Presidential Candidacy
- Thread starter BLACKBOX
- Start date
wkmac
Well-Known Member
That's a rather interesting point to consider there trplnkl. So your point is they wanted to kill the infidels to make a point. OK, I'll go with this. It would also stand to reason based on what we've been told that the religion of these folks demand them to kill any and all infidels who refuse to be converted, at least that is the message I get from some quarters. Seems a reasonable point to make about a group of mad men. No quarrel from me.
But there's a problem that has me confused. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, many of these same folks like OBL himself, stood shoulder to shoulder with western infidels to fight the Russian Bear and gladly accepted infidel money and arms to do so. Charlie Wilson, Texas democrat Congressman is just one example and there were tons of privateer efforts too. In the 10 year battle, never once did muslim fighters raise up against it's western infidel friend. The Bear was an invading "Empirical" force and seen as such and the western infidel was a friend coming to help beat back the "Empire" builders.
In fact, when the Bear withdrew back to the north, the western infidels backed so to speak the Taliban over the Afghan warlords which in 96' seated a gov't based on fundamental Islamic extremes. The backing was done in the name of the War on Drugs because Sharia law demanded poppy production be destroyed and it was drastically cut. Since Taliban have left poppy production has skyrocketed.
But then something changed did it not? Something happened to change all of this after the 1989' Soviet retreat.. The first real hint for us was the 1993' bombing of the WTC but that wasn't OBL but rather done but terrorsit based in NYC with the financial backing and planning of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Now Mohammed was Al Qaeda but he wasn't based in Afghanistan but rather in Kuwait. According ot the 9/11 Commission report, Mohammed was consider the principle architect of the 9/11 attacks but he was also behind others like the killing of Daniel Pearl, the Bali nightclub bombings and numerous other failed attempts. Wow, Kuwait, I wonder if that plays in role in all of this. What do you think?
When was Al Qaeda's first known attack to have taken place? Considered by many, the first known attack was on December 29, 1992' when 2 hotels in Aden, Yemen were bombed killing 2 Austrian tourist but the experts say the intended targets were US Servicemen. US Servicemen! 1992! What was happening in that region in the timeframe of 1992' with US Servicemen that would upset Sunni Muslim believers in an extreme form of Islam and deathly loyal to a Holy and Pure Saudi homeland?
Hmmmm there trplnkl, you think we may be on to something here? What happened in 1990', 1991', or 1992' to a group of radical Sunni muslims who believe to the death in a pure and holy land in Saudi Arabia that should be always free of infidel presence? I just got this feeling you've stumbled on to something here but I just can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe someone here can fill in the missing piece and we can figure this whole thing out. Thanks for the post and the foresight on your part to open this door. Awesome dude!
Enquiring minds want to know!
Warning to Jones: Sitdown and drink that coffee!
brazenbrown
Well-Known Member
Yeah, because that's exactly what he said, right? Give that strawman of yours a break, he's looking kinda beat up.
The only one's who look "beat up" or rather sad would be those trying to defend the terrorists by making excuses for why we deserved 911!
No matter how much you subscribe to condoning the terrorist's attacks of 911 your defending of the terrorists still won't make you their friend.
Unfortunately, they'd blow you up just like the next guy but then again I'm just misrepresenting myself so what do I know..
I'm sure if Obama helped Paul (what a ticket) in his direct talks with them they would probably listen..
Hey maybe we'll see how real democracy works in 2009...
Strawman out!
brazenbrown said:
Who exactly are you talking about? Can you point out to me where anyone on these boards has defended terrorists or made excuses for why we deserved 9/11?
Like I said, you're arguing with a strawman. I must admit you're pretty good at it though! You beat him every time...maybe it's because he's never said anything
diesel96
Well-Known Member
trpinkl said:Your right that, that is not a hard concept to grasp. It's just not true. We were attacked over here because OBL wanted to show the infidels of the world that he could do it and get away with it. HE wanted to show the Muslims of the world what was supposed to happen to all infidels.
wkmac said:Hmmmm there trplnkl, you think we may be on to something here? What happened in 1990', 1991', or 1992' to a group of radical Sunni muslims who believe to the death in a pure and holy land in Saudi Arabia that should be always free of infidel presence? I just got this feeling you've stumbled on to something here but I just can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe someone here can fill in the missing piece and we can figure this whole thing out. Thanks for the post and the foresight on your part to open this door. Awesome dude!
