Lessons from over the Atlantic: Why Romney deserves to lose

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-...b_1814846.html

Lessons from over the Atlantic: Why Romney deserves to lose

Wait, isn't Dr. Ron Paul out of the presidential race? Isn't it all tied up nicely in a bow with the Romney/Ryan ticket?

No.

Why would the GOP be scared of Ron Paul but end up nominating him?

I'll explain.

Romney and the GOP have demonstrated both poor judgment and poor sportsmanship that might cost them by damaging Romney's electability among the Ron Paul supporters thus leading to a splitting of votes, which in turn, could cost the GOP the entire election.

Dr. Ron Paul is still in the race for president and is a strong contender for the 2012 GOP nomination.

To be on the GOP ballot Aug. 27, 2012 in Tampa and get a 15-minute speaking slot, a candidate must have won the plurality (majority) of delegates in at least 5 states.

Well, Ron Paul did win the plurality of delegates in 5 states, enough to be eligible for the nomination and a 15-minute speaking slot at the GOP convention. The states he won are Louisiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Maine and Nevada. Then Ron Paul went on to win the plurality in Massachusetts, Romney's home state and half the delegates in Oregon. Dr. Ron Paul also has around 500 delegates who support him. The exact number of delegates that Romney and Paul have is still a mystery but should be clarified at the convention.

So... Ron Paul won his 5-plus states, he's on the ballot and writing his speech, right? Not exactly.

What happened next is what may cost the Republicans and Romney the entire election. Instead of accepting that Ron Paul, the GOP underdog, had won enough delegates in enough states to be allowed his rightful place on the ballot and his 15-minute speaking slot, the GOP and Romney's people decided to try and take these legitimate wins away from Ron Paul and his supporters. Ron Paul supporters fought hard, played fair and won. Romney supporters didn't play fair and still lost those 5-plus states. These Ron Paul pluralities were won in spite of shenanigans and tricks tried by Romney supporters and the GOP to prevent or undermine Ron Paul wins. The Ron Paul supporters were well prepared and won the needed amount of states anyway.

So, how did Romney and his supporters handle their losses of five measly states to Ron Paul? Honorably? Graciously? With dignity? Maturely?

No. Quite the opposite.

Romney's people ran to Big Daddy GOP to rescue them from their defeats by trying to disqualify the valid Ron Paul delegates and to take away Ron Paul's right to speak and be on the ballot by reducing his states won to fewer than the five needed.

So far, Romney and the GOP have contested the Ron Paul wins in Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts and Oregon. They threw out the Massachusetts Ron Paul delegates after the GOP tried to force the delegates to sign a long legal document that required them to vote for Romney. This was not something that had ever been done before. The GOP allowed Romney, big lawyers and big bullying to invalidate Ron Paul's solid win in Massachusetts.

As in the other states, the Ron Paul delegates in Maine played by the rules and won. Even Governor LePage of Maine, a Republican, is appalled with GOP efforts to throw out the duly-elected Ron Paul delegates.

The entire plot to reduce Ron Paul wins to under five states to take his name off the ballot and take away his 15-minute speaking slot is well under way. If Romney/Ryan are so great, why can't they handle a little competition without whining and crying like sore losers?

Are they afraid of losing the 2012 nomination to Ron Paul if he speaks and is on the ballot?

Why not play fair and let the best man win?

Although Romney basically has the nomination tied up, Ron Paul did well in coming second and securing a plurality of delegates in five states - won fair and square in elections. Anyway, you might think Romney would be a gentleman and accept this win on the part of Paul? wrong. So far the Romney campaign has embarked on legal challenges as well as dirty tricks to change the rules and basically throw out the elected Ron Paul delegates so they don't try and nominate Paul at the GOP convention in early september where Romney will be offically 'crowned'.

I dislike both Obama and Romney - same policies, same funders - but there's a lesson here. The Ron Paul movement tried to change a party from within and it just doesn't work, those who argue for people to join the Conservative Party and change it from within are on the same field - these mainstream political parties just cannot be reformed anymore than the European Union can be 'reformed'.

After all, you can't reform your local asylum can you?

Thoughts on the 2012 race and the Romney campaign?

[Grig]

They'll do anything they can to twist it all until they can get their candidate out there. Hopefully something interesting will happen this week, But I think Ron Paul's already calmed down and put his message out there. I was pissed off about their dirty tactics for the Mass. delegates.

