PDA

View Full Version : m00 vs everyone who supports Romney



m00
03-09-2012, 01:21 AM
Seriously, I thought this was conservative underground, not RINO underground. WTH, SarasotaRepub?

I leave for a little bit, and come back and see support for a guy who is basically Obama-light. Wait, actually I think Obama is Romney-light. It's like voting for Stalin because he's "not Hitler."

But seriously, I don't understand how someone can remotely consider themselves a conservative and cast a vote for the guy.

Apocalypse
03-09-2012, 01:24 AM
Easy. We hate obama more.

fettpett
03-09-2012, 01:35 AM
Seriously, I thought this was conservative underground, not RINO underground. WTH, SarasotaRepub?

I leave for a little bit, and come back and see support for a guy who is basically Obama-light. Wait, actually I think Obama is Romney-light. It's like voting for Stalin because he's "not Hitler."

But seriously, I don't understand how someone can remotely consider themselves a conservative and cast a vote for the guy.

there are only a couple that have fully committed to the guy, Kay and Mountian Man. Rest of us are either for Newt, Paul, Santorum or non-committed.

m00
03-09-2012, 01:36 AM
Easy. We hate obama more.

That argument might hold some merit if we were in a general election (although personally, I don't see the point. Their policies would look nearly identical). But why in the world would you want a flip-flopping big government bailout artist, who preaches corporate cronyism and "targeted tax cuts" as your nominee?

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 01:41 AM
I'm not sure at this point why you put this in the thunderdome, it could be viewed in an open forum and if things get nasty we could move it to the dome again. it is actually a well worn topic here and if you would search Mike128 posts I'm sure you'll find your answers.

Apocalypse
03-09-2012, 01:53 AM
That argument might hold some merit if we were in a general election (although personally, I don't see the point. Their policies would look nearly identical). But why in the world would you want a flip-flopping big government bailout artist, who preaches corporate cronyism and "targeted tax cuts" as your nominee?

Look at the race. Now not then. Its kinda settled it will be Mitt.

Paul is only doing this as his last hora. He's not running for his congress seat. He's retiring after this year. In a way, this helps get Rand Paul a little face time and maybe help set him up for running in the future.

Newt is a lost cause. He may be able to preform well in debates, but his baggage is too much, and at this point, the numbers are no longer there to have him win. One can't carry near 80% of the remaining delegates from this point on. And that is what he must do.

Santorum is running out of juice too. Fact he's made it this far is amazing considering he's running on a shoe string budget, little to near no campaign committee. And he's in the same boat as Newt. Needing 77% of the remaining 1304 delegates that are still remaining. Those odds are not good.

Mitt, he may not be a true conservative. But in the grand scheme of things, all he needs is 55.5% of those remaining delegates and he's got the party ticket. Being the betting man I am. I'm doubling down on Mitt.

Zathras
03-09-2012, 01:53 AM
I'm not sure at this point why you put this in the thunderdome, it could be viewed in an open forum and if things get nasty we could move it to the dome again. it is actually a well worn topic here and if you would search Mike128 posts I'm sure you'll find your answers.

And if you keep it up you'll get the same treatment that DUmbass128 gets when he posts his obsessive hatred of Mitt Romney. Don't post the hate and you're clear.

m00
03-09-2012, 01:54 AM
I'm not sure at this point why you put this in the thunderdome, it could be viewed in an open forum and if things get nasty we could move it to the dome again.

Sure. I just didn't want to crap all over the board.

For example, if I made the claim that being a Romney supporter and self-identifying as a principled conservative are mutually exclusive I figured this would be a good location for a thread I was intending to take in that direction.


it is actually a well worn topic here and if you would search Mike128 posts I'm sure you'll find your answers.

Well, it occurred to me that this topic had come up. But I also felt like I didn't want to look up threads that might be stale and engage in thread necromancy.

Zathras
03-09-2012, 01:57 AM
Sure. I just didn't want to crap all over the board.

For example, if I made the claim that being a Romney supporter and self-identifying as a principled conservative are mutually exclusive I figured this would be a good location for a thread I was intending to take in that direction.