Enquiring minds want to know!
Warning to Jones: Sitdown and drink that coffee!
In winning the Persian Gulf War(Desert Strom), the United States also made itself an elusive enemy in the form of Osama bin Laden and followers (non Iraq'is BTW).
The son of a Saudi Arabian businessman, bin Laden has called for a Muslim jihad, or holy war, against the United States. He has encouraged Muslims to kill all the Americans -- civilian or military.
His rage stems from the decision by Saudi Arabia to allow the United States to use the country as a staging area for attacks on Iraqi forces in Kuwait and Iraq. After the victory, the U.S. military presence became permanent.
To fundamentalists like bin Laden, the U.S. presence is a solemn curse residing in Saudi Arabia, home to "the two most holy places" in Islam -- Mecca and Medina. Mecca is the birthplace of Mohammed and the location of the Great Mosque of Mecca, considered by Muslims to be the most sacred spot on Earth.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
trpinkl said:
Good points D. Mecca and Medina holy places in the holy country of Saudi Arabia! Interesting. But holy to who? Now I ask the question strictly from a muslim perspective in that these 2 cities are Holy and controlled by Sunni muslims and Sunni Islam is a very "Arab" influenced part of larger islam. But we also have Shia branch of Islam (majority centered in Iran) and do they see Mecca and Medina in the very same light? Actually yes they do. The Quran teaches that the word mosque was the word used by God to call the Holy Places established by Abraham, the father of all muslims and Abraham's son Ishmael of whom muslims believe the promise of God to Abraham passes down through.
The most Holy of all sites in the muslim world is Mecca and to be specific, Masjid-al-Haram which is the place annually that the pilgrims travel too. More specific, Masjid al-Haram in it's center houses what is called Kaaba which is the exact geographic point that all muslims face each time they pray. Quran 22:26 speaks of this place being given by God to Abraham for him to establish and to the muslim world, from a western tradition, it's the equal of the Holy of Holies established by Moses and Arron at Sinai and later made permanent by Solomon in Jerusalem. I wonder how the ancient Isrealites might have acted had any of us tried to enter the temple grounds without first becoming pure say via the Mikveh (same exact act as baptism in the Christian faith) or some other rite of purity? We are unclean and therefore unholy. I would venture to say that even today in some Jewish houses of worship, I or most of us aren't considered worthy to enter certain areas and great offense would be taken if we forced to do so. I would never dream of making such offense even though my beliefs are far afield from theirs. And getting farther (LOL) you'll see later what I mean.
The next holiest site is Medina because this is the home of the prophet Muhammad and specifically in Medina is Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the actual home) and a mosque built by Muhammad. Again, in muslim tradition only the most worthy of the faithful are allowed to go there and I dare say, I doubt any of us here would fit the criteria so again, if any of us were present there, it's considered an offense and violation. Not unlike some rules that governed western religious practices although we've left the "death by oggy-boggie" behind for the most part to our historical past. But we've been there as well from time to time.
Now the 3rd holiest site is one of major contention but not among muslims followers. The site is Al-Aqsa Mosque which in english translates, "the farthest mosque" and it resides in Jerusalem and is otherwise known as the "Dome of the Rock." Are you starting to get a little bit more perspective about some of the stuff going on in the region? Dome of the Rock is built right on the site of the ancient Israelite Temple and it's Holy of Holies. Building new religious sites on top of old is considered an act of conquer and liken to one god defeating another in ancient times. It's a "my god is bigger than your god" kinda thing. In the Christian world we've done the same. Part of the Vatican in Rome is built on top of an ancient Temple to the god Mithra so it's more a common practice than we might think.
I could go on obviously (LOL) but I wanted to clarify those before I came back to Iraq. Now why Iraq?
Because to Shia muslims Iraq holds 2 very important cities and that is Karbala and Najaf. Now instead of writing a book, here's a 2003' BBC piece on these 2 cities that brush the surface enough to understand the point. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2881835.stm
When we in the west look at the whole geo-political. cultural world we have a very different perspective than those of other places and especially those in the Mideast region. This area has a huge rich history of well over 6k years and to even get a hint at understanding it, you have to look at it's history. I'm completely convinced that even in order to understand our own bible of western culture, you have to understand the histories of the ancient Sumerians for example. Why? Well Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees (KJV translation) which Chaldea was a hellistic term given this part of Babylonia which broke away to form it's own independent kingdom. I also find it so fascinating that the 10 pre-diluvian partiarchs of the bible almost match not only in time but also description of themselves, their families and holding to the 10 partiarch Kings of ancient Sumer or what some now call Sumeria and from whom did Abram descend and from where did he come? Ur which is also in the exact same spot! Where did the flood story of Gilgamesh come from? Where did the Noah flood story come from?
