PDA

View Full Version : Your Tue. Prediction.



Apocalypse
01-01-2012, 01:20 PM
Lets see what each think Tue. caucus will have on the field.

This is mine.

Rick Perry Limps through, but is in the lower tier. My guess he continues on for 2 more states, then folds due to poor showing.

Jon Huntsman, Jr After Tue, he is done. Jon comes in dead last and doesn't continue on.

Michele Bachmann Done after Tue. She doesn't come in last, but near enough. Her campaign is falling apart, and she has run out of funds. Iowa is her last best hope to continue and will not see it.

Rick Santorum He's banked every thing on Iowa, and will see at-least a 3rd place or better finish here. But he's running on a shoe-string budget, and like Bachmann, is betting every thing on Iowa to save his bid, and help him finally see the cash he needs to continue. But that is where I question his run. He may do well here, but 7 days after Iowa is New Hampshire, followed 4 days later Nevada. Can he turn a legging campaign with near little cash into a thriving 3+ state bid in such short time. Especially since he's done so much here in Iowa, but considerable less in the following states. My prediction, he does decent in Iowa, but unless his fortunes change quick, 3 maybe 4 states later, he's done.

Mitt Romney My prediction, he takes Iowa. It's a close run with some of the other, but its enough. To that, I think he's going to be the tough one to beat for the others. At this point, its going to take some thing ugly in his past to trip him up.

Ron Paul This is the year for Paul, and he knows it. He doesn't take Iowa, but comes in some where around 3rd with a decent showing for him. Paul is one of those who will continue on regardless. So I don't see him dropping until its clear, he can't win. And even then I'm not sure he will drop.

Newt Gingrich Newt is falling apart, but I see him still having a decent showing regardless. At this time, I just can't figure if he survives a few more states or not. Or if he makes a rebound.

Tipsycatlover
01-01-2012, 01:31 PM
Ron Paul never drops out. He takes defeat to the bitter end and beyond.

Novaheart
01-01-2012, 02:34 PM
The Catholic conservatives can fund Gingrich, but cut their losses on Santorum.
The LDS will fund Romney to the Moon.
Ron Paul's fans will cheer him on til the last.

Everyone else in play up to now is history after Iowa.

Neither Romney, Paul, or Gingrich will get the GOP nomination. The savior is waiting in the wings.

Molon Labe
01-01-2012, 02:46 PM
Too many ups and downs in Iowa for most of the candidates. Steady usually wins.....

1. Paul 28% Pulls in paleos and overwhelmingly independants.

2. Romney 25% Gop faithful estab types in Iowa

3. Santorum 16% will be done after NH

4. Gingrich 11% will be in the race for some time....still polling high nationally. If he doesn't finish in top 3 in NH......done.

5. Perry 10% goes to NH then done

6. Bachman 8% done

7. Huntsman 3% Huntsman's running well in Iowa...he will continue at least there.

PPP polls come out tonight.

JB
01-01-2012, 06:50 PM
Jon Huntsman, Jr After Tue, he is done. Jon comes in dead last and doesn't continue on.Huntsman's strategy all along was to forego Iowa and concentrate his efforts in New Hampshire.

He won't drop out of the race no matter where he finishes in Iowa.

Janice
01-01-2012, 08:23 PM
I just sent more money to Santorum and Bachmann. Like Ron Paul I too am 'going to keep on goin' to the end.

And of course, put my money where my mouth is. They need it now more than ever.

Voters decide elections, not polsters. And hopefully not in Iowa alone.

Molon Labe
01-01-2012, 08:31 PM
Media and polling drive voting trends and decide elections, not average voters . And hopefully not in Iowa alone.

fixed.

There is just no denying the influence our MSM and polsters have on driving up preferences.

Look at the tweets I posted. It's never been clearer.

Articulate_Ape
01-02-2012, 01:30 AM
Paul wins Iowa and it "doesn't count" because Paul wins Iowa.

Paul wins NH and it's a fluke and marginalizes NH as a state.

States become more and more useless to the GOP establishment as Paul wins in more and more of them.

Call it a hunch.

Rockntractor
01-02-2012, 10:28 AM
Paul wins Iowa and it "doesn't count" because Paul wins Iowa.

Paul wins NH and it's a fluke and marginalizes NH as a state.

States become more and more useless to the GOP establishment as Paul wins in more and more of them.

Call it a hunch.

Who this Paul?:confused:

Odysseus
01-02-2012, 10:56 AM
Paul wins Iowa and it "doesn't count" because Paul wins Iowa.

Paul wins NH and it's a fluke and marginalizes NH as a state.

States become more and more useless to the GOP establishment as Paul wins in more and more of them.

Call it a hunch.

Paul might win Iowa, since caucuses are about intensity of support, but he will not win New Hampshire. He'll end up going into the convention with about 20% of all delegates, his high water mark, but will not win the nomination. He'll end up playing Buchanan to Romney's Dole. Romney will come in second in most places, but the first place positions will be split among other candidates, with Gingrich and Santorum trading off first place with him in other primaries. Because the Republicans apportion delegates proportionally, rather than winner take all, they'll go into the convention with Romney having a plurality of delegates, but not a majority, and the whole thing will end up being decided on the floor votes, but not the first round. If that's the case, then it could be anyone.

marv
01-02-2012, 11:01 AM
Iowa doesn't matter. Never has, never will as long as it sticks with this cacophonious mish-mash thingy called "a caucus". My gawd! It's the day before, and 41% still don't know who they'll "caucus" for!

Tipsycatlover
01-02-2012, 11:07 AM
Paul won't get the nomination. You can't have a nominee that polls in the single digits nationally.

Articulate_Ape
01-02-2012, 01:18 PM
Paul might win Iowa, since caucuses are about intensity of support, but he will not win New Hampshire. He'll end up going into the convention with about 20% of all delegates, his high water mark, but will not win the nomination. He'll end up playing Buchanan to Romney's Dole. Romney will come in second in most places, but the first place positions will be split among other candidates, with Gingrich and Santorum trading off first place with him in other primaries. Because the Republicans apportion delegates proportionally, rather than winner take all, they'll go into the convention with Romney having a plurality of delegates, but not a majority, and the whole thing will end up being decided on the floor votes, but not the first round. If that's the case, then it could be anyone.

I predict that one of us will be wrong about at least part of our predictions. :D

Molon Labe
01-02-2012, 03:06 PM
Paul won't get the nomination. You can't have a nominee that polls in the single digits nationally.

how many times does someone have to drop truth grenades on you before you get that McCain was in single digits at this time in 08.

Rockntractor
01-02-2012, 05:12 PM
how many times does someone have to drop truth grenades on you before you get that McCain was in single digits at this time in 08.

You smokum too much loco weed!:D

Odysseus
01-02-2012, 05:24 PM
I predict that one of us will be wrong about at least part of our predictions. :D

I predict that this prediction about our predictions will be correct. :D

Molon Labe
01-02-2012, 05:47 PM
You smokum too much loco weed!:D

never done the stuff....though I do like to have a good brandy and or a glass of quality Bordeaux from time to time.

