User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:21:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too Members of the Libertarian Party are bracing for an internal struggle over whether to back the libertarian-leaning senator if he appears poised to win the Republican nomination in 2016.
Paul is unlikely to directly seek the third party’s support, but could win it anyhow through the work of eager activists like those who worked the campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender in 2008 and 2012 and the Libertarian nominee in 1988. A co-nomination from one of the nation’s most significant minor parties could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots. If Paul is nominated by both the Republican and Libertarian parties, it could also unleash electoral scenarios unseen in decades, such as the negotiation of a fusion slate of electors. Libertarians could, theoretically, nominate their own vice presidential candidate. Here you go "libertarians steal our votes" Republicans. 2016 is your chance to nominate a small government candidate and win our support. May the odds be ever in your favor. I would be extremely happy to see Rand Paul heading the ticket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:23:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They need to take over the Republican party... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too Members of the Libertarian Party are bracing for an internal struggle over whether to back the libertarian-leaning senator if he appears poised to win the Republican nomination in 2016. Paul is unlikely to directly seek the third party’s support, but could win it anyhow through the work of eager activists like those who worked the campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender in 2008 and 2012 and the Libertarian nominee in 1988. A co-nomination from one of the nation’s most significant minor parties could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots. If Paul is nominated by both the Republican and Libertarian parties, it could also unleash electoral scenarios unseen in decades, such as the negotiation of a fusion slate of electors. Libertarians could, theoretically, nominate their own vice presidential candidate. Here you go "libertarians steel our votes" Republicans. 2016 is your chance to nominate a small government candidate and win our support. May the odds be ever in your favor. They need to take over the Republican party... I will vote for him if he wins the nomination or if he has the best chance of winning out of the non democrat options.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:24:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: http://hammeroftruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ron-paul-chris-kyle-tweet.jpg Ron Paul can fornicate himself with an iron rod. ETA : Shoot. It's about his kid. I still stand by my post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:33:31 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Statements like this bother me. Just reinforcing the "victim" mentality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After seeing Rand kowtow to the race baiters in the wake of the whole ferguson thing, I can't get excited about voting for him. He's an empty suit like the rest of them. Blacks SHOULD be voting for Republicans, for a lot of reasons. He is courting them, has been for a while. He makes excellent points. Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.
-Rand Paul Statements like this bother me. Just reinforcing the "victim" mentality. That statement is factually correct. Why do objective facts bother you? Rand Paul is a politician, so I expect that if elected he'd fuck over and back stab his base to some degree just like all politicians. But he might also do some small amount of good. We could certainly do worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:35:23 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's a waste of time, move on to someone else to try and push thru. Please enlighten us with facts and reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:35:27 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Blacks SHOULD be voting for Republicans, for a lot of reasons. He is courting them, has been for a while. He makes excellent points. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
After seeing Rand kowtow to the race baiters in the wake of the whole ferguson thing, I can't get excited about voting for him. He's an empty suit like the rest of them. Blacks SHOULD be voting for Republicans, for a lot of reasons. He is courting them, has been for a while. He makes excellent points. And courting them costs him nothing. He never promised them anything. To me telling black folks that they should be treated like everyone else is not radical by any means. Let them worry about what that means. He has a very good chance of getting my vote if he makes it into the primaries but it is way too early to be jumping on a bandwagon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:38:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's a waste of time, move on to someone else to try and push thru. Are you an Act of Love kind of guy, or more of a Krispy Kreme backer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:39:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too Members of the Libertarian Party are bracing for an internal struggle over whether to back the libertarian-leaning senator if he appears poised to win the Republican nomination in 2016.
