Brokered Conventions, Yet Again…
I’m an Independent. I can vote for whomever I want.
In order for me to vote for…. ok, wait..
I can’t actually see myself voting for any of the current Republican candidates, so let me not even type that. 😀
Let’s assume that what I told y’all about 2 1/2 months ago, back in December 2011 (which the pundits, late as usual, are talking about on every single television show now) happens, which is a “Brokered Convention” => http://billcammack.com/2011/12/11/brokered-conventions/
At this point, they’re also being called “Open Conventions” and “Contested Conventions”, but the song remains the same. If none of the Republicans secure the required 50% of delegates (1,144 out of 2,286) to clinch the nomination, none of them can claim to be the legitimate nominee at the Republican National Convention, which means that any of them, or, more importantly, NONE OF THEM might be nominated, and some totally different dude might be selected to run against Obama, such as Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Jed Bush, Paul Ryan, or Haley Barbour.
In my opinion, this so-called “Contested Convention” will be highly likely if Romney loses in his home state of Michigan, which we’ll know after tomorrow, Tuesday, February 28, 2012.
Romney’s main problem is his inauthenticity. His other problem is his religion, even though none of the pundits want to talk about it.. They just keep saying “He’s going to have problems winning in the South, and any state where 40% of the voters classify themselves as Evangelical Christians” and don’t bother to discuss it any more than that. Romney himself doesn’t want to discuss it, as he keeps saying “My Faith” and refuses to utter the word Mormon, so we’ll see how that works out for him.
Anyway.. The point is that so far, Romney has only been able to pull ~30% of the vote in any given situation. This means that if Gingrich drops out (which he won’t, because he’s still trying to get Romney back for dragging his name through the mud with attack ads that are still being watched on YouTube every day), that leaves the other ~70% for Santorum and Paul, and with Paul only pulling around 20%, that leaves a consistent 50% for Santorum to potentially snarf, which will be important once the contests change over from proportionally assigning delegates to winner-takes-all, after April 1, 2012:
It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012.
About 1,144 delegates are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida claimed to award winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31). Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but the second biggest state, Texas (155 delegates), will be proportional, and the biggest state, California (172 delegates), will be winner-take-all by each of its 53 congressional districts. Only seven primaries totalling a small number of delegates are winner-take-all; New York will only be winner take all if one candidate wins more than 50% of the vote.
Today is February 27, 2012.. If this source is correct, this tomfoolery will continue until June, which is FOUR. MONTHS. FROM. NOW! 😀 haha By that time, all of their names will be mud before the Democrats even begin to tell their side of the story.
So I got sidetracked. 😀 Let me start again…
WHAT. IS. YOUR. #*$&#^#$. JOBS PLAN???
I’m an Independent. I can vote for whomever I want.
Assuming a Brokered Convention, in which case, there would be a Republican running that I might actually vote for… In order for me to vote for that person, it would require that a) they could prove to me that President Obama’s plan is *BAD*, and b) they could convince me that their jobs plan is *BETTER*.
It’s really that simple.
As you can tell if you’ve been following my blog, I’ve been writing about this Republican nomination process since September 08, 2011, which is more than 5 months, or approximately 150 days, and I have no idea whatsoever how anything that the current Republican candidates are saying translates into Americans receiving job opportunities, either in the near or the foreseeable future.
I’m not joking about that or being biased. I honestly don’t see it, and I’ve actually been *LOOKING* and *LISTENING*, so I’m sure that the millions of voters that haven’t been paying attention to this process don’t have a clue what the Republican Jobs Plan is either… Assuming they even know who’s running.
I get the basic points of what they’re saying.
It begins with the Convenient Cycle of Rights, where federal rights aren’t supposed to trump state’s rights, and state’s rights aren’t supposed to trump personal rights, but individuals should be restricted from doing things, NATIONALLY, based on the candidate’s opinion about something = federal rights trumping individual rights, so you can play Rock, Paper, Scissors all day.
Next is that America has enough natural resources to be Energy Independent, but Obama won’t let more oil rigs be constructed COUGHbpCOUGH, and he’s putting the environment ahead of humans, according to Santorum.. Except… *DUH*… Humans have to LIVE. IN. THE. ENVIRONMENT. so it isn’t cool to poison people’s water in Pennsylvania to get gas that’s going to be used in New York City.
Next is that federal government doesn’t create jobs. The private sector creates jobs, so the best way to get them to do that is to make sure the “Job Creators” have more money, so whatever you do, don’t raise taxes on rich people… Feel free, however, to NOT CONTINUE A TAX BREAK = RAISE TAXES for middle-class people, because they’re workers, and don’t create jobs for anybody, so who cares if they have money? \o/
Also, the argument is that the tax break for the middle class is actually being taken out of the Social Security fund, so it’s making a bad situation even worse.
Next is not to tax money being brought back to the United States by the “Job Creators” who created jobs anywhere else in the world, *EXCEPT* for in America, because it’s easier to get cheap labor in countries where you have a bunch of desperate people:
When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.
But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?
Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.
The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.
So the response/answer to this is supposed to be to not tax “Job Creators” when they bring money back from their overseas businesses, because that’s supposed to give them incentive to create jobs in America… As opposed to creating MORE JOBS anywhere EXCEPT America, like they’ve been happily doing up until election time.
What’s supposed to pave the way for these jobs to return to America is either lowering Minimum Wage, or abolishing it, entirely.
For y’all non-Americans, this is what Minimum Wage is:
The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections; employers must comply with both.
Now.. I worked for minimum wage exactly once in my life, and that was a favor I was doing for my parents when I was a little kid, folding papers and putting them in envelopes for a local social organization.
At the time, my “income” was based on my weekly “allowance”, which, again, for y’all non-Americans, is money that you get for free from your parents every week, without your having to do anything at all.
I bring that up because I wasn’t working for minimum wage because I needed the money. I was basically wasting time, doing my parents a favor, and the money was incidental. I only did it one day a week, for probably 4 hours each time (maybe 3.. don’t remember), so, like Romney would say about his exorbitant speaker’s fees, the money I was making was negligible and unimportant. 😀
I always knew I was never going to work for minimum wage, because “who does that? \o/”. If I wanted to work for minimum wage, I could have done that directly after elementary school… hmm.. I guess I could have done that after junior high school (8th grade), because I think you have to be 14 years old in the USA to get “working papers” which allow you to work for somebody, which I wouldn’t know, because I wasn’t even *THINKING* about working when I was 14 years old.
The point is that factories and jobs are moved to foreign countries because you don’t have to pay those people American minimum wages.
While I would never ever in life consider working for minimum wage, people in other countries line up BEGGING for sub-American-minimum-wage jobs. Companies can make themselves look more profitable, instantly, by hiring people that they don’t have to shell out a whopping $7.25 USD/hour for.
This is why they want to get rid of Minimum Wage. The idea is that if someone doesn’t have to pay $8 for one person to work, they can pay $4 each for two people to work, or $2 each for four people to work. This would bring unemployment down very quickly.
Of course.. It would also create a society of peasants.
Who cares? So long as they’re WORKING peasants, right? 😀