Romney didn't win Maine......

WaveRyder

yet.......if even.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-02-12/ron-p ... blishment/

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ ... s-results/

ron paul get's boned again.

brianlux

What, you mean an election rigged or stolen. That's never happened before... :roll:

Bummer- sorry to hear it but not surprised.

DriftingByTheStorm

Wow. I knew after the first few primaries, the REAL fishy shit would kick in.
Up till now it's been mostly MEDIA MANIPULATION that has fucked with Ron Paul.

THIS IS ELECTION MANIPULATION by the GOP.

From what I now understand,
Washington County vote was DELAYED because of "1-3 inches of predicted snow" which never appeared.
The girl Scouts of Washington County didn't cancel their function, but the GOP canceled the vote.

THEY WILL HOLD THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VOTE SOMETIME NEXT WEEK,
BUT THE GOP HAS ANNOUNCED IT WILL NOT COUNT.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Seriously?
PAUL IS LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED VOTES BEHIND.
Washington County is HEAVILY PRO-RON PAUL.

Hmm.
Scratches Head.

Yeah.
Go Establishment.
This WILL Bite You In The Ass,
Tho.

Prince Of Dorkness

Republicans stealing an election.

Wow.

That's never happened before, has it?

(there's no way he won CPAC, either. The CPAC crowd are the more vile, extreme right-wing people in the country. There's no way they chose a Pro-social medicine, Smarmy mormon over Rick Santorum.)

mikepegg44

I hate Ron Paul for one reason. I never believed in conspiracies before following his career. How one man can be so excluded from a party he is attempting to save from itself is sad. He will "win" Maine when they finally do the straw poll of Washington county...but it won't matter...he already more than likely won the delegates in almost every caucus site which means he will end up with the most delegates from states like Maine, Minnesota, Iowa, Nevada...as long as he stays in the race. It gets harder and harder to rig county and state conventions, especially when there are so many Ron Paul supporters that will be at those conventions watching EVERYTHING that is done...I know I am a delegate for Paul and will go as far as I can in MN.

So Romney can win the beauty contest...hopefully those kinds of things can keep happening so Santorum and Newt end their runs before the convention...if it is a choice between Romney and Paul it gets harder and harder to for "conservatives" to support Romney...

So fuck the GOP establishment for doing this shit so blatantly, ultimately it will be their own undoing...Just like the media's curtain got lifted, so will theirs

DriftingByTheStorm

mikepegg44 wrote:

I hate Ron Paul for one reason. I never believed in conspiracies before following his career.

What a dick that Ron Paul.
:roll: :roll:

mikepegg44

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I hate Ron Paul for one reason. I never believed in conspiracies before following his career.

What a dick that Ron Paul.
:roll: :roll:

yeah...I am a lost cause now!!

kenny olav

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Paul-su ... tally.html

When they finish the tally in this one sparsely populated county on the border of Canada, Ron Paul may eek out a slight win (I doubt it though), but why does it matter? Either Romney wins 11 delegates and Paul wins 10, or vice versa. The other two candidates didn't spend any time or money in Maine... but where they do spend money, they do okay if not win... and Paul is always a distant 4th.

So Paul got about 2000 people to vote for him in Maine?

Can not any Paul supporter understand how laughably insignificant that is?

Sludge Factory

kenny olav wrote:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Paul-supporters-cry-foul-over-caucus-tally.html

When they finish the tally in this one sparsely populated county on the border of Canada, Ron Paul may eek out a slight win (I doubt it though), but why does it matter? Either Romney wins 11 delegates and Paul wins 10, or vice versa. The other two candidates didn't spend any time or money in Maine... but where they do spend money, they do okay if not win... and Paul is always a distant 4th.

So Paul got about 2000 people to vote for him in Maine?

Can not any Paul supporter understand how laughably insignificant that is?

If 2000 votes is equated to nearly first place, dont' you think that your statement would apply to all the other votes for the other candidates as well? Why single out Paul supporters solely?

Your statement could apply just as well to Romney and would be even more applicable to Santorum and Gingrich.

I'm not really sure what your whole point is here. Can you not understand that the taking of a state makes news headlines regardless of whether or not the vote count was 2000 or 20,000? That news headlines generates momentum and donations for a campaign?