Paul is unlikely to directly seek the third party’s support, but could win it anyhow through the work of eager activists like those who worked the campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender in 2008 and 2012 and the Libertarian nominee in 1988. A co-nomination from one of the nation’s most significant minor parties could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots. If Paul is nominated by both the Republican and Libertarian parties, it could also unleash electoral scenarios unseen in decades, such as the negotiation of a fusion slate of electors. Libertarians could, theoretically, nominate their own vice presidential candidate. Here you go "libertarians steal our votes" Republicans. 2016 is your chance to nominate a small government candidate and win our support. May the odds be ever in your favor. So Libertarian candidate Rand Paul gets 25% of votes. Republican candidate Rand Paul gets 26% of votes. Democrat candidate Clinton wins with 49% of votes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:41:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The premise of this is that he would be on both ballots simultaneously. It would be the opposite of a spoiler. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If he chooses to be a spoiler he can kiss any chance of being POTUS goodbye. The premise of this is that he would be on both ballots simultaneously. It would be the opposite of a spoiler. I doubt the courts would allow a cumalitive combined vote total. The two candidates L & R would be treated as seperate candidates even if the same man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:34:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Libertarian candidate Rand Paul gets 25% of votes. Republican candidate Rand Paul gets 26% of votes. Democrat candidate Clinton wins with 49% of votes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']
Snip Here you go "libertarians steal our votes" Republicans. 2016 is your chance to nominate a small government candidate and win our support. May the odds be ever in your favor. So Libertarian candidate Rand Paul gets 25% of votes. Republican candidate Rand Paul gets 26% of votes. Democrat candidate Clinton wins with 49% of votes. So (25+26)<49?  Or am I just behind having not taken common core?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:23:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I doubt the courts would allow a cumalitive combined vote total. The two candidates L & R would be treated as seperate candidates even if the same man. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If he chooses to be a spoiler he can kiss any chance of being POTUS goodbye. The premise of this is that he would be on both ballots simultaneously. It would be the opposite of a spoiler. I doubt the courts would allow a cumalitive combined vote total. The two candidates L & R would be treated as seperate candidates even if the same man. Moot point. He won't get on the L ticket anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:28:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the Republican Party was more than a hidden Democratic Party, there wouldn't be a need for the Libertarian Party. If that was true, we'd be a year into the 2nd AWB with no sunset and far more damaging than AWB 1. Instead, prices are starting to come back down to normal levels for ammo and ARs are just about fucking free. Look, I get it. I get pissed at the GOP, too. But make no mistake that not a single one of them voted for Obamacare and they all told Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, etc to go pound sand when it came to 2A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:31:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If that was true, we'd be a year into the 2nd AWB with no sunset and far more damaging than AWB 1. Instead, prices are starting to come back down to normal levels for ammo and ARs are just about fucking free. Look, I get it. I get pissed at the GOP, too. But make no mistake that not a single one of them voted for Obamacare and they all told Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, etc to go pound sand when it came to 2A. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If the Republican Party was more than a hidden Democratic Party, there wouldn't be a need for the Libertarian Party. If that was true, we'd be a year into the 2nd AWB with no sunset and far more damaging than AWB 1. Instead, prices are starting to come back down to normal levels for ammo and ARs are just about fucking free. Look, I get it. I get pissed at the GOP, too. But make no mistake that not a single one of them voted for Obamacare and they all told Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, etc to go pound sand when it came to 2A. I agree with this. However, my real question is if they would have held the line if it was Romneycare and telling Mittens to pound sand on AWB II. Hard to claim that a party who put up a candidate who passed socialized medicine into law and signed an AWB wouldn't go for it from their guy. A D Potus and R House and Senate seem to do a lot better (ie be gridlocked more) than all three being the same, which is how we get things like Medicare Part D and the TSA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:33:30 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Libertarian candidate Rand Paul gets 25% of votes. Republican candidate Rand Paul gets 26% of votes. Democrat candidate Clinton wins with 49% of votes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too Members of the Libertarian Party are bracing for an internal struggle over whether to back the libertarian-leaning senator if he appears poised to win the Republican nomination in 2016.
