Decision 2012
there was no mass communication. People had to meet
in one place to nominate a candidate in person so everybody
would know it was on the up and up.
This no longer needed. It could all be done with TV and
phoned in instead of everybody travelling to one place.
I bet we see them go away. The two conventions cost
130mil this year and we the taxpayers picked up 36mil
of that. Talk about squandering our money..
Quote: EvenBob
This no longer needed. It could all be done with TV and
phoned in instead of everybody travelling to one place.
I bet we see them go away. The two conventions cost
130mil this year and we the taxpayers picked up 36mil
of that. Talk about squandering our money..
What do the taxpayers pay for? Is it allocated, or is it just a payment for convention-related expenses?
Let's say the convention is required for some reason. And it needs to be in person because you can't trust what you see on the internet. There's what, 2000 actual delegates? 2000 people * 4 days *$1,000 day for room & board = $8MM. Let's say the venue is $1MM/day, that's another $4MM. Transport for the delegates could be another $1000/delegate and the total would still only be $20MM. What's the other $16MM of government money for? Hookers & blow? How is it even possible to drop another $110MM on an event that receives free television coverage??
what a fiasco that was.
Quote: EvenBobConventions date to the 1830's and were needed because
there was no mass communication. People had to meet
in one place to nominate a candidate in person so everybody
would know it was on the up and up.
This no longer needed. It could all be done with TV and
phoned in instead of everybody travelling to one place.
I bet we see them go away. The two conventions cost
130mil this year and we the taxpayers picked up 36mil
of that. Talk about squandering our money..
I don't see them going away, too much to do behind the scenes that does not get on TV. Delegates meet and network with each other. Though I do see them no longer being covered on the broadcast networks. Maybe an agreement for one night of coverage each if some group beefs that they are not covered and you need an ID to get cable TV.......
Quote: rdw4potusIf you think you'll succeed while screwing over your employees, you might be out of touch.
Not sure who thinks that.
Quote:Also, if you think that a congregant should have input into what a reverend says, you might be out of touch.
A congregant has total input--he or she can leave and never come back when the preacher says "GD America--your chickens are coming home to roost! Or you can stay and keep listening if you agree......
Quote:If you think employees and government-funded infrastructure don't play a key roll in the success of business, you might be out of touch.
First, the business helps fund that infrastructiure. Everyone has access to the "roads and bridges." And in case you were unaware, the businessowner has to hire those employees in the first place, so it is their decision-making that makes it happen.
Quote:If you think it's the democrats who want to talk about these things, you might be out of touch. They're in the news because the GOP won't shut up about them...
So you are saying the GOP put an unqualified Sandra Fluke up to testify about getting free birth control?
Quote:If you think that revenue reductions will close a giant budget deficit, you might be out of touch.
Well, we have never tried them! But if we got back to a pre-2008 spending level as a % of GDP we would be a lot better off. And it seems you never have worked in a business where you have to cust costs to make budget.
Quote:If you think Obama thinks the private sector is doing well, you might be out of touch.
Who are you going to believe, me or Obama himself?
Quote:If you think that something has magically changed and ID should now be required in the USA after decades of precedent to the contrary, you might be out of touch
Perhaps you missed all those fraudulent registrations via ACORN and other groups? Why be against a clean election?
Quote: rdw4potus
If you think that something has magically changed and ID should now be required in the USA after decades of precedent to the contrary, you might be out of touch:-)
Whats funny is, the Dem's required delegates to produce a
photo ID THREE TIMES before they were admitted to the
floor of the convention. And that didn't include the foto ID
required by the SS. Yet, elections? Photo ID? We don't
need no stinking photo ID, we trust you, amigo.....
Quote: EvenBobWhats funny is, the Dem's required delegates to produce a
photo ID THREE TIMES before they were admitted to the
floor of the convention. And that didn't include the foto ID
required by the SS. Yet, elections? Photo ID? We don't
need no stinking photo ID, we trust you, amigo.....
GREAT POINT!!!!
I'm going to start a new thread!
Quote: EvenBobWhats funny is, the Dem's required delegates to produce a
photo ID THREE TIMES before they were admitted to the
floor of the convention. And that didn't include the foto ID
required by the SS. Yet, elections? Photo ID? We don't
need no stinking photo ID, we trust you, amigo.....
