WOW, now I think THAT^^^ is a great example of Voter Fraud. The Media and the Rep. Parties manipulation of the truth to convince people that "everybody’s voting for Romney", so that you are convinced that your Vote will be "thrown away'' or "wasted" if you vote for Ron Paul. They are manipulating the vote in a way that can never be "proven". Peer pressure is used to unknowingly remove our freedom to vote for who we actually think is best.
What does the Republican party stand for?
- Thread starter weebiscuit
- Start date
Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:
ozymandias
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 597
- Reaction score
- 1
James - it's working
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
I will vote for whoever gets the GOP nomintion, and hope all passionate enough to soeak up online didn't miss their state primary and their chance to have their "voice" count.
I hope those that did make it to their primary understood the difference between voting for who they thought was the best and voting for who they think will win. So many people have vocalized that they won't vote for someone because they can't win, whenever I hear that I wish we had the power to make them misplace their photo ID when the day comes. LOL To do that you are missing the entire point of voting and are already enslaved, no matter who wins, the white flag has already been waved. I have heard sooo many reporters talk about "electibility", trying to convince people that they would be "wasting" their vote, they should be moved to the weather the moment they bring that cra#! up. LOL
Thanks Andi
Again it is the rep party that is fighting against this the most.
Why would they do this?...........
Just as you are able to read your horse, you should be able to read people with the exact same skill set. Responses when analyzed tell you MUCH. The lack of response ALSO tells you much. Two plus two, always equals four. When you see that it doesn't in others, you then know that you are NOT dealing with an honest person. And that is always my cue to "break contact".
Years ago, we "did" dog shows. My wife and I were known as working dog people who intimately knew movement. Folk would come up to our booth and proceed to "stack" their dog being oh so careful to take the time to put each foot in a very precise location and touch cue for a specific posture. We would let them take as much time as they felt they needed and did our best not to laugh or even smile too much which was difficult because much frantically solemn effort was put into the "stack". Then, they would look up at us imploringly and all worried and hopeful with big eyes so hopeful for our approval. Why? You got me. After patiently waiting for them to finish this stacking procedure we would IMMEDIATELY dismiss the entire effort by asking them to take the dog "down and back".
And here is why. You can spend an awful lot of time making a dog or a horse (or a THING) look like something other than what it is, BUT to the trained eye, once that animal starts moving NOTHING is hidden!
Usually and as you have seen right here, in this discussion, contact will be broken with you because light illuminates and all things become known. As I've stated and for whatever reason, the person with whom you are dealing plainly can't "handle the truth" and so, they do not. Further, those of us who can and seek to, are marginalized, attacked, labeled and or ignored. I promise you that if you seek the truth irrespective of where that truth will take you, you WILL travel to very scary places and FURTHER, most often alone. To borrow and modify what Bette Davis said about age, Truth ain't for sissies!"
I judge a person by their enemies. I also judge them by fire. Having the right enemies, many times means that I am dealing with a person of good character. Watching how they comport themselves under fire reveals the very true core of that individual. It is quite obvious that R.P. is the only one who shines, consistently, as in 30 years consistently, in BOTH of these tests.
When you see an individual being treated in such a manner as above stated, hmmmm like R.P., I might suggest that you take a closer look.
Specific to the question asked at the beginning, "what does the republican party stand for?" Read the movement. By NOT standing with the only candidate who exhibits these traits, the rep "party" in fact stands for SLAVERY and DESTRUCTION of These States United. Further amazing mental gymnastics are used to attempt to justify (stack) this hidden truth (movement). They lie to themselves and me. When I don't buy the lie anymore somehow, I'm the loony. Always watch the movement and NEVER, EVER buy the "stack".
What possible application could a "story" like this have on this topic? Much. For you see an animal does not in general have a deceptive nature like a human. It does not rationalize away truth. It knows nothing about being a slave and all of the rationalities that humans go through to feel justified and "safe" in their slavery. Again I am no orrater or writer, as I have CLEARLY demonstrated, however I do have an ability to see through things. This is a skill I am constantly learning and sharpening. Also, I am encouraging YOU to do the same. for if you do not and when you do not, you are led to destruction and slavery. Have I not made the case?