Paul is unlikely to directly seek the third party’s support, but could win it anyhow through the work of eager activists like those who worked the campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender in 2008 and 2012 and the Libertarian nominee in 1988. A co-nomination from one of the nation’s most significant minor parties could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots. If Paul is nominated by both the Republican and Libertarian parties, it could also unleash electoral scenarios unseen in decades, such as the negotiation of a fusion slate of electors. Libertarians could, theoretically, nominate their own vice presidential candidate. Here you go "libertarians steal our votes" Republicans. 2016 is your chance to nominate a small government candidate and win our support. May the odds be ever in your favor. So Libertarian candidate Rand Paul gets 25% of votes. Republican candidate Rand Paul gets 26% of votes. Democrat candidate Clinton wins with 49% of votes. That is not how the electoral college works. In such an unlikely scenario (ignoring your use of popular vote totals instead of electoral votes,) Rand Paul would be elected President. Should the two parties (L and R) name differing VP candidates, then Clinton's running mate would win that office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:34:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt the courts would allow a cumalitive combined vote total. The two candidates L & R would be treated as seperate candidates even if the same man. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If he chooses to be a spoiler he can kiss any chance of being POTUS goodbye. The premise of this is that he would be on both ballots simultaneously. It would be the opposite of a spoiler. I doubt the courts would allow a cumalitive combined vote total. The two candidates L & R would be treated as seperate candidates even if the same man. It is not up to the courts---Electors vote for people, not parties. 270 votes for Rand Paul, no matter the party, would elect him as President. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:34:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree with this. However, my real question is if they would have held the line if it was Romneycare and telling Mittens to pound sand on AWB II. Hard to claim that a party who put up a candidate who passed socialized medicine into law and signed an AWB wouldn't go for it from their guy. A D Potus and R House and Senate seem to do a lot better (ie be gridlocked more) than all three being the same, which is how we get things like Medicare Part D and the TSA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the Republican Party was more than a hidden Democratic Party, there wouldn't be a need for the Libertarian Party. If that was true, we'd be a year into the 2nd AWB with no sunset and far more damaging than AWB 1. Instead, prices are starting to come back down to normal levels for ammo and ARs are just about fucking free. Look, I get it. I get pissed at the GOP, too. But make no mistake that not a single one of them voted for Obamacare and they all told Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, etc to go pound sand when it came to 2A. I agree with this. However, my real question is if they would have held the line if it was Romneycare and telling Mittens to pound sand on AWB II. Hard to claim that a party who put up a candidate who passed socialized medicine into law and signed an AWB wouldn't go for it from their guy. A D Potus and R House and Senate seem to do a lot better (ie be gridlocked more) than all three being the same, which is how we get things like Medicare Part D and the TSA. Good point. Romneycare I could see some of them getting on board with. Some. But I think our response (meaning gun owners writing letters, calling and just flat out harassing our reps) would have been the same on AWB II and it probably would have played out about the same. Democrats in charge? Not a chance...we would be in a world of shit right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:35:45 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you read the article? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem with this scenario is that the votes (for Rand Paul on the Republican line, and for Rand Paul on the Libertarian line) would not cumulate. Each party would have its own distinct slate of electors in each state, so the votes would be working at cross purposes. It would be the same as if Rand Paul was on the Republican line, and Joe Blow was on the Libertarian line. The Libertarian (even if it was Rand Paul himself) would be the spoiler. Did you read the article? If Paul is nominated by both the Republican and Libertarian parties, it could also unleash electoral scenarios unseen in decades, such as the negotiation of a fusion slate of electors. The parties could work that out. And he'd win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:42:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So (25+26)<49? Or am I just behind having not taken common core?Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']
Snip Here you go "libertarians steal our votes" Republicans. 2016 is your chance to nominate a small government candidate and win our support. May the odds be ever in your favor. So Libertarian candidate Rand Paul gets 25% of votes. Republican candidate Rand Paul gets 26% of votes. Democrat candidate Clinton wins with 49% of votes. So (25+26)<49? Or am I just behind having not taken common core?I do not believe the courts would rule that the Libertarian candidate and the Republican candidate could combine their votes, even if they were the same man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:43:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not up to the courts---Electors vote for people, not parties. 270 votes for Rand Paul, no matter the party, would elect him as President. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If he chooses to be a spoiler he can kiss any chance of being POTUS goodbye. The premise of this is that he would be on both ballots simultaneously. It would be the opposite of a spoiler. I doubt the courts would allow a cumalitive combined vote total. The two candidates L & R would be treated as seperate candidates even if the same man. It is not up to the courts---Electors vote for people, not parties. 270 votes for Rand Paul, no matter the party, would elect him as President. I would have to see it to believe it after the drama of the last several elections. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:47:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Blacks SHOULD be voting for Republicans, for a lot of reasons. He is courting them, has been for a while. He makes excellent points. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
After seeing Rand kowtow to the race baiters in the wake of the whole ferguson thing, I can't get excited about voting for him. He's an empty suit like the rest of them. Blacks SHOULD be voting for Republicans, for a lot of reasons. He is courting them, has been for a while. He makes excellent points. His points may seem excellent from a practical and measured perspective but they're horrible politics. Once the average Black voter hears about his dad's fringe racist newsletters, he will be radioactive to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:50:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Statements like this bother me. Just reinforcing the "victim" mentality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.