Hmm...yes. Perhaps if the secret service screened and cleared all voters and the president was physically present at the polling place, voter ID laws would make sense:-)
During the voice vote for God an Jerusalem that all of the Republicans are getting the vapors over, I don't remember seeing ID being required to vote.Quote: rdw4potusHmm...yes. Perhaps if the secret service screened and cleared all voters and the president was physically present at the polling place, voter ID laws would make sense:-)
Quote: s2dbakerDuring the voice vote for God an Jerusalem that all of the Republicans are getting the vapors over, I don't remember seeing ID being required to vote.
I can't believe they tried a voice vote in a room where only 1/3 of the people actually had a right to vote. Not well executed there at all.
Quote: s2dbakerDuring the voice vote for God an Jerusalem that all of the Republicans are getting the vapors over, I don't remember seeing ID being required to vote.
How does a vote under a private convention using some version of Roberts Rules of order correlate to voting in an election?
BTW: Wasn't ID going to be required to enter Bank of America Stadium before they canceled because Obama could not fill it? How bad were those thunderstorms anyways?
Quote: AZDuffmanHow bad were those thunderstorms anyways?
It did rain, but just a TINY bit. Can't really fault the Dems for the move, though. Haven't we all been to weddings that were needlessly moved indoors because of the threat of weather?
Quote: rdw4potusIt did rain, but just a TINY bit. Can't really fault the Dems for the move, though. Haven't we all been to weddings that were needlessly moved indoors because of the threat of weather?
Yes, but this was moved because they knew he would not fill the place. However, if Obamaniacs want to keep swimming in an Egyptian River they can enjoy themselves.
Quote: rdw4potusHmm...yes. Perhaps if the secret service screened and cleared all voters and the president was physically present at the polling place,
But Obama wasn't there all 3 days, and the SS did
the screening for that. No, the convention wanted
to make sure no hecklers or subservives were slipping
in. But its not impotrtant that we check voters, even
tho each illegal vote cancels out a legit vote. Naw,
thats not as a important as a convention to the Dem's.
Project much Az? :)Quote: AZDuffmanYes, but this was moved because they knew he would not fill the place. However, if Obamaniacs want to keep swimming in an Egyptian River they can enjoy themselves.
Quote: rdw4potusCan't really fault the Dems for the move, though.
LOL, sure you can! What a lame ass excuse because
they hadn't a prayer of filling the stadium.
Here's what the said back in January
when it was rented:
"The president turned the economy around making sure that everyone, from Wall Street to Main Street, plays by the same rules. His record and his policies are not impacted by the name on the stadium. They're impacted by the kind of convention we're holding, which is open and inclusive. And they're impacted by what he is fighting for, to reclaim the security of the middle class by restoring the basic values that made our country great."
Turned the economy around? I missed that, when did it
happen? They were under the illusion that Obama could
still fill stadiums like he did in '08. They had to cancel or
be the laughing stock of the country.
about. The Dem's really want Hilliary to run
in 4 years. If Obama is re-elected, she won't
stand a chance of winning after another 4
years of Obama. People will be more terrified
than they are now (if thats possible) and will
elect Daffy Duck rather than another Dem.
So the movers and shakers in the party, who
are sick of Obama too, want him to lose this
year. Hilliary has a fighting chance of winning
in 2016 then, because she has Bill who is
wildly popular on both sides.
She'll be 69 than, and look every year of it.
Bill will be 70. Never gonna happen, but they
sure are gonna try.
Quote: EvenBob
So the movers and shakers in the party, who
are sick of Obama too, want him to lose this
year.
Come on, Bob! Even you can't really believe this!?!? Name one 'mover and shaker' in the Democratic party that actually wants a Romney presidency so that Hillary has a better chance in 4 years!!! You lose all credibility when you make a statement like that!
Quote: SOOPOOCome on, Bob! Even you can't really believe this!?!? Name one 'mover and shaker' in the Democratic party that actually wants a Romney presidency so that Hillary has a better chance in 4 years!!!
Bill Clinton, for one. Dick Morris knows him as well as
anybody. He says Bill needs to have Obama lose if they
have any hope of Hilliary winning. If Obama wins, the
gloves are off and he'll try his best to make us a 3rd
world country, which in his twisted mind is who we really
are. A Dem doesn't have a chance of winning in 2016.