These stories were oral traditions and my guess the first actual writings of these accounts didn't take place until a Israelite captivity in Babylon in circa 600 BCE. Some scholars think the first written texts were completed by an actual scribe of the prophet Jeremiah (during the captive era) which was many, many centuries after the fact. There is even some suggestion that monotheism as we know it today was more a Persian influence of an ancient Persian prophet (today's Iran) Zoroaster than anything else. The Israelite people prior to the captivity had a solar calendar with the first month being Abib but after the Babylonian captivity they adapted a Babylonian lunar calendar with the first month being Nisan. What else Babylonian did they adapt? Because of all the time frames and other factors involved, these pose very interesting questions.
Again, I'm not here trying to rip apart anyone's religious beliefs but what I am trying to say is that to sit back and make dogmatic decisions about our being in the region or not being in a region without having any understanding of the history and people I happen to think is foolish. It's amazing that the great general Patton understood the history and events of the great empires and used this knoweldge to know what would and would not work. Is there a lesson here for us from him?
By understanding, I happen to believe you can better understand and thus have a better feel as to the reaction if you decide to do this or that. I also happen to believe that there are personal agendas way beyond pure business going on in the religion part as it relates to certain western religious beliefs and the self fulfilling of certain religious prophesies that otherwise would not come about without the manipulation of certain men. I guess it's fair to say that I don't see the books of Daniel and Revelation in the same endtimes manner as others and that would be correct.
These people have an ancient belief of being the hand of God so to speak on earth not dis-similar to the same belief of the ancient Israelites. Problem is we have 2 brothers, Ishmael and Issac and their offspring who are fighting over the birthright of their father Abraham and we've allowed ourselves to get drung right into the middle of it. Funny thing is, I'm about so fed up with the whole thing that I'm thinking about going back to pre-Roman Europe and learning the beliefs of my Celtic/Nordic forefathers!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Hey Wkmac I do not have time to watch your video today. Does it say why they sunnis do not do the big walk from Najaf to Karbala? That was a sight to see. I know what the sunnis that I knew said but sometimes they were less than truthful. I know they have more than one celebration in those two cities but I am wondering about the big one. I think it is the birth of one of the Imams.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Yeah the Imam was Imam Ali and he is considered the founder of Shia Islam. Those cities are of holy position to Shia muslims and not the Sunni so I'd guess the only marching the Sunni's would do is if they could kill the Shia. Like Protestants and Catholics of old, the Sunni and Shia don't tend to play nice together.
Just a bit of humorous aside and I mean no disrespect but rather maybe I'm poking a bit of fun at my own southern roots. I heard someone once ask about in the islam world the broad use of the names Ali and Muhammad and what comparison in western society would those names subscribe. A good ole' southern boy quickly responded that in the south Ali and Muhammad would translate Bubba and Jr.!
I laughed my arse off at that one and it just happens an american friend of mine of Islamic faith who has a wonderful sense of humor and happens to be named Ali also heard this little diddy. At a party some intro's were going around and just before it was his turn he looked at me and winked ( to my wonder of what the heck was going to happen)and then he turned to those present and exclaimed, " My name's Bubba" in the most country arse voice you ever heard. He and I were on the floor while everyone else looked very puzzled because the last thing Ali looked like was a Bubba!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
The Sunni if I remember correctly did their march about one week later and they wore shoes. It was on a much smaller scale. It went from tens of thousands of Muslims walking with no shoes on while they were beating their own backs with whips (all Shina). They would carry their colorful flags so it was easy to tell them apart. On the Sunni week there were only several hundred and they wore shoes and seemed to be on a more relaxed pace.They would carry their black flags. Up until that point I thought the hardcore Muslims were the Sunnis mainly because of AQI.
These marches were unguarded. There was largely no violence. If there was a Sunni-Shia civil war these people would have been easy targets.