-Rand Paul Statements like this bother me. Just reinforcing the "victim" mentality. Me too. None of the high profile cases that have the Blacks so riled up had anything to do with 'racial disparities'. And from what I've read the classic Black/Latino honor student who was caught once with a joint and ended up in jail for the rest of their life is a unicorn that only exists on NPR. Most of the minority youth who end up in prison have lengthy criminal records. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:01:25 PM EDT
[#22]
When the Republicans can let go of the social issues and quit worrying about gays taking over the world, then I'll vote for them. Until then I'm voting 3rd party or not voting at all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:06:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Me too. None of the high profile cases that have the Blacks so riled up had anything to do with 'racial disparities'. And from what I've read the classic Black/Latino honor student who was caught once with a joint and ended up in jail for the rest of their life is a unicorn that only exists on NPR. Most of the minority youth who end up in prison have lengthy criminal records. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.
-Rand Paul Statements like this bother me. Just reinforcing the "victim" mentality. Me too. None of the high profile cases that have the Blacks so riled up had anything to do with 'racial disparities'. And from what I've read the classic Black/Latino honor student who was caught once with a joint and ended up in jail for the rest of their life is a unicorn that only exists on NPR. Most of the minority youth who end up in prison have lengthy criminal records. Careful it's a treasured Icon of GD as well |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:20:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with this scenario is that the votes (for Rand Paul on the Republican line, and for Rand Paul on the Libertarian line) would not cumulate. Each party would have its own distinct slate of electors in each state, so the votes would be working at cross purposes. It would be the same as if Rand Paul was on the Republican line, and Joe Blow was on the Libertarian line. The Libertarian (even if it was Rand Paul himself) would be the spoiler. Since you're a Marxist you should remember that Communist Party USA endorsed Obama in 2012. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:28:03 PM EDT
[#25]
Ron Paul ran for President several times but it was not because he ever had the expectations of winning. It was to get the message out that the government is out of control both on domestic and foreign policies. Unfortunately most Americans are too stupid to care about fiscal responsibility, personal liberties or non interventionism.
It remains to be seen if Rand Paul will be like his father and sacrifice for the message or if he will stay with the Republican Progressive mainstream and not make waves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:28:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
His points may seem excellent from a practical and measured perspective but they're horrible politics. Once the average Black voter hears about his dad's fringe racist newsletters, he will be radioactive to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After seeing Rand kowtow to the race baiters in the wake of the whole ferguson thing, I can't get excited about voting for him. He's an empty suit like the rest of them. Blacks SHOULD be voting for Republicans, for a lot of reasons. He is courting them, has been for a while. He makes excellent points. His points may seem excellent from a practical and measured perspective but they're horrible politics. Once the average Black voter hears about his dad's fringe racist newsletters, he will be radioactive to them. Bullshit. There are MANY black Ron Paul supporters. Those letter don't mean anything to them. There are many smart folks in the black community. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:31:26 PM EDT
[#27]
So, the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:39:34 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would have to see it to believe it after the drama of the last several elections. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If he chooses to be a spoiler he can kiss any chance of being POTUS goodbye. The premise of this is that he would be on both ballots simultaneously. It would be the opposite of a spoiler. I doubt the courts would allow a cumalitive combined vote total. The two candidates L & R would be treated as seperate candidates even if the same man. It is not up to the courts---Electors vote for people, not parties. 270 votes for Rand Paul, no matter the party, would elect him as President. I would have to see it to believe it after the drama of the last several elections. You can believe all you want, but when you vote in a presidential election you are not voting for the people running for that office, but for a slate of electors. Say you live in SD, and on your ballot you see a choice of D, R, L, and Green party candidates. That means there are 12 potential electors running---3 who have pledged to vote R, three who have pledged to vote D, etc. When the votes are totaled in SD, the three people who got the most votes become electors, and go to the electoral college. If the three folks who got the most votes had pledged to vote R, then typically that would mean that SD's three EC votes would go to the R candidates, but in fact those three people could vote for anyone they please, so long as those people they select are eligible to hold the offices (note that in some states the electors may only select from a list of candidates.) In SD, there is not even a penalty for doing so, and those electors could theoretically cast their votes for me and you as POTUS/VP, and those votes would be counted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:47:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Me too. None of the high profile cases that have the Blacks so riled up had anything to do with 'racial disparities'. And from what I've read the classic Black/Latino honor student who was caught once with a joint and ended up in jail for the rest of their life is a unicorn that only exists on NPR. Most of the minority youth who end up in prison have lengthy criminal records. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.
