TexasCHLforum.com

Venus Pax wrote:I'm surprised that Ron Paul didn't get better numbers in the primaries.

I think a lot of enthusiasm for Ron Paul waned after he got 10% of the Iowa caucus. A lot of people were expecting much better numbers and that deflated a lot of people. If he had done well in Iowa, the momentum would have carried him to even better numbers in the rest of the states.

bradfromearth wrote:How many of you think I am wrong?

Don't feed the trolls.

Liberty wrote:Certain landowners were. I don't believe most black folks liked the system much in those days. I personally find the idea that only property owners are responsible was pretty silly. I just wish the ignorant were smart enough to understand they don't know enough to vote.

An excellent point, one that I didn't consider until now. Unfair racial issues aside, property ownership is probably the most reasonable "are you responsible enough to vote" litmus test there was/is.

bryang wrote:This is the thing that really gets my goat about elections. They drag people in from anywhere by the bus loads and sign them up and take them to the polls and tell them where to put the x. They have no idea of what they are doing...they have been told what to do and they do it!

Yep. This is one reason the framers decided that only land owners could vote, and each household got only one vote. You had to demonstrate a certain kind of responsibility before voting. We were probably a little better off back then due to that policy.

laketex wrote:I wrote in Chuck Baldwin and I feel very comfortable with my decision.

My only regret is that Ron Paul wasn't in Bob Barr's place.