WaveRyder

Sludge Factory wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Paul-supporters-cry-foul-over-caucus-tally.html

When they finish the tally in this one sparsely populated county on the border of Canada, Ron Paul may eek out a slight win (I doubt it though), but why does it matter? Either Romney wins 11 delegates and Paul wins 10, or vice versa. The other two candidates didn't spend any time or money in Maine... but where they do spend money, they do okay if not win... and Paul is always a distant 4th.

So Paul got about 2000 people to vote for him in Maine?

Can not any Paul supporter understand how laughably insignificant that is?

If 2000 votes is equated to nearly first place, dont' you think that your statement would apply to all the other votes for the other candidates as well? Why single out Paul supporters solely?

Your statement could apply just as well to Romney and would be even more applicable to Santorum and Gingrich.

I'm not really sure what your whole point is here. Can you not understand that the taking of a state makes news headlines regardless of whether or not the vote count was 2000 or 20,000? That news headlines generates momentum and donations for a campaign?

people dont actually care about the integrity of elections unless their candidate gets screwed.

kenny olav

Sludge Factory wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Paul-supporters-cry-foul-over-caucus-tally.html

When they finish the tally in this one sparsely populated county on the border of Canada, Ron Paul may eek out a slight win (I doubt it though), but why does it matter? Either Romney wins 11 delegates and Paul wins 10, or vice versa. The other two candidates didn't spend any time or money in Maine... but where they do spend money, they do okay if not win... and Paul is always a distant 4th.

So Paul got about 2000 people to vote for him in Maine?

Can not any Paul supporter understand how laughably insignificant that is?

If 2000 votes is equated to nearly first place, dont' you think that your statement would apply to all the other votes for the other candidates as well? Why single out Paul supporters solely?

Your statement could apply just as well to Romney and would be even more applicable to Santorum and Gingrich.

I'm not really sure what your whole point is here. Can you not understand that the taking of a state makes news headlines regardless of whether or not the vote count was 2000 or 20,000? That news headlines generates momentum and donations for a campaign?

Of course my statement applies to the other candidates, particularly Romney. It's laughable that he only got about 2000 votes as well! The whole Republican field is a joke! But despite all the passion of Ron Paul's supporters, they can't even beat these other clowns. If Ron Paul is so awesome, he should be pulling in way more than 2000 people in a state with a population of 1.3 million... especially in a rural state where people actually still talk with their neighbors.

mikepegg44

kenny olav wrote:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Paul-supporters-cry-foul-over-caucus-tally.html

When they finish the tally in this one sparsely populated county on the border of Canada, Ron Paul may eek out a slight win (I doubt it though), but why does it matter? Either Romney wins 11 delegates and Paul wins 10, or vice versa. The other two candidates didn't spend any time or money in Maine... but where they do spend money, they do okay if not win... and Paul is always a distant 4th.

So Paul got about 2000 people to vote for him in Maine?

Cannot any Paul supporter understand how laughably insignificant that is?

when I still get the question, is he seriously running or just trying to get a spot at the convention?
when I still get the question, isn't he for isolationism and slashing the military budget?
when I hear on more than one occasion that his policies will allow corporations to run amok...(which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a free market is by the way)
when you have Lawrence O'Donnell on national television after he finishes second in New Hampshire, calling him and his campaign a fraud and that he really doesn't want to win the nomination.
when you still have people that think Iraq had WMD's and that Osama was the president of Afghanistan and that Saddam worked with him...
when you still have people who think conservative means not wanting gays to marry and for military action all over the globe no matter the cost while we go bankrupt at home...
when you still have people who think that President Obama is a Kenyan hell bent on turning the US into a marxist communist state...
I could go on for hours...but an increase in support from 2008 no matter how "insignificant" it is to you, it says a lot to me. That people are wading through all the bullshit and getting out and supporting a candidate in a year when turnout is low and inspiration is even lower. His crowds are enthusiastic and positive...not negative and angry...they are really quite a site if you never have been...i would encourage you to go to one
what you should worry about is why the same marginalization of candidates who truly represent change to the system we currently have get derailed by the media and their own party...I mean there's....and then of course you cannot forget about...oh and the always outstanding...oh wait...there aren't any...
You can call Maine insignificant, you can say that it is a measly 2000 votes....you can say it doesn't matter in the end...but let's just remember what happened in 2000, and we may start to realize that one state can make a difference, one county can make a difference in the entire world's future for decades to come...we will never know what a difference winning Maine's straw poll would have made

