The Real Delegate Count - it's not over

[Pressing-On]

You might also want to Google R. Allen Stanford and Romney.

I will get you started. You don't have to thank me.

Did Tagg Romney Launder Money with R. Allen Stanford?

Court documents obtained by ThinkProgress show that the legal proceedings are ongoing and the men made over $1.6 million selling fraudulent CDs to investors.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...rd?detail=hide

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

When Romney was Governor, at the advice of his chief legal counsels, he implemented unconstitutional policies, i.e., implementing gay marriage without legislative authority and forced Catholic hospitals to dispense the morning after (abortion) pills.

In Romney's appointments, is diversity and non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation still a core value of his? His record certainly didn't indicate any commitment to conservative judicial philosophy.



Before you try to talk about bi-partisanship, Gov. Perry is very strict on his judicial picks, so you can't go there with the argument.

When Romney has the chance to leave conservative picks after his term, he doesn't. Same thing he did with the same-sex marriage. If he had left it alone, his state wouldn't have been the first to give out same-sex marriage licenses. He set the precedent in our country forever. He did that alone. Someday, he was thinking, he might need the gay vote.



I am very sure that something in the economy will turn around if he gets the nomination, it is a given. But, under all of the other information, I'm just not all that enamored with the guy. He is a progressive and that will destroy us, maybe a little slower, but we will get there just like we will with Obama.

PO - seriously, I cannot let your little misinformation campaign go by unchallenged.
I have given you links and facts before on this and you chose to ignore them.
Romney did what he had to do as the chief executive of Mass., facing a court order.
He even consulted the state's AG who told him that he was legally obligated to do what he did.

You seem to have a serious obsession issue here.
This looks to me to be more about YOU, than about Romney.
You are very unhappy that Perry did not receive the nomination and very unhappy with some tactics that Romney employed.
Please, please, listen to me as this seems to be consuming your life!!!

[CC1]

A76,

You are absolutely correct. No one governs in a vacuum where they can just do whatever they want. Particularly the Governor of a liberal northeastern state must be willing to compromise with the majority liberal sentiment to get things done.

While I agree that Romney is not a conservative I also do not thing he is a liberal. He is a moderate and that is a whole lot better than what Obama is!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

PO - seriously, I cannot let your little misinformation campaign go by unchallenged.
I have given you links and facts before on this and you chose to ignore them.
Romney did what he had to do as the chief executive of Mass., facing a court order.
He even consulted the state's AG who told him that he was legally obligated to do what he did.

You seem to have a serious obsession issue here.
This looks to me to be more about YOU, than about Romney.
You are very unhappy that Perry did not receive the nomination and very unhappy with some tactics that Romney employed.
Please, please, listen to me as this seems to be consuming your life!!!

You can keep your Wikepedia info. I've cited, at least, two legal authorities and you have Wikepedia.

And please stop the ridiculous - "OMG!!!! - this is consuming your life!!!!!!!" stuff.

For heaven's sake, this is a campaign and I am involved. I talk to people every day who are not in Romney's camp. That is 1/3 of us who have consistently been against him - the polling reflects that.

So, please, if you can't handle listening to information on a campaign, stop looking at MY thread and stop responding to MY posts. I'm sure you can find something else to do with your time.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by CC1

A76,

You are absolutely correct. No one governs in a vacuum where they can just do whatever they want. Particularly the Governor of a liberal northeastern state must be willing to compromise with the majority liberal sentiment to get things done.

While I agree that Romney is not a conservative I also do not thing he is a liberal. He is a moderate and that is a whole lot better than what Obama is!

Good, at least we agree on something.

[Pressing-On]

GOP delegates sue to be free from Romney
123 Republicans and counting want to be 'unbound' at national convention

Specifically, the lawsuit charges Republican officials and operatives have used threats of violence, certified unlawful slates of delegates, demanded affidavits of loyalty to Romney under penalty of perjury and have even altered ballot results to make sure the national convention is stacked with delegates who will vote for Romney.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the RNC to inform delegates they can vote for the nominee of their choice, to reinstate delegates who lost their seats at the convention because they refused to sign loyalty affidavits and to recount ballots by hand or hold another convention in areas “where the sanctity of the ballots are untrustworthy.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/gop-deleg...e-from-romney/

[AreYouReady?]

PO, I am glad that there are other people out there who do not fall for the "vote the lesser of two evil" fallacy.

Also, Wikipedia is a very unreliable source.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

PO, I am glad that there are other people out there who do not fall for the "vote the lesser of two evil" fallacy.

Also, Wikipedia is a very unreliable source.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

PO, I am glad that there are other people out there who do not fall for the "vote the lesser of two evil" fallacy.

Also, Wikipedia is a very unreliable source.

It is no fallacy. It is a fact of life. Often times our choices are not ideal ones. People who refuse to vote for the best of two candidates on the basis that neither one fully reflects their views is being ridiculous and childish.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by CC1

It is no fallacy. It is a fact of life. Often times our choices are not ideal ones. People who refuse to vote for the best of two candidates on the basis that neither one fully reflects their views is being ridiculous and childish.

Nothing ever changes when we just go along with the ill advised words - vote for the lesser of two evils. That's why we never get what we want. No one has the courage to simply walk away. Now that would bring some changes, if we we dared...