-Rand Paul Statements like this bother me. Just reinforcing the "victim" mentality. Me too. None of the high profile cases that have the Blacks so riled up had anything to do with 'racial disparities'. And from what I've read the classic Black/Latino honor student who was caught once with a joint and ended up in jail for the rest of their life is a unicorn that only exists on NPR. Most of the minority youth who end up in prison have lengthy criminal records. A better example is the prohibition on student aid for those convicted of misdemeanor drug possession. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:48:52 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit. There are MANY black Ron Paul supporters. Those letter don't mean anything to them. There are many smart folks in the black community. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After seeing Rand kowtow to the race baiters in the wake of the whole ferguson thing, I can't get excited about voting for him. He's an empty suit like the rest of them. Blacks SHOULD be voting for Republicans, for a lot of reasons. He is courting them, has been for a while. He makes excellent points. His points may seem excellent from a practical and measured perspective but they're horrible politics. Once the average Black voter hears about his dad's fringe racist newsletters, he will be radioactive to them. Bullshit. There are MANY black Ron Paul supporters. Those letter don't mean anything to them. There are many smart folks in the black community. According to Wiki, Ron Paul only pulled 11% of the total votes cast in the 2012 GOP Primaries. So even if half of his votes came from Blacks, that's still only 5% of the total. And that doesn't even take into consideration how faulty it is to take the voting patterns of Blacks who participate in the GOP Primary process and try to extrapolate them into the General Election population. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:51:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A better example is the prohibition on student aid for those convicted of misdemeanor drug possession. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.
-Rand Paul Statements like this bother me. Just reinforcing the "victim" mentality. Me too. None of the high profile cases that have the Blacks so riled up had anything to do with 'racial disparities'. And from what I've read the classic Black/Latino honor student who was caught once with a joint and ended up in jail for the rest of their life is a unicorn that only exists on NPR. Most of the minority youth who end up in prison have lengthy criminal records. A better example is the prohibition on student aid for those convicted of misdemeanor drug possession. I absolutely agree with you on that but that's not the example Rand used. He specifically said 'serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth', essentially parroting the NPR/NAACP talking points. It was an extremely foolish statement, that Time Magazine op-ed he wrote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:54:43 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A better example is the prohibition on student aid for those convicted of misdemeanor drug possession. There is no right to financial aid. Government goods are not supposed to be inherently redistributive focused goods without conditions. Additionally, I believe that the specific prohibition you cite is neither blanket or permanent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:58:50 PM EDT
[#33]
If Rand refused the Lib. nomination could they still run him?
