The politics of being too wealthy.

[Triton]

I trust people present at the elections more than I do the untrustworthy propaganda machine.

Really, so you trust someone nattering away on some out of the way website more than you do someone else. Why?

I think they are, but the main stream propaganda machine and the vote manipulators have fixed the machines and denied various districts paper ballots where paper ballots are still used. Our election process is now more corrupt than any third world bannana republic.

If you can prove it there's a pulitzer in it for you. For any journalist that could prove the same as well. So prove it. Fame and fortune awaits.

No, I do not admit that. There is plenty of proof of vote fraud. Irregularities have even been mentioned, in passing, in the main stream propaganda machine. So it is probably true that Ron Paul has won at least one.

Okay assume that is true (all evidence to the contrary) how many delegates would that get him in an absolutely best case scenario?

No, you and most people see ANYONE BUT. You and they are not voting on principle, or even conscience, you and they are voting ANYONE BUT and that is no way to vote because, well heck, we sure got ANYONE BUT when everyone voted for ANYONE BUT A REPUBLICAN didn't we! The only differences between Romney and Obama are skin color and upbringing. In every other sense they are the same.

When presented with three alternatives taking one of the two effective alternatives seems to make more sense then choosing a completely ineffectual alternative... but maybe that's just me. I don't consider Romney an ideal choice but he's certainly better than the only realistic alternative which is the obama. At a minimum he has a proven track record of fixing economic messes and he has promised to do everything he can to roll back obamacare. That alone is enough to elect him over the obama.

Romney is a globalist and I am fighting to keep him out of office by spreading the word.

How's that working out? Have you convinced a lot of people (or even anyone) that the best way to handle this is to not vote for President?

[eyeeatingfish]

You gotta be kidding. No good leftist would be caught dead supporting someone who promises to slash a trillion dollars from spending, limit federal powers to those actually enumerated in the Constitution, eliminate the IRS and keep illegal Mexicans out of my country. Sweet Mother of Pearl!

His stance against the current wars absolutely draws voters from the left.

[jdm61]

And the rest of his positions drive them away. Unless, of course, you are a single issue voter like Snoop Dog, who apparently likes Paul's stance on da chronic.

His stance against the current wars absolutely draws voters from the left.

[eyeeatingfish]

And the rest of his positions drive them away. Unless, of course, you are a single issue voter like Snoop Dog, who apparently likes Paul's stance on da chronic.

It is very rare that you find a candidate who represents all of your views and we have to categorize the importance of our interests. For some stopping the war is supreme over the other issues even if they realize Ron Paul will attempt to make other changes they do not agree on.

I am left on some issues and right on the other but tend to be on the right side a bit more often. I would vote for a democrat if the republican were proposing something absolutely horrid even if I agreed with most of their other positions.

[ttoney83]

Really, so you trust someone nattering away on some out of the way website more than you do someone else. Why?

Because the events are being recorded LIVE and the GOP leadership is SHOWN to be breaking GOP RULES, THAT'S why.....

If you can prove it there's a pulitzer in it for you. For any journalist that could prove the same as well. So prove it. Fame and fortune awaits.

BEEN DONE! Numerous times....Also the testimoney of district representatives.....again, DONE....FRAUD IS EVIDENT, such is the power of the propaganda machine to brainwash the masses.....

Okay assume that is true (all evidence to the contrary) how many delegates would that get him in an absolutely best case scenario?

Impossible to tell because the rules for allocating delagates do not necessarily follow the votes in every district.

When presented with three alternatives taking one of the two effective alternatives seems to make more sense then choosing a completely ineffectual alternative... but maybe that's just me. I don't consider Romney an ideal choice but he's certainly better than the only realistic alternative which is the obama. At a minimum he has a proven track record of fixing economic messes and he has promised to do everything he can to roll back obamacare. That alone is enough to elect him over the obama.

No sense at all Triton. If both of the two effective alternatives are essentially the same then it makes ZERO sense.....

How's that working out? Have you convinced a lot of people (or even anyone) that the best way to handle this is to not vote for President?