McCain was pulling around 12% about this time I think.....
Clinton did not even win the Iowa or NH primaries. The only two candidates who have what is needed to go into a long primary is Paul and Romney...that has been made more evident as the last two months have progressed.

Molon Labe
01-02-2012, 05:48 PM
I predict that this prediction about our predictions will be correct. :D

Aren't predictions just great on the internets?

Rockntractor
01-02-2012, 06:16 PM
Where is Lyndon LaRouche when you need him.:(

SarasotaRepub
01-02-2012, 06:27 PM
The Catholic conservatives can fund Gingrich, but cut their losses on Santorum.
The LDS will fund Romney to the Moon.
Ron Paul's fans will cheer him on til the last.

Everyone else in play up to now is history after Iowa.

Neither Romney, Paul, or Gingrich will get the GOP nomination. The savior is waiting in the wings.

Correct.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Gov_Jeb_Bush.jpg/220px-Gov_Jeb_Bush.jpg

JoeKwonDo
01-02-2012, 07:27 PM
Iowa doesn't matter. Never has, never will as long as it sticks with this cacophonious mish-mash thingy called "a caucus". My gawd! It's the day before, and 41% still don't know who they'll "caucus" for!

They misrepresent that 41% Marv - 34% know who their first choice is but can still change their mind and only 7% do not have a first choice, but of course the 41% undecided sells more news.

Rockntractor
01-02-2012, 08:45 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/heil-paul-paul-demotivational-posters-1325551435.jpg

Odysseus
01-02-2012, 10:05 PM
Aren't predictions just great on the internets?

I predicted that you would say that.

noonwitch
01-03-2012, 10:02 AM
I think Ron Paul is going to win Iowa. Mitt will be second.

mike128
01-03-2012, 10:46 AM
Ron Paul has a surprise win in Iowa, Rick Santorum comes in second, Mr. Flip-Flop finishes third, Rick Perry finishes 4th, Newt comes in a disappointing 5th and unfortunately, Michele Bachmann withdraws from the race.

It's really sad for me to say this, because I really like Michele Bachmann. :(

Molon Labe
01-03-2012, 12:13 PM
Ron Paul has a surprise win in Iowa, Rick Santorum comes in second, Mr. Flip-Flop finishes third, Rick Perry finishes 4th, Newt comes in a disappointing 5th and unfortunately, Michele Bachmann withdraws from the race.

It's really sad for me to say this, because I really like Michele Bachmann. :(

Do you know what happens to Romney if he finishes third in Iowa. He loses that 20 point lead in NH. Bye Bye Romney if that's the case....just like in 08.

mike128
01-03-2012, 01:27 PM
Do you know what happens to Romney if he finishes third in Iowa. He loses that 20 point lead in NH. Bye Bye Romney if that's the case....just like in 08.
I hope you're right, Molon Labe. I really hope and pray that you're right.

Molon Labe
01-03-2012, 02:35 PM
I hope you're right, Molon Labe. I really hope and pray that you're right.

just my opinion......but no way Romney is finishing third in Iowa. I think Sanotrum is being way over propped up there...

We'll see tonight.

DumbAss Tanker
01-03-2012, 06:45 PM
Paul will do horrifyingly well, because as Odysseus said, the caucuses are all about intensity.

I am sick to death of hearing Iowa analyzed to pieces on the news and will be glad when the bullshit is over tonight. In particular:

Why does anyone pay attention to the DM Register on the GOP candidate race? The goal of that fishwrapper is to be the voice of the NYT in the MidWest, whatever direction they try to push is always going to be in the direction of whatever they think is good for the Democratic Party.

And polls...essentially meaningless, since the causcuses are decided by a relatively tiny and completely non-representative slice of the electorate. The ones that will go to the caucuses are not the blithely forthcoming unsophisticates that are necessary to make polls valid, even if said polls actually were limited to probable caucus-goers.

Romney's massive attack spending may be isolated from him in a purely-technical legal sense, but not in a way that will fool any semi-sophisitcated voter, and while it may (Or may not) have damaged Gingrich as much as polls would have you believe, I think there is a pretty good chance there will be a backlash on him for being the big-money, backstabbing, politically-rudderless dick that he is...there is something that just defies common sense in a dyed-in-the-wool Lib like Romney benefitting from a (cough) independent (cough) SuperPAC that attacks the other candidates for 'Not being true Conservatives,' in fact it's totally repugnant.

Romney is not going to benefit from all the attacks the way he hopes, but he will splinter the anti-Romney vote, mainly between Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich. Bottom line, only 25% of the GOP actually wants Romney as a candidate, 75% would go for the ABR candidate as long as it isn't Ron Paul. If Santorum nad Gingrich reached an accommodation on sharing the ticket, they'd mop up, and perhaps that will happen before the SC primary, depending on how strong each of them comes out tonight. since NH is so generally conceded to Romney that it's virually meaningless.

Arroyo_Doble
01-03-2012, 07:06 PM
Paul
Santorum
Romney
Newt
Perry
Bachmann
Huntsman


Romney doesn't even equal his 25% share in 2008.

cowboyjack
01-03-2012, 08:24 PM
I believe Romney will squeek by, but do not be surprised if Newt is a close second.

Rockntractor
01-04-2012, 12:28 AM
Paul wins Iowa and it "doesn't count" because Paul wins Iowa.

Paul wins NH and it's a fluke and marginalizes NH as a state.

States become more and more useless to the GOP establishment as Paul wins in more and more of them.

Call it a hunch.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/200905chimp.jpg

Articulate_Ape
01-04-2012, 01:16 AM
He did win. The establishment just doesn't know it yet.

Apocalypse
01-04-2012, 01:18 AM
Perry spoke, said he's heading back to Texas "To Reflect" on the outcome. Sounds like he will be dropping soon.

patriot45
01-04-2012, 01:30 AM
Santorum, Now you gotta beat him!

Kay
01-04-2012, 01:36 AM
Perry spoke, said he's heading back to Texas "To Reflect" on the outcome. Sounds like he will be dropping soon.

He will get my vote if he is still in the race in April.
If not, I'd just as soon keep him as my governor.

Rockntractor
01-04-2012, 01:36 AM
He did win. The establishment just doesn't know it yet.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/chimp.jpg

SaintLouieWoman
01-04-2012, 11:31 AM
Romney "won" alright, by 8 votes. Those were an expensive 8 votes. Santorum was the real winner, coming within 8 votes on a shoestring operation, with no massive support from any PAC's.

However, I received an email from TownHall today, requesting donations for Santorum and urging conservatives to get behind Santorum in opposition to Romney.

This should get interesting.

Molon Labe
01-04-2012, 04:02 PM
Paul won't get the nomination. You can't have a nominee that polls in the single digits nationally.

check out Gallup today.

Interesting that Santorum is still at 8% Nationally.


So he can't really be the nominee.

Rockntractor
01-04-2012, 04:39 PM
check out Gallup today.

Interesting that Santorum is still at 8% Nationally.


So he can't really be the nominee.

He most likely won't be, but then again he isn't an isolationist that even questions whether we should have fought WWII.

