Posted on 06/19/2012 10:07:14 AM PDT by Colofornian
Presidential conventions
The Democratic Party of the United States uses pledged delegates and superdelegates. A candidate for the Democratic nominee must win a majority of combined delegate votes at the Democratic National Convention.
Pledged delegates are elected or chosen at the state or local level, with the understanding that they will support a particular candidate at the convention. Pledged delegates are however not actually bound to vote for that candidate, thus the candidates are allowed to periodically review the list of delegates and eliminate any of those they feel would not be supportive. Currently there are 3,253 pledged delegates.
Of the 4,047 total Democratic delegates, 794 are superdelegates, which are usually Democratic members of Congress, governors, former Presidents, and other party leaders. They are not required to indicate preference for a candidate.
The Democratic Party uses a proportional representation to determine how many delegates each candidate is awarded in each state. For example, a candidate who wins 40% of a state's vote in the primary election will win 40% of that state's delegates; however, a candidate must win at least 15% of the primary vote in order to receive any delegates. There is no process to win superdelegates, since they can vote for whomever they please. A candidate needs to win a simple majority of total delegates to earn the Democratic nomination.[1]
The Republican Party of the United States utilizes a similar system with slightly different terminology, employing pledged and unpledged delegates. Of the total 2,380 Republican delegates (2,286 in 2012), 1,719 are pledged delegates, who as with the Democratic Party, are elected at the state or local level. To become the Republican Party nominee, the candidate must win a simple majority of 1,191 of the 2,380 total delegates at the Republican National Convention.
A majority of the unpledged delegates are elected much like the pledged delegates, and are likely to be committed to a specific candidate. Many of the other unpledged delegates automatically claim the delegate status either by virtue of their position as a party chair or national party committee person. This group is known as unpledged RNC member delegates.
The process by which delegates are awarded to a candidate will vary from state to state. Many states use a winner-take-all system, where popular vote determines the winning candidate for that state, however, beginning in 2012 many states now use proportional representation. While the Republican National Committee does not require a 15% minimum threshold, individual state parties may impart such a threshold.
The unpledged RNC member delegates are free to vote for any candidate and are not bound by the electoral votes of their state. The majority of the unpledged delegates (those who are elected or chosen) are technically free to vote for any candidate; however they are likely to be committed to one specifically.[1]
Presidential conventions
The Democratic Party of the United States uses pledged delegates and superdelegates. A candidate for the Democratic nominee must win a majority of combined delegate votes at the Democratic National Convention.
Pledged delegates are elected or chosen at the state or local level, with the understanding that they will support a particular candidate at the convention. Pledged delegates are however not actually bound to vote for that candidate, thus the candidates are allowed to periodically review the list of delegates and eliminate any of those they feel would not be supportive. Currently there are 3,253 pledged delegates.
Of the 4,047 total Democratic delegates, 794 are superdelegates, which are usually Democratic members of Congress, governors, former Presidents, and other party leaders. They are not required to indicate preference for a candidate.
The Democratic Party uses a proportional representation to determine how many delegates each candidate is awarded in each state. For example, a candidate who wins 40% of a state's vote in the primary election will win 40% of that state's delegates; however, a candidate must win at least 15% of the primary vote in order to receive any delegates. There is no process to win superdelegates, since they can vote for whomever they please. A candidate needs to win a simple majority of total delegates to earn the Democratic nomination.[1]
The Republican Party of the United States utilizes a similar system with slightly different terminology, employing pledged and unpledged delegates. Of the total 2,380 Republican delegates (2,286 in 2012), 1,719 are pledged delegates, who as with the Democratic Party, are elected at the state or local level. To become the Republican Party nominee, the candidate must win a simple majority of 1,191 of the 2,380 total delegates at the Republican National Convention.
A majority of the unpledged delegates are elected much like the pledged delegates, and are likely to be committed to a specific candidate. Many of the other unpledged delegates automatically claim the delegate status either by virtue of their position as a party chair or national party committee person. This group is known as unpledged RNC member delegates.
The process by which delegates are awarded to a candidate will vary from state to state. Many states use a winner-take-all system, where popular vote determines the winning candidate for that state, however, beginning in 2012 many states now use proportional representation. While the Republican National Committee does not require a 15% minimum threshold, individual state parties may impart such a threshold.
The unpledged RNC member delegates are free to vote for any candidate and are not bound by the electoral votes of their state. The majority of the unpledged delegates (those who are elected or chosen) are technically free to vote for any candidate; however they are likely to be committed to one specifically.[1]
Those mormon doctrines always remind ne of the time we went to church next to a mormon religious building...
The mormons would have their children lined along the fence and the kids would scream ugly hateful things to the Christian children as we came in from the parking lot...
They would yell “Youre going to Hell because youre not a mormon” and other evil things...
The adult mormons would be back near the building and call suggestions to their children and encourage them and giggle like hyhenas...
My little daughter was 2 years old and would scream in fright from the sound of their voices...
That always “delighted” the nasty parents and they lapped that up and would address my little daughter personally...
When our pastor went over to talk to the bishop (like Willard is a bishop) the mormon bishop used four letter words at him...
The bigotted torment from the mormons never stopped while we were going there...
“nice” mormon neighbors...