One more question why did they allow women to make this march? It seemed like it was probably sixty or seventy percent women. I remember thinking this was odd. They allowed the women to wear shoes and they just had to stay behind their husband. Every other thing that had to do with the Muslim religion the women were not allowed to participate.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
No, you didn't miss a thing. I did response to the original question in post #38 after watching Vols and Tie swap spit with one another but when it was apparent no one was interested in that issue, I caved and went with the flow.
I was gonna watch the Playboy channel tonight but if Vols and Tie swap spit again I might check that out instead!
LMAO!!!!!!!!!
brazenbrown
Well-Known Member
Who exactly are you talking about? Can you point out to me where anyone on these boards has defended terrorists or made excuses for why we deserved 9/11?
Like I said, you're arguing with a strawman. I must admit you're pretty good at it though! You beat him every time...maybe it's because he's never said anything
Thank you Mr. quick straw Jones..
My first post was in response to govols019 saying:
" What he said was that they attacked us here because we are over there. Not a hard concept to grasp."
And the thought behind that comment is that if we were not there in what ever capacity that things would be hunky dory and they wouldn't give a rat's rear end about all these infidels over here!!
He (govols019) obviously has had no response to back up his opinion, however your side stepping strawman out has you engaged in trying to poke holes in what you don't want to here.
Listen to Mr. Paul explain his position...Oh, by the way no strawman here just Ronny!!
First point dismissed by Paul, we need to fight them over there so they don't come over here and they came over here because we are over there.
What a crock! We've been over there since 911 and guess what?? They haven't been over here. A great accomplishment by this administration of taking it to them and totally diminished by the likes of Paul.
Another point made by Paul is that of Bin laden's recruting going up, my guess is that he probably would have quit being a terrorist had we just stayed here (sarcasm). Paul says " They don't want us over there they can just pick us off over there". ??? If we were not picking them off over there at a much higher ratio than they're picking us (our military not our citizens) off we would be in trouble...Way to support the troop's efforts Ron, our military is just over there getting picked off??
Oh my God, I can't even type this with a straight face but did he just compare the Chinese having bases here to us having bases in the Middle East. Ok, I get it...We're terrorist that deserve an occupying force such as China to help us get to some kind of civilized democratic society that us as citizens want... What a looney comparison...
"You do it our way or we're going to bomb you" Ron Paul says is the United States preferred foreign relations way of doing business.
He goes on and on but his idea of protecting America is real scary!!
I agree that the republicans have not been fiscally responsible and have other improvements to make and agree with Paul on many of his domestic approaches but listening to this means he cannot be considered for president in my opinion..
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Why are people so concerned with Ron Paul? I mean the guy has absolutely no chance and the vast majority of the people see his ideas as wacky so why the waste of time of those who back others for President?
No one, no where is picking Dr. Paul to finish in the top 3 in either Iowa or New Hampshire and the concensus is he has no chance of doing so. It's also a given voiced again this morning by both Tim Russert on Meet the Press and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that those candidates finishing outside the top 3 in either party are done and if they stay in the race quickly lose any strength they had and ability to raise funds and typically withdraw especially after Super Tuesday where they are finally handed their hat!
Again, I ask the question to those opposed to Dr. Paul's ideas and firmly planted with other Repubs., especially the concensus top 3, why do you waste your time on someone who is going nowhere and will fade away? And why concern yourself with others whom you believe are wasting their time with Dr. Paul or any other non-mainstream candidate?
Just curious as to why it's a necessity in your thinking?
No one, no where is picking Dr. Paul to finish in the top 3 in either Iowa or New Hampshire and the concensus is he has no chance of doing so. It's also a given voiced again this morning by both Tim Russert on Meet the Press and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that those candidates finishing outside the top 3 in either party are done and if they stay in the race quickly lose any strength they had and ability to raise funds and typically withdraw especially after Super Tuesday where they are finally handed their hat!
Again, I ask the question to those opposed to Dr. Paul's ideas and firmly planted with other Repubs., especially the concensus top 3, why do you waste your time on someone who is going nowhere and will fade away? And why concern yourself with others whom you believe are wasting their time with Dr. Paul or any other non-mainstream candidate?
Just curious as to why it's a necessity in your thinking?
brazenbrown
Well-Known Member
Hi Mac,
Simply said, I think that it's important to draw the distinctions. This is what this forum and debate are all about. You could say why is anything necessary to discuss if it's already a fore gone conclusion??
