Thread: Ron Paul = No Amnesty

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Yes, and I am honoring that truce, but it should be law that ALL candidates are on the ballot and ALL of their votes are counted. That dosen't have anything to do with what caused the truce.

Sorry, I wasn't refering to your comment. That did make sense. I agree, it should be law.

NP, thaks!

Originally Posted by MW

........or just write Hunter in.

A write-in vote will not be counted for any candidate who has failed to file an Intent to be a Write-in Candidate as prescribed by law.

Of course, to avoid wasting your vote, you would have to research to verify that his campaign had filed the intent to be a write-in candidate. According to your quote there. Also, I'm sure this varies by state.

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Boy, this voting system we have IMO is really messed up. Why wouldn't all candidates be on the ballot in ALL states?

Define "candidate". The rules are dictated by the party in each state. Some states are restrictive, some are not. The less restrictive, the more candidates on the ballot. There are a few states where there are over 20 republicans listed on the republican presidential ballot this year; thus the problem(arguably) of making it unrestrictive.

USPatriot wrote:

Sorry, I wasn't refering to your comment. That did make sense. I agree, it should be law.

Exactly which comment were you referring too? I'm not going quit supporting my candidate just because it ruffles a few feathers. For the record, I haven't seen anyone say anything negative about your candidate of choice.

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Boy, this voting system we have IMO is really messed up. Why wouldn't all candidates be on the ballot in ALL states?

Define "candidate". The rules are dictated by the party in each state. Some states are restrictive, some are not. The less restrictive, the more candidates on the ballot. There are a few states where there are over 20 republicans listed on the republican presidential ballot this year; thus the problem(arguably) of making it unrestrictive.

Thanks, specsaregood, that too needs to be standardized across the states. This whole thing is worsened by the fact we lack a paper trail, or at least a reciept of our vote. These machines by Diebold and whoever else need to be s---canned.

If W requested that we call a truce until after Iowa then why are pro CFR and Constitution haters posting their hate in a thread for Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by sturmruger

If W requested that we call a truce until after Iowa then why are pro CFR and Constitution haters posting their hate in a thread for Ron Paul?

This is the question of the day.

Ron Paul has NO plans for going after employers, or holding employers accountable in any way!!

In 2004, Arizona passed 4 props taking away social benefits from illegals. Guess what??? They did NOT leave and they kept on coming.

It wasn't until Arizona took away their ability to get jobs---by going after employers----that the illegals started to leave!!!

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Ron Paul has NO plans for going after employers, or holding employers accountable in any way!!

In 2004, Arizona passed 4 props taking away social benefits from illegals. Guess what??? They did NOT leave and they kept on coming.

It wasn't until Arizona took away their ability to get jobs---by going after employers----that the illegals started to leave!!!

Bren,

Stop the BS, OK?

Ron Paul's plan is to enforce current law and deport illegals as they are caught. Plain and simple.

Just because you keep repeating this lie doesn't make it true.