Last story and another revealing glimpse at the stark differences between R.P. and the rep "party". We'll use a modification of the crab pot analogy. The crab trying to escape the pot of boiling water (revelation) is pulled back in by the other crabs. When I implore for unity, this is what it should look like. Free yourself FIRST! and THEN when you are at Liberty, and therefore secure on solid ground, Reach back down to your fellow crabs being boiled alive and help them to Liberty. Model that behavior and uncorrupted integrity so that we may all imitate it and throw off the yoke of slavery. Liberty doesn't give two flying flips about "party" Those who insist on busting on the other "party" at EVERY possible opportunity are either change agents or MOST often "useful tools" bound in slavery. Always watch for this "tell".
Sorry if this is disjointed, clarification of previously stated thoughts seems to mess up the flow, My apologies.
Wow does this miss the point. Which vote?< because there are two. One backed by banker money, or the "official" vote, and then, as has CLEARLY been demonstrated as far as I'm concerned, the truthful vote.
My goodness, water, water everywhere!
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
I'm not missing a point, Carriage.
I've never missed my chance to vote be it local, state or national ... and haven't wasted a vote since a younger me voted for Perot.
I've never missed my chance to vote be it local, state or national ... and haven't wasted a vote since a younger me voted for Perot.
Last edited by a moderator:
HURRAH! Again! who in the sam hill said R.P. couldn't win. Who originally said it? (every darn time I might add). HOW oh HOW do "THEY/HE know this? Logic dictates that it is the same entity that is making SURE he can't win. Who might this be? Again logic dictates that it is the entity with the most to loose AND control of EVERYTHING. Going back in our studies WHO might this be?
He who controls the debt controls EVERYTHING. This means parties, media and the mythical vote. Yet as illogical as it would seem, many will cling to the sophistry of the vote as controlled by the controller of EVERYTHING and vote for the "party nominee" vs. the only true
"HOPE FOR CHANGE". Why? because of a comfortable but absolute illogical sophistry that says there is ANY directional difference between the two divisional choices.
To wit,
Was listening to Liberal talk radio last night (those of us in honest business don't sleep much these days) and heard Mike Malloy, I believe, say the exact same thing I have been saying. Obama is sold out to the multi national corps, Is a war monger, Is for protecting the fed, and yada yada yada. He was bummed out and had NO idea (from his enslaved perspective) of who to vote for?
Both "parties" are still blinded to an induced thought process, Namely, that there is a difference. Careful examination CLEARLY reveals that there is NOT. For in the end, the road ends in the same place and in the same hands. Neither the place or hands will be ours.
Again you are being defeated by the political version of hi-tech. The low tech solution is the answer that scares the slave master the most. VOTE for the unifying influence, Vote for the one who does not lie, steal, cheat murder millions (or endorse same) and take away the other stuff belonging to Sovereign Nations. I'm here to tell ya ain't none of it OUR oil, minerals, money systems ect. There is NO justification for a "judeo/christian" nation to behave in this manner. NONE
To (honest) work,
Not missing a chance to vote, is not and has not been the issue. Well I mean unless you mean to change the issue. A common Hegelian tactic.
Unless R.P. is the "nominee", you have promised to vote for an indisputable liar who will steal my substance starting with my Liberty.
Perot was a pretty good guy that finally succumbed to fear. Not for himself, but for his family and anybody ever associated with him. That you considered a vote for him a wasted vote proves all of my points made to date. Unless the Constitution is the PRIMARY metric used in voting, you ARE throwing both your vote and country away. Another way to look at it, because I will stand on principal no matter what, I will most eagerly throw your vote away for you. The absolute sophristic rep. bunk about "compromise" and its supposed necessity in "politics" is completely incompatible with Constitutional principal and truth. Truth never compromises.
I think you may be falling into a trap Carriage, that twicky wabit.