You of all people stir the pot on many political and other ideas and that gets people to think.
Personally I know Ron Paul doesn't have a chance but I think some of his ideas (actually just getting back to following much of what the constitution says) are noteworthy.
Just don't agree with him on our war on terror...
By the way I'm not so firmly planted and still don't know who I'm voting for, but you're right about one thing it won't be Hillary, Obama or Edwards. I like Biden if I were going to vote dem but that won't happen.
Geeez, who to vote for??
wkmac
Well-Known Member
WHAT!
I'M HORRIFIED!
CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'D DO SUCH A THING!!!!!!
LMAO!!!!!!! Just funin' D!
Braze, Don't say that to loud, it's suppose to be a secret!
Enjoy the holidays tomorrow and if you drink, do not drive. I'm not the drinker so I'm the neighborhood driver tomorrow night. I was the party animal in the late 60's through the 70's so now I play the parent to everyone else's childishness and keep them out of trouble. My worse charge is a homicide detective and police officer of nearly 20 years. Go figure! But we do have fun and I get to laugh at all the stupid stuff that they are to drunk to remember the next day.
tieguy
Banned
Probably because he's really the only fresh candidate out there. Not a made up madison avenue marketing package but someone who is willing to step out of the box and speak his mind. These types are usually dismissed to the dark areas of the nether regions but he appears to be sustaining some momentum as the internet fund raising efforts show.
I do agree with brazen that Rons message about them being here because we were there is completely backwards to reality. Ronnie will have to be carefull with that subject if he craves legitimacy. Nothing will get him tuned out quicker then misstating or misrepresenting the facts of 9/11.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
IMO they seem backwards because of our perspective of looking at all events as though starting in the 1993' WTC bombing and even moreso with 9/11. IMHO you have to look at this whole thing from a 3k plus year perspective (I know, not an easy task at all and I speak from experience because it seems to never end) but when you do it does open up a lot of answers and clears out IMO tons of gray if not black areas.
Our day became even greater complicated with the WW1 era and then events of post WW1 as the Ottoman empire was dissolved into the French and British empires. This act was critical to a people still embraced in it's stories and legends of the old Crusades just as we have our own legends of the Crusades with our own heros. Here you have the very Kings of the Crusaders themselves, those empires if you will, controlling all of the Islamic world, not just Jerusalem.
Then in 1928', an Egyptian schoolteacher named Hassan al-Banna founded an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood and then all roads lead outward from there within the extreme Sunni world from the PLO to Al Qaeda.
What would you think if you had been taught for millenia plus that Jews and Christians had corrupted the word of God, Allah if you will, (Yahweh and Jehovah to others) brought to us by the greats prophets of Abraham, Moses, Jesus (yes Jesus even) and others. They believe Muhammad is God's final prophet to cleanse and correct the wrong done before. Yes, to us from our perspective it may seem silly but to them, they see their world now ruled and controlled by the very thing that Muhammad came to resolve and correct.
Now this doesn't justify the many terrorist events but it does show where IMO we are at times our own worse enemy with the average folk in the Mideast region leaving the door open for maniac mad men to exploit and manipulate the people. How many of us thought the worse of either UPS or the IBT when the contract talks were kept in such hush, hush conditions and we are so educated class of the world elite! Even the wrong appearance is a breeding ground for manipulation.
As for the "We're Americans so they shouldn't fear us" idea, how do you react when a homosexual fully asserts him/herself in public via affection towards another homosexual with the only purpose being of saying is some public manner, your religious/moral beliefs no longer apply here? What do you do and think when an atheist stands and asserts themselves in the public arena and demands God has no place? Should I link the many threads here to prove that point?
You starting to get a sense of how these guys might feel? What would happen if atheists and homosexuals attained power enough that heterosexuality and belief in god was completely outlawed, how far would you go? Would you resort to violence if this new power came after you and your friends and family for practicing these ideals and faith?
All of us agree we are very blessed to live in the land we do even with all it's faults but at the same time we tend to get a skewed way of thinking because we are so fortunate. We can't comprehend to where some people come from of just how far they are able to think using logic. We even have this problem at times ourselves IMHO. It's called being human!