If so it would only convince me further that Libertarians are simply far left Dem shills and no better than anarchists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:32:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Since it looks like its going to be Jeb Bush Vs Hillary Clinton. I would say that I would vote for anybody else besides either of those.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:06:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can believe all you want, but when you vote in a presidential election you are not voting for the people running for that office, but for a slate of electors. Say you live in SD, and on your ballot you see a choice of D, R, L, and Green party candidates. That means there are 12 potential electors running---3 who have pledged to vote R, three who have pledged to vote D, etc. When the votes are totaled in SD, the three people who got the most votes become electors, and go to the electoral college. If the three folks who got the most votes had pledged to vote R, then typically that would mean that SD's three EC votes would go to the R candidates, but in fact those three people could vote for anyone they please, so long as those people they select are eligible to hold the offices (note that in some states the electors may only select from a list of candidates.) In SD, there is not even a penalty for doing so, and those electors could theoretically cast their votes for me and you as POTUS/VP, and those votes would be counted. Okay. In my scenario the D got the most votes. Not the L or the R. You are looking at it from the perspective of its the same candidate. Its two different candidates who happen to be the same man. Are you saying they would send 1.4 L electors and 1.6 R electors? Or do they send the three Dem electors because their candidate got the most votes with 49% vs 25 & 26? I think the Dems lawyers would be arguing in a emergency session of the supreme court if they didnt get all three electors for having the most votes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:10:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too Members of the Libertarian Party are bracing for an internal struggle over whether to back the libertarian-leaning senator if he appears poised to win the Republican nomination in 2016. Paul is unlikely to directly seek the third party’s support, but could win it anyhow through the work of eager activists like those who worked the campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender in 2008 and 2012 and the Libertarian nominee in 1988. A co-nomination from one of the nation’s most significant minor parties could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots. If Paul is nominated by both the Republican and Libertarian parties, it could also unleash electoral scenarios unseen in decades, such as the negotiation of a fusion slate of electors. Libertarians could, theoretically, nominate their own vice presidential candidate. Here you go "libertarians steal our votes" Republicans. 2016 is your chance to nominate a small government candidate and win our support. May the odds be ever in your favor. They would rather put up a weak socialist like McCain or Romney and then whine about losing the election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:11:30 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay. In my scenario the D got the most votes. Not the L or the R. You are looking at it from the perspective of its the same candidate. Its two different candidates who happen to be the same man. Are you saying they would send 1.4 L electors and 1.6 R electors? Or do they send the three Dem electors because their candidate got the most votes with 49% vs 25 & 26? I think the Dems lawyers would be arguing in a emergency session of the supreme court if they didnt get all three electors for having the most votes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You can believe all you want, but when you vote in a presidential election you are not voting for the people running for that office, but for a slate of electors. Say you live in SD, and on your ballot you see a choice of D, R, L, and Green party candidates. That means there are 12 potential electors running---3 who have pledged to vote R, three who have pledged to vote D, etc. When the votes are totaled in SD, the three people who got the most votes become electors, and go to the electoral college. If the three folks who got the most votes had pledged to vote R, then typically that would mean that SD's three EC votes would go to the R candidates, but in fact those three people could vote for anyone they please, so long as those people they select are eligible to hold the offices (note that in some states the electors may only select from a list of candidates.) In SD, there is not even a penalty for doing so, and those electors could theoretically cast their votes for me and you as POTUS/VP, and those votes would be counted. Okay. In my scenario the D got the most votes. Not the L or the R. You are looking at it from the perspective of its the same candidate. Its two different candidates who happen to be the same man. Are you saying they would send 1.4 L electors and 1.6 R electors? Or do they send the three Dem electors because their candidate got the most votes with 49% vs 25 & 26? I think the Dems lawyers would be arguing in a emergency session of the supreme court if they didnt get all three electors for having the most votes. Thank you for reminding everyone that the founders based our elections on political parties. Oh, wait, they didn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:19:03 PM EDT
[#38]
I don't think it'll happen, because he isn't really a libertarian. He's a traditional, conservative republican who only happens to lean ever-so-slightly libertarian on a handful of civil liberties issues. That's still too much for the usual suspects, though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 10:23:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no right to financial aid. Government goods are not supposed to be inherently redistributive focused goods without conditions. Additionally, I believe that the specific prohibition you cite is neither blanket or permanent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A better example is the prohibition on student aid for those convicted of misdemeanor drug possession. There is no right to financial aid. Government goods are not supposed to be inherently redistributive focused goods without conditions. Additionally, I believe that the specific prohibition you cite is neither blanket or permanent. I believe IIRC it only pertains to convictions for the selling of drugs....not simply possession. I