Well, it occurred to me that this topic had come up. But I also felt like I didn't want to look up threads that might be stale and engage in thread necromancy.

Don't worry, stick around and I'm sure DUmbass128 will show up posting more of his faux conservative outrage about Romney giving him acne or some other ravings.

SaintLouieWoman
03-09-2012, 01:59 AM
Moo, if you look a bit more carefully at SR's sig line, it says "Go Newt" or something like that. I donated a few bucks to Santorum and get all the follow up messages begging for money. I admire both of them going on despite their slim budgets. I resent the way Romney is buying the primaries and the way he's trashing the other candidates.

There doesn't seem to be any overwhelming support for Romney here, but if it's a choice between Obama and Romney or my dog Darlene, I'd vote for anyone but Obama. I think our dog would do better than the Annointed One, but I'm just prejudiced toward my faithful ole hound dog. Look at my sig line. She's the black dog with the white face. Our Bella would be a good assistant to Darlene. She's the dark grey dog that matches the grey background on our site. :smile-new:

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 01:59 AM
Sure. I just didn't want to crap all over the board.

For example, if I made the claim that being a Romney supporter and self-identifying as a principled conservative are mutually exclusive I figured this would be a good location for a thread I was intending to take in that direction.



Well, it occurred to me that this topic had come up. But I also felt like I didn't want to look up threads that might be stale and engage in thread necromancy.

It's fine here if you like .

m00
03-09-2012, 02:04 AM
Look at the race. Now not then. Its kinda settled it will be Mitt.

Well, I feel like the MSM kind of selected him. The left-wing media. They've been pushing on him hard since the get-go. So has the Republican establishment. My observation is that Romney's being handled with the kid-gloves in exactly the same way that Obama was in '08. When I go watch a CNN video with a panel of "impartial analysts" (2 centrist-democrats and 2 far left liberals) talking about how Romney is "inevitable" (and this was after New Hampshire) and how he's the only credible candidate and that Republicans should all just elect him now and get it over with, it makes me wonder why primary voters are so quick to believe that.

Why take advice from Rachel Maddow on who the best Republican is? I find it seriously messed up that basically the reason conservatives vote for him is because the liberal media has everyone convinced he's the best candidate. Well, not hard to see why when you try and find meaningful differences between his policies and Obama's.

Apocalypse
03-09-2012, 02:13 AM
Well, I feel like the MSM kind of selected him. The left-wing media. They've been pushing on him hard since the get-go. So has the Republican establishment. My observation is that Romney's being handled with the kid-gloves in exactly the same way that Obama was in '08. When I go watch a CNN video with a panel of "impartial analysts" (2 centrist-democrats and 2 far left liberals) talking about how Romney is "inevitable" (and this was after New Hampshire) and how he's the only credible candidate and that Republicans should all just elect him now and get it over with, it makes me wonder why primary voters are so quick to believe that.

Why take advice from Rachel Maddow on who the best Republican is? I find it seriously messed up that basically the reason conservatives vote for him is because the liberal media has everyone convinced he's the best candidate. Well, not hard to see why when you try and find meaningful differences between his policies and Obama's.

Your right, they did early on because they thought he was easier to beat. His Romney care bill and his support of the bailouts they thought could be used against him.

But look at what they pulled recently with they push to support Santorum. From one source I follow, and it has some good points.


Backassward Democratic Endorsements
In a way, Democrats have tipped their hand regarding who they would rather see running against Obama…anybody but Romney.


From Gateway Pundit, the Lefty website Daily Kos sent out an email blast telling Michigan Democrats to vote for Santorum in that State’s open primary. (Assuming Twitter is a legit source in these modern times.)


It was also reported today in the Detroit News that Santorum is appealing to Michigan Democrats as well. Romney fired back saying that was a sleazy move, which is how I’m leaning on it as well.


Santorum defended it by saying he is trying to win over Michigan Democrats not only to win the primary, but to also retain them in a race against Obama. Is that realistic?

Given his propensity to drag out his agenda of Conservative social issues, I highly doubt Santorum is capable of wooing more Dems or Moderates over to his side than could Romney.