Only the die hard supporters of Bush and the die hard supporters of Obama seem to not get it. How many people who get it will turn out to vote is impossible to tell. Regardless, I expect one of these two fascists to get into the White House and the United States will be finished.

[Triton]

Because the events are being recorded LIVE and the GOP leadership is SHOWN to be breaking GOP RULES, THAT'S why.....

What events are being "recorded live." You mean someone's got some video tape there of people engaging in vote fraud? If so why haven't they run it down to their local news station.

BEEN DONE! Numerous times....Also the testimoney of district representatives.....again, DONE....FRAUD IS EVIDENT, such is the power of the propaganda machine to brainwash the masses.....

Mularkey. Again, the liberal media would joyfully report massive fraud in the Republican primary.

Impossible to tell because the rules for allocating delagates do not necessarily follow the votes in every district.

That's a cop out. Come on pony it up. Tell us what states and districts Paul actually won if the evil propoganda machine hadn't stolen his rightful victory.

No sense at all Triton. If both of the two effective alternatives are essentially the same then it makes ZERO sense.....

Yet they aren't and that's the point.

Only the die hard supporters of Bush and the die hard supporters of Obama seem to not get it. How many people who get it will turn out to vote is impossible to tell. Regardless, I expect one of these two fascists to get into the White House and the United States will be finished.

In other words you have convinced no one?

[MountainBilly]

Most of our Presidents were not hurting for money when they were elected. As a matter of fact, I can only think of two that didn't have much in the way of assets at the time that they were President and after. Ulysees S. Grant had to write his memoirs before he died of cancer to pay off his debts. Harry Truman, whose only real asset when he got out of office was the home that his in-laws had left to him and his wife, got a one time royalty payment of $600,000 for his memoirs, but with the crazy tax laws back then, he had about $30,000 left after taxes and expenses and Congress had to vote him a pension.

On this point it's worth pointing out that Jefferson, although living like a rich man was bankrupt when elected president and thereafter. Grant lost his money late in life, he was "comfortable" when elected. Lincoln never had much money and his wife was not an asset since she continually spent more than they had.

[jdm61]

Jefferson had assets that today would be worth $200-250 million. That means that he was as wealthy as Mitt Romney, but only about half as wealthy as George and Martha Washington. He just wan't great at running his business, especially when he was away from it for decades. He was not able to manage his business for many years before he became President as he was working in "government" from 1775 up until he left office in 1809. The point was that most of these guys had enough to run for office. Guys like Grant, Harrison and a few others ran on their fame and military glory, but they were the minority. Teddy Roosevelt ran on his reputation but he was not po'. Truman and Coolidge ran by accident. Woodrow Wilson was not rich, but he was not poor either. Point being that we have arguably had maybe 1 President since 1900 who actually had to run for election, as opposed for reelection after their boss died like Truman and Coolidge, who was what you would call petite bourgeoisie, that being Woodrow Wilson. Obama and Clinton may have started off life being "poor", Clinton arguably more so than Obama, but they were afforded great educational opportunities at an early age and neither were hurting by the time they ran for the office.

On this point it's worth pointing out that Jefferson, although living like a rich man was bankrupt when elected president and thereafter. Grant lost his money late in life, he was "comfortable" when elected. Lincoln never had much money and his wife was not an asset since she continually spent more than they had.

[OliverH]

Jefferson had assets that today would be worth $200-250 million. That means that he was as wealthy as Mitt Romney, but only about half as wealthy as George and Martha Washington. He just wan't great at running his business, especially when he was away from it for decades. He was not able to manage his business for many years before he became President as he was working in "government" from 1775 up until he left office in 1809..

Even though I posted a link to a list of "presidents' net worth," I get more skeptical about it the further back it goes, and in particular about Jefferson's alleged megabucks. I don't think there's any way the assets they list--Monticello, 5000 acres, and a few dozen slaves--could represent in those times the economic equivalent of $200 million in today's money or today's purchasing power. If so, there were an awful lot of effective hundred-millionaires back then for the size of the population, because Jefferson was not nearly alone in having that much. If nothing else, even if one allows that Jefferson was a crummy businessman (or at least didn't care about applying his prodigious talents to making money), it's not really credible that simply living the life of a country squire for several decades would burn up the equivalent of something far in excess of $200 million, since Jefferson was deep in hock by the time he died.

