TexasCHLforum.com

Razgriz wrote:So there is a god.

Jokes aside, Santorum was a horrible candidate, every time he opened his mouth it seemed like he wanted to turn the US more and more into a Christian version of Iran.

"Wants to", "thinks it's actually a good idea", "believes he could get away with it", and "believes he has the authority to" are all different things.

george wrote:What happens to his votes?

Do they go to Romney, or to whomever Santorum wants?

They obviously didn't want Romney...
My assumption is Ron Paul.

RoyGBiv wrote:While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.

The goal is not to go from one socialistic president to another lying scumbag, Vote with your heart not your party... believe in something, something actually voting for. This is why its Ron Paul or nothing for me... cause if he is not the next POTUS then their will be no other election by my economic calculations.

Only reason we put up with it is cause we are the only State that can fly our flag at the same height as that other Country we joined up wit' since we were the only State to join as a Country rather than a Territory, etc.

According to the U.S. Flag Code, all states can fly their flags at the same height as the U.S. flag.

george wrote:What happens to his votes?

Do they go to Romney, or to whomever Santorum wants?

I think a lot of the people who voted for Santorum will stay home in the general election or cast protest votes. Many of these people are evangelicals who refuse to cast a vote for Willard under any circumstances. This bodes poorly for Willard's presidential aspirations as evangelicals make up a significant portion of the GOP base. If the man can't get his base out to vote for him, the writing is on the wall.

GeekDad wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.

The goal is not to go from one socialistic president to another lying scumbag, Vote with your heart not your party... believe in something, something actually voting for. This is why its Ron Paul or nothing for me... cause if he is not the next POTUS then their will be no other election by my economic calculations.

So, if you have Romney and Obama in the final race, will you vote for Romney? If not, then you might as well vote for Obama. The cast of a vote for an individual who won't win the Presidency is nothing but a lost vote and helps the incumbent remain in office. Sometimes it requires you vote not for the other person, but vote AGAINST the one you want out; which means you may have to vote for the one that has the chance of beating the incumbent. It is gonna take all the votes we can gather for the one who can beat Obama to get that guy out of office.

GeekDad wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.

The goal is not to go from one socialistic president to another lying scumbag, Vote with your heart not your party... believe in something, something actually voting for. This is why its Ron Paul or nothing for me... cause if he is not the next POTUS then their will be no other election by my economic calculations.

I'll see your idealistic viewpoint and raise you my reality..

[Below is paraphrased from a post I made in an earlier thread]

I, too, want a candidate I can vote FOR. In November 2012, I'm not going to get one.

Unfortunately, to vote for a candidate with no serious chance of winning is like buying a lottery ticket and quitting your job before the numbers are drawn. When your mom served you peas and broccoli you might get away with asking for ice cream. Today's election menu is Snake or Skunk. You can still vote for ice cream, but you're gonna get Snake or Skunk regardless. If you have a preference between those two, even a slight preference, even though neither one is what you actually want, you'd be wise to not waste your vote on ice cream.

The place to "fix" this is by demanding that your party (and maybe even volunteering for your candidate directly) put forward a primary candidate you favor and set a platform you can support. But, when it comes down to the final vote count, it's an irrefutable fact that you're gonna get Obama or Romney as the next POTUS. Holding on to your wish for something better ignores reality. If you have a preference among the two people with an actual chance to win, that's who you should vote for. To do otherwise might make you feel good, but it's equivalent to a child stomping their feet, it'll get them nothing but punished.

Well Romney is going to take Texas and unless the Dems. come out in record numbers and the Republicans stay at home in record numbers nothing will change that! As for who is going to win the election? All I can say is that Obama is loved in the northeast and many parts of the west by people I know and the majority of Texans want him gone! Also as someone who is in my early 30s I think more of the people my age and younger are becoming more liberal in Texas. That combined with the fact that many people are moving here from NJ, NY and CA is going to change everything in Texas in the next 10-20 years. I think the republicans are going to have a much harder time winning the big highly populated counties. Sad but true!

The election is going to be very close but if I had to bet on who would win today it would be Obama. Too many people still like him IMO. Like I have said in previous posts this election will not be determined by Texas or any other solidly republican state. It will be the close call states like Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, Wisconsin, Penn. etc. Our fate is in their hands!

An observation and a question.

Observation: Rick Santorum "forgot" to endorse Willard.

Question: Why is Newt still in this race?

Keith B wrote:

GeekDad wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.

The goal is not to go from one socialistic president to another lying scumbag, Vote with your heart not your party... believe in something, something actually voting for. This is why its Ron Paul or nothing for me... cause if he is not the next POTUS then their will be no other election by my economic calculations.