Romney’s message focuses more on the economy, the debt, the budget and repealing Obamacare. All issues that most people agree are paramount this election season.


Apparently, Democrats have seen the latest polling data that puts Romney ahead in a head-to-head match-up with Obama. Dems backing Santorum for the primary should serve as an endorsement for Romney…they aren’t going to help defeat Obama. They want to prolong the Republican primary battle and possibly help bring forward a Republican they believe they can defeat.

m00
03-09-2012, 02:14 AM
There doesn't seem to be any overwhelming support for Romney here, but if it's a choice between Obama and Romney or my dog Darlene, I'd vote for anyone but Obama.

Well, that's the thing, right? I greatly fear for Republicans holding their nose and voting Romney in the general. Obama's policies are seriously ruining the country faster than any previous "terrible president." I'm sure we can all agree on this. But if Romney's policies would be no better, or barely/slightly better aren't we just teaching the party that they can put up any establishment limousine liberal with an R next to his name and bankroll him with contributions from the industries that got bailed out by taxpayers, and the Republican base will still vote for him as long as the establishment has done a good enough job demonizing the limousine liberal incumbent with a D next to his name?

m00
03-09-2012, 02:26 AM
Your right, they did early on because they thought he was easier to beat. His Romney care bill and his support of the bailouts they thought could be used against him.

But look at what they pulled recently with they push to support Santorum. From one source I follow, and it has some good points.

Well, the person they really feared was Cain. And also Paul to a lesser degree, who does extremely well against Obama amongst independents and liberals who don't self-identify as Democrat.

I think focusing on "who can beat Obama" is the wrong thing. As I said earlier, I think it's tantamount to a "vote for Stalin unless you want Hitler to win" argument. All the remaining candidates "can" beat Obama, and nobody can predict how the pendulum swings in political campaigns. I personally think both Newt and Paul probably have a far better shot in the general against Obama than Romney. But then again, I don't listen to the MSM for my voting advice (and not saying you do, but the liberals set the tone and framework of political discussions).

But in my mind the important thing is that Obama is beaten by someone who will enact positive change for the country. And Republican voters have different ideas on what that is - Santorum for the social conservatives that care about principles and values, and also evangelical wing of the party. Paul for the small government, pro-freedom / libertarian wing. Gingrinch for the.. I was tempted to make a joke and say "reality wing," but what I really should say is pre-neocon Reagan wing. These are valid discussions, in terms of what should the Republican platform be. What's the soul of the party.

Romney? Yeah, if you want the platform to be "three inches to the right of Obama." I just think it's incredibly short term logic.

SaintLouieWoman
03-09-2012, 02:31 AM
Well, that's the thing, right? I greatly fear for Republicans holding their nose and voting Romney in the general. Obama's policies are seriously ruining the country faster than any previous "terrible president." I'm sure we can all agree on this. But if Romney's policies would be no better, or barely/slightly better aren't we just teaching the party that they can put up any establishment limousine liberal with an R next to his name and bankroll him with contributions from the industries that got bailed out by taxpayers, and the Republican base will still vote for him as long as the establishment has done a good enough job demonizing the limousine liberal incumbent with a D next to his name?
Ordinarily I might agree with you, but these are not ordinary times nor is Obama someone safe to have in a second term with nothing restraining him, no need to pretend to be moderate as he couldn't run again.

Obama is too dangerous. I don't like Romney, but there's nothing in his past to suggest that he hung out with radicals or had a possible hidden agenda to radicalize the country and push it ever closer to a European style philosophy. I don't like his Massachusetts health care plan, but if he pledges to stop Obama care, we have to take a chance. We know that darned plan will not be stopped if Obama is president again.

m00
03-09-2012, 02:34 AM
Ordinarily I might agree with you, but these are not ordinary times nor is Obama someone safe to have in a second term with nothing restraining him, no need to pretend to be moderate as he couldn't run again.

To be honest, I've heard this argument in every election I can remember (from both parties). When are the times ordinary, and the Republican party can get back to voting for conservatives?

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 02:36 AM
And also Paul to a lesser degree, who does extremely well against Obama amongst independents and liberals who don't self-identify as Democrat.



