Off Duty Forums >> Politics >> Florida Primary

+1

Florida Primary

410 Views
16 Replies Flag as inappropriate
1979_max50

3270 posts

back to top

Posted over 2 years ago

 

We here in Florida vote tomorrow for the next Republican nominee. Over this weekend and today the tempo of personal attacks has really reached a crescendo! Around the news hour I have counted usually 12 to 14 attack ads against Gingrich with only one or two identifying Romney as behind the ad with the "I'm **** ****** and I approve this message" tag line. All the others are from groups who are supposedly acting on their own but if you go to the websites or name they use they support Romney. Newt has also responded with a number of ads himself but it isn't a quarter of the anti-Newt, pro Romney ads. I am sure that this is because of Romney's huge war chest.


My question is this, are those ads really effective? Do you accept them as the truth or reject them as at least exaggerated or worse as out lies? Same for the Anti-Romney ads. Effective or not? I am wondering what the outcome of this election will actually be.


Also how much is the Florida result will matter? Is it over and the nominee going to be who Fl votes for? Will it essentially be over? What about all the other States? Do we just say they have to go along? Is that right or fair?

Rcsd04_max600_max50

657 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

 To me the ads are not effective, I do my research and watch the debates to find out who I would vote for. Here in SC the ads were just crazy. But for some people that are so easily effected by the simplest things, I can see these ads effecting them. Also people that believe everything they hear I see them being affected by these ads. I agree with what Mitt Romney had stated that some of these solo groups acted by themselves need to be cut out and not allowed to post ads up. Should be a law against it. All it does is ruin the campaign and make the candidate look stupid who is suppose to be "supporting" the ad and the one they are attacking. 


I do wonder the same thing Robocop, what would it be like if they just stood up their on the stand and stated what they were going to do if they were to become president. Not standing up their bashing each other like school kids. 


Don't think Flordia will matter all that much, we've only gone through 3 states and their are 47 more to go. 


You wouldn't go in there for a million bucks...A Cop does it for less...A Reserve does it for free....

Mr-natural_1__max50

2220 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

I still have yet to finish decoding how the RNC primary season works. I started looking into it and it's a mishmash of elections and caucuses, some binding, some not. Also there are 3 kinds of delegates...and what they are each entitled to on the national convention floor is still a mystery to me. I DO know, much as StrykerBrig21 noted, that we've only gone through 3 states and the remaining GOP primary contests total 52--don't ask me how that works. Also, Florida lost half its total delegates because they broke RNC rules by moving its primary up to January--but these aren't national convention delegates (again--I'm not sure of the point or significance). Only 50 odd some delegates have been spoken for out of a total of nearly 1200--and California's primary isn't until March. That suggests to me this is far from over.


Speaking of the attacks on Gingrich, did you see Sarah Palin's post on the topic? I'm actually quite surprised at how well written it is. She certainly makes a better pundit than a politician.


See here (copy and paste the short-link):


http://tinyurl.com/7l3tku6


Sarah Palin: Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left


 




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

1979_max50

3270 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

I agree that it is not fair for the national media to try and make the decision for us especially after just four states (Iowa, NH, SC, and now Fl) have their primaries! Iowa is the most foolish of all as it is just certain people are allowed to vote! How are these people picked anyway? Just a few from each county are allowed to vote after sitting around at the local party HQ telling stories and drinking coffee. They do not really represent the entire State!  The pothers divide up their delegates and when you get to Florida then ALL of the delegates vote for the same guy. Maybe I don't want either Mitt or Newt, does that mean I shouldn't count? (The same can also be said for the National election as well) Just because the Fl Rep Party wanted to set up and vote early why should that mean my desires should only count one half of the number we should, "I" didn't say I wanted to vote in Jan. Not only that but what if I were a delegate from Florida and changed my mind because i found out something bad about my candidate? I think it should be by popular vote and every State should vote at the same time and all voters in that party should be allowed to vote. End of story. I do not even like the Open Voting States that allow Dem's to cross party lines like they do in SC. If I was an Obama supporter I might vote for the person I think would most likely fail against Obama. Why should you be allowed to help pick your opposing party's candidate? Boggles the mind.

1979_max50

3270 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

As the Florida vote is tomorrow I need to tell you that I am voting for Newt and I am even going to a couple of the pooling sites personally and wave Newt's banner around and urge people to stop and really think about what they know and what they believe in and hopefully they will decide to vote for Newt.