Apocalypse
01-05-2012, 12:17 AM
He most likely won't be, but then again he isn't an isolationist that even questions whether we should have fought WWII.
I hope this is the last year we must endure that nut.

mike128
01-07-2012, 11:55 AM
Well look, folks, if it isn't Rick Santorum, then it's going to be Flip-Flop Romney, the creator of the blueprint for Obamacare. So take your pick.

Rockntractor
01-07-2012, 12:00 PM
Well look, folks, if it isn't Rick Santorum, then it's going to be Flip-Flop Romney, the creator of the blueprint for Obamacare. So take your pick.

What you need to do is find the nearest active volcano and throw yourself in as a sacrifice to the gods of the primaries, that will fix it!:cool:

fettpett
01-07-2012, 10:22 PM
What you need to do is find the nearest active volcano and throw yourself in as a sacrifice to the gods of the primaries, that will fix it!:cool:

LMAO

Odysseus
01-08-2012, 01:30 AM
What you need to do is find the nearest active volcano and throw yourself in as a sacrifice to the gods of the primaries, that will fix it!:cool:

I think that they only take virgins. But, then again, how many Paulestinians have ever known the touch of a woman? They're like the political equivalent of hard core trekkies. :D

Generation Why?
01-08-2012, 01:53 PM
I think that they only take virgins. But, then again, how many Paulestinians have ever known the touch of a woman? They're like the political equivalent of hard core trekkies. :D



1. I'm pretty sure I have felt the touch of a woman, but that's off topic haha.
2. What are through thoughts on last night's debate?

JoeKwonDo
01-08-2012, 02:13 PM
2. What are through thoughts on last night's debate?

My post from another site...

Just watched second of the back-to-back debates and the main take away from both is that they could not find six worse moderators.

Some of the worst, most partisan and obtuse questions (see George snufalupakus and contraceptives).

Have to wonder if Diane Sawyer w a s o n s o m e d r u g that caused her to be almost in a trance.

David Gregory might as well have described himself os an Obama staffer. LOL'ed @ Chris "Wet Leg" Matthews gushing over him. Bet he needs new pants again. And where did they find the two locals they brought in? LOL Gregory did do his best to incite attacks on Romney though


Trap questions aside - my 2 cents

Romney - did just fine and the other guys probably should at least start putting concession thoughts in their notebooks to prepare.

Newt - when he stays upbeat and answers questions is great, when he gets snarky looks every bit a jerk and a hypocrit

Santorum - Has mostly good positions, needs a LOT more polish still. I am concerned he would lose to Oblabber.

Paul - was at his most insane last night and more balanced this a.m., maybe he is a morning person??

Perry - Needs work, I would save his leftover campaign contribution money and try again in 4/8 years.

Huntsman - Thanks for your son's service in the Navy. Time to change the oil in your hair. Puhleeze take your 240 votes and go the #$%^ away.

Odysseus
01-08-2012, 03:40 PM
1. I'm pretty sure I have felt the touch of a woman, but that's off topic haha.
2. What are through thoughts on last night's debate?

I'm pretty much debated out. I find them useful for seeing how well a candidate can think on his feet, but otherwise, I've found that going over their voting records and past positions is more useful for making a determination of which of them is the closest to my values and who I think would make the right decisions in office.

Given that, I tend to look for several things, which the debates won't provide, but which history does:


Constitutionalism: Does this candidate understand that the Constitution places limits on the powers of the federal government? Does this candidate take them seriously?

Of the candidates still in play, I think that all of them do, although I have misgivings about Romney and Huntsman. I think that Gingrich is probably the most knowledgeable about the Constitution and its history, and the intent of the founders.

Situational Awareness: We are currently in a very different world from the one that existed three decades ago. The collapse of the USSR has changed the dynamic in ways that few people understand. I've been using a chessboard as an analogy: If one player leaves the board, but his pieces remain, with all of their capabilities, how does the game change? Since the first Gulf War, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, something that he'd never have done if he were still a Soviet client, we're seeing actions by regional players that are incomprehensible in a Cold War paradigm, but make perfect sense if you use the chessboard analogy. Given this, what are the risks to America and American interests in the chess board era? How have our interests changed? Which of the candidates gets this?

Of the candidates remaining, Ron Paul is probably the least situationally aware candidate. Gingrich is probably the most, with Romney and Santorum close behind.

Executive Experience: Does this candidate know how to run a huge bureaucracy? Can they get things done in Washington, or will the permanent ruling class run them in circles?

Paul and Santorum fall short here. Huntsman and Romney have been governors, and Gingrich probably knows more about the ins and outs of legislation than any presidential candidate this side of Lyndon Johnson.

Philosophy: Does the candidate understand America as an exceptional nation, one that cannot simply be one nation of many, but which is a global leader, and which cannot shirk the responsibilities that this entails.

Again, I have my doubts about Ron Paul. Huntsman doesn't strike me as particularly passionate about America, and Romney doesn't strike me as particularly passionate about anything. Gingrich and Santorum win this one hands down.

Personal Ethics and Values: Does the candidate walk the walk, or do they just talk the talk? Do they have serious core beliefs that they will fight for in the face of strident, vicious opposition? By the same token, can the be convinced when they are wrong, or do they stubbornly cling to the same ideas, even when no longer valid?

Here's where Romney and Huntsman lose me. I just don't believe that they genuinely believe in anything over and above their own abilities to govern, which, given the national situation, is dangerous. We need someone who is genuinely outraged by the policies that have brought us here, and who is willing to fight the establishment in government, business and the media to reverse those trends. Romney strikes me more as a technocrat who thinks that he can fix things within the context of the current policies, he's a fixer rather than a game-changer. Paul is genuinely outraged, but his understanding of the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Santorum and Gingrich get it, and of the two, Gingrich has actually successfully worked at reversing governmental trends before.


BTW, before I made this list, I hadn't really decided who I was going to support in the primaries, only who I didn't want. But now that I have, I'm leaning towards Gingrich, with Santorum second, Romney third and Paul as fourth, narrowly ahead of Huntsman.

Kay
01-08-2012, 03:50 PM
Spot on summary of how it went Joe.

Perry just slays me. He just can't keep form throwing in at least
one WTF moment in every debate. This time saying he would
send troops back into Iraq. I understand what he was intending
by that, but it comes out so wrong the way he says things and
makes himself look like an idiot.

I thought Ron Paul got a good zinger in on Newt about serving
in the military. Newt said his father was serving but he didn't
because he had a son. Paul came back with "I had two kids and
when I was called I went."

Molon Labe
01-08-2012, 05:39 PM
The media is propping up Huntsman in NH. Probably going to double his 12% he had going into this last week.

Pretty pathetic how people can make such important decisions 2 days before a primary. :rolleyes:

PPP poll comes out at midnight. Only hope people have is he cut into Romney's numbers

final results

Romney
Paul
Huntsman
Gingrich
Santorum
Perry

JoeKwonDo
01-08-2012, 06:03 PM
To Kay - You nicely cut the whole debate down to the two highlights of the night!


Philosophy: Does the candidate understand America as an exceptional nation, one that cannot simply be one nation of many, but which is a global leader, and which cannot shirk the responsibilities that this entails.

