|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 22, 2012 10:38:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at. I'm looking at the NY Times delegate count. Romney - 19 Gingrich - 23 Santorum - 13 Paul - 3 Huntsman - 2 It shows that in Iowa Romney took 12 and Santorum 13. In NH, Huntsman (2), Paul (3), Romney (7). Gingrich won all the delegates in SC giving him 23. Romney has a substantial lead there for sure. No one predicted Santorum to win in Iowa though. No one predicted him to even matter in the election. People figured it'd be either Gingrich or Romney from the start. Cain was a wild card, but is no longer relevant. It's interesting that Cain dropped out after catching all kinds of crap for banging anything that moved yet Gingrich is apparently getting a free pass.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 22, 2012 14:54:06 GMT -5
You're wrong. At that point people do care. The tradition is you drop out and give your delegates to the winner. That way the party unites behind one guy who you also back. Paul refused to do that. He refused to back the party's candidate in 2008 choosing instead to keep his delegates and hold his own convention. Yet now he's going to call for the party to back him. I'm not wrong at all. Not one of the other candidates has brought this up. No one voting gives a shit. Period. Conduct your own little poll if you don't believe it. Talk to 100 random voters. Ask them what Ron Paul did in 2008 that was against the party's "traditions." I will bet that at least 99 of those 100 will have no idea. ... Unless they're Ron Paul supporters. Then they should call themselves Libertarians and not Republicans. Instead, they want to say that Republicans are the problem therefore they're going to join the Republican party. Regardless, like I said, I'm not talking about the libertarian party. I'm talking about the libertarian mindset. Historically 3rd parties never work in this country. Either the 3rd party becomes so big that it takes the place of one of the two other parties and one of those parties dies or one of the two major parties adopts the major platforms of the 3rd party and the 3rd party dies. Agreed, but I'm just saying that, in theory, it'd be a good thing. Whether it'd last is debatable, but it'd be a good thing while it did. Which goes back to my previous point that Paul does not play well with his own party. Why would the Republican party back a guy who does not play by their rules? Because he's the only one who could realistically beat Obama, with their backing. There is a influential faction of the Republican party who does not like Paul because of his history. He doesn't play well with the party. Why would they back a guy who, if elected, will likely actively work against what they want to do? I've called about 2,000 voters total so far, 98% of which have been Republicans, and almost everyone at least says, "Well I think Ron Paul is a good guy." They don't necessarily have to view him as "their guy" to vote for him, as polls have shown. Paul runs neck-and-neck with Romney against Obama, which no other candidate does. Those numbers aren't faked. I know you live in this fantasy world where Romney or Gingrich would run on a third party ticket, but the odds of that actually happening are practically zero because those guys have no interest in campaigning if they don't think they can actually win. I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at. I'm looking at the NY Times delegate count. Romney - 19 Gingrich - 23 Santorum - 13 Paul - 3 Huntsman - 2 It shows that in Iowa Romney took 12 and Santorum 13. In NH, Huntsman (2), Paul (3), Romney (7). Gingrich won all the delegates in SC giving him 23. See this is what I've tried to tell you time and time again, but you just don't listen for some reason. I don't understand why you don't listen, but you just don't for some reason. So let me put it in clear terms - anywhere that is counting delegates for Iowa right now - whatsoever - is wrong. Zero delegates in Iowa have been officially counted. These moronic polls showing "12 and 12" or "12 and 13" for Romney and Santorum are the media blatantly lying to you. I will bet my left nut that Ron Paul does not receive zero delegates in Iowa. In fact, as I've said before, I would not be surprised whatsoever if he actually gets the MOST delegates from Iowa out of any of the candidates when it's all said and done. Again, the numbers given from Iowa are from the straw poll. They are not delegate counts. Explain to me how Romney and Santorum can split the delegates 12 and 13 (or whatever the number is) with 24% of the straw poll vote each... But Ron Paul can get 21% of the straw poll vote and get ZERO delegates? It makes no sense, mathematically. Think about it. There's a reason Ron Paul is focused on caucus states, and it's damn sure not because he thinks he's going to win the straw poll in all of them. Romney has a substantial lead there for sure. No one predicted Santorum to win in Iowa though. No one predicted him to even matter in the election. People figured it'd be either Gingrich or Romney from the start. Cain was a wild card, but is no longer relevant. It's interesting that Cain dropped out after catching all kinds of crap for banging anything that moved yet Gingrich is apparently getting a free pass. That's very true about Iowa, but I don't think things were ever as strong for Mitt in Iowa as they were in Florida. I mean, he lost the Ames straw poll by a huge number and never really was the obvious front-runner in the state. Could Santorum or Gingrich win Florida? I suppose. But it's going to take a massive inspiring of the public, which the media is going to have to help with tremendously. I think Ron Paul understands that he will never get an assist from the media. He's going to have to do everything himself. That's why he's basically giving up Florida. He has zero chance there. He has a great chance in the four states immediately following Florida, however.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 22, 2012 14:59:49 GMT -5