I feel strongly that he is the guy that is best suited to beat Obama in a General Election Why? Newt is a great historian and is aware of how politics works throughout the world and knows what historically has and has not worked and he is not going to try the ways that are failures. I am almost everyone else believes that he is one of the smartest people in the political field right now, even amongst his detractors! Additionally in the debates he will be able to clearly defeat Obama. To me Mitt Romney is basically Obama lite. Ron Paul has some great domestic ideas, not all of course but a great many BUT his foriegn policy is disastrous to say the least. Rick Santorum is really a nice guy and might make a decent President but he is frankly too much of a moralist and has too much influence to be effective as he appears too judgemental based on his religious beliefs. No candidate is 100% the best but using an open mind I honestly believe Newt is the future of the USA.

Rcsd04_max600_max50

657 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Robocop33 says ...



I agree that it is not fair for the national media to try and make the decision for us especially after just four states (Iowa, NH, SC, and now Fl) have their primaries! Iowa is the most foolish of all as it is just certain people are allowed to vote! How are these people picked anyway? Just a few from each county are allowed to vote after sitting around at the local party HQ telling stories and drinking coffee. They do not really represent the entire State!  The pothers divide up their delegates and when you get to Florida then ALL of the delegates vote for the same guy. Maybe I don't want either Mitt or Newt, does that mean I shouldn't count? (The same can also be said for the National election as well) Just because the Fl Rep Party wanted to set up and vote early why should that mean my desires should only count one half of the number we should, "I" didn't say I wanted to vote in Jan. Not only that but what if I were a delegate from Florida and changed my mind because i found out something bad about my candidate? I think it should be by popular vote and every State should vote at the same time and all voters in that party should be allowed to vote. End of story. I do not even like the Open Voting States that allow Dem's to cross party lines like they do in SC. If I was an Obama supporter I might vote for the person I think would most likely fail against Obama. Why should you be allowed to help pick your opposing party's candidate? Boggles the mind.


I am not sure if I agree with you on the Open Voting. The last president election I voted on both sides of ballot in different areas throughout the state. For instance I chose republican for president, then I picked democrat for Gov, and county Sheriff. I also choose a few other republicans for senate and other spots. I hate voting straight party, I want the best person for the job and if that person is on the other side then I should be able to vote for that person. My friend who is running for sheriff, he is running under democrat cause the sheriff in now is republican. My friend would be 1000% better at the job then the one already in office. 


My opinion on Iowa was that it was all just a big mess! I mean how can a state declare a winner when you have missing votes and precincts. What's going to happen when the big election comes up? Are they going to miss precincts and votes?



You wouldn't go in there for a million bucks...A Cop does it for less...A Reserve does it for free....

Cert_max600_max50

558 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Hey there Robo...good question. I haven't posted in quite a while so this seems like a good topic to take part in.


First and foremost, I believe that the ads that these groups as well as the politicians put out are very effective to a select group. I am referring to those that don't watch the news or read the papers, or watch the debates. I for one don't watch a lot of television, so I don't see many of these ads. I do make it a point to watch the debates though. The problem with the ads is that each candidiate can spin anything that they want into a truth or a lie. That leaves all of us having to do our homework to determine who is the most (cough cough) trustworthy.


As far as what will happen after Florida votes, It's up in the air. Romney has a huge lead in that state, and it's a big state...23 delegates I think. The problem with this is that (suggesting Romney wins Florida) these other candidates can drop out after that and this leaves the remaining states that have net yet had their primaries/caucuses yet wondering if they actually will have a say in who the next president will be. Not only that, but up to this point only three states have had their primary/caucus yet there have been 19 debates so far. Seems to be a little over kill to me.


In my own opinion, these possible candidatesshould not be allowed to start their national campaign until the October of the year prior to the general election. That would give them roughly 6 months to campaign and perhaps have no more than 2 debates scheduled each month during tha time all over the country until "Super Tuesday" at which point every state goes to the polls to vote for their candidate of choice. Sure, there are problems with this, but it's nothing that can't be tweeked until it's perfected. We've been working on our Democracy for over 230 years, and we still don't have it perfected yet.


Just my thoughts.


PL Mentoring Team Member

Compliance is not an option; it's a matter of time!

1979_max50

3270 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

coshane. lots of topics there and I probably should not have tossed so many questions or ideas into one topic.


One of the reasons if this, you say "We've been working on our Democracy for over 230 years, and we still don't have it perfected yet" which while I understand what you are saying and agree in principal but I HAVE to point out that we are NOT a Democracy, we are a Republic and yes we still haven't gotten it completely right yet and probably never will.