kenny olav

I think Ron Paul is a fraud, and I didn't need that pompous prick Lawrence O'Donnell to figure that out for me. He was a fraud when he ran for President in 2008. No one would be giving him all this attention, and he wouldn't sell nearly as many books if he weren't a perpetual candidate. I think he's smart enough to know that he can never actually win. If he doesn't, then the exuberance he displays after every 4th place finish is even more ridiculous. Even if he's not a fraud, the libertarian philosophy is based on fraudulent claims about society - and it's irresponsible. Any candidate who does not support universal health insurance is irresponsible, for starters. It's also irresponsible for any candidate to support less gun control and not more in my opinion.

mikepegg44

kenny olav wrote:

I think Ron Paul is a fraud, and I didn't need that pompous prick Lawrence O'Donnell to figure that out for me. He was a fraud when he ran for President in 2008. No one would be giving him all this attention, and he wouldn't sell nearly as many books if he weren't a perpetual candidate. I think he's smart enough to know that he can never actually win. If he doesn't, then the exuberance he displays after every 4th place finish is even more ridiculous. Even if he's not a fraud, the libertarian philosophy is based on fraudulent claims about society - and it's irresponsible. Any candidate who does not support universal health insurance is irresponsible, for starters. It's also irresponsible for any candidate to support less gun control and not more in my opinion.

fraudulent claims about society

what would those be?

actually never mind on the question, I realize now that you don't really care about a discussion. So i am glad you voiced your opinion and I think I got it...disagreeing with Kenny is irresponsible.

isn't democrats and republicans ruining the dollar through terrible fiscal and monetary management irresponsible? and libertarians are the irresponsible...

Sludge Factory

mikepegg44 wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

I think Ron Paul is a fraud, and I didn't need that pompous prick Lawrence O'Donnell to figure that out for me. He was a fraud when he ran for President in 2008. No one would be giving him all this attention, and he wouldn't sell nearly as many books if he weren't a perpetual candidate. I think he's smart enough to know that he can never actually win. If he doesn't, then the exuberance he displays after every 4th place finish is even more ridiculous. Even if he's not a fraud, the libertarian philosophy is based on fraudulent claims about society - and it's irresponsible. Any candidate who does not support universal health insurance is irresponsible, for starters. It's also irresponsible for any candidate to support less gun control and not more in my opinion.

fraudulent claims about society

what would those be?

actually never mind on the question, I realize now that you don't really care about a discussion. So i am glad you voiced your opinion and I think I got it...disagreeing with Kenny is irresponsible.

isn't democrats and republicans ruining the dollar through terrible fiscal and monetary management irresponsible? and libertarians are the irresponsible...

No, the only ones irresponsible are those who believe in freedom and personal liberties... :roll:

kenny olav

Guys, I'm far from alone in my opinion about universal health insurance. Most polls show that most Republicans support it too. Yes, I think the idea of government that you believe in is irresponsible, but you're free to disagree with me. I have a few friends who are really really supportive of Ron Paul, and I enjoy debating with them, even though it never seems to get anywhere. Maybe I'm being disrespectful here on the board, but the nature of politics in this country can really piss me off. This country is overdue for some major leaps forward and instead we are still debating things that should have been settled years ago... in the case of universal healthcare, it should have been settled 100 years ago.

I think progressives understand personal liberties far better than conservatives ever have. Libertarianism is a tyrannical wolf in sheep's clothing. It makes dictators out of business owners while stripping away the rights of workers.

But you guys are losing now. Finally.

Sludge Factory

kenny olav wrote:

Guys, I'm far from alone in my opinion about universal health insurance. Most polls show that most Republicans support it too. Yes, I think the idea of government that you believe in is irresponsible, but you're free to disagree with me. I have a few friends who are really really supportive of Ron Paul, and I enjoy debating with them, even though it never seems to get anywhere. Maybe I'm being disrespectful here on the board, but the nature of politics in this country can really piss me off. This country is overdue for some major leaps forward and instead we are still debating things that should have been settled years ago... in the case of universal healthcare, it should have been settled 100 years ago.

