Iraq will lose this election for McCain

[PeroW-Cheney]

Thank you for the homework. I'm stunned Hillary won Ohio and Texas. I wonder what effect Limbaugh's brigades played and I'm trying to figure out a way to measure an estimate. Maybe Rush affected things, or maybe he didn't. What do Republicans have to vote for at this point, anyway?

Does the following logic make sense?

A Democrat would go to the primary and select candidates for every race on the ballot. First, they'd vote for president and then continue on down the ballot. If you add the Obama, Clinton and Edwards voters, you would see how many people asked for Democrat ballots.

A Republican who follows Rush's command would ask for a Democrat ballot, vote for Hillary, and then skip all the other races to vote on the issues.

So does it make sense to add up the votes for other candidates? Find the shortage between those race turnouts and compare the gap in votes to the Presidential race benchmark? Could this gap of voters who only voted for Clinton be a way to measure the Republican Party's influence in the Democrat Primary? Local Republicans around me LIKE LOW TURNOUT IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES because it allows more power to the conservatives who stick around.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Corvair

Right. Hillary's unfavorable rating is ONLY (!) 50%.

I rest my case.

And McCain’s is 45%, so what’s your point? The number of people who dislike McCain is almost as great as the number of people that dislike Hillary. McCain is not a strong candidate; you Republicans could have certainly chosen better.

And what happens to McCain if the Democrats nominate a Hillary-Obama ticket or an Obama-Hillary ticket?

[flaja]

[quote=hrdman2luv;6560]

It's apparent, the GOP, thanks to George Bush, John McCain, and the rest of the neocons, is going down this year. Just as Ron Paul predicted.

I wasn’t aware that Ron Paul has 1191 delegates to the Republican National Convention. If the Republican Party goes down this November, it will be due, at least in part, to the presence of libertarian influence in its ranks. Any coalition of libertarians and conservatives is inherently unstable and must eventually collapse. You cannot have Christians and pot smokers in the same party.

If your a neocon supporter.

Your or you’re?

The real conservatives (like us Ron Paul supporters)

Dream on.

Votes for democrats:
Barack Obama: Primaries = 12,775,384 & Caucus's = 356,513
Hillary Clinton: Primaries = 13,049,849 & Caucus's = 175,907
John Edwards: Primaries = 815,963 & Caucus's = 2,593

With a total of: Primaries = 26,641,196 & Caucus's = 535,013

Where did you get the figures for the caucuses from? My understanding is that the Democrat Party doesn’t compile or report vote tallies for the caucuses; the Democrats only report the number of precinct delegates that are awarded. This doesn’t give any reflection of the number of people that participated in the caucuses or forecast the number of voters that will go to the polls next November.

With a total of: Primaries = 15,873,124 & Caucus's = 337,665

Assuming that your data for the caucuses are correct the totals are:

27,176,209 Democrat votes
16,212,789 Republican votes

For a total of 43,388,998.

But since 1992 turnout in presidential elections has averaged 107,096,033 voters. Primary/Caucus turnout doesn’t indicate anything about November.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by PeroW-Cheney

Thank you for the homework. I'm stunned Hillary won Ohio and Texas. I wonder what effect Limbaugh's brigades played and I'm trying to figure out a way to measure an estimate. Maybe Rush affected things, or maybe he didn't. What do Republicans have to vote for at this point, anyway?

Does the following logic make sense?

A Democrat would go to the primary and select candidates for every race on the ballot. First, they'd vote for president and then continue on down the ballot. If you add the Obama, Clinton and Edwards voters, you would see how many people asked for Democrat ballots.

A Republican who follows Rush's command would ask for a Democrat ballot, vote for Hillary, and then skip all the other races to vote on the issues.

So does it make sense to add up the votes for other candidates? Find the shortage between those race turnouts and compare the gap in votes to the Presidential race benchmark? Could this gap of voters who only voted for Clinton be a way to measure the Republican Party's influence in the Democrat Primary? Local Republicans around me LIKE LOW TURNOUT IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES because it allows more power to the conservatives who stick around.

How many states have primary elections for other offices when they have a presidential primary? I know in Florida the two are separate. The only office on the presidential primary ballot is president. The primary for Congress, governor etcetera are not held until September.

[hrdman2luv]

[quote=flaja;6569]

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

I wasn’t aware that Ron Paul has 1191 delegates to the Republican National Convention. If the Republican Party goes down this November, it will be due, at least in part, to the presence of libertarian influence in its ranks. Any coalition of libertarians and conservatives is inherently unstable and must eventually collapse. You cannot have Christians and pot smokers in the same party.