Consider this point to ponder as I close. In the late 1700's various men revolted against the ruling empire of the world at the time and won. After victory it took a few years to bring about a document that gave us a gov't. Now let's say we wanted to learn the hard truth about say the 2nd amendment to that document so would we only view that segment of law from a 1990's forward POV and never, ever consider the historical context or perspective behind the words in that amendment? What are the odds we would derive to the same conclusion from an individual liberty standpoint as those men did in that day if we totally ignored the history and words of those times?
What are the odds then we will completely understand an enemy and how they react if we only look at them from the lat 10 years perspective and never consider back beyond that point?
I wonder why the greatest generals like Patton who were victorious on the field of Battle were also avid historians? Is there a message and lesson for us there?
moreluck
golden ticket member
In case you wondered.......
What happens at a caucus?
By James Q. Lynch
The Gazette
[email protected]
The attention will be on presidential preferences, but the purpose of a caucus is to elect delegates to each party’s 99 county conventions.
At Republican caucuses, those attending will indicate their presidential preferences in what is essentially a straw poll. Voting can be done by a show of hands or by paper ballots.
The process at Democratic caucuses is more involved.
Beginning no earlier than 7 p.m., Democrats divide into “preference groups” based on which candidate they support. “Undecided” can be a preference group. Generally speaking, a candidate group must have 15 percent of the number of participants to be “viable.”
Caucus participants have up to 30 minutes to join a preference group. After the caucus chairman determines which groups are viable, participants have another 30 minutes to realign, or join a different caucus group.
Throughout this process, members of a preference group may attempt to persuade other caucus-goers, especially members of non-viable groups, to join their preference group. Non-viable groups may merge to gain enough members to meet the viability threshold. Or members of non-viable groups may choose to join the uncommitted preference group. Or they can choose not to join any group.
When the preference groups are set, the caucus chairman will determine the number of county convention delegates each preference group is entitled to elect. When those numbers are totaled at the state level, the “winner” of the Democratic caucus is the one with the most delegates.
The results of the caucuses are not binding on either Republican or Democratic delegates to the county convention. However, delegates often feel an obligation to follow the sentiments expressed at their precinct caucuses. Therefore, the initial caucus results provide a good indication of which candidate the party’s delegates to the national convention will back.
After the presidential preference choices, caucus-goers begin the process of writing their parties’ platforms by introducing resolutions — basically, statements on issues that show a party’s goals or philosophies. Resolutions may be voted on and adopted or rejected or, in some cases, forwarded to a county platform committee for further consideration. Resolutions introduced at the precinct level can become part of the national party platform that is adopted at each party’s national convention.
What happens at a caucus?
By James Q. Lynch
The Gazette
[email protected]
The attention will be on presidential preferences, but the purpose of a caucus is to elect delegates to each party’s 99 county conventions.
At Republican caucuses, those attending will indicate their presidential preferences in what is essentially a straw poll. Voting can be done by a show of hands or by paper ballots.
The process at Democratic caucuses is more involved.
Beginning no earlier than 7 p.m., Democrats divide into “preference groups” based on which candidate they support. “Undecided” can be a preference group. Generally speaking, a candidate group must have 15 percent of the number of participants to be “viable.”
Caucus participants have up to 30 minutes to join a preference group. After the caucus chairman determines which groups are viable, participants have another 30 minutes to realign, or join a different caucus group.
Throughout this process, members of a preference group may attempt to persuade other caucus-goers, especially members of non-viable groups, to join their preference group. Non-viable groups may merge to gain enough members to meet the viability threshold. Or members of non-viable groups may choose to join the uncommitted preference group. Or they can choose not to join any group.
When the preference groups are set, the caucus chairman will determine the number of county convention delegates each preference group is entitled to elect. When those numbers are totaled at the state level, the “winner” of the Democratic caucus is the one with the most delegates.
The results of the caucuses are not binding on either Republican or Democratic delegates to the county convention. However, delegates often feel an obligation to follow the sentiments expressed at their precinct caucuses. Therefore, the initial caucus results provide a good indication of which candidate the party’s delegates to the national convention will back.
After the presidential preference choices, caucus-goers begin the process of writing their parties’ platforms by introducing resolutions — basically, statements on issues that show a party’s goals or philosophies. Resolutions may be voted on and adopted or rejected or, in some cases, forwarded to a county platform committee for further consideration. Resolutions introduced at the precinct level can become part of the national party platform that is adopted at each party’s national convention.
Similar threads
