Paul gets 52% of military contributions

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Not and vote in a Primary, you must declare for one or the other if you wish to vote in a Primary.

Otherwise you remain Independant and just vote in the General Elections.

Why would anyone choose to be an independent, then? That's the reason why party registration numbers for independts are so grossly underreported.

 

[Annie]

McCain is simply dead in the water. Whomever convinced him that the Bush-Clone approach was the way to win this thing is in mortal danger of McCain going all Prison Guard all over them.

I agree regarding his presidential aspirations. I caught a bit of him overnight though, he can be very persuasive. I think he is a very 'in the moment' kind a guy. Good for speaking, not so good for campaigns.

 

[Cancel7]

McCain is simply dead in the water. Whomever convinced him that the Bush-Clone approach was the way to win this thing is in mortal danger of McCain going all Prison Guard all over them.

Yeah, I can't figure that.

You saw his independent support just crater, because of his stubborness on the war, so he was dead in the general anyway. Then, he goes and gives the base of his own party the finger on immigration, so he can't get nominated in the first place. And then expects to be elected president? It's crazy.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That is very interesting, considering the fact that so many people are saying that the Military fully supports the war.

The miliatary is largely conservative, and, I assume, largely opposed to the war. It seems obvious that Paul would get the most contributions. If Hagel dropped into the primary we could expect to see that fall quite a bit.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That decision is stupid. The only point of the new law in Mississippi was to disallow candidates from running as candidates from more than one parties and further cement two party power.

If parties want freedom of association, they should pay for their own fucking elections.

And I really hate him saying it's a "southern thing". Closed primaries were started by two-party fascists. Almost every state in the south has a closed primary because that's how they kept the blacks out. California, for the longest time, had a blanket primary, which is far more extreme than an open one.

 

[blackascoal]

Ron Paul is third in contributions right now. Ahead of John McCain, actually. He's still far behind him in the polls, but that wasn't the point of this thread.

No my friend, he's ahead of McCain in cash on-hand not contributions. He's FAR behind McCain in contributions. McCain has a large payroll and he's buying ads. Lots of expenditures. Paul has 11 paid members on staff and his largest expenditure is printing. He isn't spending any money because he's not getting much money.

2.3 million might sound impressive but it's peanuts in a presidential campaign.

 

[blackascoal]

That decision is stupid. The only point of the new law in Mississippi was to disallow candidates from running as candidates from more than one parties and further cement two party power.

If parties want freedom of association, they should pay for their own fucking elections.

That's not what the Constitution says, nor the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting that Paul, Mr. Constitution, emply an unconstitutional method to get elected?

The decision was the absolute correct one. Members of political parties have a right to choose their own nominee that represents their own values and sets of beliefs. Even republicans have that right as much as I dislike what they are.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That's not what the Constitution says, nor the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting that Paul, Mr. Constitution, emply an unconstitutional method to get elected?

The decision was the absolute correct one. Members of political parties have a right to choose their own nominee that represents their own values and sets of beliefs. Even republicans have that right as much as I dislike what they are.

I don't even care. Open primary, closed, what's the difference? I just think that if the states paying the fees, they should have at least some sort of leeway in deciding how the election will happen. I really believe this new law came with a provision that abolishes fusion voting in Mississippi.

And I wasn't talking about Ron Paul.

 

[uscitizen]

I just wish that the two parties had not pretty much locked out other parties in most of the states. We need federal regulations on that if election to federal offices are involved.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I just wish that the two parties had not pretty much locked out other parties in most of the states. We need federal regulations on that if election to federal offices are involved.

Mississippi has probably the least third party restrictions out of the state. All you need to set up a party is a few signatures, and then you declare a board. We actually have 8 third parties. Too bad the Constitution party is the most succesful out of them...

The Libertarian party in Mississippi is actually smaller than our Reform party. Mississippi's the least libertarian state in the nation.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

We're also one of like 5 states in the union that has fusion voting - I'm not sure how the recent decisision changed this, but fusion voting in Mississippi isn't nearly as big as it is in New York anyway.

 

[uscitizen]

Many states are not that way. All should be the same for federal candidate/party requirements. At least for presidential elections.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Many states are not that way. All should be the same for federal candidate/party requirements. At least for presidential elections.

I honestly wouldn't want to get the federal government in on this. The only reason states are so liberal on it in comparison to the feds is that the states often just ignore the third parties and don't give them much recongnition anyway. If the feds were deliberately trying to craft a law you'd probably get much higher requirements for a third party to be declared, and the Democrats and Repbulicans would never have to worry about it again. I mean, I've looked at several of the proposals from Democrats and Republicans regarding federal campaign spending laws. Provisions that say, for instance, that you can't run unless you get 20% of the signatures in your district (unless you're a Demopublican). I mean, even IF you were a major party that would be impossible. That's about a hundreds thousand signatures every two years.

 

[TRGLDTE]

Not and vote in a Primary, you must declare for one or the other if you wish to vote in a Primary.

Otherwise you remain Independant and just vote in the General Elections.

But then you are denying my equal protection of the law in conflict with my right to associate freely. All primaries should be open. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that limits the field to party candidates, and the party system is what drives the primaries. Take a look at the COTUS. Primary elections are where?

 

[Damocles]

But then you are denying my equal protection of the law in conflict with my right to associate freely. All primaries should be open. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that limits the field to party candidates, and the party system is what drives the primaries. Take a look at the COTUS. Primary elections are where?

Actually rulings appear to be going in a different direction. You violate their rights to associate with like-minded people by invading their Primary...

That's how it has been going lately, at least.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep going in the wrong direction. sort of like freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

 

[cawacko]

I honestly wouldn't want to get the federal government in on this. The only reason states are so liberal on it in comparison to the feds is that the states often just ignore the third parties and don't give them much recongnition anyway. If the feds were deliberately trying to craft a law you'd probably get much higher requirements for a third party to be declared, and the Democrats and Repbulicans would never have to worry about it again. I mean, I've looked at several of the proposals from Democrats and Republicans regarding federal campaign spending laws. Provisions that say, for instance, that you can't run unless you get 20% of the signatures in your district (unless you're a Demopublican). I mean, even IF you were a major party that would be impossible. That's about a hundreds thousand signatures every two years.

Kind of funny how close Republicans and Democrats work together when it comes to avoiding competition. "We'll agree to battle each other but we'll come together to prevent anyone else battling us." And each party's motto is "party first". Then all they have to do is get partisans to think the same way.

 

[uscitizen]

Kind of funny how close Republicans and Democrats work together when it comes to avoiding competition. "We'll agree to battle each other but we'll come together to prevent anyone else battling us." And each party's motto is "party first". Then all they have to do is get partisans to think the same way.

I think you have figured it out