE EVER WINNING AND WHICH STATE. I must have missed it.

[Angie]

Ron Paul was never ahead in any State ... I hope by now he realizes that he is nothing more than a jackass running in a horse race.

[skl]

Oh dear!!! Who are the ones talking about election fraud?
SKL you said that now that Ron Paul is losing....WHEN WAS HE EVER WINNING AND WHICH STATE. I must have missed it.

you know there have a before when you have the potential to win and a after when you see if you winning or losing

meanwhile
unoffical Nevada results

Romney : 50%
Gingrich : 21%
Paul :19%
Santorum :10%

[lexbarker]

The quality of politicians running the US:

[saltwater]

Santorum gets second wind with sweep in Minn., Mo., Colo.

By Michael O'Brien

Rick Santorum swept three nominating contests held Tuesday, upsetting frontrunner Mitt Romney and injecting new energy into the former Pennsylvania senator's campaign.
Santorum scored broad victories in the Minnesota caucus and a primary in Missouri, according to NBC News projections. But Santorum's most significant upset came in Colorado, where the state GOP declared him the apparent victor in caucuses there.
Romney made his hardest push of the three states in Colorado, having campaigned there and spent money on advertising. Santorum's upset raises fresh doubts about the breadth of Romney's appeal to Republicans, and abates some of the momentum Romney had built from consecutive victories in the Florida primary and Nevada caucus.
"I don't stand here to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney; I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama," Santorum told a raucous crowd in Missouri.
Still, the former Pennsylvania senator drew contrasts with Romney throughout his remarks, saying Romney "has the same positions as Barack Obama" on a number of issues close to conservatives. Santorum also made a disapproving nod toward Romney's gaffe last week in which the former Massachusetts governor said his campaign was "not concerned about the very poor."
"I care about the very rich and the very poor," Santorum told supporters. "I care about 100 percent of America."
The Romney campaign had begun to downplay expectations for its finish in Missouri and Minnesota, though the Colorado finish seemed more genuinely surprising to Romney. Throughout the campaign, Romney, the tentative frontrunner, has been dogged by questions about his ability to close the deal with Republicans — questions that will be furthered by Tuesday night's returns. ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46305940/ns/politics/

[skl]

damn this is exciting. this is shaping up to be one of the most fractured primaries since 1976.


results

Colorado

Santorum :40%
Romney ; 35%
Gingrich 13%
Paul 12%


Minnesota

Santorum 45%
Paul 27%
Romney 17%
Gingrich 11%


Missouri

Santorum 55%
Romney 25%
Paul 12%
(Gingrich not on ballot)

[skl]

Maine caucus results

Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was supported by 39% of the state's Republican caucus-goers in a nonbinding preference poll, and Texas Rep. Ron Paul came in second with 36% of the vote. Neither former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum nor former House Speaker Newt Gingrich campaigned in the state; they drew 18% and 6% of the vote, respectively.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

[Sly1]

http://patriotupdate.com/videos/judg...n-under-5-mins

What if the Republicans are the same as the Democrats? etc. etc. interestingly expounded by the Judge.

[saltwater]

Two new polls: Santorum surges and now ties Romney

By NBC's Mark Murray


So how much did last week's non-binding caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota, as well as the beauty contest in Missouri, influence the GOP presidential contest?
So much so that Rick Santorum's victories in all three races have catapulted him into an essential tie with Mitt Romney, according to two new national polls.
A Pew Research Center survey, conducted Feb. 8-12 among GOP registered voters, has Santorum at 30%, Romney at 28%, Newt Gingrich at 17%, and Ron Paul at 12%. In a Pew poll a month ago, it was Romney 31%, Gingrich 16%, Paul 15%, and Santorum 14%.
(In general election match-ups, Pew has President Obama leading Romney by eight points, 52%-44%; Santorum by 10, 53%-43%; and Gingrich by 18, 57%-39%.)
And a new Gallup poll, also conducted Feb. 8-12, has Romney at 32% among registered GOP voters, Santorum at 30%, Gingrich at 16%, and Paul at 8%.
A week ago, Santorum was at 16% -- so that's a 14-point increase for him.
Of course, the former Pennsylvania senator now becomes the latest Republican presidential candidate to surge in the national polls, joining the likes of Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich.
And it keeps alive this trend: A holding-steady Romney vs. a surging conservative alternative.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ow-ties-romney

[Sly1]

Can't find an answer for those false reports from your bad news sources?
Let me straighten out your propaganda.
Ron Paul is not anti government. He is anti BIG government. He is for LIMITED government.

The simplicity of Ron Paul message is not understandable by so many people because they want lots of plans and rhetoric, and committees and don't forget new laws.

[skl]

The simplicity of Ron Paul message is not understandable by so many people because they want lots of plans and rhetoric, and committees and don't forget new laws.

a message so simple it doesnt take into account that the playing field is not level.

[dancerboy]

Their primary objective is to defeat PRESIDENT OBAMA. Will never happen.



DANCERBOY

[miktay]

Obama & most Republicans does wear the same khaki pants...

[Pamela]

their primary objective is to defeat president obama. Will never happen.



Dancerboy

never

[Pamela]

Cant wait for the debates Obama will tear any one of them up

[dancerboy]

never

That's what i said PAMELA my friend, never.



DANCERBOY

[Sly1]

Girl friend done call the Republican Demons after she done tell them where they belong.....Hell. At least it on BET.
Oh well it is 2 sides of the same coin.
http://www.bet.com/news/politics/201...eadership.html

Maxine Waters Calls House GOP Leaders Demons

[skl]

nice

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-cheat...234300204.html

Ron Paul's being cheated out of a probable victory in the Maine caucuses is an apt outcome for the libertarian candidate. If one trumpets a "night watchman" philosophy of minimal regulation, one can't complain when a minimally regulated private affair does not go your way.