You just don't get it do you? It will be because the GOP decided to run on the same platform that cost them the 2006 election. It will be because they are running "pro-war" candidates. It will be because America is sick to death of the George W. Bush's, and those who support him and his ways. And McCain is already getting the reputation of being John Dubya McCain.


Dream on.

In November, the Dubya/Mc-insane supporters will be dreaming of the day that their party returns to their conservative anti-war, education, taxes, immigration and foreign policy ways.

Where did you get the figures for the caucuses from? My understanding is that the Democrat Party doesn’t compile or report vote tallies for the caucuses; the Democrats only report the number of precinct delegates that are awarded. This doesn’t give any reflection of the number of people that participated in the caucuses or forecast the number of voters that will go to the polls next November.

I separated the caucus numbers because I knew they didn't mean the same as the primary vote count. But to show the difference in the tallies, just the same.



Assuming that your data for the caucuses are correct the totals are:

27,176,209 Democrat votes
16,212,789 Republican votes

For a total of 43,388,998.

But since 1992 turnout in presidential elections has averaged 107,096,033 voters. Primary/Caucus turnout doesn’t indicate anything about November.

Well duh. Everyone knows the primary and coucus numbers are always lower than the geneal election votes. But, through out history, they have always remained the same percentages as the both. Back in 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996 etc etc....They still reflected the same winners in the general/mid-term elections.

[flaja]

[quote=hrdman2luv;6571]

Originally Posted by flaja

Well duh. Everyone knows the primary and coucus numbers are always lower than the geneal election votes. But, through out history, they have always remained the same percentages as the both. Back in 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996 etc etc....They still reflected the same winners in the general/mid-term elections.

If primary/caucus vote counts don't mean anything in regards to whom the winner of the general election will be, why did you bring them up trying to convince everyone here that the Republicans are going to lose the election in November because Ron Paul isn't the Republican nominee?

You are a typical libertarian blowhard: ignorant about everything you try to discuss.

[hrdman2luv]

[quote=flaja;6573]

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

If primary/caucus vote counts don't mean anything in regards to whom the winner of the general election will be, why did you bring them up trying to convince everyone here that the Republicans are going to lose the election in November because Ron Paul isn't the Republican nominee?

You are a typical libertarian blowhard: ignorant about everything you try to discuss.

Who said the primary numbers "don't mean anything". Sounds like you blowing too hard.

By the way, since when did anything libertarian become typical? I don't know any libertarians. I'm more conservative than anything.
By the way, Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. He left the libertarian party because they were for abortion and illegal immigration, like your hero "John W. Mc-insane"

But besides getting into a childish debate with someone who can't even see the nose on his face, do your own research. If you don't believe my numbers, look them up yourself. Research the voter turnout for the last 10 years. You will find that the closer the numbers in the primaries, the closer the election. Remember how close the elections were in 2000 and 2004. Bush won by only 1 state. As so the primaries went.
And this year, the democrats are on schedule for a landslide victory over your liberal conservative McDubya.

[flaja]

[quote=hrdman2luv;6576]

Originally Posted by flaja

Who said the primary numbers "don't mean anything". Sounds like you blowing too hard.

By the way, since when did anything libertarian become typical? I don't know any libertarians. I'm more conservative than anything.
By the way, Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. He left the libertarian party because they were for abortion and illegal immigration, like your hero "John W. Mc-insane"

But besides getting into a childish debate with someone who can't even see the nose on his face, do your own research. If you don't believe my numbers, look them up yourself. Research the voter turnout for the last 10 years. You will find that the closer the numbers in the primaries, the closer the election. Remember how close the elections were in 2000 and 2004. Bush won by only 1 state. As so the primaries went.
And this year, the democrats are on schedule for a landslide victory over your liberal conservative McDubya.

If Paul isn’t a libertarian, why does he want to legalize drugs?

Ron Paul’s isolationism is not conservatism.

Ron Paul’s support for offshore drilling and his general opposition to environmental conservation laws is corporatism, not conservatism.

Ron Paul’s support for the gold standard is due to his warped libertarian concept of what the Constitution says about money; it is not conservatism.

His We the People Act is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution because any legal case that affects any part of the Constitution clearly falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal courts. Paul’s law is not conservatism.

Paul’s opposition to federal anti-trust laws is pure libertarianism. Conservatives are opposed to laissez-faire capitalism because it encourages fraud and the concentration of both wealth and poverty which creates the risk of social upheaval.

Paul’s opposition to the military draft is not conservatism.

