Posted on 06/25/2014 7:35:18 PM PDT by xzins
Anyone receiving any variety of government welfare is a questionable voter AFTER a pattern of taking advantage of welfare is established. I include corporations, businesses, lawyers, individuals, and institutions.
No doubt. I suspect they couldn’t buy Chris, though. The pubbie elite are gonna be suprised here.
People kining up for Mc Daniel seems to be trying to paint Cochran as some kind of Liberal. The facts are Cochran has a consistent Conservative record. He and the Barbour Machine new the Rules and played by the rules. Mc Daniel sounds like a sore loser.
My take on that article is Graham is speaking against those who have a pattern of not voting.
That is different than those who have a history of voting, clearly kept up with the candidates and issues, and then decided in 2012 that they could not ethically support any of the candidates.
I, too, question those who simply ignore their responsibility to become informed and vote. But, if they studied it and then decided to vote for Virgil Goode, then they still fulfilled that obligation and did what thought was ethically the best thing to do.
That’s why I would support a write-in or a third party in Mississippi versus Thad Cochran. I’m not Mississippian, but I would definitely counsel against a vote for Cochran. At the same time, I cannot vote for any pro-abortion candidate or anti-2nd amendment candidate or any anti-God candidate, so I’d never give my vote to a democrat in our current climate.
That’s why I will counsel write-in or 3rd party. The time for filing as an independent candidate in Mississippi has passed, but I really see nothing yet that says that controls who citizens can or cannot write in.
They did not play by the rules. They clearly smeared a supposed fellow republican as a racist and then they actively sought democratic votes from democratic voters based on that smear job.
Do you approve of the above as being part of the rules?
They actively published media that stated McDaniel would OPPOSE Barack Obama if elected. They appealed to black voters based on that to get out to vote for Cochran.
That is a democratic party appeal to a democratic party base.
Do you approve of that as being part of the rules?
So true, and so obvious - which validates two of my theories: Rand is a self serving cynical prick politician, even tho his paul bots think he's the exact opposite….and that he ain't that smart - oh, and a third- he's over consulted.
“consistent conservative record” really, Name me one, ONE bill that thad authored in his 42 years to show this, all he ever did was go along to get along and get some pork for Mississippi.
And please tel me where all this “Pork” has gone, where has it helped, still last in education, jobs, income.
Get real.
The issue becomes Mississippi’s write-in candidate laws.
What more will the Republican Party have to do to Conservatives to convince them that they are unwanted in the Republican Party?
CAPTION: ....Rand 'clapping' for all those RAT votes.
I agree with some of that. Whether it is Mississippi or New York it is still politics and entrenched political machines have an strong advantage. Mississippi has been sending Cochran (with an ACU rating of 88) to DC since 1978. So they have been OK with him or they would not have been doing that. So a new guy comes along and almost wins. Not bad.
xzins, I’ve been schooled throughout the thread that doctors don’t have to be very intelligent. I merely pointed out that no matter what else Rand Paul is or is not, he’s smart. He made it “THROUGH” medical school, not just was given entry. I seriously doubt Duke (who typically ranks in the top 10 medical schools in the country) would put their reputation on the line for a politician to give his son a license to practice who was “not smart”. I didn’t say whether I agree with his views, or think he is Hitler reincarnated. I just disagree with the “smart” comment.
BTW, the reason Rand made his comment about “being for more people voting, not less” is because he’s pushing a bill to give voting rights back to non-violent felons. It was an ill-timed statement since it is likely there was fraud from some democrat voters who voted in their primary and in this second go at the Republicans’. But, that’s why he said it.
OK if McDaniel intends to take this to court based on the Mississippi law that voters in a primary have to intend to support the winner of that primary then wouldn't McDaniel be guilty of violating that law based on this statement alone?
Agree 100%, and in doing what they did, they attacked and smeared a genuinely “Good Man. I have broken bread with this man, and he is genuine, and not to worry, he cant be “bought”.
And as far as “played by the rules” I guess we will have to see, MS Code says you can cross and vote other party, along as you intend to support that candidate in the general election, wonder how thats going to turn out.
It's time for a small 'r' republican discussion -- getting back to the principles the Founders saw for this country.
Examples of 'republicanism' in the original US Constitution:
1. Selection of senators by state legislatures (lowest level representatives selecting a federal level office holder)
2. Electoral college: legislatively selected 'electors' gathering to select the best possible person to be president.
3. The House of Representatives: itself called the 'people's' assembly was to be selected in numbers that were a very small ratio of voters to representatives. Our ratio of voters to representatives is much higher today than in the time of the original constitution.
4. Juries can be seen as trust in the ability of citizens to make excellent decisions.
I agree that Rand Paul is not a dumb person. (Tone deaf, maybe.)
Would Duke Medical put its reputation on the line for a politician. Some they would, but I don’t think Ron Paul rose to that level. For a Clinton they would have. (Think Duke U’s response to the Lacrosse team fiasco.)
I disagree with your interpretation about Graham’s admonition, based on other things he said and did prior to the last presidential election. Regardless, how you decided to vote is your business, xzins. I respect your reasoning knowing you reputation. I was making the point that another poster is claiming people who voted for Romney in the last election are evil and Graham is a fraud.
No matter what you think about Franklin Graham, the man is not evil nor a fraud.
Since he has not conceded defeat, then no he wouldn’t be. It doesn’t make sense to accept an election won by fraud. That law cannot be construed to mean “you must accept any result published about an election even if it was illegal and fraudulently obtained.”
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.