As far as credibility, this wasn't my idea, I heard it and
read it. I'm still trying to find just one person to tell me
why we need 4 more years of Obama. The only answer
I get is 'Romney is rich' or some such. What does
that have to do with do with anything.
Quote: buzzpaffI usually vote Democratic. No difference between Republicans. Just Democrats accidentally sometimes do something for the working man.
Like what? Refuse to cut taxes? Block oil pipelines that mean secure supply and jobs? Regulate and tax jobs offshore?
Democrats do something for people who refuse to work, I will give you that.
Quote: buzzpaffIf filling stadium is a requirement to be President, my write-in vote will be for Peyton Manning.
The "requirement" is that you fill the room you rent. After they rented Bank of America Staduim it became clear Obama would not be able to fill it, so instead of him speaking in a half-empty place they went to a smaller venue.
Like the USSR and 70 years of bad grain harvests, the blame was placed on "bad weather."
Quote: AZDuffman
Like the USSR and 70 years of bad grain harvests, the blame was placed on "bad weather."
Good thing they enlisted NOAA to issue storm watches & help with the ruse:-)
Quote: rdw4potusGood thing they enlisted NOAA to issue storm watches & help with the ruse:-)
It worked--virtually every Obama voter out there was gullible enough to think it was the weather and not the fact that he would not fill the stadium!
Quote: AZDuffmanIt worked--virtually every Obama voter out there was gullible enough to think it was the weather and not the fact that he would not fill the stadium!
And it can't have been both, either! Very nice of NOAA to give them another plausible reason for the move:-)
Seriously, though...they claim to have had a "waiting list" for stadium tickets, but then he barely filled the arena. I'm always confused by these things. In the leadup to the conventions, the cable pundits were talking about 150,000 people going to Tampa and Charlotte. Who are the 120,000 groupies who went to town but not to the actual event?
Quote: rdw4potusGood thing they enlisted NOAA to issue storm watches & help with the ruse:-)
HUH? What channel were YOU watching? I saw the forecast
for Charlotte on the Weather Channel 6 hours and 4 hours
before the event and these was 10% chance of rain and a
zero % chance of storms. And the WC is owned by NBC,
which is totally for Obama.
Quote: EvenBobHUH? What channel were YOU watching? I saw the forecast
for Charlotte on the Weather Channel 6 hours and 4 hours
before the event and these was 10% chance of rain and a
zero % chance of storms. And the WC is owned by NBC,
which is totally for Obama.
What time do you consider "the event" to start? They announced the decision to move inside a little before 8:30am EDT - at least, that's when I saw it on CNN at the airport.
And your decision to watch a channel that is "totally for Obama" really isn't anybody's fault but your own;-)
Quote: rdw4potus
I'm always confused by these things. In the leadup to the conventions, the cable pundits were talking about 150,000 people going to Tampa and Charlotte. Who are the 120,000 groupies who went to town but not to the actual event?
I can't speak for it all, but I was in Philly the week before the 2000 GOP Convention to visit my brother. Not there for the convention, it was just the week that worked. They had a thing called "Politicalfest" with a lot of neat displays if you were into politics and how the governmet works, though admiditly and naturally geared towards the GOP Voter. There were quite a few people there. Had to be lots of locals, but big enough crowds.
As a guess some are vendors of one form or another; some are professional rent-a-mob types; some cover news for sources large and small; some are just the long-haired-dope-smoking-maggot-infested-FM-types that show up for any crowd from the convention to a concert to a ballgame.
Why shouldn't my friends be there ?
Quote: rdw4potusWhat time do you consider "the event" to start?
Dude, you must mainline the KoolAid if you think there
was a chance in hell of Obama even filling 60% of that
stadium. If they had a guaranteed 75K like they said,
PLUS the 20K they said they had on the waiting list, there
is ZERO chance the stadium would have been cancelled.
Think about it. That much validation of Obama's popularity,
that big of a TV ad that would run till the election, of 75,000
fans cheering Obama. And you think they cancelled THAT
because it might rain? Really? I mean, REALLY???
because it might rain?"
Absolutely. Hillary can't do a thing with her hair in rainy weather.
Quote: EvenBobAnd you think they cancelled THAT
because it might rain? Really? I mean, REALLY???