Again, I have my doubts about Ron Paul. Huntsman doesn't strike me as particularly passionate about America, and Romney doesn't strike me as particularly passionate about anything. Gingrich and Santorum win this one hands down.

Personal Ethics and Values: Does the candidate walk the walk, or do they just talk the talk? Do they have serious core beliefs that they will fight for in the face of strident, vicious opposition? By the same token, can the be convinced when they are wrong, or do they stubbornly cling to the same ideas, even when no longer valid?.

Nice write up Odysseus, I disagree, but it is a difference of style versus substance and we simply diverge there.

I like Newt, but how he handled himself since his numbers declined showed ME (highlighted to discern opinion) something about how he reacts to duress and it was not impressive at all. He acts like a hurt little kid and he seems willing to destroy Romney or his other opponents regardless to what it will do to the right in the National Election, you cannot be any further from Reagan than that! That said, he still is in my top three.

Where you think Rick Santorum shows passion, I see a bit of a wishy washy guy and I have watched him for awhile as I grew up in PA and still have roots there. Agan, it is strictly opinion and does not mean my opinion is better than yours; just different. I could very easily be a strong Santorum supporter and have more than once thought to myself, is he the next Reagan? But given the importance of getting Obama out of there, I am not inclined to risk a Santorum nomination today. He has time to get better and if he does not stay with it, then he doesn't have it in him anyway! How many times did Reagan run before he got the nomination.

That leaves me with Romney - What you feel is a lack of passion to me is a steadiness that the country and frankly the world could use right now. For all of Oblabbers charisma, it cannot over come his lack of ability. I really think that you are being a bit unfair to all of these people including Bachmann and even dickweed Obama for that matter by saying they lack passion for this. Why would anyone submit to this abuse otherwise? But again that is taste and perception and we choose to look at them differently.

I have watched Romney since he took over the Olympics and have alway's thought highly of him. I supported Giuliani last time around (2008) having lived over twenty years just outside of New York and watching him get that city under control and of course with 9/11. My wife supported Romney and I have since realized she was right about his resolve and his steadiness and I am not going to make the same McCain type mistake again.

/SoapBox

JoeKwonDo
01-08-2012, 06:09 PM
Pretty pathetic how people can make such important decisions 2 days before a primary. :rolleyes:


This post struck a chord with me ML.

Especially the folks that say they have no opinion until they reach their final decision. WTF are independents truly that wishy/washy???

I would really be interested in hearing from someone who operates that way. I always have an opinion floating around in my mind even if I am undecided between several choices and cannot believe that someone sincerely has no thought as to whom their favorite is until election day...

Odysseus
01-08-2012, 10:14 PM
To Kay - You nicely cut the whole debate down to the two highlights of the night!



Nice write up Odysseus, I disagree, but it is a difference of style versus substance and we simply diverge there.

I like Newt, but how he handled himself since his numbers declined showed ME (highlighted to discern opinion) something about how he reacts to duress and it was not impressive at all. He acts like a hurt little kid and he seems willing to destroy Romney or his other opponents regardless to what it will do to the right in the National Election, you cannot be any further from Reagan than that! That said, he still is in my top three.

Where you think Rick Santorum shows passion, I see a bit of a wishy washy guy and I have watched him for awhile as I grew up in PA and still have roots there. Agan, it is strictly opinion and does not mean my opinion is better than yours; just different. I could very easily be a strong Santorum supporter and have more than once thought to myself, is he the next Reagan? But given the importance of getting Obama out of there, I am not inclined to risk a Santorum nomination today. He has time to get better and if he does not stay with it, then he doesn't have it in him anyway! How many times did Reagan run before he got the nomination.

That leaves me with Romney - What you feel is a lack of passion to me is a steadiness that the country and frankly the world could use right now. For all of Oblabbers charisma, it cannot over come his lack of ability. I really think that you are being a bit unfair to all of these people including Bachmann and even dickweed Obama for that matter by saying they lack passion for this. Why would anyone submit to this abuse otherwise? But again that is taste and perception and we choose to look at them differently.

I have watched Romney since he took over the Olympics and have alway's thought highly of him. I supported Giuliani last time around (2008) having lived over twenty years just outside of New York and watching him get that city under control and of course with 9/11. My wife supported Romney and I have since realized she was right about his resolve and his steadiness and I am not going to make the same McCain type mistake again.

/SoapBox
My problem with Romney isn't about competence, which he has in spades, it's his philosophical approach to government. I'm afraid that he'll approach the federal mess with the same can-do attitude that he's brought to everything else, but without a clear understanding of the sheer volume of what is wrong in Washington. The last thing that the country needs right now is a guy who can patch up the holes but keep the leviathan going, and that's where I'm afraid Romney's technocratic bent will take him. Don't get me wrong, I respect his record of accomplishment, I just have serious reservations about his ideological approach, or lack of same, to government.

BTW, as a New Yorker, I experienced Rudy's administration firsthand, and supported him in 2008. In fact, I think that he'd be an incredibly effective president, and as the only NYC Mayor ever to enact real spending cuts, I think that he'd be a natural to bring federal spending under control. He also has a strong understanding of where America stands in the world and doesn't mince words when dealing with unadulterated evil (he had the guts to tell Arafat off when the rest of the government was pretending that he was a partner in the peace process, and returned an Arab prince's $10 million contribution to the city after that prince made some typically wrong-headed comments about 9/11). And while he considers himself socially liberal, the number of abortions that the city financed declined under Rudy, and he didn't take any crap from gay activists when he went after the bathhouses in order to get a handle on the AIDS epidemic. Anybody that was as hated by the NY Times as Rudy was has obviously got game. Unfortunately, it appears that both you and I were more enthusiastic about his candidacy than he was.

This post struck a chord with me ML.

Especially the folks that say they have no opinion until they reach their final decision. WTF are independents truly that wishy/washy???

I would really be interested in hearing from someone who operates that way. I always have an opinion floating around in my mind even if I am undecided between several choices and cannot believe that someone sincerely has no thought as to whom their favorite is until election day...

Those kinds of independents are basically casual voters who don't follow politics and don't really know a whole lot about it. When one of us is conflicted between candidates, it's because we're genuinely trying to weigh the pros and cons of each candidate and look into their records. In this cycle, we've got a number of imperfect candidates, and nobody who really sets the world on fire. The one thing that I think that we can all agree on is that no matter which Republicans we don't want, none of them will be worse than Obama. Even Ron Paul.

Kay
01-08-2012, 10:31 PM
Rudy was my guy too. Wouldn't it be fascinating if we could do
a time shift and see what the world would have looked like today
if we'd had a President Rudy.

Odysseus
01-08-2012, 11:29 PM
Rudy was my guy too. Wouldn't it be fascinating if we could do
a time shift and see what the world would have looked like today
if we'd had a President Rudy.

Well, the national debt would probably be about half of what it is, unemployment would be back under 6%, we'd be maintaining a cadre force in Iraq, the Taliban wouldn't be counting down the clock until our withdrawal from Afghanistan, Bin Laden would have been taken alive and waterboarded until he had more surf time than the Beach Boys, the Iranian resistance would have gotten our backing against the mullahs and might have overthrown them, and the various other enemies of the US would be on notice that we are not to be played.