Here's a good breakdown.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 22, 2012 18:47:59 GMT -5
You're wrong. At that point people do care. The tradition is you drop out and give your delegates to the winner. That way the party unites behind one guy who you also back. Paul refused to do that. He refused to back the party's candidate in 2008 choosing instead to keep his delegates and hold his own convention. Yet now he's going to call for the party to back him. I'm not wrong at all. Not one of the other candidates has brought this up. No one voting gives a poop. Period. Conduct your own little poll if you don't believe it. Talk to 100 random voters. Ask them what Ron Paul did in 2008 that was against the party's "traditions." I will bet that at least 99 of those 100 will have no idea. They're not the people that matter. They are not party leadership. So they could have Obama who will play ball with them sometimes, Romney/Gingrich who will play ball with them all the time or Paul who won't play ball with them most of the time. Out of those three, they'll pick Paul. That makes sense. Back the candidate who is most likely to get in the way of their agenda just because he's a member of their party. Those people don't run the party. They don't have any control over what the party does. None of them are part of the party machine. If Romney or Gingrich run, they can easily position themselves as the clear front runner in 2016 when the Democrats will be vulnerable. That's a very good reason to run. No, they won't win. But making yourself a front runner candidate in 2016 is a great reason to run. I'll lay odds he doesn't win a single one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 22, 2012 19:32:16 GMT -5
They're not the people that matter. They are not party leadership. Party leadership isn't who votes for the nominee. They can influence people, sure, but they don't decide. Once Ron Paul people are in there, they're not going anywhere. So they could have Obama who will play ball with them sometimes, Romney/Gingrich who will play ball with them all the time or Paul who won't play ball with them most of the time. Out of those three, they'll pick Paul. That makes sense. Back the candidate who is most likely to get in the way of their agenda just because he's a member of their party. The Republican rhetoric is basically "anybody but Obama" right now. Again, all polls show Paul doing better than Gingrich vs. Obama and almost dead even with Romney when compared to Obama. This theory you have of a third party being created is only a theory and there is absolutely no evidence that it will happen whatsoever. If Ron Paul did win the nomination and none of the others ran as a third party, Paul would stand a very good chance against Obama. I'll lay odds he doesn't win a single one of them. Okay, what're the odds?
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jan 23, 2012 0:58:17 GMT -5
LOL did anyone see Santorum get glittered?
|
|
|
Post by AliciaFox#1fan4life on Jan 23, 2012 19:57:01 GMT -5
when it comes to the general election, who are you all for? I'm thinking Romney or Gingrich
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 23, 2012 20:39:42 GMT -5
when it comes to the general election, who are you all for? I'm thinking Romney or Gingrich If that becomes the general election, it's Gary Johnson for me.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 23, 2012 22:39:54 GMT -5
Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. And only one of those two.
|
|
|
Post by layzie on Jan 23, 2012 22:45:52 GMT -5
i jus watched my first bit of anything during this debate for a few minutes, all i have to say is is this guy mitt romney ing kidding me? i mean he jus SOUNDS like a used car salesman, he has no shot if you think obama isnt getting re leected, ya dumb fingers crossed for ron paul d0e
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 23, 2012 22:56:38 GMT -5
That's basically what Mitt Romney is - a used car salesman. Selling used idea that don't work, telling one customer one thing and another customer something else, etc.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jan 24, 2012 1:06:06 GMT -5
LOL did anyone see Santorum get glittered? This is not a divas thread. I did not know that....... I was just talking about something that recently happened to an actual GOP nominee in a thread where people are discussing them. Thanks for going off topic though... Anyways, some people who are not a fan of Santorum's views on gay rights threw glitter at him which I guess is their diss or something. Pretty stupid..
