Unlikely.
Whoops. I didn't read all the comments.
It has nothing to do with vote totals. The votes we give only decide who delegates will vote for in the first round of voting at the convention for the presidential nomination.
Even if Romney wins 100% of Oklahoma's vote in the primary, the delegates are only obligated to vote for him in the first round at the convention, and even then they can simply abstain from voting.
If a candidate doesn't have enough delegate votes to win a vast majority outright on the first vote, then the field opens to LITERALLY anyone at all, even someone who hasn't even begun to campaign yet.
The hope is that if Paul gets enough to abstain or be obligated by primary election votes to vote for him in the first round, Romney won't be able to win that round. At this point, all of those delegates can vote for whomever they wish, many of them will then switch to Paul.
Which will never happen. His best hope is to get enough delegates to get a platform during the convention. The one thing a politician is afraid of is losing votes, especially delegate votes. Even a marginal win can damage a politician's platform and positions. Romney NEEDS unified support from the delegates in order to bring Republican voters to the polls in November. If the convention is fractured, many will stay home. This gives Paul leverage over Romney when it comes to critical points. Romney will have to adopt some platform positions he'd rather not adopt in order to pull it all together. Even 8-10% of the Republicans who support Paul are enough to swing this election.
No we are fighting BEFORE things get so out of hand that we lose huge numbers of troops like we used to do before we started getting actively involved.
He's as much a Republican as you are. Moreso by my standards. You'd prefer the GOP champion a religious wingnut statist like Santorum than someone who actually adheres to the core GOP principles. Sanitorium is as much a liar as the rest, he just tells the lies you prefer. I guess only the neo-con version of the GOP is acceptable for your tastes.
I do not now nor have I ever given a crap about any of their religious views because I know they will never get those through congress and the courts. As for Santorum being a religious wongnut, look it up, he share many of the same beliefs as your boy wonder. As for Santorum being a liar as much as any politician, to some degree yes, but so is RP. Where Santorum got my support his is truthfulness on ear marks (something RP lies about) At least Santorum was honest enough to admit publicly that they are sometimes a good thing.
If they did RP would have been retired decades ago. Seriously I have been following RP for decades. I grew up in his area and still have family living in his district. I will admit that early in his political career I tried to like him but as I learned more about politics and how government works I came to realize just how big a nut job he is. His economic plan to close 5 agencies and slash the budget of most others is a decent idea, but there is no way it will ever be put into effect. To many people in and out of government will never let it happen. And no if RP somehow won the WH GOP congress members would not do what he wants. That is wishful thinking that has no resemblance to reality.
I'm glad you're OK with bombing Lybia, propping up dictators when it suits us and fighting 10 year ground wars in Fubaristan (long after our stated goals were accomplished), but I am not. I do not believe in limited warfare. I find it completely immoral and it fuels hatred of the US on a global scale. In the long run it does more harm than good. But hey, what's a few bombs here and there, right? So long as we can have cheap oil and reality programs on TV, it's all good, right?
We've been fighting Iran since WWII and historically, they have every right to be upset with the US. The US overthrew their democratically elected government in 1953 and installed a dictator. The current Islamic regime is a direct result of US intervention on behalf of Great Britain. Iran was never a threat to the US, but now they are. We reap what we sew and we've sewn a hell of a lot of death and destruction in the world.
Narrow minded world views like "kill em all and let God sort em out" do not work anymore. I have zero problems with defending our country against all enemies. Sadly, the enemies we've allowed to control our roughshod foreign affairs are far more dangerous to the republic than some stone age troglodyte hammering out a homemade AK in a cave halfway across the world.
Whoa whoa, back up to this for a second. At what point do our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan tip over from the point of preemptive strike to prevent unneeded coalition casualties at a later date to the point of 10 year grind session where an entire generation of opposition forces has been recruited and trained while we fruitlessly fight this war of attrition against this a faceless, intangible enemy named "terror"?
That's the thing about attacking a nation before they do something wrong (because everyone knows they're gonna attack us at some point).
If someone did it to us, we'd throw a wall-eyed fit. And think about it, who has started more (questionable) wars and has the most nukes? That's who should probably be attacked before they do something stupid by that logic.
Remember when wars were actually taken seriously by citizens instead of being treated as reality TV shows?
If someone did it to us, we'd throw a wall-eyed fit. And think about it, who has started more (questionable) wars and has the most nukes? That's who should probably be attacked before they do something stupid by that logic.
Remember when wars were actually taken seriously by citizens instead of being treated as reality TV shows?