 


The problem we face is that BOTH a democracy and communism are Utopian societies. Unfortunately both are unworkable because people are different. Them reason is because there are people who will take advantage of both. The overall best society for a large group appears to be a combination of both which is a Republic and that still is not perfect simply because ALL people are not created equal. The difference has nothing at all to do with race, culture, nationality, height, weight, eye color or anything like that. It is a simple thing to do with genes or the nature of life. Some people are smarter, some are better coordinated, some better physically fit, etc. It seems that just about everyone has some special ability. Maybe it is natures way of making up for other deficiencies. Look at Prof. Hawkins as an example. Probably the most intelligent man that we have ever discovered yet he is physically crippled, deformed and can't even speak! The other simple fact is that ALL people have the same rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which our bright forefathers stated.We just need to figure out how to accomplish that. Anyway, that is really another topic. for another time here but a GREAT topic that we should explore!

Mr-natural_1__max50

2220 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Actually Florida has about 50 "delegates". I put "delegates" in quotes because it's unclear to me what these 50 delegates are empowered to do as they aren't "national delegates". They would have had around 100 delegates except they got penalized for moving their primary date up. I'm saying "about" and "around" with regards to the number because there are also "bonus" delegates for various state-specific conditions such as which party controls the governorship or the legislature.


If you want to join me in attempting to become more knowledgable (but just getting more confused) about the GOP primary process, feel free. They are using the rules set down in 2008 and amended in 2010. Link below.


http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Cert_max600_max50

558 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Robo, without getting into a long drawn out argument about Democracy vs. Rebublic, I will only say this. Both terms are essentially correct for our form of government. A Rebublic essentially means that our head of state is NOT a Monarch and that he/she is elected by the people and that those people in fact have some say in how government is conducted. The latter of which also falls under the definition of a Representative Democracy where the people elect representatives as well as heads of state through a free electoral system. Our founding fathers never really specified whether we were a Democracy or a Rebublic.


The only document (as far as I know) that specifies us as a Republic is the Pledge of Allegiance. That was not written by our founding fathers, but was written by Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy. It was adopted by Congress in 1942 and has been  modified 4 times since then. The most recent being the words "under God" which were added in 1954.


mz, you are correct on the number of Florida delegates. I am not sure what I was thinking when I wrote 23. I knew that they had there delegations cut in half for moving their primaries up, but that still would only make 25 if thats what I was looking at. Heck looks like I just had a good ol fashioned brain fart.


Now, back to the topic at hand...the Florida Primary. Can I add that the constant bickering of these candidates are not helping them out for the General Election. I just hope they can get their collective $h!t together so that we can truly get this GREAT country of our back on track. I for one am not a true conservative by definition. There a re a great many things that I am very conservative on, but there are also many things that I take a Liberal stance on. Im not going to get into the particulars, but regardless, I feel that the change that the President promised during his campaign has not benefited the heart and sole of the country...the middle class. I see ore and more of my paycheck disappearing, and more and more people benefitting from things that they didn't earn. TICKS ME OFF!!!! 


PL Mentoring Team Member

Compliance is not an option; it's a matter of time!

1979_max50

3270 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

coshane my friend, I would have sworn that it is in there about this being formed as a Republic is in there somewhere. I will have to look more deeply into it to make sure that that is correct. Unfortunately that might not be until sometime late Thursday as I have an all day appointment at the VA Hospital tomorrow and a Dr's appointment Thursday so forgive me if I don't check on it right away. You might check for yourself again though. I don't think it had anything to do with the Pledge though.

Cert_max600_max50

558 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Again, a republic is a form of government where the head of state is NOT a monarch in that he/she is elected by the people. So, Republic is correct.


A democracy is a form of government where the people have a say in how the government is run and to who will represent them. So, Democracy is also correct.


The 17th amendment which was enacted in 1913 allowed the individual citizens the right to vote for the senators rather than having them appointed by representatives. By enacting that amendment, our form of government became a Democratic Republic.


"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." Thomas Jefferson


PL Mentoring Team Member

Compliance is not an option; it's a matter of time!

Mr-natural_1__max50

2220 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

That is fascinating, Shane. Thanks for checking up on that.


Today's Doonesbury:





Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

1979_max50

3270 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

coshane220 says ...



Again, a republic is a form of government where the head of state is NOT a monarch in that he/she is elected by the people. So, Republic is correct.


A democracy is a form of government where the people have a say in how the government is run and to who will represent them. So, Democracy is also correct.


The 17th amendment which was enacted in 1913 allowed the individual citizens the right to vote for the senators rather than having them appointed by representatives. By enacting that amendment, our form of government became a Democratic Republic.