JoeKwonDo
01-09-2012, 12:03 AM
My problem with Romney isn't about competence, which he has in spades, it's his philosophical approach to government. I'm afraid that he'll approach the federal mess with the same can-do attitude that he's brought to everything else, but without a clear understanding of the sheer volume of what is wrong in Washington. The last thing that the country needs right now is a guy who can patch up the holes but keep the leviathan going, and that's where I'm afraid Romney's technocratic bent will take him. Don't get me wrong, I respect his record of accomplishment, I just have serious reservations about his ideological approach, or lack of same, to government.

BTW, as a New Yorker, I experienced Rudy's administration firsthand, and supported him in 2008. In fact, I think that he'd be an incredibly effective president, and as the only NYC Mayor ever to enact real spending cuts, I think that he'd be a natural to bring federal spending under control. He also has a strong understanding of where America stands in the world and doesn't mince words when dealing with unadulterated evil (he had the guts to tell Arafat off when the rest of the government was pretending that he was a partner in the peace process, and returned an Arab prince's $10 million contribution to the city after that prince made some typically wrong-headed comments about 9/11). And while he considers himself socially liberal, the number of abortions that the city financed declined under Rudy, and he didn't take any crap from gay activists when he went after the bathhouses in order to get a handle on the AIDS epidemic. Anybody that was as hated by the NY Times as Rudy was has obviously got game. Unfortunately, it appears that both you and I were more enthusiastic about his candidacy than he was.


Those kinds of independents are basically casual voters who don't follow politics and don't really know a whole lot about it. When one of us is conflicted between candidates, it's because we're genuinely trying to weigh the pros and cons of each candidate and look into their records. In this cycle, we've got a number of imperfect candidates, and nobody who really sets the world on fire. The one thing that I think that we can all agree on is that no matter which Republicans we don't want, none of them will be worse than Obama. Even Ron Paul.

Excellent response to both posts - Thanx

linda22003
01-09-2012, 09:42 AM
I like Newt, but how he handled himself since his numbers declined showed ME (highlighted to discern opinion) something about how he reacts to duress and it was not impressive at all. He acts like a hurt little kid

Exactly. This is the pouting "I got a bad seat on Air Force One" Newtie that we saw back in '95.

Odysseus
01-09-2012, 10:26 AM
Exactly. This is the pouting "I got a bad seat on Air Force One" Newtie that we saw back in '95.

That was a case of selective reporting. Gingrich and Dole had gone on AF1 in order to talk to Clinton about averting a government shut down, but he wouldn't meet with them during the flight, and spent it hanging out up front while the congressmen were kept in the back and not permitted to go up and talk to him. Gingrich complained about the snub, and the press picked up the part about the seating, but not the fact that he was supposed to be negotiating and that Clinton had deliberately blocked any meaningful action in order to provoke the crisis.

linda22003
01-09-2012, 10:29 AM
In other words, they outmaneuvered him.

Rockntractor
01-09-2012, 10:36 AM
In other words, they outmaneuvered him.

Yes they chained him up in the tower so he couldn't see the king, that is outmaneuvering him.:rolleyes:

Odysseus
01-09-2012, 10:40 AM
In other words, they outmaneuvered him.

Pretty much. although it was Lars Erik Nelson, the NY Daily News columnist, who did the legwork by spinning the story to absolve Clinton of all responsibility. The News even ran the notorious front page cartoon of Newt as a crybaby, but this characterization was a media invention. Newt came off of a 25-hour trip in which Clinton had refused to deal with a critical government issue, and complained about the shabby treatment that he'd received.

Of course, this was back when the alternative media barely existed. If this had happened today, the blogs would have carried Gingrich's side of it, and the administration would have had to at least explain why they didn't meet with the congressional leaders. To put this another way, imagine what would have happened if Bush had refused to meet with Pelosi and Reid under similar circumstances.

On edit: Here's the relevant excerpt from Nelson's article. He was a classic lefty who delighted in skewering Republicans, and the slant is obvious:


Here was Newt Gingrich, leader of the Republican Revolution and defender of civilization on this planet, forced to sit for 25 hours in the back of Air Force One, waiting for President Clinton to stop by and negotiate a budget deal. But Clinton never came back. So Gingrich, in his rage, drafted two resolutions that forced Clinton to bring the federal government to a grinding halt.

The extraordinary behind-the-scenes tale Gingrich told yesterday morning at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast is either comedy or tragedy, or junior high school cafeteria intrigue, take your pick. It surely was not what you expect to hear from the stewards of your government.

Gingrich had been invited aboard Air Force One last week to fly to the funeral of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. With a budget crisis pending, he expected Clinton would take time out during the flight to talk about a possible solution.

But Clinton, who seemed to be genuinely grieving over Rabin's death, stayed up front in a cabin with former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George Bush on both the outward-bound and return trips.

Then, when the plane landed at Andrews Air Force base outside Washington, Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole were asked to deplane by gasp! the rear door.

"This is petty," Gingrich confessed. "I'm going to say up front it's petty, but I think it's human. When you land at Andrews and you've been on the plane for 25 hours and nobody has talked to you and they ask you to get off by the back ramp . . . you just wonder, where is their sense of manners, where is their sense of courtesy?"

And, of course, the front page image that accompanied the article:

http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2012/01/06/Newtcryedit/large.jpg

Zuckerman, the Daily News owner and publisher, was a huge Clinton supporter. Is it any surprise that this is how they covered the story?

linda22003
01-09-2012, 11:21 AM
No particular surprise, but Newt is always tetchy when things don't go his way. He's not one to stoically take it in silence. The latest was his whining at the debate Saturday night: "I guess the red light doesn't MATTER if you're the FRONT runner."

AmPat
01-09-2012, 11:40 AM
In other words, they outmaneuvered him.


Yes they chained him up in the tower so he couldn't see the king, that is outmaneuvering him.:rolleyes:
In other words: He feared Gingrich and had no faith in his own abilities to defend his position.

Molon Labe
01-09-2012, 01:18 PM
This post struck a chord with me ML.

Especially the folks that say they have no opinion until they reach their final decision. WTF are independents truly that wishy/washy???

I would really be interested in hearing from someone who operates that way. I always have an opinion floating around in my mind even if I am undecided between several choices and cannot believe that someone sincerely has no thought as to whom their favorite is until election day...

How about the numbers at the entrance polls that 38% went INTO the caucus on the day of the election as "undecided".

That means that someone or something convinced them who they should vote for in a couple of hour time frame.

Apocalypse
01-10-2012, 09:22 PM
Well its over in NH.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/Dispel_Illusions/Capture-3.jpg

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=Aij2NHQp29AItKIF2Pmc036bvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTMxOTZ hbG0yBGcDaWQtMTE0OTkzOARpbnRsA3VzBG1wb3MDMTAxBHBrZ 3QDNwRwa2d2AzI4BHBvcwMzBHNlYwN0ZC1vZmwEc2xrA3JlbC1 0aXRsZQR0ZXN0AzcwMQR3b2UDMTI3ODA0Mzc-/SIG=11knaeds1/EXP=1326330976/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/elections/

Looks like Romney ran away with it, and Paul did respectable well (Damn).