Fittingly for a candidate who heralds a "revolution" in the name of non-government, the Maine caucuses were an anarchic affair. The actual voting is still in doubt, nearly a week after the final day of Maine's main caucusing process

Legally, the Pine Tree State's caucuses, like all political party caucuses, are a private affair run by a private entity, the Maine Republican Party. The caucuses are not an election but part of a complicated process by which the Maine GOP picks its delegates to the national convention.

The counting of votes by the party, which is done by volunteers, was a mess. Reuters reports certain counties that voted early that likely would have broken for Paul and given him the victory were left out of the tallies and Washington County didn't hold a vote due to inclement weather. Yet, the Maine GOP declared Romney the winner. The Supreme Court has ruled that in its private affairs, a party can do what it likes to ensure the candidate it nominates reflects its philosophy, according to law professor Richard L. Hasen.

Thus, the Maine caucuses, a private affair and not an election, are a perfect reflection of Ron Paul's "hands off" philosophy of governing

[Sly1]

curious.now that Ron Paul is losing, his supporters on this thread are talking about election fraud.

SKL: good information on how things are going in Maine. Politics.

[skl]

couple of good articles

http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-p...lemann-2012-3/

That Mitt Romney finds himself so imperiled by Rick Santorum—Rick Santorum!—is just the latest in a series of jaw-dropping developments in what has been the most volatile, unpredictable, and just plain wackadoodle Republican-nomination contest ever. Part of the explanation lies in Romney’s lameness as a candidate, in Santorum’s strength, and in the sudden efflorescence of social issues in what was supposed to be an all-economy-all-the-time affair. But even more important have been the seismic changes within the Republican Party. “Compared to 2008, all the candidates are way to the right of John McCain,” says longtime conservative activist Jeff Bell. “The fact that Romney is running with basically the same views as then but is seen as too moderate tells you that the base has moved rightward and doesn’t simply want a conservative candidate—it wants avery conservative one.”

And make no mistake: A loss is what the GOP’s political class now expects. “Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, ‘We’re gonna win, we’re gonna beat Obama,’ ” says former Reagan strategist Ed Rollins. “Now even those who’ve endorsed Romney say, ‘My God, what a ------ mess.’ ”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...roost-20120223

That's all the early conservative movement was. It was just a heartfelt request that we go back to the good old days of America as these people remembered or imagined it. Of course, the problem was, we couldn't go back, not just because more than half the population (particularly the nonwhite, non-straight, non-male segment of the population) desperately didn't want to go back, but also because that America never existed and was therefore impossible to recreate.And when we didn’t go back to the good old days, this crowd got frustrated, and suddenly the message stopped being heartfelt and it got an edge to it.The message went from, "We’re the real Americans; the others are the problem," to, "We’re the last line of defense; we hate those other people and they’re our enemies." Now it wasn’t just that the rest of us weren't getting with the program: Now we were also saboteurs, secretly or perhaps even openly conspiring with America’s enemies to prevent her return to the long-desired Days of Glory
................................................... ...

And when the unthinkable happened, and a black American with a Muslim-sounding name assumed the throne in the White House, now, suddenly, we started to hear that liberals were not only in league with terrorists, but somehow worse than terrorists
.................................................. ....

This is where the Republican Party is now. They’ve run out of foreign enemies to point fingers at. They’ve already maxed out the rhetoric against us orgiastic, anarchy-loving pansexual liberal terrorists. The only possible remaining explanation for their troubles is that their own leaders have failed them. There is a stranger in the house!

[edyle]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...eakness/395361

Santorum: Afghan apology shows Obama 'weakness'
byByron York Chief Political Correspondent



Follow on Twitter:

Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, campaigns at the San Marino Club during a campaign stop, Saturday, Feb. 25, 2012, in Troy, Mich. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

TROY, Mich. -- Republican president candidate Rick Santorum accused President Obama of "showing weakness" in responding to the killings of U.S. servicemen by their Afghan military allies.
After two U.S. soldiers were killed by a man in an Afghan army uniform earlier this week, Obama apologized for the U.S. role in a Koran-burning incident that set off violence and protests in Afghanistan. Now, two more American officers have been killed in an attack inside the Afghan interior ministry.
"It's showing weakness, and when you show weakness, these things happen," Santorum said after a campaign appearance here in Michigan. "So this is the president, showing a side of himself that people in that region of the world perceive -- rightly -- as a person who can be manipulated and moved to make concessions. The president needs to be strong and defend his people, none of whom were doing the wrong thing."
Judging by campaign appearances here in Michigan, the Afghan killings have not yet taken hold as an issue in the GOP presidential race. Santorum's statement is his first on the matter, while rival Mitt Romney has not yet publicly addressed the issue. A few days ago, Newt Gingrich called Obama's apology an "outrage" and said the U.S. should leave Afghanistan unless the Afghans apologize for the killings of American servicemen.
"The president should not apologize for something that was a mistake," Santorum said. "We should say that the idea of Afghanistan attacking U.S. soldiers is unacceptable, and the people in authority have to be held to account for the behavior of the people under their command."

The president should not apologize for something that was a mistake??????????????????

That's how a con man thinks; you keep lying and lying, and owning up or saying sorry is only for when you can't lie your way out; saying sorry is for when you get caught red handed;

I actually know somebody who thinks like this; she says she doesn't need to apologise when it's an accident; that's probably why she's always getting into arguments with strangers; and when somebody bounces her by accident or something she's vex. but when she bounces somebody by accident it's like, duh! it was just an accident, nothing to get angry about- instead of just saying sorry.