I think progressives understand personal liberties far better than conservatives ever have. Libertarianism is a tyrannical wolf in sheep's clothing. It makes dictators out of business owners while stripping away the rights of workers.

But you guys are losing now. Finally.

In the same token, I could say that Progressives are tyrant wolves in sheep's clothing. Everything you are stating about libertarianism is a weird distortion of what it actually is and says to me that you don't actually understand what it is about. Progressives believe in using force for the "good of the people". True Libertarians believe in the Non Aggression Principal which doesn't allow for the use of force no matter how delusional you may be about what is right and wrong.

Furthermore universal healthcare was settled MORE than 100 years ago. Problem is, no one wants to pay attention to the constitution and how if you want to change it there is a process set in place to do just that. As it stand today, universal healthcare is unconstitutional whether you like it or not.

If you think the message of liberty is losing I'd ask you to pay attention a little closer. While it is entirely possible that Ron Paul may not be the nominee for president, his message is spreading and growing with each day.

WaveRyder

you selfish people wanting your freedom.....good grief

mikepegg44

kenny olav wrote:

Guys, I'm far from alone in my opinion about universal health insurance. Most polls show that most Republicans support it too. Yes, I think the idea of government that you believe in is irresponsible, but you're free to disagree with me. I have a few friends who are really really supportive of Ron Paul, and I enjoy debating with them, even though it never seems to get anywhere. Maybe I'm being disrespectful here on the board, but the nature of politics in this country can really piss me off. This country is overdue for some major leaps forward and instead we are still debating things that should have been settled years ago... in the case of universal healthcare, it should have been settled 100 years ago.

I think progressives understand personal liberties far better than conservatives ever have. Libertarianism is a tyrannical wolf in sheep's clothing. It makes dictators out of business owners while stripping away the rights of workers.

But you guys are losing now. Finally.

not sure what you mean by losing...when have libertarian ideals ever been embraced by the masses?
Libertarianism does not make dictators out of business owners...like I said earlier that is a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets. Also, the states are still around. Limited FEDERAL government, limited by the constiitution to perform its actual duties would benefit everyone. I should be paying more taxes to my state and local municipality than I ever should to a federal government. The difference between people who support a larger federal government and those who would want it limited by the constitution comes down to the name of the country.

Either you would like it to be called the United States of American where the feds are limited and the states have the right to offer things like healthcare if they so choose, or you would like it to be called the United STATE of America where the feds walk all over the constitution and its enumerated and implied powers. There is a process to change it. I suggest anyone who wants federal universal healthcare to go ahead and start a drive to amend the constitution, because without that, the federal government cannot mandate the purchase of any product like health insurance....that is up to the states.
but you can be glad we are losing...but I would suggest taking the dollar you currently have in your pocket out, look at it, say goodbye and tear it in half...because that is what it will be worth if we continue down this awful path of spending our way out of debt. Solid monetary policy and fiscal sanity is not irresponsible in any measure. you cannot add programs to an already bloated fed budget without first fixing your fiscal house. We will end up like greece, and then we are fucked. Dollar first, military second, and then and only then is it responsible to talk about a state take over of about 1/6th of our economy.



as an aside, I am glad you have good debates with your friends, sometimes on a message board things can come across a lot harsher than you meant to say them. But if you think libertarianism is irresponsible, I suggest you read a little bit more. It isn't the free-for-all you think it is

kenny olav

mikepegg44 wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

Guys, I'm far from alone in my opinion about universal health insurance. Most polls show that most Republicans support it too. Yes, I think the idea of government that you believe in is irresponsible, but you're free to disagree with me. I have a few friends who are really really supportive of Ron Paul, and I enjoy debating with them, even though it never seems to get anywhere. Maybe I'm being disrespectful here on the board, but the nature of politics in this country can really piss me off. This country is overdue for some major leaps forward and instead we are still debating things that should have been settled years ago... in the case of universal healthcare, it should have been settled 100 years ago.

