UK says Newt won and Paul last ?

US Election 2012: Newt Gingrich victorious in South Carolina - Telegraph

Anybody else hear anything about it !!

 

Was in 4th. South Carolina primary results, visits and political geography - 2012 Campaign Republican Primary Tracker - The Washington Post - The Washington Post which is basically last. All precincts were not in, but it didn't look good.

 

this is going to be a long drawn out slog.

 

With 15+ % of the population living in poverty anyone not offering Obama Money is moribund.

 

Looking like the "53% Stupid Idiots" will give us four more years in 'The New Dark Ages' with obummer. The GOP offers nobody to realistically run against The Libtard Messiah........

They should have groomed someone to run (someone who could appeal to ALL right-oriented folks) the day after obummer got immaculated. I see the GOP as having basically made their decision to just, once again, go through the motions, and allow the Dems to run rampant.

Woe is us. We has met the enemy, and he is US!

 

Well, there's an errror in strategy from the Get Go!!

Wouldn't it be in the GOP's interest to groom someone who will appeal to more than just the conservative-oriented folks??? preaching just to the already converted and committed conservatives will not get the GOP over the line. The GOP has to attract the votes of uncommitted and swinging voters, and try and claw back some of the voters who are only marginally committed to the Democrats. I can't see any of the current lot of GOP aspirants who have a hope in Hades of achieving that....certainly not the "Salamander".

The GOP has got to offer real, credible alternatives, to the usual suspects... of celebrity vanity candidates, self serving ego maniacs, and prayer meeting hucksters for god's sake!!! Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, Trump....now there's a list of quality hopefuls to conjure with....little wonder that some voters won't touch the GOP's offerings with a very long barge pole.

Bachmann

Rick Perry..... Need I say more???

Rick Perry Anti-Gay Ad - "Strong" - COMMENTS ALLOWED, PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS - YouTube

Rick Perry - "Jacket" ("Strong" Parody) - YouTube

Rick Perry "Wrong" ("Strong" Parody) - YouTube




v=NtFzuGeCfkc&NR=1&feature=endscreen

 

Voter qualifications. Let only the producers, the workers, the people who give a flying screw enough about themselves, their families and their country to improve themselves to the point of literacy and employability, have a vote and a say in the direction this country takes.

That would eliminate the 40th percentile of adults in America, and eviscerate the Democratic Party.

 

Yeah anyone receiving welfare isn't allowed to vote. That would be good so they would stop voting themselves more of my money. I wouldn't allow congress to vote themselves raises for the same reason.

 

Ah...those halcyon days...when the franchise was

Ah...those halcyon days...when the franchise was restricted to men...to white men....to white men of wealth and property....ah yes, those were the days....sigh.

 

"Right" and "Conservative" are NOT the same thing. Many make that error.

 

I find it funny that a man with such profound use of the English language failed so badly .No where it this statement was it mentioned that one had to be white or black or yellow for that matter it only stated that one had to be productive and or own property .Just saying !!

 

It has nothing to do with race; only joining the workforce which last I heard wasn't racial.

 

I think what he is getting at is that if you restrict the right to vote of/to a certain segment of the populus then its not a right.
back in the day only white men could vote. Then black men, then white women. It took a long time to get it so the right to vote was granted equaly to all citizens, dont try to take it away now...

 

They took it away once and all we want to do is get back the way it was. Try looking up how the voting was done back in the early 1800 in different states ,it's been awhile since I did and don't remember the links but I;m sure can find them !!
It stated that any free man with $50 of wealth or property could vote!!

 

My remarks need be taken quite so literally.

My remarks were a rhetorical reducto ad absurdum critique on the common conservative pipe dream whereby a chunk of the population's franchise can be "gerrymandered" out of existence by means of invoking restrictive eligibility property / wealth (and other social qualifying) requirements.

Who decides what the qualifying / disqualifying thresholds will be?? Will restricting the franchise thus necessarily result in the improvements of governance anticipated by its promoters? Will the disenfranchised meekly accept this rather anti-democratic arrangement? What negative outcomes might result from this proposal if implemented, for the US citizenry in general? Will disenfranchising the underclass encourage their will to participate in the governance of the nation, or merely alienate them to the point of revolt??? Would revolting peons in the streets make for a peaceable nation...or a nation literally at war with itself, one franchised polity in conflict with a disenfranchised polity. I could go on and on....but is that the kind of toxic poison you would wish upon your own country???

Arthur Wellesley ("The Iron Duke") The Duke of Wellington, in his "Reform Bill 1832" sensibly extended the franchise rather than diminished it, and reformed some of the more egregiously corrupt forms of electoral rorting to strengthen democracy, rather than undermining it. The French Revolution and its mob violence and butchery was still within the living memories of those that passed that particular piece of ground breaking legislation, and even just the idea of a revolution was enough for some vested upper class interests to surrender some of their parliamentary power.

My suggestion is to be careful what you wish for....for the law of unintended consequence will have it's way...and not necessarily in favour of those that dream for the disenfranchisement of the unwealthy, unpropertied, jobless underclass.

 

So I assume that buying a vote with means of food or favor is out of question .

 

Buying the votes of constituents is

Buying the votes of constituents is the stock in trade of politicians, political parties, and elected governments. Most policies and platforms have a $$$ value attached to them, and their fulfillment become a burden on the public purse and an impost upon the taxpayer. The Right wing hates welfare for the the poor (social security)...the Left wing hates welfare for the wealthy (Tax breaks), and both look askance at welfare for the middle class ( family subsidies for child care etc),

Pork barrelling, back scratching and feather bedding are all indispensable elements of parliamentary democracy. But, there is no reason why it should be enabled....hence the vital necessity of open and transparent government....regardless of the colour of ideology that they are painted with, or where they sit on the right / left political continuum.

 

So you do get ,it,s just that you want it to continue . As long as it fits your purpose.
I just want the people that have worked very hard for what they have to have a say in how TPTB hand out that money, not the recipients of it .

 

I don't see realistically that a semi-democratic system will operate any differently, even if the franchise was limited to the employed and to those who own their own home. Vested interests who have power and influence will still be pandered to in preference to hard working Joes who have their own abode, or who can afford to rent... My bet is that such governments may become much less stable and in the turmoil and instability, opportunists may arise, the likes of which might make Mussolini and Hitler appear quite genial, if they could promise lower taxes for wage earners and that the trains could be made to at least run, if not run on time.

Even if the impoverished were denied the franchise at the ballot box....they will, undoubtedly assume the power that they have always had recourse to, and that is the power of the mob. Welfare "Soma" may be an impost on the taxpayer, but so to would interminable, internecine class warfare.

Soma in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932)


The question that needs to be asked....is the disenfranchisement of a significant proportion of the population going to result in the improvements in the quality of life that the promoters claim that it will. I doubt so, and I doubt the practicability of doing so....short of installing a dictatorship that will convert "unproductive" untermensch into soap and lampshades.

I am not saying that the present state of affairs in US politics ought continue, and I have no stake in it doing so, other than it is in nobody's interests to create a political environment that is like to create enormous instability. That is why I suggest that the notion of a disenfranchisement strategy is a conservative pipe dream, not likely to bear any satisfying fruit for anyone, except perhaps gun and ammunition manufacturers. That is not to say that reform is not needed and that the reform of political institutions ought not be attempted, just that such reforms need to be practically achievable and be broadly beneficial to the nation as a whole.