[MountainBilly]

Jefferson had assets that today would be worth $200-250 million.

Every asset in his estate was sold and the total was far far less than what he owed. I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that, but for his creditors, he would have at least freed his own children from slavery.

[jdm61]

Oliver, after the international slave trade was cut off in 1807, the value of slaves went through the roof because a scant few years before that, Mr. Eli Whitney made slavery EXTREMELY viable once again by inventing the cotton gin, so it did not go away on its own like many of the founders figured it would, I suspect. It took a few more years for King Cotton to emerge, but by the time of the Civil War, a male slave with his working life ahead of him was worth around $5000, if not more. That made the small "planter" class in the South the richest people in the US by a fair margin, at least on paper. I am a historian by hobby and even I was not aware of that disparity in "net worth" in Antebellum America until very recently. We started down the road to industrialization about the same time as France and what would become Germany, so while were were behind the British by a few decades in the regard, we were't WAY behind like Russia, But prior to the war, we were still primarily an agrarian society and a huge net exporter of raw materials. Those raw materials were cheap as they had always been. I read once that in the early 1700's, the exports of timber and timber related products, rice, indigo and tobacco from the 13 colonies, were equal in value to just the agricultural exports of Barbados, of which they had one.......sugar. Cotton was a cheap export grown in mass quantities and as such, required huge amounts of "cheap" labor and we already had alobor pool built in when the black earth country of the Mississippi drainage basin and Gulf Coast opened up after 1803. As for the value of Jefferson's land, I wonder what 5000 acres of prime land in Charlottesville would sell for today? It is not the cheapest place you could find to buy a grubstake. Jefferson's failure at business was, I suspect, a combination of neglect due to his other distractions (politics, etc) his interest in trying new and exciting things that wouldn't make money for decades and frivolous living. I have heard that he would never turn away a visitor and any visitor was treated like a family member, at least as far as being wined and dined, etc. I have heard stories about sue staying for WAY too long and Jefferson getting irritated, but not wanting to be rude by throwing their ass out. LOL. But you and Billy are right. The alleged reason that jefferson did not free his slaves upon his death is that they were no longer his to free. They were his creditors. In the case of George Washington, 2/3 of the slaves that he had were initially the property of his wife and her children and remained in that side of the family because George did not father in children. George married VERY well. The 1/3 of the Custis estate that he got when he married Martha was worth $100,000 at that time. The other 1/3 that he got when Ptasy Custis died paid off his debts to British creditors. He also acquired a lot of land in places other than Mount Vernon over the years.

Even though I posted a link to a list of "presidents' net worth," I get more skeptical about it the further back it goes, and in particular about Jefferson's alleged megabucks. I don't think there's any way the assets they list--Monticello, 5000 acres, and a few dozen slaves--could represent in those times the economic equivalent of $200 million in today's money or today's purchasing power. If so, there were an awful lot of effective hundred-millionaires back then for the size of the population, because Jefferson was not nearly alone in having that much. If nothing else, even if one allows that Jefferson was a crummy businessman (or at least didn't care about applying his prodigious talents to making money), it's not really credible that simply living the life of a country squire for several decades would burn up the equivalent of something far in excess of $200 million, since Jefferson was deep in hock by the time he died.

[MountainBilly]

You get the flavor of Jefferson's obsessive-compulsive spending by reading accounts of the vast amounts he spent to continuously redecorate his house in France which he was occupying on a temporary basis.

edit - It was by reading contemporaneous accounts of Jefferson in Paris that I came across the observation that Sally Hemmings was the spitting image of Jefferson's late wife. Knowing the degree to which Jefferson mourned Martha's death IMO casts his long involvement with Sally in an interesting light. It was not surprising that Martha and Sally looked similar since they were half-sisters.

edit 2 - I feel bad having used the mealy mouthed term "involvement" above. If Sally had been granted her freedom so that she had a choice it would be an appropriate word. As his property, however, the only accurate term for Jefferson, and his father-in-law, is "serial rapist. The fact that raping the more attractive slaves was commonplace does not make it morally acceptable.