Mitt Romney may aspire to be a god by and by. This is an improvement upon the incumbent, who thinks he already is one.
I am reminded of this incident I was told about by a team chaplain from a major university football powerhouse about the experience of one of the young players on the team. The player was flagged for a late hit on the BYU sideline. He was immediately surrounded by a bunch of BYU players and coaches who expressed their displeasure. When this young Christian talked to the chaplain a few days later, he expressed some confusion about the incident saying 'I thought Mormons were supposed to be Christians? You couldn't believe the foul language they used.' The chaplain soft-peddled it by saying 'Well, they're just young men.' The player corrected him and told the worst language was from the BYU coaches.
BTW the chaplain said he later taught the young man about the false beliefs of Mormonism.
So which of the 100 or so extant sects of Mormonism is the standard for interpreting the Standard Works? Surely, it must be one of those groups who hold to D&C 132:4, right? Unless, of course, an everlasting covenant only lasts for a little while.
Prove it.
Don't just engage in belittling a President of the United States minus proof.
Prove it.
Now, I think we can call agree...
That Democrats generally either don't acknowledge God at all...or if they ever do, they tend to treat him as a functional deist. (A God who's not involved in day-to-day affairs)
Which, of course, then means that the Dems tend to substitute govt -- both the executive and judicial branches -- as the highest ceilings of power, authority, and aid.
So in this way, we can all agree that they tend to raise govt. to the status of "godhood."
But I take it by your posts that you each mean more than that. More like Obama sees himself in a sort of divine personality cult.
Now I don't rule this out; it just doesn't make sense from what we hear from the bulk of FREEPERs.
For example, if you've ever claimed Obama is a closet (or other kind) of Muslim, then you've just contradicted yourself.
I would say it's probably been in the 4-figures the number of FREEPERS who have labeled Obama a "Muslim" of some sort these past 5.5 years.
Your posts on this thread wind up directly contradicting these other FREEPERs. Why is that?
Because of ALL the world religions, the one that can't stand the thought of another god is Islam. It's radical monotheism.
Therefore, if Barry considers himself a Muslim, being a god would be the last thing he thought he was.
So, which is it: Is Barry a closet Muslim who considers that there's only a single god in the universe? Or does he deem himself a fellow "god" -- and therefore isn't a Muslim at all?
And if it's the latter, I expect you from now on to start challenging all these FR claims that Barry's a Muslim. Because these two worldviews cannot co-exist. They are contradictory.
And I then thought to myself, "Well, I don't really expect any of these four to start challenging other FREEPERs who believe Barry is a Muslim."
Why is that?
Because I don't think you really think that strong enough that Barry thinks he's a real god on the level of THE god.
If I had to guess the "depth or surface" level of your statements that Obama thinks he's already a god, I think it amounted to a spur-of-the-moment "cutesy" thing to say so that you -- or other Romney voters -- don't have to really deal with the reality that Romney and other temple Mormons really embrace godhood for themselves.
IOW, you each exercised some temporary deflection -- and basically wound up engaging in apologetics on behalf of Mormonism.
Apologists for Mormonism. Imagine that. (I'll betcha you each never thought you'd be doing that, did you?)
Now maybe for one of your four -- you really do think Obama considers himself a "god"...
Do me a favor and stop posting to me. I made a simple joke and have no desire to be drawn into religious debates on FR. I’ve seen enough of your posting history to know that you are quite involved in exposing Mormonism as a cult, and frankly, I have no argument with you.
But I refuse to be drawn into it.
The one and only thing I’ll comment on is a critique of logic — your question poses a false dichotomy in that it is perfectly possible for Obama to be a Muslim by the rules of Muslim birthright inheritance without being a practicing Muslim, and therefore quite capable of having a god complex without violating a separate religious faith.
Whether I believe any of that is irrelevant, it’s just a commentary on a logical fallacy.
THX 1138
That's GOOD!
Almost on the order of: How many UNCLEAN animals did Moses take on the Ark?
Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are considered unofficial by said officials.At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially.This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness.Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial.This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used on FR by haters and bigots cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site elsewhere.Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially.
Likewise...
Lots of our MORMON FRiends have hit upon the same theme in this thread: That Mitt does NOT think he'll be a god someday.
They ignore the LDS scripture (that Mitt evidently believes in; fervently) that SHOWS otherwise. [#76]
Are you COMPELLED to respond?
I've learned to IGNORE the replies that I do not wish to respond to; while the MORMONs have it down to a fine art!
The Roman Catholic Church considers the Protestant denominations to be heretical and considers the Eastern Orthodox divided from them. The Eastern Orthodox considers both the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations to be heretical. I guess that about covers all of us.
ALL: (He said, having posted twice on this thread -- located on a religious thread)
I browse articles via this address: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index — it doesn’t filter out by topic type, so if the headline doesn’t specifically mention it as a religion subforum topic, I probably won’t (and in this case, didn’t) notice.
Feel free to carry on with the discussion, just stop pinging me to it.
You didn’t answer CC’s question...
Which of the 100+ sects of mormonism gets to determine heretical doctrine?
If you do not wish to see Religion Forum posts, do NOT use the “everything” option on the browse. Instead, browse by “News/Activism.” When you log back in, the browse will reset to “everything” - so be sure to set it back to “News/Activism.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.