As you noted there is a small tiny chance you could be misunderstanding the person you are questioning. You have recognized and admitted that RP "may" be the candidate. By doing so, everything you have said, no matter how valid and well thought out, can and most likely will just be dismissed. Not only that, you can be attacked for "assuming" what was meant and twisting it to your likening just to make someone look bad! Of course, I do not think that any of that in the smallest sense, but it has been the diversionary tactic of your intended audience for quite some time.
I think I defined it in the past as being led 90% of the way there and being vilified for assuming the last 10%.
All that being said, it seems like the obvious solution is ASK FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE LAST 10%. You will never get it. This person knows exactly what they are doing. In all honesty, a political future should be in their cards, we may be looking at the next Palin or Backmann, maybe the TP will see a resurgence!
As you noted there is a small tiny chance you could be misunderstanding the person you are questioning. You have recognized and admitted that RP "may" be the candidate. By doing so, everything you have said, no matter how valid and well thought out, can and most likely will just be dismissed. Not only that, you can be attacked for "assuming" what was meant and twisting it to your likening just to make someone look bad! Of course, I do not think that any of that in the smallest sense, but it has been the diversionary tactic of your intended audience for quite some time.
I think I defined it in the past as being led 90% of the way there and being vilified for assuming the last 10%.
All that being said, it seems like the obvious solution is ASK FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE LAST 10%. You will never get it. This person knows exactly what they are doing. In all honesty, a political future should be in their cards, we may be looking at the next Palin or Backmann, maybe the TP will see a resurgence!
hmmm.... Very worthy of consideration and if I read you correctly, I will do my best to factor. Is there utility in knowing this and then in the knowing, go through the motions of "debate" to more clearly model and demonstrate the behavior tells?
Keeping yourself surrounded by "sharp steel" serves to sharpen and define thought process. While I may certainly not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, I do my best to stay in the drawer and bang around with the other knives....
For this I thank you,
Bb
ozymandias
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 597
- Reaction score
- 1
Looks like Santorum has dropped out.
Sonya
Well-Known Member
I didn't here that Santorum dropped out, I did hear he went home because his daughter is very sick.
I just heard that he is 'suspending' his campaign on the radio.
I just heard that he is 'suspending' his campaign on the radio.
Last edited by a moderator:
Riverrose28
Well-Known Member
Well sorry to say I just saw that he is dropping out totally!
This is his actual Statement,
"We made a decision over the weekend that while this presidential race for us is over for me, and we will suspend our campaign effective today, we are not done fighting"
He went on to explain that the "fight" he isn't done with is the fight to get Obama out and Republicans in charge of the Senate.
Though I do not support Santorum, it is a reminder about how messed up our system is. Whatever his reason, he was doing relatively well and had so many supporters. Such a large amount of the country had no say in who the GOP Candidate will be. Does any one know WHY we have to spread this whole thing out so much? Why can't we do the primary like the Presidency?
"We made a decision over the weekend that while this presidential race for us is over for me, and we will suspend our campaign effective today, we are not done fighting"
He went on to explain that the "fight" he isn't done with is the fight to get Obama out and Republicans in charge of the Senate.
Though I do not support Santorum, it is a reminder about how messed up our system is. Whatever his reason, he was doing relatively well and had so many supporters. Such a large amount of the country had no say in who the GOP Candidate will be. Does any one know WHY we have to spread this whole thing out so much? Why can't we do the primary like the Presidency?
Riverrose28
Well-Known Member
James I have a question for you as you are also in my state. Was RP on the republican ballot? I was only given one for my registered party so I don't know, but I heard, maybe just a rumor that he wasn't on.
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
Maybe a better questions is SHOULD we. I think probably not. The time is great for vetting...
The idea of a brokered primary had been discussed, even HERE, lightly... I don't think that's the best idea, but I do think it's a very interesting one. It is intriquing, especially if it brings into play some already heavily vetted players.
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
I'm not James, but I do know the answer.
Yes, Ron Paul was on the 2012 MD GOP Primary Ballot and he received 9.5% of the Maryland vote taking 4th place behind Romney, Santrum and Gingrich (in that order). Romney took in almost as many votes as the other three combined in your heavily democratic state.
