Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
November 23, 2014, 01:25:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Who wins Florida?  (Read 1129 times)
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« on: January 22, 2012, 09:10:52 AM »

Well, it's the morning after from the South Carolina election, and I can already see a republican establishment panic forming. I feel even Fox is slanting towards Mitt. Nothing drastic, but just by the coverage and small comments, planting seeds and doubts of whether Newt could win.

So who wins Florida?

I find it interesting that Jeb will not endorse anyone...a big blow to Mitt.

I am not endorsing anyone in particular. I just found it appalling that Mitt was seemingly handed the win by many before even 6% of the states had voted. Can't illustrate a more broken system than that.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
SEEYA
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 274

Location: USA

Poke a meek dog enough times.........!


« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2012, 10:20:01 AM »

A good topic for a new(?) post: what would you replace it with?

I don't want to go back to the 'smoke filled rooms' way of doing it.

Maybe we should just have an election, then a run-off if necessary?
Logged

Live long and prosper!
KD4MOJ
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 691


Location: Tallahassee, FL 30° 27' 16" N / 84° 20' 48" W

Bees... Motorcycles... amateur radio...


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2012, 12:40:50 PM »


I find it interesting that Jeb will not endorse anyone...a big blow to Mitt.


He is waiting for 2016.  Interesting fellow... met him on several occasions... although not the best of circumstances (use to work in the medical profession). Smart as a whip no matter what folks think about George W or H.

...DOUG
KD4MOJ


Logged
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6202

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2012, 12:44:22 PM »

How about requiring all states to have the primary on the same day?
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
Sundog
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 313


Location: Florida Suncoast


« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2012, 02:53:14 PM »

How about a Playoff, like in sports?  We could have brackets from both sides of the aisle converging on a “National  Champion”.  Think of the fun we could have with an Election Pool.  Have a bad debate and you’re out of there!  Couldn’t do any worse than the current system, could it?
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2012, 04:55:44 PM »

How about this.....

1) A one year limit on campaigning. Candidates would be allowed for 6 months to raise funds, register withing the states, organize, and do what they need to do. (This would eliminate the 2-3 year timeframe that we are bombarded with politicians campaigning and running ads)

2) Limit the primary season to 3 months. The states would be selected by lottery with 5 dates scheduled to have 10 states hold elections on each date. The candidates would not know until 1 month prior what states would be up first.

3) After the primaries, the general election would be 3 months later.

The whole process would be no longer than 12 months. Each state would have an equal chance of being in the first group for the primaries. Voters all across the country would be energized and much more in tune.   

Of course this could all be tweaked. But the system we have now of 2-3 years of campaigning, the selection of the nomination for the most part being over by a few select smaller states, and the system we have now being so influenced by media alone, really sucks.

I could probably go along with any reasonable change to the system we now have. I think it is broken and needs to be changed. We do not need to offer just an "either or" approach of what we have now, or something like old guys in smoke filled rooms. Just a more reasonable approach to include more voters, and shorten the process. This does not touch upon the money and other perhaps issues with the system. But we could at least do something to allow more voters to be less disenfranchised with what we have now.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
SEEYA
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 274

Location: USA

Poke a meek dog enough times.........!


« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2012, 05:15:13 PM »

Here is one a friend came up with years ago, and a lot of beer was involved!
You take the speaker of the house and give them 6 mos to straighten this country out, if he/she doesn't accomplish that; you put he/she in a small cage in a prominent place. You then give the job to the minority leader of the house, if he/she doesn't straighten this country out in 6 mos; you take the original occupant of the cage out and shoot him/her and replace them with the minority leader. The first political party has by now elected a new speaker of the house... get the idea grin

A parliament-type of government, with the Senate and the House picking a Prime Minister. Would solve the problem.
 shocked put down the pitchforks, it is just conjecture ( a conclusion deduced by surmise or guess work - still got the Funk & Wagnals)  grin
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 05:30:57 PM by ray » Logged

Live long and prosper!
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15268


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2012, 06:11:44 PM »

Quote
A parliament-type of government, with the Senate and the House picking a Prime Minister. Would solve the problem.

nope.  it's worse than what we do.  so many back room deals to get a coalition government that no one gets what they wanted or thought they voted for.  might as well not even bother voting. 

while i am in favor of leaving voting decision with the states, i am pretty fed up with a couple of non-representative states making the decisions for all of us.  we don't even have our primary until May.  why bother?  save the money and bless the already made choice.

i'd even be happy to do it by convention.  that's messy, but at least it's done by fighting it out in public.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
JackM
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 533


Location: Washougal, WA


« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2012, 09:03:26 AM »

It just upsets me the way the media bias's this and that, not just politics.  What ever happened to objective news/media?