could be wrong though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:14:06 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay. In my scenario the D got the most votes. Not the L or the R. You are looking at it from the perspective of its the same candidate. Its two different candidates who happen to be the same man. Are you saying they would send 1.4 L electors and 1.6 R electors? Or do they send the three Dem electors because their candidate got the most votes with 49% vs 25 & 26? I think the Dems lawyers would be arguing in a emergency session of the supreme court if they didnt get all three electors for having the most votes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You can believe all you want, but when you vote in a presidential election you are not voting for the people running for that office, but for a slate of electors. Say you live in SD, and on your ballot you see a choice of D, R, L, and Green party candidates. That means there are 12 potential electors running---3 who have pledged to vote R, three who have pledged to vote D, etc. When the votes are totaled in SD, the three people who got the most votes become electors, and go to the electoral college. If the three folks who got the most votes had pledged to vote R, then typically that would mean that SD's three EC votes would go to the R candidates, but in fact those three people could vote for anyone they please, so long as those people they select are eligible to hold the offices (note that in some states the electors may only select from a list of candidates.) In SD, there is not even a penalty for doing so, and those electors could theoretically cast their votes for me and you as POTUS/VP, and those votes would be counted. Okay. In my scenario the D got the most votes. Not the L or the R. You are looking at it from the perspective of its the same candidate. Its two different candidates who happen to be the same man. Are you saying they would send 1.4 L electors and 1.6 R electors? Or do they send the three Dem electors because their candidate got the most votes with 49% vs 25 & 26? I think the Dems lawyers would be arguing in a emergency session of the supreme court if they didnt get all three electors for having the most votes. Derp on my part. I assumed you were talking about national vote totals. I don't know how I did that---in my hypothetical example of SD, 49% D, 25% R, 26% L, and one vote each for you and I, you are in fact correct, the three potential electors who pledged to vote D would win, and SD would furnish three EC votes for the D candidate. Such would be the fate of most states where the votes were split similarly. In light of my (hopefully) more considered thoughts on your posts, you appear to be correct, and I was wrong. Though I still assert no judges would be involved (hey, a man's gotta still be right about *something*, right?) 
Sorry for the delay in my meal of crow, but a friend with no TV came over and we were watching a marathon session of Haven with him, then I tried to stay up all night watching Walking Dead and fell asleep. (Have a switch from 0600-1435 to 2025-0500 going on today and was trying to mess with my internal clock to compensate.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:15:25 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since it looks like its going to be Jeb Bush Vs Hillary Clinton. I would say that I would vote for anybody else besides either of those. What is it with people insisting on knowledge of who the nominees are going to be before the midterms are even over? 
And the Hillary inevitability is pretty funny since she already fell on her face once, back when she was a younger and more attractive candidate. Nothing that's come to pass in the past four years has put more bloom on that rose... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:58:08 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit. There are MANY black Ron Paul supporters. Those letter don't mean anything to them. There are many smart folks in the black community. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After seeing Rand kowtow to the race baiters in the wake of the whole ferguson thing, I can't get excited about voting for him. He's an empty suit like the rest of them. Blacks SHOULD be voting for Republicans, for a lot of reasons. He is courting them, has been for a while. He makes excellent points. His points may seem excellent from a practical and measured perspective but they're horrible politics. Once the average Black voter hears about his dad's fringe racist newsletters, he will be radioactive to them. Bullshit. There are MANY black Ron Paul supporters. Those letter don't mean anything to them. There are many smart folks in the black community. Blacks vote how their community leaders race czars and celebrities tell them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 9:06:41 AM EDT
[#43]
Too many party line Repubs will vote for the potato wearing the red tie.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 9:48:04 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
USNews. Only the 7th most progressive DNC propaganda site on the internet. What's next? DU? huffin, dailykoz? 1) CNN: 52 2) The Huffington Post: 393 3) Time: 553 4) NPR: 1,524 5) Slate: 1,569 6) Newsweek: 1,690 7) U.S. News & World Report: 2,408 8) Politico: 2,470 9) Salon: 2,455 10) Indy Media: 3,534 11) The Democratic Underground: 6,992 12) The Atlantic: 8,538 13) The Village Voice: 8,922 14) Daily Kos: 10,385 15) Eschaton: 10,496 16) New Yorker: 12,429 17) The Daily Beast: 12,512 18) Alternet: 15,763 19) Common Dreams: 18,144 20) Crooks and Liars: 19,337 21) Buzzflash: 19,423 22) TPM Cafe: 21,592 23) MoveOn: 21,786 24) Mother Jones: 22,277 25) Amnesty International: 23,807 26) Counterpunch: 23,841 27) The Nation: 24,552 28) Antiwar: 24,799 29) Think Progress: 25,168 30) Raw Story: 26,663 31) The New Republic: 26,867 32) Planned Parenthood: 28,207 33) Information Clearing House: 28,605 34) What Really Happened: 31,583 35) OpEdNews: 31,835 36) Bad Subjects: 33,120 37) Political Wire: 34,698 38) World Socialist Website: 35,122 39) ACLU: 37,195 40) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: 37,494 41) Media Matters: 37,650 42) Feministing: 38,376 43) Truthout: 38,809 44) Drudge Retort: 41,472 45) The American Prospect: 42,082 46) Harper’s Magazine: 42,659 47) Firedoglake: 42,836 48) TruthDig: 44,389 49) Wonkette: 45,704 50) AmericaBlog: 45,195 you're claiming US News and World report is more progressive than Mother Jones?   And DU is only 11th? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:46:49 AM EDT
[#45]
This would make me happy, this should make everyone happy. He's halfway between libertarians and GOP.