Perry got 1% I think he's done after this. Santorum got 10%, he's going to have to do well in SC to keep going or he's done too.

Articulate_Ape
01-10-2012, 09:45 PM
Yeah, "damn".

Rockntractor
01-10-2012, 09:46 PM
Paul wins Iowa and it "doesn't count" because Paul wins Iowa.

Paul wins NH and it's a fluke and marginalizes NH as a state.

States become more and more useless to the GOP establishment as Paul wins in more and more of them.

Call it a hunch.

Oh well, you lose some and you lose some!:D
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/CRW_2648Gorillapickinghisnose.jpg
You know how to pick um!

Articulate_Ape
01-10-2012, 09:47 PM
If Romney is the best we can do, then we really need to rethink things, people. Really.

Articulate_Ape
01-10-2012, 09:48 PM
Oh well, you lose some and you lose some!:D

You know how to pick um!

So you are a Romney fan now? I would say we all lost tonight. I would add that Paul came in second. Did you see that coming a few years ago?

Rockntractor
01-10-2012, 09:58 PM
So you are a Romney fan now? I would say we all lost tonight. I would add that Paul came in second. Did you see that coming a few years ago?

My man dropped out long ago, I'm for whoever they nominate.
What does second win him?:confused:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/imagesqtbnANd9GcT1EVf35kkaD4jPq7aPMHzmZmJbyuI86BYK FEXAbRf1f5Gvr2zePAxsXqMZ.jpg

ABC in Georgia
01-10-2012, 10:40 PM
My 2 cent's worth of opinion:

Didn't really have the sound on for most of the coverage, as it drives hubby up the wall, and just glanced at the bottom of the screen.

Didn't really care which candidate won as long as it wasn't Ron Paul, I am happy!

Still think Gingrich is more intelligent than the whole rest of them combined ... but that is neither here nor there.

Unbelievably, at this stage of the game (oh hush up, Huntsman! ... speaking now) at this crucial time in our country's future, I just want anyone that can beat Obama. Sad to say, but true.

~ ABC

Rockntractor
01-10-2012, 10:47 PM
Didn't really care which candidate won as long as it wasn't Ron Paul, I am happy!


~ ABC

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/old-shoe-for-president-pres-demotivational-posters-1326249930.jpg

ABC in Georgia
01-10-2012, 10:50 PM
:D

Where do I contribute?

~ ABC

Odysseus
01-11-2012, 12:49 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/old-shoe-for-president-pres-demotivational-posters-1326249930.jpg

A candidate with real soul is much better than the current heel in the White House. I'm going to toe the party line on this one.

JoeKwonDo
01-11-2012, 12:56 AM
If Romney is the best we can do, then we really need to rethink things, people. Really.

We will be just fine, stout hearts!

Articulate_Ape
01-11-2012, 01:25 AM
We will be just fine, stout hearts!

That's what the Mayans said.

Tecate
01-11-2012, 05:24 AM
If Romney is the best we can do, then we really need to rethink things, people. Really.

Romney’s top contributor: Goldman Sachs, Ron Paul’s: US Army
(http://milwaukeestory.com/index.php/2012/01/02/romneys-top-contributer-goldman-sachs-ron-pauls-us-army-346/)

So whether it's Obama or Romney, Goldman Sachs maintains (buys) most favored looter status from either puppet.

The very same folks who stole trillions from the American people with the zombie banker bailout own both candidates, but I guess that's okay since they're doing "God's Work".

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Loveways/GodMoney4.jpg

Molon Labe
01-11-2012, 08:39 AM
Romney’s top contributor: Goldman Sachs, Ron Paul’s: US Army
(http://milwaukeestory.com/index.php/2012/01/02/romneys-top-contributer-goldman-sachs-ron-pauls-us-army-346/)

So whether it's Obama or Romney, Goldman Sachs maintains (buys) most favored looter status from either puppet.

The very same folks who stole trillions from the American people with the zombie banker bailout own both candidates, but I guess that's okay since they're doing "God's Work".


Guess the Repub establishment will win again. I said if the GOP didn't learn this time around I would not stay involved. If Romney's the nominee, looks like I'm staying home or voting third party again.

JoeKwonDo
01-11-2012, 09:35 AM
And I used to think the right was smarter than the left :mad:

JoeKwonDo
01-11-2012, 09:36 AM
That's what the Mayans said.

I suppose you were there? Dumb

linda22003
01-11-2012, 09:52 AM
Guess the Repub establishment will win again. I said if the GOP didn't learn this time around I would not stay involved. If Romney's the nominee, looks like I'm staying home or voting third party again.

So, you're supporting Obama. :(

AmPat
01-11-2012, 11:06 AM
So, you're supporting Obama. :(

That's about the size of it. So far, him, Mike128, and all the liberals living and dead.

JoeKwonDo
01-11-2012, 01:06 PM
That's about the size of it. So far, him, Mike128, and all the liberals living and dead.

Exactly - well put

Molon Labe
01-11-2012, 01:33 PM
So, you're supporting Obama. :(


um...no.

Rockntractor
01-11-2012, 01:41 PM
um...no.

Try a little logic sometime.

Molon Labe
01-11-2012, 01:43 PM
Try a little logic sometime.

enlighten me

Arroyo_Doble
01-11-2012, 01:44 PM
So, you're supporting Obama. :(

He said he would either sit it out or vote third party. That is not supporting Obama.

Rockntractor
01-11-2012, 01:47 PM
enlighten me

Impossible, did you notice Dolby agrees with you?

Arroyo_Doble
01-11-2012, 01:48 PM
I was feeling cynical last night so I looked this up.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jQT7_rVxAE

Molon Labe
01-11-2012, 02:01 PM
Impossible, did you notice Dolby agrees with you?

Ask me if I care?

Go ahead and vote for Mr. Mittens "Goldman Sachs Jr" if you want.....Have fun when the whole rotten thing comes crashing down and "conservatism" is to blame.


He said he would either sit it out or vote third party. That is not supporting Obama.

No...you gotta see that it only applies to me. There are about a dozen others who've posted that if someone like Paul or Bachman is the nominee they will sit out. They are called "principled" and aren't dimed out...and are good little Patriots..


Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the
sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Quincy Adams
To vote is to express a preference.

1. I should vote for a candidate that holds my ideals and beliefs and to give that person legitimacy to govern.

2. Candidate does not represent my ideals and beliefs and is not legitimate in my view and does not deserve to govern

3. I should not vote for this candidate.

4. Therefore I do not give said candidate legitimacy over me and coercion over others.

Cry me a river to people telling me I have to vote "against" the other guy rather than "for" someone...and if you don't, well...then your supporting the other guy.

There's the logic......

linda22003
01-11-2012, 02:34 PM
He said he would either sit it out or vote third party. That is not supporting Obama.

Either course of action strengthens the vote for Obama, so he might as well have a yard sign. :rolleyes:

linda22003
01-11-2012, 02:37 PM
To vote is to express a preference.



Maybe in the primaries. After that it's just to defeat the opposition.

JoeKwonDo
01-11-2012, 02:37 PM
He said he would either sit it out or vote third party. That is not supporting Obama.