Is this the destination of your little endeavor here?

fettpett
03-09-2012, 02:45 AM
To be honest, I've heard this argument in every election I can remember (from both parties). When are the times ordinary, and the Republican party can get back to voting for conservatives?

I agree, however the real conservatives got bounced out due to various reasons. Cain was the best choice IMHO, but the establishment GOP did not stand behind him when things got tough even when there were real questions about the women accusing him, especially the first one who lives/d in the same building as David Axelrod. However since we don't really have much of a choice now...well it's lesser of the 5 evils, until the general election.

m00
03-09-2012, 02:54 AM
Is this the destination of your little endeavor here?

Not particularly. Full disclosure: In a world where you have Gingrich on one end of the political spectrum and Paul on the other, I'm a centrist.

The destination is that in my lifetime, every candidate since Reagan has gotten progressively worse, in both parties. I think we're at a point where liberal and conservative doesn't even mean anything anymore in a general election. We have really really bad and really really really bad. Every election both parties add another "really" and argue about who is worse. I went back and watched the Reagan/Mondale debates recently, and good lord both those guys are head and shoulders above everyone that has ended up winning a nomination in recent memory.

Bush '41 was kinda meh
Dole and Clinton were okay, but I wouldn't call either great or either terrible (on edit: Clinton and Gingrich worked together to balance the budget. Can you imagine how bizarre that would sound today - John Boehner and Obama work together to balance the budget)
Gore was worse AND Bush '43 was worse
Kerry? I thought we hit a low point but no.
McCain? Okay, now you're killing me. Obama?

What's next? You can chart this on a graph. Every-time I think we can't do worse, we do worse. Republicans are probably an election behind on the "bad" scale. McCain was a Gore, and Romney is a Kerry. So we're in this cycle where the times are always abnormal, and we're always told to hold our nose. But if you compare Romney to say Bill Clinton (who came out and supported the oil pipeline by the way), Clinton is more conservative and solidly a better leader and president than Romney would ever be. That's madness.

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 02:58 AM
Not particularly. Full disclosure: In a world where you have Gingrich on one end of the political spectrum and Paul on the other, I'm a centrist.

The destination is that in my lifetime, every candidate since Reagan has gotten progressively worse, in both parties. I think we're at a point where liberal and conservative doesn't even mean anything anymore in a general election. We have really really bad and really really really bad. Every election both parties add another "really" and argue about who is worse. I went back and watched the Reagan/Mondale debates recently, and good lord both those guys are head and shoulders above everyone that has ended up winning a nomination in recent memory.

Bush '41 was kinda meh
Dole and Clinton were okay, but I wouldn't call either great or either terrible
Gore was worse AND Bush '43 was worse
Kerry? I thought we hit a low point but no.
McCain? Okay, now you're killing me. Obama?

What's next? You can chart this on a graph. Every-time I think we can't do worse, we do worse. Republicans are probably an election behind on the "bad" scale. McCain was a Gore, and Romney is a Kerry. So we're in this cycle where the times are always abnormal, and we're always told to hold our nose. But if you compare to Romney to say Bill Clinton (who came out and supported the oil pipeline by the way), Clinton is more conservative and solidly a better leader and president than Romney would ever be. That's madness.

Who is your choice?

m00
03-09-2012, 03:05 AM
Who is your choice?

Gingrich or Paul. Maybe Santorum if Obama reminds me how terrible he is in the weeks leading to the general election, which he probably will. Because while I disagree with Santorum on pretty much everything, I can at least respect the fact he actually cares about the country.

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 03:11 AM
Gingrich or Paul. Maybe Santorum if Obama reminds me how terrible he is in the weeks leading to the general election, which he probably will. Because while I disagree with Santorum on pretty much everything, I can at least respect the fact he actually cares about the country.

unless something changes drastically before the election it will be santorum or Romney with Romney as the most likely. In the case of the most likely outcome will you be voting for Romney, Obama or stay home(Obama).

m00
03-09-2012, 03:22 AM
unless something changes drastically before the election it will be santorum or Romney with Romney as the most likely. In the case of the most likely outcome will you be voting for Romney, Obama or stay home(Obama).