But the GOP hardliners only want us to sacrifice our principles when we're in the voting booth to stop the DNC, them actually being forced to do that lol not gonna happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:28:28 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By And the Hillary inevitability is pretty funny since she already fell on her face once, back when she was a younger and more attractive candidate. I fell for it in early 08.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:31:21 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too Members of the Libertarian Party are bracing for an internal struggle over whether to back the libertarian-leaning senator if he appears poised to win the Republican nomination in 2016.
Paul is unlikely to directly seek the third party’s support, but could win it anyhow through the work of eager activists like those who worked the campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender in 2008 and 2012 and the Libertarian nominee in 1988. A co-nomination from one of the nation’s most significant minor parties could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots. If Paul is nominated by both the Republican and Libertarian parties, it could also unleash electoral scenarios unseen in decades, such as the negotiation of a fusion slate of electors. Libertarians could, theoretically, nominate their own vice presidential candidate. Here you go "libertarians steal our votes" Republicans. 2016 is your chance to nominate a small government candidate and win our support. May the odds be ever in your favor. Why does this logic never work the other way? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:30:50 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is it with people insisting on knowledge of who the nominees are going to be before the midterms are even over?
And the Hillary inevitability is pretty funny since she already fell on her face once, back when she was a younger and more attractive candidate. Nothing that's come to pass in the past four years has put more bloom on that rose... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since it looks like its going to be Jeb Bush Vs Hillary Clinton. I would say that I would vote for anybody else besides either of those. What is it with people insisting on knowledge of who the nominees are going to be before the midterms are even over?
And the Hillary inevitability is pretty funny since she already fell on her face once, back when she was a younger and more attractive candidate. Nothing that's come to pass in the past four years has put more bloom on that rose... Hillary is highly unlikely to get the nomination. If she did, it'd be a cakewalk for the R unless they fuck up and put in Act of Love or the NJ Lardass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:34:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hillary is highly unlikely to get the nomination. If she did, it'd be a cakewalk for the R unless they fuck up and put in Act of Love or the NJ Lardass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since it looks like its going to be Jeb Bush Vs Hillary Clinton. I would say that I would vote for anybody else besides either of those. What is it with people insisting on knowledge of who the nominees are going to be before the midterms are even over?
And the Hillary inevitability is pretty funny since she already fell on her face once, back when she was a younger and more attractive candidate. Nothing that's come to pass in the past four years has put more bloom on that rose... Hillary is highly unlikely to get the nomination. If she did, it'd be a cakewalk for the R unless they fuck up and put in Act of Love or the NJ Lardass. Foreign Policy is one of the huge issues making the Dems nervous, and Hillary was the face of Obama's Foreign Policy for 4 years. I agree, not gonna happen. Every project she focused on has turned to shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 4:50:21 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Foreign Policy is one of the huge issues making the Dems nervous, and Hillary was the face of Obama's Foreign Policy for 4 years. I agree, not gonna happen. Every project she focused on has turned to shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And the Hillary inevitability is pretty funny since she already fell on her face once, back when she was a younger and more attractive candidate. Nothing that's come to pass in the past four years has put more bloom on that rose... Hillary is highly unlikely to get the nomination. If she did, it'd be a cakewalk for the R unless they fuck up and put in Act of Love or the NJ Lardass. Foreign Policy is one of the huge issues making the Dems nervous, and Hillary was the face of Obama's Foreign Policy for 4 years. I agree, not gonna happen. Every project she focused on has turned to shit. Not to mention all of stories of the money-grubbing associated with Chelsea's 'career' and the Clinton Foundation. Combined with her tone-deaf insistence on portraying herself as some humble, struggling housewife, Hillary has made herself an object of derision. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