So, if you have Romney and Obama in the final race, will you vote for Romney? If not, then you might as well vote for Obama. The cast of a vote for an individual who won't win the Presidency is nothing but a lost vote and helps the incumbent remain in office. Sometimes it requires you vote not for the other person, but vote AGAINST the one you want out; which means you may have to vote for the one that has the chance of beating the incumbent. It is gonna take all the votes we can gather for the one who can beat Obama to get that guy out of office.

In war it is possible to "win" a battle, but suffer a strategic loss.

Take, for example the Civil War in New Mexico. The confederate forces marched north along the Rio Grande through Arizona (Google 'confederate Arizona' if I'm confusing you here) with the intent of securing New Mexico (which had two Las Vegases at the time). Along the way, they came across Fort Craig. They wanted to take the fort and use captured supplies to continue North. They fought hard and wiped out the Union army on the field, but in the process were so bloodied and beaten that they couldn't overcome the defenses of the actual fort. The marched on to defeat outside of Santa Fe.

History is riddled with such stories.

So, we 'win' by getting rid of Barack Obama, but to replace him with what? The man who practically invented ObamaCare. The man who to this day thinks weapons of 'extraordinary lethality' (10+ round magazines, pistol grip rifles, etc) should not be in private hands, and would bring back the AWB given the chance to sign such a bill. A man who has proven through time that he doesn't believe in anything but what might bring him the most political gain at the moment.

Sorry to burst everybody's bubbles, but we're not going to vote our way out of this mess.

The original federal constitution had safety valves to prevent the situation we are in. The states were meant to serve as a balance to prevent federal problems, not only through the Tenth Amendment, but with the state legislatures selecting the federal senators. The House of Representatives was where all the radical democracy was supposed to be, but to be tempered by the senate. Now we have the entire legislature run by mob rule with no voice of the states at all. People who complain about states' rights need look no further than the Seventeenth Amendment. That is where the mistake was made.

People vote for whoever will give them the most free $#!7. When people get into office, they realize that to stay in power they need to keep offering up freebies. Schools are run by unionized teachers who don't want the free crap wagon to stop rolling. Media makes money telling people what they want to hear by telling people all is well and that the free crap wagon can roll forever. Reassured by bad education and bad media, they vote for people who promise ever more freebies from the public treasury.

Republicans are only marginally less guilty of this than the Democrats, but ultimately none of them are willing to risk losing office by doing what needs to be done to right the checkbook, and the right thing to do is cut the freeloaders off. Look at Greece. Look at Wisconsin. When the free crap cart stops rolling, people riot and get violent.

That's the problem with unfettered democracy. People feel entitled to get whatever they want. They even get to the point where they think the criminal justice system runs on democracy and they get violent when somebody they think is guilty (but a prosecutor already didn't have enough evidence on) doesn't get arrested or charged quickly enough for their taste.

Democracy is a terminal disease caused by parasitism. It starts out simply and innocently enough, but eventually it turns nasty and kills the host.

Replacing the current tapeworm with a different species of tapeworm in the White House isn't going to make the host get any better.

RoyGBiv wrote:While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.

Why? He seems to be more liked than Mitt by your party? Isn't he the handpicked candidate of Jesus?

matriculated wrote:An observation and a question.

Observation: Rick Santorum "forgot" to endorse Willard.

Question: Why is Newt still in this race?

Neither Santorum nor Gingrich has "dropped out of the race." They both "suspended" their campaigns. Smart money has them now or soon negotiating with Romney with respect to what it is worth to him to receive his endorsement and the votes of his supporters.

Might it be selection as Romney's vice presidential candidate for the GOP? Who knows....

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

matriculated wrote:An observation and a question.

Observation: Rick Santorum "forgot" to endorse Willard.

Question: Why is Newt still in this race?

Neither Santorum nor Gingrich has "dropped out of the race." They both "suspended" their campaigns. Smart money has them now or soon negotiating with Romney with respect to what it is worth to him to receive his endorsement and the votes of his supporters.

Might it be selection as Romney's vice presidential candidate for the GOP? Who knows....

Jim

I think Perry also "suspended" his campaign, as Cain did.
Lots of Suspenders here.

Where is info that Newt Gingrich suspended?
Yesterday he vowed to stay in the race
http://foxnewsinsider.com/tag/newt-gingrich/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toorop wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.

Why? He seems to be more liked than Mitt by your party? Isn't he the handpicked candidate of Jesus?

If you're not going to say anything that actually contributes constructively to the discussion perhaps you should remain on the sideline?