Forget an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket

Adam Weinberg said:
He's not. We're going for all the delegates we can muster.

Washington on Saturday, Alaska, California, West Virginia, Colorado tomorrow...there are many remaining opportunities to have the delegates that make the difference in the majority.

The plan is to force a brokered convention and empower the movement for years to come.

Some may consider it a poor example in terms of its results, but the Robertson campaign of years past, although unsuccessful in gaining the nomination, controlled the party effectively for many years thereafter.
Click to expand...
Well bringing some level headed libertarian views back to the republican party might very well wrestle control out of the hands of the born agains and bring it back as the party that stays out peoples private and economic lives and reduces the power and scope of the federal government.
 
And also, most of the primaries from here on out are winner take all. Ron Paul has NEVER taken first place, so I doubt he will end the election cycle with more than 15-20 delegates.
 
iT'S ALMOST certainty that wil be the ticket.
The "Dream TIcket" is already getting serious milage.
Dems want power bad and will broker this.
 
I really think that if Romney or McCain wins the general... we may have a national abortion ban by 2012. They'll both appoint Scalia's to the posts, and all we have is just one more until the anti-choicers have a majority. Rehnquist or O'Conner wouldn't have tolerated a national ban, but Scalia and his clones have shown all the willingness in the world to accept such tactics by the federal government before.
 
Watermark said:
Ron Paul has 9 delegates. That's better than having none, but he's not going to make any real difference at the convention, with McCain and Romneys thousand delegates each voting the same way.
Click to expand...
There are barely over 1000 delegates in the R Party, they won't have 1000 each. It would make some people question the process.....
 
Watermark said:
Why is that?

The reason I never really liked him was just because, well, he just doesn't seem that intelligent a guy.
Click to expand...

I really do think he's intelligent. He made a lot of money in the private sector and people continually downplay the significance of that (McCain: I worked for patriotism not profit.).

However I also think he's a blatant liar about his true positions, and the more I hear him unscripted I'm not even sure I would like whatever he may actually believe.

His lying rhetoric on issues important to me, like taxes, is good and strong, but it is equally strong on issues I vehemently disagree with like the War.

Basically I've decided my voting for Romney would be a massive gamble, and while I dodged the boat in 2000 I can see quite clearly how badly taking a gamble on an unprincipled candidate who sounds good can turn out.

If it were a 2 man race tomorrow, I would vote for him over McCain just because the unknown evil is better than the known. My mother is doing that exactly for that reason. But it's not a two man race so I can vote my conscience.

While I doubt he could, if Romney survived to the general, depending on his opponent, I would have to look carefully at both tickets before I made my decision.
 
Watermark said:
I really think that if Romney or McCain wins the general... we may have a national abortion ban by 2012. They'll both appoint Scalia's to the posts, and all we have is just one more until the anti-choicers have a majority. Rehnquist or O'Conner wouldn't have tolerated a national ban, but Scalia and his clones have shown all the willingness in the world to accept such tactics by the federal government before.
Click to expand...

Who cares?

Are you getting an abortion soon?

It's an issue but it's an issue to me like privatizing roads is an issue. Yeah I'm for it. No I don't care at all.
 
Epicurus said:
Who cares?

Are you getting an abortion soon?

It's an issue but it's an issue to me like privatizing roads is an issue. Yeah I'm for it. No I don't care at all.
Click to expand...

Unlike you, Ep, I'm not completely selfish, and there are people who are not me that it means a lot too.
 
Watermark said:
Unlike you, Ep, I'm not completely selfish, and there are people who are not me that it means a lot too.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I don't pretend to be anything else.

It doesn't affect me, I honestly don't care one way or the other, and my energy is better spent elsewhere for things that matter like keeping my brothers out of jail. That kills your selfish argument a bit, but I am willing to calculate where I should focus my efforts even if it be to the exclusion of another issue.
 
I think Clinton might conclude that she NEEDS Obama to win, and if thats the case she will do what she can to get him.

On the other hand, if she feels she does not NEED him, she would never ask him. She would perfer Clark. In fact I have heard the rumor that Clark is already a done deal.
 
Watermark said:
Unlike you, Ep, I'm not completely selfish, and there are people who are not me that it means a lot too.
Click to expand...

How does that make him selfish? There are a lot of different issues that are very important to different people. Because one person finds a particular issue important doesn't mean it has to have equal importance to another person.
 
Epicurus said:
Fair enough. I don't pretend to be anything else.

It doesn't affect me, I honestly don't care one way or the other, and my energy is better spent elsewhere for things that matter like keeping my brothers out of jail. That kills your selfish argument a bit, but I am willing to calculate where I should focus my efforts even if it be to the exclusion of another issue.
Click to expand...

LOL, you are selfish. Maybe not as selfish as Grind.

But if you want to keep your brothers out of jail, Obama would be the way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top