We can still hope.

[GommeInc]

Why Romney deserves to lose? This doesn't need any explaining - he's an idiot

He avoids paying tax yet claims he's a saint. He's the sort of corrupt politician you wouldn't want near metal objects for fear of corroding them. He offends other countries because he's too ignorant to bother learning anything outside the boundaries of his inner-sanctum (i.e. arse), and he comes off as a bit of an uneducated, deliberately ignorant individual who should be kept away from power. America needs to get rid of this stereotype of putting twits in the seat of power.

[Ardemax]

When the race is narrowed down between Obama and Romney, Americans would be foolish to vote Romney in, no matter your views on Obama.

[-:Undertaker:-]

News: Romney has now officially been chosen as GOP Presidential candidate 2012.

They'll do anything they can to twist it all until they can get their candidate out there. Hopefully something interesting will happen this week, But I think Ron Paul's already calmed down and put his message out there. I was pissed off about their dirty tactics for the Mass. delegates.

We can still hope.

Indeed, they offered him a speech at the convention on the basis that he endorsed Romney for President - and as they ought to know, you can't play politics with Dr. Paul because he's principled. I'm sad this era has come to an end, he's one of my biggest influences - it'll really hit though when he steps down from Congress next year.

From today..


Either way, the Liberty movement will continue - Gary Johnson seems ideal to back in 2012.

and he comes off as a bit of an uneducated, deliberately ignorant individual who should be kept away from power.

To be fair on Romney concerning that, at least he can make a speech and a coherent sentence without a teleprompter in front of him.

When the race is narrowed down between Obama and Romney, Americans would be foolish to vote Romney in, no matter your views on Obama.

Actually it'd be the other way around. The rhetoric and pledges the Republicans and Romney put out there are the type that appeal to me and most Americans; low taxation, less government, pro-freedom, America first, pro-business, sceptical of the NAU and so on. I mean, from the video above you can see Paul Ryan saying basically what I stand for - the only difference is, I mean it as does Ron Paul where as Paul Ryan doesn't.

But that's if I were to vote on rhetoric as opposed to what they actually do in office, and with Obama v Romney - it makes absolutely no difference who wins.

[Ardemax]

Actually it'd be the other way around. The rhetoric and pledges the Republicans and Romney put out there are the type that appeal to me and most Americans; low taxation, less government, pro-freedom, America first, pro-business, sceptical of the NAU and so on. I mean, from the video above you can see Paul Ryan saying basically what I stand for - the only difference is, I mean it as does Ron Paul where as Paul Ryan doesn't.

But that's if I were to vote on rhetoric as opposed to what they actually do in office, and with Obama v Romney - it makes absolutely no difference who wins.

Really? I don't really trust Ryan at all and the partnership between Romney and Ryan is actually quite worrying. The want-to-be President hides a lot of his millions in offshore bank account which, by itself, isn't a great example to lead from of someone who wants to be running the country and telling people to be little boys and girls and paying their taxes. I know you don't like the idea of Medicare/Medicaid but surely the idea that the older generation have to pay more each year (I think it was something like $8k, correct me if I'm wrong) under Romney seems a tad unfair.

If Romney was British and running for PM he would have no chance of getting in. In my eyes he is the less radical Nick Griffin.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Really? I don't really trust Ryan at all and the partnership between Romney and Ryan is actually quite worrying. The want-to-be President hides a lot of his millions in offshore bank account which, by itself, isn't a great example to lead from of someone who wants to be running the country and telling people to be little boys and girls and paying their taxes.

Indeed, it's hypocritical - although i'm for people avoiding tax and paying less, I think we should all pay less tax. But i'm confused as to why this is such a big issue when compared with policy. On one hand you've got Romney avoiding tax whilst wanting to head an administration which will raise taxes in time (agreed, hypocrisy) - but then you've got Obama who has extended drone use over Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and other areas which has resulted in families being burnt alive (believe me, i've seen the pictures) .... if this was George W Bush vs a tax avoiding Democrat, people on here would be supporting the Democrat as opposed to the warmonger.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg with Obama ... and yes I know, Romney would do exactly the same reinforcing my point that they are both the same. Romney isn't a bad candidate because of some silly tax avoidance fiasco, he's a bad candidate because he is the same as Obama in policy.