The only thing that thought process isn't doing is actually casting a vote for Obama, everyone that takes away from the nominee does the same harm. Statement votes are, always have been and always will be stupid cop-outs.

I've heard the argument - the pie in the sky wish that letting Obama win again will convince the public even more that they need to go hard conservative. Finishing second ain't worth dick...

Arroyo_Doble
01-11-2012, 02:37 PM
Either course of action strengthens the vote for Obama, so he might as well have a yard sign. :rolleyes:

I am familiar with the argument (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=325940&postcount=12)

Molon Labe
01-11-2012, 03:04 PM
Either course of action strengthens the vote for Obama, so he might as well have a yard sign. :rolleyes:

And.....ditto to anyone voting for Romney. Look. Mitt can't win against Obama. I don't care what poll you try to site. Conservatives and Independants will not come out for this clown.....just like McCain in 08'.

GOP's learned nothing.

Voting for Mittens strenghthens the vote for Obama. What is the difference between a New England RINO lefty?

Wait till that George Soros money comes rolling in and they run ads on "Romneycare just like Obama care"..."For the bailouts"......and how he's flipped on every issue for decades.... There'll be blood in the water.

Arroyo_Doble
01-11-2012, 03:07 PM
And.....ditto to anyone voting for Romney. Look. Mitt can't win against Obama. I don't care what poll you try to site. Conservatives and Independants will not come out for this clown.....just like McCain in 08'.

GOP's learned nothing.

Voting for Mittens strenghthens the vote for Obama. What is the difference between a New England RINO lefty?

Wait till that George Soros money comes rolling in and they run ads on "Romneycare just like Obama care"..."For the bailouts"......and how he's flipped on every issue for decades.... There'll be blood in the water.

I think the attacks on (the fantastically named) Bain will be a bigger hit to Romney in the general election.

The conservative media really went nutsack crazy over Newt's apostasy. That leads me to believe it will have resonance.

Molon Labe
01-11-2012, 03:34 PM
I think the attacks on (the fantastically named) Bain will be a bigger hit to Romney in the general election.

The conservative media really went nutsack crazy over Newt's apostasy. That leads me to believe it will have resonance.

I forgot about Bain. That personally doesn't matter to me, but it will matter to voters.

GOP in 4 years has learned nothing from McCain...

They think a McCain clone....who isn't a combat veteran, but a draft dodger....and isn't a South Western, but a New England libtard dressed up in a GOP suit and tie......who doesn't even have a personality, is going to beat Obey me.


The way I'm reading this non logic is.... I should vote for "Idiot", with 48% chance of winning or "Moron" with a 47% chance...who is slightly less stupid than "Idiot"......but if I choose Einstein with 5% chance, then I've either thrown my vote away or I'm for the Idiot? :rolleyes:

If me voting on principle is voting for Obama then so was anyone who voted for McCain and now Romney.

RobJohnson
01-12-2012, 04:34 AM
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3010/mittn.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/141/mittn.png/)

AmPat
01-12-2012, 11:37 AM
I forgot about Bain. That personally doesn't matter to me, but it will matter to voters.

GOP in 4 years has learned nothing from McCain...

They think a McCain clone....who isn't a combat veteran, but a draft dodger....and isn't a South Western, but a New England libtard dressed up in a GOP suit and tie......who doesn't even have a personality, is going to beat Obey me.


The way I'm reading this non logic is.... I should vote for "Idiot", with 48% chance of winning or "Moron" with a 47% chance...who is slightly less stupid than "Idiot"......but if I choose Einstein with 5% chance, then I've either thrown my vote away or I'm for the Idiot? :rolleyes:

If me voting on principle is voting for Obama then so was anyone who voted for McCain and now Romney.

Whatever excuse gives you comfort under the second coronation of Emperor O Blah Blah.:rolleyes:

AmPat
01-12-2012, 11:40 AM
He said he would either sit it out or vote third party. That is not supporting Obama.

Point!


_________________________

:smilie_wall:
AD's head.

AmPat
01-12-2012, 11:42 AM
Ask me if I care?

Go ahead and vote for Mr. Mittens "Goldman Sachs Jr" if you want.....Have fun when the whole rotten thing comes crashing down and "conservatism" is to blame.



No...you gotta see that it only applies to me. There are about a dozen others who've posted that if someone like Paul or Bachman is the nominee they will sit out. They are called "principled" and aren't dimed out...and are good little Patriots..


To vote is to express a preference.

1. I should vote for a candidate that holds my ideals and beliefs and to give that person legitimacy to govern.

2. Candidate does not represent my ideals and beliefs and is not legitimate in my view and does not deserve to govern

3. I should not vote for this candidate.

4. Therefore I do not give said candidate legitimacy over me and coercion over others.

Cry me a river to people telling me I have to vote "against" the other guy rather than "for" someone...and if you don't, well...then your supporting the other guy.

There's the logic......
Your wasted principles will serve master O Blah Blah well.:cool:

Molon Labe
01-12-2012, 12:54 PM
Your wasted principles will serve master O Blah Blah well.:cool:

This ^ represents why Washington never changes. People get the government they deserve.

Principles are never wasted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

Kay
01-12-2012, 02:27 PM
No, that ^ is why Washington never changes. People who are so hard headed
about not bending on principal even when they are facing immineint defeat.
A wise man realizes when it comes down to it and he can't win on principal
it's better to stay in the game and minimize the damage with the next best
outcome rather than just walking away to let the chips fall where they may.

Molon Labe
01-12-2012, 05:53 PM
No, that ^ is why Washington never changes. People who are so hard headed
about not bending on principal even when they are facing immineint defeat.
A wise man realizes when it comes down to it and he can't win on principal
it's better to stay in the game and minimize the damage with the next best
outcome rather than just walking away to let the chips fall where they may.

I believe you need to reread the quote further up from Adams. You always win on principal. I'd say he's a wise man. I'll take the founders wisdom and principals over most ANY politician we have today.

You described exactly what's been going on for our entire lifetime. A game. And you're suggesting we keep playing it.

Worked out really well hasn't it? Cause the Republican party has done so darn well to reduce the size of government and limit socialism, and protect the free markets, protect us, and give us individual choices and liberty.

You keep on voting for the lesser of two evils hoping to minimize the damage. Because over time you can only chip away at the structure for so long until it's not there anymore.

AmPat
01-12-2012, 06:58 PM
No, that ^ is why Washington never changes. People who are so hard headed
about not bending on principal even when they are facing immineint defeat.
A wise man realizes when it comes down to it and he can't win on principal
it's better to stay in the game and minimize the damage with the next best
outcome rather than just walking away to let the chips fall where they may.
Melon Lube believes his principles will single-handedly fix the pervasive problems of Washington. He is smarter than the rest of us and we will soon see the wisdom of his ways under a second O Blah Blah 4 year term. He is the Paragon of Virtue and the standard by which the rest of us mortals shall be judged.

AmPat
01-12-2012, 07:03 PM
I believe you need to reread the quote further up from Adams. You always win on principal. I'd say he's a wise man. I'll take the founders wisdom and principals over most ANY politician we have today.