Well, yeah. Because if it did rain, conservatives would either:
1. talk about the mostly-empty stadium as though it was Obama and not the rain that kept it from being full or;
2. talk about how out-of-touch Obama made his minion sit out in the rain just to listen to him talk or;
3. all of the above.
It's a no-win situation.
Quote: rdw4potusWell, yeah. Because if it did rain, conservatives would either:
1. talk about the mostly-empty stadium as though it was Obama and not the rain that kept it from being full or;
2. talk about how out-of-touch Obama made his minion sit out in the rain just to listen to him talk or;
.
If it HAD rained, they would have used umbrella's and a
HUGE story. 75,000 screaming fans endured foul weather
and STILL cheared on the O.
Face it, O can't fill em like he used to, like they thought
he could in Jan. The bloom is off the rose, the stink is
on the skunk..
Quote: EvenBobFace it, O can't fill em like he used to, like they thought
he could in Jan. The bloom is off the rose, the stink is
on the skunk..
What stadiums has Romney filled? The guy with as much appeal as a wax figure.
Mitt Romney at work:
Quote: EvenBobIf it HAD rained, they would have used umbrella's and a
HUGE story. 75,000 screaming fans endured foul weather
and STILL cheared on the O.
You're probably right. But, umbrellas work about as well in a stadium at a political rally as then do in a stadium at a football game. My umbrella dumps water on you, your umbrella dumps water on the next guy, etc. and nobody can see anything.
Quote: rxwineWhat stadiums has Romney filled? The guy with as much appeal as a wax figure.
Mitt Romney at work:
Both I and Madame Tussaud take objection to your statement !
Quote: rdw4potusYou're probably right. But, umbrellas work about as well in a stadium at a political rally as then do in a stadium at a football game
Why didn't they worry about that
in 08? They filled a stadium then and it sure a hell
would not have been cancelled because of rain. They
knew when they booked the B of A stadium that its
in a SUBTROPICAL state where it RAINS! They don't
care about that, they care about filling stadiums.
(and yes, NC is a subtropical state, as are South Carolina,
Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, most of Florida and
Virginia and sections of West Virginia.)
Quote: EvenBobWhy didn't they worry about that
in 08? They filled a stadium then and it sure a hell
would not have been cancelled because of rain. They
knew when they booked the B of A stadium that its
in a SUBTROPICAL state where it RAINS! They don't
care about that, they care about filling stadiums.
(and yes, NC is a subtropical state, as are South Carolina,
Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, most of Florida and
Virginia and sections of West Virginia.)
I never would have thought of TN or KY as sub-tropical. How much of the area has to fit that definition to make the whole state be sub-tropical?
I guess I'm not sure - and maybe Buzz can tell us for sure - but I don't think it rains much at all in Denver in August. And I assume there was a backup plan in Colorado in '08 as well. It just wasn't needed.
Quote: rdw4potusI never would have thought of TN or KY as sub-tropical. How much of the area has to fit that definition to make the whole state be sub-tropical?
It has to do with average temp and yearly rainfall.
Ever been to NC or W Vir? You can't breathe from
all the humidity in the summer.
Quote: EvenBobIt has to do with average temp and yearly rainfall.
Ever been to NC or W Vir? You can't breathe from
all the humidity in the summer.
yes, and I didn't question those states. But then you said all of TN and KY were subtropical and only parts of WV were. Western TN and KY are markedly different than eastern TN and KY, so I wasn't sure how the classifications worked. Chattanooga and Paducah sure have different climates.
[spoiler=Seriously?][/spoiler]
Quote: s2dbakerWhat is the National Review trying to say with their cover (left)?
There's a lot of things they could call Romney. A commie?
Thats just plain stupid and makes no sense.
I know, that's why I'm asking. The National Review is a Republican magazine. Why did they go with old Soviet style propaganda images?Quote: EvenBobThere's a lot of things they could call Romney. A commie?
Thats just plain stupid and makes no sense.
Quote: s2dbakerI know, that's why I'm asking. The National Review is a Republican magazine. Why did they go with old Soviet style propaganda images?
Is that Lenin and Trotsky? Can the article be read online?
I don't subscribe but this is as close as I could get. You can purchase a print of the original artwork here.Quote: EvenBobIs that Lenin and Trotsky? Can the article be read online?