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 24, 2012 22:01:11 GMT -5
I was listening to Jerry Doyle last night talking about the SC primary and he said something along the lines of, "If you go into a bar in South Carolina, there's a 40% that a woman won't care if you can't be loyal." Kinda gave me a chuckle.
|
|
|
Post by Wato Stan Account on Jan 25, 2012 2:31:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SMTTT! on Jan 25, 2012 9:34:20 GMT -5
I LOL'd :-P
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 25, 2012 13:15:02 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is failing miserably, but I'd rather that he repeats his same message than completely switch his message.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jan 25, 2012 21:59:48 GMT -5
Did people not hear about Mitt Romney's tax returns being revealed because I figured people would post it in here. Here is an article just in case: Romney made $42.7 million in 2 years money.cnn.com/2012/01/24/news/economy/Romney_tax_return/index.htmNEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made $42.7 million over the past two years and paid $6.2 million in taxes, according to documents released Tuesday by his campaign. Romney and his wife, Ann, filed a joint 1040 reporting $21.7 million in 2010 income and $3 million in federal taxes. They also said their 2011 income was $21 million and tax bill was $3.2 million. Over the two years, Romney's effective tax rate -- the percentage of his income that he owed in federal income taxes -- was 14.5%. (*See correction.) Nevertheless, and contrary to popular perception, Romney's effective federal income tax rate is still above that of many Americans -- 80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%. That tax rate is higher when other federal taxes -- such as the payroll tax -- are included. The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners. Another reason: He had extensive itemized deductions, which lowered his overall tax liability. A big part of those deductions were charitable contributions. Romney and his wife, Ann, gave away more than $7 million over the past two years -- or about 16% of their income. Of that, $4.1 million went to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to which they belong. His investment income: Romney took in $21.7 million in long-term capital gains over the past two years. Of that, $12.9 million was in so-called carried interest. Carried interest is a share of profits paid to general partners at private equity firms -- such as Bain Capital, which Romney left in 1999. General partners manage the firm's investments. If those investments are sold at a profit, the carried interest represents a portion of those profits above a minimum rate of return. Romney's retirement package from Bain entitled him to continue to share in profits from the firm's work, according to his financial disclosure form on file at the Federal Election Commission. Romney has been under pressure for weeks by questions of whether and when he would release his tax returns. The Romney campaign released more than 500 pages of tax documents on Tuesday, including estimates for 2011. The returns were prepared by accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Romney campaign said. Newt Gingrich, his main rival for the GOP nomination, last week revealed his 2010 tax form. He made $3.2 million and paid an effective tax rate of 31%. Opponents said voters deserved to know early if there were any financial issues that could put the presumptive nominee's bid for the White House in jeopardy. Romney, whose financial disclosure form puts his net worth as high as $264 million, is one of the wealthiest candidates in history to seek the U.S. presidency. On a call with reporters Tuesday, Romney campaign advisers pushed back against reports that Romney had sought to avoid taxes by putting some of his money in the Cayman Islands. Brad Malt, a lawyer who serves as trustee of the Romneys' blind trusts, said Romney pays all U.S. taxes on income from the trusts' foreign investments. Further, he said Romney has no role in choosing how the blind trusts invest his money. "The blind trust investments in the Cayman funds are taxed exactly as if Gov. Romney owned his share of the funds in the United States," Malt said. *Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the two-year effective tax rate by using Romney's 2010 rate alone. To top of page
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 25, 2012 23:03:18 GMT -5
Slate has a page where you can put in how much you earned last year and it'll tell you how long it took Romney to earn that much. For me it was like one or two days of work.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jan 25, 2012 23:07:05 GMT -5
^ That is kinda sad [and not because you don't make much but because he makes so damn much]!
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 26, 2012 1:06:47 GMT -5
I don't have any problem with how much Romney makes, nor how much he pays in taxes, really.
The problem I have is with his policies and inconsistent views.
|
|