Paul’s opposition to capital punishment is not conservatism.

His opposition to a federal role in public education goes against 223 years of U.S. history and is not conservatism.

[Corvair]

I'm reluctant to interrupt such a spirited debate, but...

Originally Posted by flaja

...And McCain’s is 45%, so what’s your point?

The point is obvious. I'm not going to spoonfeed you.

Originally Posted by flaja

...McCain is not a strong candidate; you Republicans could have certainly chosen better.

He didn't get my vote in the primary but he will in November. I agree we could have chosen better.

Originally Posted by flaja

And what happens to McCain if the Democrats nominate a Hillary-Obama ticket or an Obama-Hillary ticket?

Who knows? We'll have to wait and see, won't we? My guess is his chances are a lot better than many people are predicting. We don't yet have any idea who his running mate will be, either. (By the way, I think an Obama/Clinton ticket is extremely unlikely. Hillary is not interested in being vice president of the United States.)

Okay, fellas. As you were.

[hrdman2luv]

[quote=flaja;6587]

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

If Paul isn’t a libertarian, why does he want to legalize drugs?
Because it's not the role of the Federal government to make laws like that. The constitution doesn't allow it. And the states can handle these things better than the Federal Government. Not to mention the fact that the Fed's can arrest and incarserate a terminally ill cancer patient for using a doctor prescribed marijuana cigarette..

Ron Paul’s isolationism is not conservatism.

Explain how Ron Paul is an isolationist. I gotta hear this one.

Ron Paul’s support for offshore drilling and his general opposition to environmental conservation laws is corporatism, not conservatism.

No. It's getting the federal government and their restrictions out of the private sectore. It's giving the free market the opportunity to be free. And to allow competition to drive prices down. Not up. Every time the federal government puts undue restrictions and taxes on a private industry, their prices have to go up.

Ron Paul’s support for the gold standard is due to his warped libertarian concept of what the Constitution says about money; it is not conservatism.

So printing money out of thin air, with nothing to back it, is conservative? So explain the value of the dollar. What is making it crash? The friggin value of ur dollar is looking like a bad day at the stock exchange. And soon, it will look like Enron.



His We the People Act is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution because any legal case that affects any part of the Constitution clearly falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal courts. Paul’s law is not conservatism.

First off, only congress can change the constitution. Thats in the constitution.
second: "If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion (Roe v. Wade), sexual practices (Lawrence v. Texas), and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law.

It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments. Because the bill forbids federal courts from hearing "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion," a practical effect of this bill might be that atheists could be banned from holding public office in Texas, as its state constitution requires the acknowledgment of a supreme being.[4] However, historically this technicality has not been enforced."

And what is wrong with this?

Paul’s opposition to federal anti-trust laws is pure libertarianism. Conservatives are opposed to laissez-faire capitalism because it encourages fraud and the concentration of both wealth and poverty which creates the risk of social upheaval.

Anti-trust laws were created to supposedly protect us from monopolies. The sourse of monopolies is Governmental powers. And the anti-trust laws are really irrelevant to monopolies. Back in the 70's, they may have been necessary. Legislation against monopolies makes things worse for business's.
If your against monopolies, you should be against the government protecting them.
Just look what happened to Microsoft under Bill Clinton. And Microsoft wasn't trying to be a monopoly. It just had a better product. And now, to fully comply, and not be hounded by the IRS and Federal Government, Bill Gates tucked tail, and started installing automatic trackers hidden in it's software that not only stores everything you do on you computer, but if you connected to the internet, it is sent to the Federal Government. Which, even if you have nothing to hide, is still a violation of everyones privacy.

Paul’s opposition to the military draft is not conservatism.
The draft isn't any issue any party wants. And that has nothing to do with politics. Its preserving our standard of freedom. If you don't like freedom, I'm sure China would welcome you.

Paul’s opposition to capital punishment is not conservatism.

Because there are so many cases in which DNA proved the inaccuracies within our judicial system. From corrupt sherriffs, deputies, prosecutors, judges and other departments that can be corrupted. And innocent people have died because of them. Which is against the same laws that put the innocent person in jail for.

His opposition to a federal role in public education goes against 223 years of U.S. history and is not conservatism.

Conservatives have always been against big government and un-constitutional agentcies. Conservatives believe that it's not the role of the federal government to spend you tax money on some one in another state. Especially, when our tax dollars are going to educate illegal aliens.
And the one thing that makes even more sense, is that someone in Washington DC, thinks they know more about my kids education in East Texas, than his own teachers.