"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." Thomas Jefferson



All of this is correct my Brother and thank you for actually knowing how things are done in our Government. Still the public DOES NOT vote directly for the President of the USA, It is all done by electoral votes.  and there IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE for a President in the USA.

1979_max50

3270 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

StrykerBrig21 says ...



Robocop33 says ...



I agree that it is not fair for the national media to try and make the decision for us especially after just four states (Iowa, NH, SC, and now Fl) have their primaries! Iowa is the most foolish of all as it is just certain people are allowed to vote! How are these people picked anyway? Just a few from each county are allowed to vote after sitting around at the local party HQ telling stories and drinking coffee. They do not really represent the entire State!  The pothers divide up their delegates and when you get to Florida then ALL of the delegates vote for the same guy. Maybe I don't want either Mitt or Newt, does that mean I shouldn't count? (The same can also be said for the National election as well) Just because the Fl Rep Party wanted to set up and vote early why should that mean my desires should only count one half of the number we should, "I" didn't say I wanted to vote in Jan. Not only that but what if I were a delegate from Florida and changed my mind because i found out something bad about my candidate? I think it should be by popular vote and every State should vote at the same time and all voters in that party should be allowed to vote. End of story. I do not even like the Open Voting States that allow Dem's to cross party lines like they do in SC. If I was an Obama supporter I might vote for the person I think would most likely fail against Obama. Why should you be allowed to help pick your opposing party's candidate? Boggles the mind.


I am not sure if I agree with you on the Open Voting. The last president election I voted on both sides of ballot in different areas throughout the state. For instance I chose republican for president, then I picked democrat for Gov, and county Sheriff. I also choose a few other republicans for senate and other spots. I hate voting straight party, I want the best person for the job and if that person is on the other side then I should be able to vote for that person. My friend who is running for sheriff, he is running under democrat cause the sheriff in now is republican. My friend would be 1000% better at the job then the one already in office. 


My opinion on Iowa was that it was all just a big mess! I mean how can a state declare a winner when you have missing votes and precincts. What's going to happen when the big election comes up? Are they going to miss precincts and votes?




Understand that when I am talking about Open Voting that is for PRIMARY voting ONLY. In SC they have open voting and if you are registered Democrat you still were allowed to go to the polls and vote for your choice to run against Obama! Even if the Democrats had someone on the ballot running against Obama for the Democratic Nominee they could still vote for Newt instead of voting for Obama even though they are going to vote for Obama in the general election. Here in Florida unless you were registered as a Republican you could not vote in the Primary.


I almost always vote a "Split Ticket" which means in the General Election in November I may vote for some Democrats and some Republicans and some Independents or Libertarians. Voting a split ticket is always best to ensure you are picking the BEST Candidate.

Cert_max600_max50

558 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Robocop33 says ...



coshane220 says ...



Again, a republic is a form of government where the head of state is NOT a monarch in that he/she is elected by the people. So, Republic is correct.


A democracy is a form of government where the people have a say in how the government is run and to who will represent them. So, Democracy is also correct.


The 17th amendment which was enacted in 1913 allowed the individual citizens the right to vote for the senators rather than having them appointed by representatives. By enacting that amendment, our form of government became a Democratic Republic.


"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." Thomas Jefferson



All of this is correct my Brother and thank you for actually knowing how things are done in our Government. Still the public DOES NOT vote directly for the President of the USA, It is all done by electoral votes.  and there IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE for a President in the USA.



You too are correct as well my brother, and let me say...I very much appreciate having a civil discussion here where nobody is becoming hot headed! It's too bad not all of our discussions on here can go as smoothly. Now, back to the point. As for the public not actually voting for the POTUS; you are correct...from a certain point of view. The votes of the people are essentially passed on to the Electoral College where they vote based on the popular vote of the people. Yes, I know that there have been times when a candidate has won the popular vote only to lose in electoral votes. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates based on the votes of the people. In theory, this is a very good process, as it gives the states with much smaller populations more of a say in who is elected. However, just like everything else, there are both pros and cons in the process.


As for for there being "NO RIGHT TO VOTE" for a POTUS, I will also argue that point as well. The 19th ammendment to constitution specificly prohibits any citizen of the United States being denied the right to vote. That being said, each state is also permitted to set guidlines on who is or is not eligible as well how elections are carried out in those states.


Examples:


You can not be denied the right to vote based on race or sex. In most states, you can be denied the right to vote if you are a convicted felon. If you are 18 years or older, are a "LEGAL" citizen, are registered to vote based on the laws of your state, then you have the right to vote.


PL Mentoring Team Member

Compliance is not an option; it's a matter of time!