Is Nevada the one where the Paulies showed up to a religious-only caucus time and told people to lie about being Jewish in order to get in?

That's apparently what a 'free election' in Tolstoy's dystopia looks like.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/orthodox-jews-nevada-caucus-ron-paul-supporters-crash_n_1257531.html

So who is guilty of fraud, again?

Putin, are you actually calling for religious qualifications for voting?

Did you just fall out of the 17th century or something?

The thing was put in place for people who don't do anything on the sabbath. Hey, it's not my rule. It was the GOP's out of some effort to attract Orthodox Jewish votes in Nevada. But nonetheless it was a special caucus put in place for people who couldn't vote on the sabbath, and the Paulies lied in order to crash it. Then they cry foul.

"Did you just fall out of the 17th century or something?"

Rich coming from you.

"If the end result of THE PROCESS is Obamney vs. Rombama, I really don't care who wins the presidential election."

If this election was one thing, it was a clear choice. You're a silly goose.


"If you want a system where the Republican nominee is chosen for you three years ahead of time by God-knows-who and then the primary process is rigged to guarantee his selection, then by all means shut up and sit down."

How did that happen at all? Romney didn't have it sewn up till what, May? And I don't know what could be rigged about a primary election, where Republicans go to the polls to pick their standard-bearer. Ron Paul didn't win any of those, even though nothing would have stopped his supporters from casting their vote for him.

The road to victory is not by causing a ruckus at some god-awful caucus, it's getting the biggest amount of people to vote for you. Ron Paul was never able to do that. I think that's a pity, but it's true. Again, bellyaching over how things go in the non-primary part of the primary process is no way to win.

As for Latino voting preferences and the Democratic dominance of California, this has a lot more to do with millions of anchor babies from the '70s and '80s coming of age and the perception that the Democrats are the party of the "little guy" and the Republicans are a party of elitists than it has to do with the long-forgotten Prop 187 (it was never enforced - the whole post-election saga is interesting in itself no matter how you feel about the proposition). Relatively powerful labor unions (compared to other states) also help the Ds quite a bit, as has Democratic control of the redistricting process in 2000 and 2010 (in 1990, the districts were so ridiculously gerrymandered in favor of Democrats that the state supreme court redrew them).

Well gee, why wouldn't Latinos want to vote for racist POSses who call them "anchor babies".

We would have one party control if it wasn't for Republican control of redistricting at the state level across the country. I live in the second most Democratic area of the state of Ohio and we send 3 very conservative Republicans to the House to represent us. Despite PA going Obama in a landslide only 5 Dems were sent to the House because of redistricting. Take your crybaby talk somewhere else.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/14/in_pennsylvania_the_gerrymander_of_the_decade_112404.html
Keep on burying your head in the sand and blaming everybody else for your problems but yourself. That's the ethos of 'personal responsibility' from the libertarian boot strappers that we've all come to laugh at.

Tolstoy, the article isn't about religious qualifications for voting. It's about not committing perjury to vote at a time when you're not allowed to.

GW Bush pulled just about even in the Latino vote not very long ago. But thanks to racists like Tolstoy the Latino vote is probably gone from the GOP for good. They can't even get Cubans to vote for them in Florida like they used to. Tolstoy is the face of the dying GOP.

"If this election was one thing, it was a clear choice. You're a silly goose."

No, it was not. Romney deliberately refused to present a clear vision of a more libertarian society/government. He promised to increase military spending, was more favorable to starting new wars, and promised to replace Obamacare with some undefined new system which for all I know would be an even bigger sellout of the American people to the insurance industry. He refused to present a clear plan for cutting government spending. If the choice is between big-government Republicans and big-government Democrats - as it has been as long as I've been alive - my answer is to vote Libertarian and pray that the party pretending to/lying about be(ing) pro-freedom loses big.

"How did that happen at all? Romney didn't have it sewn up till what, May?"

Romney was called a "front-runner" throughout the entire process even though he had support from no one aside from his massive campaign warchest and Mormon voters. I've never met an enthusiastic Romney supporter that wasn't a Mormon. The media propped up and then dropped just about every candidate in the race (except for Ron Paul, of course) in turn - except Romney, who never experienced any kind of drop. Even though he had plenty of negatives that would've sunk a lesser candidate. The media kept the race "competitive" to score viewers (=ratings=advertising=profit), but it was obvious from the start that Romney was the pre-designated winner. I suggested as much on this very forum, I believe, early in 2011 - and was mocked for doing so.