ETA, Carriage, maybe I'd be cranky, too, if I shared your tunnel vision regarding RP and the other candidates. But, I don't. I do not feel RP's the best answer and I do not think he's got a chance to take the WH based on the primary results -- and of course, the primaries are the place people go to have their opinion counted when it comes to who will be on the Party ticket. Oh, don't tell me... that's evasive, too, huh? Or some conspiracy to hand the election to Obama
Last edited by a moderator:
I ask "why", because for me, without knowing "why" FIRST you can't decide if we "should". It seems, from a lamens viewpoint, a faulted system. So I would like to know why we do it, maybe there is a logical explaination.
I think you did bring up a valuable point, the vetting benefit. BTW, never knew this word until I watching "Game Changer", at least I learned something from it. LOL
Anyways, that "why", vetting, is a good reason. We have watched it "thin out the herd" very well. But at the same time we have watched this current system used to influence the vote severely. I mean, you had people dropping out after 2 States had voted! What if they had started in the deep south, or Main, or Texas. The influence given on the remaining voters would be substantial. It is my beleif that Romney received most of his momentum from what was delivered to us as some sort of "strong start", an obviouse clear winner right out of the gate. In reality, we had a virtual 3 WAY tie in the first state and almost that in the second. Then Gingich's performance was a great example of the temporary influence of the Media. He went in to SC not strong at all. But then was given an opportunity to impress during one debate. It was less his debate ability and more the mistake of the reporter for "giving" him the opportunity to play the victim. For a moment, long enough for SC to vote, he appeared like a strong phoenix rising from the ashes. The rest of America was just as amazed with him, until the dust settled and we all realized it was just a little song and dance. LOL I wonder the results if we did all the debates and campaigns, but just saved the voting for a more limited time, all at once. Maybe even stop the Candidates and Media from talking about it for 2 weeks after the debates and before the voting. Let us vote on a clear mind, not an emotional pressured one.
I am actually now a Texan, but I was not surprised at all that Romney did so well in MD, liberals seem to like him, no big surprise there. LOL
The fact that anyone would not vote for someone, because they don't think enough other people will, is a complete and total sacrifice and forfeight of your freedom. What makes it so perfect is it is VOLUNTARY. You are genuinly convinced that you are having a voice and are free, so you not only allow it, you defend it! For "majority rule", voting, to work, you MUST vote for who you support, independent of if you think others agree with you.
I think you did bring up a valuable point, the vetting benefit. BTW, never knew this word until I watching "Game Changer", at least I learned something from it. LOL
Anyways, that "why", vetting, is a good reason. We have watched it "thin out the herd" very well. But at the same time we have watched this current system used to influence the vote severely. I mean, you had people dropping out after 2 States had voted! What if they had started in the deep south, or Main, or Texas. The influence given on the remaining voters would be substantial. It is my beleif that Romney received most of his momentum from what was delivered to us as some sort of "strong start", an obviouse clear winner right out of the gate. In reality, we had a virtual 3 WAY tie in the first state and almost that in the second. Then Gingich's performance was a great example of the temporary influence of the Media. He went in to SC not strong at all. But then was given an opportunity to impress during one debate. It was less his debate ability and more the mistake of the reporter for "giving" him the opportunity to play the victim. For a moment, long enough for SC to vote, he appeared like a strong phoenix rising from the ashes. The rest of America was just as amazed with him, until the dust settled and we all realized it was just a little song and dance. LOL I wonder the results if we did all the debates and campaigns, but just saved the voting for a more limited time, all at once. Maybe even stop the Candidates and Media from talking about it for 2 weeks after the debates and before the voting. Let us vote on a clear mind, not an emotional pressured one.
I am actually now a Texan, but I was not surprised at all that Romney did so well in MD, liberals seem to like him, no big surprise there. LOL
The fact that anyone would not vote for someone, because they don't think enough other people will, is a complete and total sacrifice and forfeight of your freedom. What makes it so perfect is it is VOLUNTARY. You are genuinly convinced that you are having a voice and are free, so you not only allow it, you defend it! For "majority rule", voting, to work, you MUST vote for who you support, independent of if you think others agree with you.
