KEVMO!
Posted on 10/23/2007 11:47:00 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
That would go a long way to ending this stupidity of splitting the majority and letting a minority candidate in on a plurality vote.
Any state where the presidential election victor does not win over 50% of the popular vote a run off election must be held in that state between the top two candidates.
I think I could live with that, would certainly end this stupidity.
KEVMO!
Recall that there were all kinds of rumors about coordination between the Clinton and the Perot campaigns.
It would not surprise me if the Clintons were somehow behind the third party agitation among Christian conservatives. Under deep cover, of course.
If a candidate is confronted with 50% negatives, what better way to win a plurality than split the opposition?
The Clintons are masters of the technique.
Dick Land?
...never heard of him
| You're SO Stupid |
 You are an embarrassment to the human race. Seriously. |
:::rolls eyes:::
Newsweak obviously doesn't understand the concept of standing on one's principles.
One reason Brownback hasn't been able to garner support is that he initially supported the amnesty bill for illegal immigrants. He only changed his mind after much harranguing from his constituents.
(Don’t give me any crap about Immigration).
There are other pro-life candidates, so there was no need to support a pro-illegal immigrant candidate. That's not crap, that's just fact.
Also the grand ayatollah himself wanted that great moral leader Newt to run for President.
Got proof of that, or just media speculation? Even if it were to be true, I wouldn't have voted for Newt.
If we get 4 years of Hillary, they will be eliminated as an opposition group.
So be it. There's something to be said for being able to look at yourself in the mirror and sleep peacefully at night because you stood fast on your principles.
I’ll stop beating my wife as soon as she starts doing what I tell her.
I'm not even in the debate, but I can read your posts. Your assertion that narby "basically admitted" to being a troll was based on your mis-reading his post. Go back and read it. It may be poorly written, but he was saying that he is trying to keep FR from being a tool for the Dems.
Also, you pinged JimRob and "basically" called for the removal of narby's privileges two day ago. JimRob didn't banish him to Rudy Island. That should be enough to let the troll claim go.
And, if you want to mark the point when the debate ended, I'd say it was when you started calling another poster a troll.
Useful idiots of the world unite! Hitlery is counting on your support and can’t be elected as the next President of the United States without your support!
Good thinking. Going back to the origin of the problem. I like that. You are right on. The way you state this essentially says, Perot's support was just a reaction from the original stimulus of anger at Bush One promising not to and then raising taxes.
Following this line of thinking or reaction, I would have to argue the one group (if we are grouping right now to make a point) that has reason for strong reaction from Bush Two is the fiscal conservatives. Overall, with the exception of the moral issues of some Republican politicians in their personal lives, the conservative Christians pretty much got their way (with the exception of R v W being abolished--or overturned. I like abolished from an emotional sense :-).
So the fiscal conservatives by all means should be the ones forming a third party if we applied your thinking for the upcoming election. Which I think fits very well. (Of course they will not and of course I do not want them to. I see them as a core of the party, no matter which way one falls socially.
Hopefully as you said we will quit the blaming and not allow the MSM to fuel this finger pointing and have some darn good debate.
Being both fiscally and socially conservative I am hopeful either way. May main concern is fiscal right now when it comes to nomination as no matter who is our representative from the primaries I will ALWAYS fight for my social conservative causes on the side and directly in the political sphere--this does not always mean just voting in a representative, sometimes it takes voting in a fiscal conservative and fighting hard to make sure they nominate socially conservative judges.
If Hilary gets in we will not only have a disaster from a socially conservative perspective, but a fiscal as well. Which ever candidate can beat her in the end is my candidate. As things trim down this could be several of the R candidates now running. We'll see.
My sense is you bring a lot of empathy to your analysis and I think this is one thing that is nice to see and to see role-modeled. We need this sort of empathy in addition to the disagreement.
= Guiliani + Pelosi + Reid ... or at least pretty darn close on so many issues it won't make much of a difference.
If the GOP cares even a bit about conservative values, they WILL NOT support Rudy.
Call me whatever you want, I will NOT vote for a pro-abortionist whatever party they claim.
Thanks for taking the time to read my repsonse and be thoughtful about it.
I fear the extreme Libertarian Republicans seem to be clinging to Ron Paul and the Republican or die folks are clinging to Rudy.
I find it interesting that Rudy, Mitt, Fred, Huckabee, and Duncan are so diverse on the issues. Duncan and Tancredo seem to be almost of the same mind (and the most conservative- which explains why the MSM ignores them and so do the big donors. Big donors are the big commerce- and they don’t like these guys at all.. See- the Big commerce keeps these guys underfunded- which allows the media to keep them “lower tier” candidates)....all of them though bring both a very strong point to the party and yet a very weak point......
sorry for rambling....
;-)
WOW! I just have to add-- THAT is an awesome way of looking at this! Being a hard liner on pro-life, I never looked at that as a possibility....I guess Reagan's choices (O'Connor and Kennedy) to the SCOTUS leave me weary- but then again- we did stop Hariette!
;-)
I appreciate your points and you have clarified a bit too the Ron Paul phenomenon. I have lately been thinking it has been more liberal driven (as far as polls and even some spam here on FR.) It would be nice though it these RP supporters would quit hiding behind the candidate and start posting their views here divorced from that shield so we can have a real debate and discussion and not some prop of a cardboard cut out being held up as a blockade. The candidates should be the means to an end not the other way around. IMHO.
back atcha...
your ability and technique in dicussion of the issues is a breath of fresh air!
THANKS!!!!
You mean, JimRob hasn’t removed Narby yet. Like the last round, we socons will need to put up with the nastiness of the tootyfruityrudybots until JimRob has had enough, and then there might be another bugzapper thread. Last time around it took months. This time I’m hoping for a shorter cycle. This is not a GOP forum, it is a SOCON forum.
Are you serious? Rudy won’t bive us 90% of anything, or even 20%.
give*
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.