My brother in law rode on a flight one time with Newt when he was speaker and he was most impressed with how Newt treated him as an equal, remembered his name, and now we can also look to one of the most recent speakers who had her own entourage and required a whole flipping plane for herself.......  He is very right wing and I like that a lot in him but I also fear that many on the line folks will not vote for him, will either not vote or go for a third party candidate.  In either event, that leaves the wrong person winning and another 4 years of this bull puckey administration. 

If I thought he could beat Obummer, I would be even more for him.  I hate Romney, but I think he can beat the current idiot in charge because he will pull votes from the left that Newt will never, ever see. 

Of the utmost importance is to get this traitor out of office.
Logged

“I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast” – Ronald Reagan
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2012, 11:15:52 AM »

Jack,

What makes you think Romney can even win? He has spent millions more than the other candidates, has campaigned for the last four years, lost Iowa, and now South Carolina. He won one state in his own backyard. And in polls this morning, he is 10 points behind Newt in Florida.

Seeing how he floundered in the last week with simply questions and an attack by a few folks on the right, how will he fair with the entire mainstream media and the left going after him?

I think those who think Romney is the only one electable from the right, should ask why they think that. Is this a media implanted idea? Or one of your own? If YOU hate him, or even dislike him a little, why the faith that others will vote for him when your own feelings are probably far better than those further to the left of you, like in the middle.

The media keeps suggesting that Newts win was an upset. That it was a one time bump in the road that was unique to South Carolina. But I have yet to hear the media ask whether Mitt perhaps should be questioned about his "electability".

Mitt may very well get some of the middle. But I would not assume that everyone from the right will vote for him. Many are not excited about Mitt. Some downright do not like him. If you don't have the support of your own party, will you get elected going after a much slimmer vote base in the middle?

Newt may get much more support from the right, while losing some of the middle. I understand some of the baggage. But this assumes that the middle would vote for the left as an alternative to Newt. They may however just stay home as they also have a disdain of Obummer.

So Newt would have a stronger base, and weak middle. Mitt has a weak base, and an "assumed" middle. If you were a strategist, which would you prefer?

Mitt has the support of the republican establishment. But he does not have the support of the republican voter. That is a problem.

The republicans might get screwed with either one of them as the candidate.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15268


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2012, 11:26:55 AM »

Quote
Mitt has the support of the republican establishment. But he does not have the support of the republican voter. That is a problem.

might be true, but unlike our experience with McCain, i don't think any republicans will be staying home this election and probably not many "moderates" (road kill).  i do think it will be a tough election and i think it will be dirty.  doesn't matter who runs again Obama, that machine will try to slaughter them.   
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2012, 12:43:33 PM »

So...I'll assume here a bit (to keep the conversation going)......you, and you expect or think others also, will vote not based on support of a particular candidate, but for the dislike of another. And would that inlcude the thought that, as I think many are focused on, the idea that you don't vote on who has the ideology of yourself or who may better represent your values, but the guy, regardless of who that may be, based on his chances against the next guy.

Sorry....I know many who do not, and will not, vote based on that logic.

So far, that logic, no matter how many keep calling Mitt the only "electable" candidate, has been failing. And I am not sure that logic will work in the general election thinking voters will get out and vote not based on support of one, but the dislike of another.

Thinking Mitt had this wrapped up with the drum beat of the media claiming him the winner after two states, may be just about as bad as assuming voters will all fall in line and be motivated to vote for a guy they do not like, based on the other guy being worse.

Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
sterling
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1042

Location: mt juliet tn


« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2012, 01:12:10 PM »

It just upsets me the way the media bias's this and that, not just politics.  What ever happened to objective news/media?

My brother in law rode on a flight one time with Newt when he was speaker and he was most impressed with how Newt treated him as an equal, remembered his name, and now we can also look to one of the most recent speakers who had her own entourage and required a whole flipping plane for herself.......  He is very right wing and I like that a lot in him but I also fear that many on the line folks will not vote for him, will either not vote or go for a third party candidate.  In either event, that leaves the wrong person winning and another 4 years of this bull puckey administration. 

If I thought he could beat Obummer, I would be even more for him.  I hate Romney, but I think he can beat the current idiot in charge because he will pull votes from the left that Newt will never, ever see. 

Of the utmost importance is to get this traitor out of office.

I think as Bjorn has already said, that Romney has been crammed down our throat as being the only one who can beat Obama from the beginning, but I don't believe it. The dems seem to want Romney and the establishment wants him and I think Fox News has pushed Romney hard also.
Declaring Romney THE Candidate after two little states that let dems or anybody else who can pull a lever or raise their hand vote and pick our republican candidate is ridiculous any way.
Start the primary down here in the south [say TX.] and see how far he would have gotten. A true conservative, maybe Bachman or Perry would prolly be leading right now.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.206 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page October 27, 2014, 04:17:51 AM
anything