" I've never met an enthusiastic Romney supporter that wasn't a Mormon"

ROFL, remember when Tolstoy was the arch apologist for Mormons on here? Now he thinks they're all irrational bloc voters. There was also a time when Tolstoy defended Ron Paul being Romney's lapdop during the primaries.

In fairness, he didn't say all Mormons vote for Romney. He just said all enthusiastic Romney voters are Mormons.

No, it's clear. Romney did worse among Mormons than Bush did. Ron Paul actually did very well with Mormon voters. But now I guess because the Romneyites didn't capitulate to the Paulies every demand, Mormons & Paulies are at war.

Rand Paul's greatest challenge if he ever runs for President will be to get his (father's) followers to just hush.

In the technology world, there are several popular web browsers, including Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera and something awful called Chrome. There are also several minor players in the web browser world. My personal favorite is a browser called Links.

But there is one very small, very minor browser called Opera, and what's notable about Opera is not anything related to technology or performance. Rather, it's notable because their fans are pretty loud and always seem to be pretty ticked that no one is using their web browser. They usually attribute this to a conspiracy rather than to note the possibility that plenty of people have tried Opera, but that most of us don't really like it that much.

Is it possible with the Libertarian crowd that most of it's adherents tend to reject the fact that they're bit players?

Sorry for the repost - cat walking on keyboard.

>Ron Paul thread on webdip

Oh, goodie, I love chances to talk about well-known libertarians!

>start reading

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1333/45/1333456004706.jpg

Opera's not so bad, Al. Not my favorite, but it has a lot of nice features. I use it probably second most.

^^ Which is basically how Libertarian policies align with the Republicans.

Another good article on the same subject:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Ron-Paul-factor-in-the-by-Gregory-Patin-121111-149.html

Ron Paul's primary votes covered the difference in the 4 states Romney needed to win:

"Florida
Obama votes: 4,141,618
Romney votes: 4,094,952
Romney loss margin: 46,666
Paul primary votes: 117,461
Electoral votes: 29

New Hampshire
Obama votes: 366,089
Romney votes: 325,668
Romney loss margin: 40,421
Paul primary votes: 56,872
Electoral votes: 4

Ohio
Obama votes: 2,691,861
Romney votes: 2,584,620
Romney loss margin: 107,241
Paul primary votes: 113,256
Electoral votes: 18

Virginia
Obama votes: 1,868,191
Romney votes: 1,767,692
Romney loss margin: 100,499
Paul primary votes: 107,451
Electoral votes: 13"

"I am a 54 year old Ron Paul supporter and was a Registered Republican. After 35 years as a Republican, I changed to Independant this year after the Republican National Convention. Previously, I worked at the polls, collected signatures, attended meetings and was generally active in the Party all my life. My parents were Republican commitee persons. Finally, I threw in the towel. The right wing extremists drove me out of the Party. This year, I drove a 12-passenger van on election day and took elderly people to the polls to vote. They were from a poor neighborhood and most were Obama voters. I wanted to do all I could to defeat Romney. As a swingstate Republican, I even voted for Obama to help stop Romney. We told them they can't win without us and they said - we don't want you. Such a shame. I met so many young people that had so much energy and were so excited by the message of Ron Paul. I'll never uderstand why the GOP rejected them. It could have made all the difference."

Tolstoy, I'm unimpressed.

Mostly because your post attempts to imply that Ron Paul supporters in the primary did in fact overwhelmingly vote for Obama instead of Romney.

If you attempted to make the assertion that write in votes for Paul were the margin of victory, a la Ralph Nader in 2000, then you might have a point.

As it stands, you wrote a great deal, that in the aggregate, adds up to precisely nothing.

Just out of curiosity, there was a candidate named "Gary Johnson" for the Libertarian Party in the 2012 US Presidential right? Did anyone look at what would have happened if his votes went to Romney?

Nothing happened if his votes went to Romney, rh.

Well that settles that.

I would've liked to at least see RP get the opportunity to 1v1 Obama in a debate.

Why? RP is a scatterbrained stutterer.

(Putin, in that case you should be supportive of that idea!)

At least Obama wouldn't have left debates with Paul with a look of "god, is it finally over?"