I think progressives understand personal liberties far better than conservatives ever have. Libertarianism is a tyrannical wolf in sheep's clothing. It makes dictators out of business owners while stripping away the rights of workers.

But you guys are losing now. Finally.

not sure what you mean by losing...when have libertarian ideals ever been embraced by the masses?
Libertarianism does not make dictators out of business owners...like I said earlier that is a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets.

What I mean that is that economic libertarianism has long had a foothold in America, particularly in the Republican Party. America has never been a libertarian country on social issues, but economically speaking, there has always been a libertarian axe ready to hack away at progressive economic reforms that have been implemented over the years. A lot of the New Deal has been undermined, and I think we are in need of a modern New Deal. Conservatives won't like it... they'll think it's tyranny, but really it's about creating a more fair society... And may I be clear that I do not mean an equal society... because it's a lie to say we were all created equal. We're clearly not. Some of us are more talented than others. Some of us will naturally fall into leadership positions, and deserve to better compensated. But we all deserve equal protection and treatment under the law. Conservatives love the myth that we are all equal, because therefore they can blame poverty on the individual and not on the corruptions of the free market, which, when the libertarian ethos is applied, is really a tyrannical market.

mikepegg44

kenny olav wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

Guys, I'm far from alone in my opinion about universal health insurance. Most polls show that most Republicans support it too. Yes, I think the idea of government that you believe in is irresponsible, but you're free to disagree with me. I have a few friends who are really really supportive of Ron Paul, and I enjoy debating with them, even though it never seems to get anywhere. Maybe I'm being disrespectful here on the board, but the nature of politics in this country can really piss me off. This country is overdue for some major leaps forward and instead we are still debating things that should have been settled years ago... in the case of universal healthcare, it should have been settled 100 years ago.

I think progressives understand personal liberties far better than conservatives ever have. Libertarianism is a tyrannical wolf in sheep's clothing. It makes dictators out of business owners while stripping away the rights of workers.

But you guys are losing now. Finally.

not sure what you mean by losing...when have libertarian ideals ever been embraced by the masses?
Libertarianism does not make dictators out of business owners...like I said earlier that is a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets.

What I mean that is that economic libertarianism has long had a foothold in America, particularly in the Republican Party. America has never been a libertarian country on social issues, but economically speaking, there has always been a libertarian axe ready to hack away at progressive economic reforms that have been implemented over the years. A lot of the New Deal has been undermined, and I think we are in need of a modern New Deal. Conservatives won't like it... they'll think it's tyranny, but really it's about creating a more fair society... And may I be clear that I do not mean an equal society... because it's a lie to say we were all created equal. We're clearly not. Some of us are more talented than others. Some of us will naturally fall into leadership positions, and deserve to better compensated. But we all deserve equal protection and treatment under the law. Conservatives love the myth that we are all equal, because therefore they can blame poverty on the individual and not on the corruptions of the free market, which, when the libertarian ethos is applied, is really a tyrannical market.

But we all deserve equal protection and treatment under the law.

agree. and when you let a government make laws that benefit some over the many you are undermining that principle. What you are talking about is crony capitalism. It is government protection of corporations without protecting the individual rights of the people. That is the difference it what you think is a free market and what actually is...in a free market, corporations would be free to do what they want to the extent that they do not violate individual rights of every person in the process. It isn't the job of the federal government to do anything but protect an individuals rights from being violated. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of free markets to think that the government would simply allow tyranny or that we have had free markets without government intervention and manipulation. There would be no bail outs, there would be no corporate welfare and handouts, there would be no subsidies...the best ideas would come to the top and the rest would fall by the wayside, all the while the rights of the individual and private property would be strictly enforced. Do you think wanting the federal powers limited by the rules that set up the federal government is really that ridiculous? A mistrust of the markets is natural I suppose when they have been corrupted and abused for hundreds of years, but to say it would lead to tyrannical corporations is nothing short of demagoguery.
give the government less room for control and there is less room to corrupt...
Do not get what modern neo-conservatives say about free markets confused with what they truly should be...I think most conservatives who rail on and on about free markets do not understand them and even worse, think that they are hampered by democratic supported policies only...