Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These are precints in the city, but outer edge, so have a more suburban feel to them.
All candidate except Santorum and Bachman had someone standup and talk on behalf of he candidates. The Paul rep was by far the most impressive (did get his name but he was a politician that at some time in the past run against, and defeated Nancy Polosi).
Least impressive, Romney rep stood up and READ a prepared speech. Surprise...surprise.
No, the reality is that Obama and the liberals want Paul to be the nominee.
Half of these voters pulling the lever for Ron Paul will vote for Obama if Paul miraculously wins the nomination. Fortunately, it looks like that isn't happening.
There's little to no difference between Romney and Obama.
No, the reality is that Obama and the liberals want Paul to be the nominee.
Half of these voters pulling the lever for Ron Paul will vote for Obama if Paul miraculously wins the nomination. Fortunately, it looks like that isn't happening.
You have to be a registered Republican to caucus. Do you even know how Iowa works?
Independents (of which I am one) are never going to hold our noses and vote for a religious whackjob bigot (Santorum), a flip flopping career loser (Romney), a philanderer (Gingrich), or a stereotypical Texan (Perry). It'll never happen.
In order to win an election, you have to have what's called electability. None of those guys have it. Paul can move the needle of independents, and at the end of the day? We're the one who decides who wins the presidency.
No, the reality is that Obama and the liberals want Paul to be the nominee.
Half of these voters pulling the lever for Ron Paul will vote for Obama if Paul miraculously wins the nomination. Fortunately, it looks like that isn't happening.
Because he's in a tie in Iowa? I don't think so.
The Left KNOWS the fodder against Paul is VAST, especially his 9/11 comments. That is why they push him to be the nominee.
There's little to no difference between Romney and Obama.
I'm so tired of this ignorant and simplistic talking point that I'm not going to respond to it AGAIN.
There's no difference between Paul and gridlock, either, because Paul would be the most ineffective CinC in the country's history if he ever won. So a vote for Paul is a vote for the status quo.
You have to be a registered Republican to caucus. Do you even know how Iowa works?
Independents (of which I am one) are never going to hold our noses and vote for a religious whackjob bigot (Santorum), a flip flopping career loser (Romney), a philanderer (Gingrich), or a stereotypical Texan (Perry). It'll never happen.
In order to win an election, you have to have what's called electability. None of those guys have it. Paul can move the needle of independents, and at the end of the day? We're the one who decides who wins the presidency.
thats what trace doesnt understand.
he is part of the collective who will just do whatever his gop masters tell him to do. thats why i dismiss what he has to say, because its all what hes been programmed to say.
I'm so tired of this ignorant and simplistic talking point that I'm not going to respond to it AGAIN.
There's no difference between Paul and gridlock, either, because Paul would be the most ineffective CinC in the country's history if he ever won. So a vote for Paul is a vote for the status quo.
But a vote for the status quo....isn't a vote for the status quo?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.