[Trent Rock]

His policies have caused rampant inflation

2.7% is rampant???
What % would you call hyperinflation??
Have you been reading ShadowStats.com, QuietMike???

[MountainBilly]

2.7% is rampant???
What % would you call hyperinflation??

Careful, you'll upset the gold hucksters.

[ttoney83]

What events are being "recorded live." You mean someone's got some video tape there of people engaging in vote fraud? If so why haven't they run it down to their local news station.

They have and it's been ignored. Such is the power of the propaganda ministers who own the propaganda machine....

Mularkey. Again, the liberal media would joyfully report massive fraud in the Republican primary.

Some have reported it.

That's a cop out. Come on pony it up. Tell us what states and districts Paul actually won if the evil propoganda machine hadn't stolen his rightful victory.

Already have in another thread. You chose to ignore it apparently. The info is out there if you care anything for the truth. I'm done doing your research for you since you don't pay any attention to it anyway. Again, such is the power of the propaganda machine.

Yet they aren't and that's the point.

It will obviously take Romney slapping you in the face with his sameness to convince you. But, I'm not overly optimistic that you will even be convinced by such a slap..... Romney has proven by his own words and actions that he is the GOP version of Obama, that he is a RINO etc.... That's PROBAbly why everyone being suggested as a VP for Romney are ducking and running.

In other words you have convinced no one?

I've convinced many according to their words. I can never know if they will act in accord with their words. Even the die hard GOP supporters on my job site are having second thoughts. It's much easier to tell the effect I'm having if I can see their faces and they can not refute my evidence because in their case, they can not ignore it. Here in this forum one can simply not click on a link and therefore deny all manner of evidence, like vote fraud, changes in the rules for delegate allocation etc....

ETA: Last one of this type I'm responding to in this thread. All others will be in the thread I started "The Devil you know"

[MountainBilly]

The Indiana Attorney General couldn't cite a single case of vote fraud when questioned before the Indiana Supreme Court. He was left with saying that the law was needed to reassure the public. If the case had been heard a few months later he could have cited his friend:

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — The top elections official in Indiana was convicted of multiple charges in a voter fraud case on Saturday, bringing uncertainty to one of the state’s most powerful offices. A Hamilton County jury found Charlie White, the Indiana secretary of state, guilty of six of seven felony charges: two counts of perjury and one each of false registration, voting in another precinct, submitting a false ballot and theft. He was acquitted of one fraud charge.

For all the screaming the Republicans do about vote fraud, Bush's US Attorneys couldn't find any. And it is the Republican National Committee that operates under judicial oversight because of its history of vote fraud.

[timcsaw]

The Indiana Attorney General couldn't cite a single case of vote fraud when questioned before the Indiana Supreme Court. He was left with saying that the law was needed to reassure the public. If the case had been heard a few months later he could have cited his friend:

For all the screaming the Republicans do about vote fraud, Bush's US Attorneys couldn't find any. And it is the Republican National Committee that operates under judicial oversight because of its history of vote fraud.

Have you ever lost anything? Lost your keys, or wallet, or a favorite knife, your watch or anything else? Do you hunt or fish? Have you ever used a metal detector to hunt for buried coins and stuff? Ever look for something, anything you wanted to find or had lost?

How did you find what you were seeking?

[timcsaw]

They have and it's been ignored. Such is the power of the propaganda ministers who own the propaganda machine....

This isn't really true is it?...as 30 states require voter ID now (32 when Mississippi and Wisconsin enact theirs) with more and more states moving toward voter ID all the time?

[Triton]

They have and it's been ignored. Such is the power of the propaganda ministers who own the propaganda machine....

So to be clear here, you are claiming that the liberal media who has a lot to gain by outing Republican voting fraud is helping the Republicans out?

Some have reported it.

There have been no reports of massive voter fraud in any Republican primary. Those propoganda ministers must be very good at their job.