You described exactly what's been going on for our entire lifetime. A game. And you're suggesting we keep playing it.

Worked out really well hasn't it? Cause the Republican party has done so darn well to reduce the size of government and limit socialism, and protect the free markets, protect us, and give us individual choices and liberty.

You keep on voting for the lesser of two evils hoping to minimize the damage. Because over time you can only chip away at the structure for so long until it's not there anymore.

So will we so you can cease with the patting yourself on the back before you throw out your shoulder.:rolleyes: Your patronizing attitude is tiresome. The difference between your fantasy beliefs and our pragmatism is the rest of us know that in our two party system, a wasted vote is paramount to a vote for no change at all. Waste away Sir Virtuous, I prefer to minimize the Marxist's damage in the ONLY system we have.

Odysseus
01-12-2012, 09:01 PM
First, the nomination process isn't over by a long shot. Romney doesn't have it in the bag yet. Second, while Romney is nobody's first choice here, he's still a damned sight better than Obama, and given a choice between a second apocalyptic Obama term and a RINO, well, let's remember that we've survived RINOs before, but outright socialism is a lot harder to undo.

Here's the gut check. If Romney is elected and the senate flips Republican, will he sign off on the repeal of Obamacare? Any candidate that doesn't agree to that will not have my vote. Any candidate that does, will.

Kay
01-12-2012, 10:58 PM
Here's an analogy for you Molon. You suddenly find yourself without a vehicle. You have to do something to get to work and back or you'll lose your job. So you go to a car lot and see a $50K fully loaded pickup you fall in love with and want to buy. You find out you can only get financing to buy up to $5K. The salesman has 2 clunkers sitting there that are almost identical and about the same year model and mileage. All you can do at this point is start looking closely under both hoods and kicking the tires to see which you think will hold up better. You'll hate what you have to drive everyday you're in it but know you're stuck with it until you can trade up again for something better. You know you have to drive off in one or the other.

To use your logic above, you're saying rather than take either of the clunkers you just won't buy anything if you can't have the new one and you'll just spite the whole world by not driving or working at all. You'll show them!

That's about how intelligent you sound above. Like it or not, you will have a new president next year. So you might as well start checking under the hood and decide which Of the two has the better potential to get you through the next 4 years. Cause you will be living under one of them, either Barry or the other guy (who ever it is). You may foolishly opt out of voting, but you don't get to opt out of living under the consequences of the outcome. Better to do what you can to minimize the damage.

Molon Labe
01-12-2012, 11:27 PM
Here's an analogy for you Molon. You suddenly find yourself without a vehicle. You have to do something to get to work and back or you'll lose your job. So you go to a car lot and see a $50K fully loaded pickup you fall in love with and want to buy. You find out you can only get financing to buy up to $5K. The salesman has 2 clunkers sitting there that are almost identical and about the same year model and mileage. All you can do at this point is start looking closely under both hoods and kicking the tires to see which you think will hold up better. You'll hate what you have to drive everyday you're in it but know you're stuck with it until you can trade up again for something better. You know you have to drive off in one or the other.

To use your logic above, you're saying rather than take either of the clunkers you just won't buy anything if you can't have the new one and you'll just spite the whole world by not driving or working at all. You'll show them!

That's about how intelligent you sound above. Like it or not, you will have a new president next year. So you might as well start checking under the hood and decide which Of the two has the better potential to get you through the next 4 years. Cause you will be living under one of them, either Barry or the other guy (who ever it is). You may foolishly opt out of voting, but you don't get to opt out of living under the consequences of the outcome. Better to do what you can to minimize the damage.

Kay. I say this in all sincerity. But you are trapped in the dialectic thinking patterns of limited choices. Your analogy is flawed because I don't limit myself to one lot to buy from. What you fail to see is that what the two parties offer these days is a millimeter of difference. Tax spend...borrow spend.....both prop up the crony capitalists, elite and lobbyists. I don't speak from naivety...I've been involved with local republican politics my entire adult life. I know how the game is played. Found that most of the people I metdon't in thatthe time and most admire in politics are the ones who choose not to.cast a vote for anyone that they felt was less than adequate. Pres come and go...there are still other branches of government to make a stand.

Kay
01-12-2012, 11:42 PM
Your analogy is flawed because I don't limit myself to one lot to buy from.

You are limited to only the one lot to buy from,
unless you want to go shop overseas in another country.
The US of A has only one POTUS lot to shop at.

Molon Labe
01-13-2012, 08:38 AM
You are limited to only the one lot to buy from,
unless you want to go shop overseas in another country.
The US of A has only one POTUS lot to shop at.

There's about a dozen other posts here who've said the exact same thing I have regarding other candidates. Are you going to lecture them as well?

I understand your premise. I reject it. False dichotomy is false.

I'll respect your right to vote for the lesser of two evil stuff and you can respect mine to not vote for any evil.



Sorry for my typing errors and syntax errors in my earlier post.. Plugging in from an Iphone stinks and I don't usually do that. :)

malloc
01-13-2012, 07:59 PM
There's about a dozen other posts here who've said the exact same thing I have regarding other candidates. Are you going to lecture them as well?



The right to vote is just that, a right to be exorcized or not as the owner of the right chooses.

I think that you are correct in thinking that only Paul & Romney have the money, support and organization to stick out the primaries until the end. Paul learned his lessons last go 'round has a better campaign with much better national origination this time. So far as campaign organization goes, he's way ahead of the field save Romney. I'm a little more pragmatic in my approach in voting though. I'll be voting for Paul in the primaries, supporting his bid financially and by campaigning for him at rallies, gun shows, etc. But if he's not the nominee, I'll vote for the nominee. I may not like it, but if the GOP doesn't solidify between primary and general, we will hand Obama another term, which will be exponentially more disastrous than handing Romney a single term.

Personally, I think Romney lacks real substance, and his time as Governor of Massachusetts shows his willingness to go-along-to-get-along approach to governance While not preferred, this can be of use to the libertarian wing of the GOP so long as the makeup of the legislature is more Paul/DeMint and less McCain/Brown.

If Romney wins the nomination, and if he were smart, he'd realize the need to solidify the libertarian wing of the party under the larger GOP banner. Without us little 'l', capital 'R''s the GOP doesn't win races, period. I think that a nominee Romney could accomplish this by offering Paul & Johnson cabinet positions in his administration, Secretaries of the Treasury and Interior come to mind. I'm pretty sure that would wrap up a large portion of the libertarian base for Romney.

Kay
01-13-2012, 11:58 PM
There's about a dozen other posts here who've said the exact same thing I have regarding other candidates. Are you going to lecture them as well?

No. I'm only focused on your rehabilitation at the moment. ;)


I think that a nominee Romney could accomplish this by offering Paul & Johnson cabinet positions in his administration, Secretaries of the Treasury and Interior come to mind. I'm pretty sure that would wrap up a large portion of the libertarian base for Romney.

Agree, and I sure hope Michele Bachman ends up in a cabinet post too.

Molon Labe
01-14-2012, 12:43 PM
No. I'm only focused on your rehabilitation at the moment. ;)

It's going to be hard pressed convincing me that guys like Judge Nap are wrong. They see the big picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0KnWnves