I know you don't like the idea of Medicare/Medicaid but surely the idea that the older generation have to pay more each year (I think it was something like $8k, correct me if I'm wrong) under Romney seems a tad unfair.

Indeed, I don't think that is fair while money is being spent on overseas adventures - but then I don't support the idea that these programmes should continue in the long term either as Obama (and Romney) support. I supported the Ron Paul plan for this, which was that while we'd work to phase these federal programmes out, in the short term the drastic cuts to military spending would be used to fund medicare as it was wound down - because as Ron Paul made the point, whilst both wars and government healthcare are bad - it's better spent at least on the citizens.

Both Romney and Obama want to increase military spending.
Both Romney and Obama will raise medicare spending and costs (either by putting it on the debt, or a pay now scheme - either way it must be paid back).

If Romney was British and running for PM he would have no chance of getting in. In my eyes he is the less radical Nick Griffin.

Then so is Obama, they are both the exact same.

[dbgtz]

This news doesn't shock me, it's been a mess since it all began. I say mess, I mean manipulated to favour Romney.

Also unrelated point but I was just watching Channel 4 an the guy said Matt Romney, made me lol.

[Ardemax]

Indeed, it's hypocritical - although i'm for people avoiding tax and paying less, I think we should all pay less tax. But i'm confused as to why this is such a big issue when compared with policy. On one hand you've got Romney avoiding tax whilst wanting to head an administration which will raise taxes in time (agreed, hypocrisy) - but then you've got Obama who has extended drone use over Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and other areas which has resulted in families being burnt alive (believe me, i've seen the pictures) .... if this was George W Bush vs a tax avoiding Democrat, people on here would be supporting the Democrat as opposed to the warmonger.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg with Obama ... and yes I know, Romney would do exactly the same reinforcing my point that they are both the same. Romney isn't a bad candidate because of some silly tax avoidance fiasco, he's a bad candidate because he is the same as Obama in policy.



Indeed, I don't think that is fair while money is being spent on overseas adventures - but then I don't support the idea that these programmes should continue in the long term either as Obama (and Romney) support. I supported the Ron Paul plan for this, which was that while we'd work to phase these federal programmes out, in the short term the drastic cuts to military spending would be used to fund medicare as it was wound down - because as Ron Paul made the point, whilst both wars and government healthcare are bad - it's better spent at least on the citizens.

Both Romney and Obama want to increase military spending.
Both Romney and Obama will raise medicare spending and costs (either by putting it on the debt, or a pay now scheme - either way it must be paid back).



Then so is Obama, they are both the exact same.

As a person you must concede that out of the two Obama is the one who appears to have an IQ of over at least 70.

I just feel with Obama you know what you're voting for (whatever it may be), though not that we would ever be able to vote for him. With Romney it's like he could be all-loving and pro-world peace the one day and the next kicking out any American who doesn't have a full white-American background.

I'm obviously going over the top but that is the kind of guy he looks like: dangerous.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As a person you must concede that out of the two Obama is the one who appears to have an IQ of over at least 70.

I just feel with Obama you know what you're voting for (whatever it may be), though not that we would ever be able to vote for him. With Romney it's like he could be all-loving and pro-world peace the one day and the next kicking out any American who doesn't have a full white-American background.

I'm obviously going over the top but that is the kind of guy he looks like: dangerous.

I don't understand this love of Obama - just because the guy reads a teleprompter good doesn't mean he's intelligent, a good man or has good policies. Romney comes across as a good speaker too - except that he can't do the high pitched thing Obama does at the end of his sentences to make him sound inspirational - that's the only difference that Obama is a better con-man than Romney is. Do you want to be conned? is it better to have a better liar in office than a worse one?

I beg you, look at the legislation and policies that Obama has driven and judge him on that - not how nice his voice sounds compared with that of Romney when he makes speeches. Obama uses drone bombings, declares illegal wars, continues to diplomatically attack Iran, sells weapons to rebel groups, pushes through anti-liberty legislation against free speech, gun rights and the internet ... and if you look at Romney and his voting record, he's the same.

..the next kicking out any American who doesn't have a full white-American background.

I'm sorry but that is low, I cannot stand Romney but there's no justification in hinting that he is racist in any way shape, or form.