I have a fantasy where Gingrich and Paul run on a third party ticket. I'd vote for that. I'd heavily donate to that campaign.

But nobody is owed my vote. And I completely reject the notion that staying at home or voting 3rd party is a vote for the "more evil of two evils." Because see if went and posted to left-leaning board, and I claimed to be a Democrat but "I'm sitting this one out" I would be told that staying at home is a vote for Romney. It's not. It's a vote for neither.

I actually think this idea helps Republicans more than Democrats anyway. Obama did not fulfill a single major campaign promise. You can go back and look at his stump speech on youtube. He actually said "deficit spending is treason," and he really went after Bush on this. And what did he do? Spend more than Bush's 8 years in 3.5 years. He promised transparent government, and then told people to pass bills to know what was in them. He promised closing gitmo. He promised ending wars in the middle east. He promised civil liberties, and then went and passed the NDAA which gives the president authority to assassinate US citizens on US soil without any sort of trial or judicial involvement. I have liberal friends, and they aren't happy with Obama for all the above reasons. I point out how awful Obama is and they agree with me. 90% of what the OWS crowd is protesting against is Obama's corporate crony capitalism. But you know, of course the party will say "Hold your nose and vote for Obama! What, you want Romney to win?" It's bogus on the left, and it's bogus on the right.

This is how we got into this political death spiral.

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 03:23 AM
I have a fantasy where Gingrich and Paul run on a third party ticket. I'd vote for that. I'd heavily donate to that campaign.

But nobody is owed my vote. And I completely reject the notion that staying at home or voting 3rd party is a vote for the "more evil of two evils." Because see if went and posted left-leaning board, and I claimed to be a Democrat but "I'm sitting this one out" I would be told that staying at home is a vote for Romney. It's not. It's a vote for neither.

I actually think this idea helps Republicans more than Democrats anyway. Obama did not fulfill a single major campaign promise. You can go back and look at his stump speech on youtube. He actually said "deficit spending is treason," and he really went after Bush on this. And what did he do? Spend more than Bush in 3.5 years. He promised transparent government, and then told people to pass bills to know what was in them. He promised closing gitmo. He promised ending wars in the middle east. He promised civil liberties, and then went and passed the NDAA which gives the president authority to assassinate US citizens on US soil without any sort of trial or judicial involvement. I have liberal friends, and they aren't happy with Obama for all the above reasons. I point out how awful Obama is and they agree with me. 90% of what the OWS crowd is protesting against is Obama's corporate crony capitalism. But you know, of course the party will say "Hold your nose and vote for Obama! What, you want Romney to win?" It's bogus on the left, and it's bogus on the right.

This is how we got into this political death spiral.

I'm really not interested in fantasies.

m00
03-09-2012, 03:31 AM
I'm really not interested in fantasies.

Then ignore the first 3 sentences of my post and read the other 21. Heck, read past the first four words.

Janice
03-09-2012, 03:32 AM
I voted for and contributed to Santorum. Before that I was for Cain. Before that it was Bachmann. But the GOP stacked the deck for the Massachusetts Romulan rino from the git-go. Thats our GOP "leadership" for you.

The GOP doesnt realize our way of life, our constitutional republic really is in peril here. As it stands in the final analysis it will be anybody but 0bama for me and I think a majority of others here. And hopefully 0bama can take that useless idiot Boehner with him. And then McConnell. And make room for conservatives, not these gutless rinos.

SarasotaRepub
03-09-2012, 09:46 AM
Welcome back bud!

I've said it before here, I personally think Obama is going to win a 2nd term and then God help this country.

The RePub field is weak and filled pretend Republicans or nuts. It's really a shame that with all the good
people out there in this land we're stuck with these losers.

I'm sure most of the people on this board could do a better job running this country than the current POTUS. He's nothing more than an empty suit and in way over his widdle head. He isn't a leader, Christ this moron wants to be a "Mother May I" in foreign policy now.

I hope I'm wrong but I'm not optimistic at all.

linda22003
03-09-2012, 09:49 AM
Paul is only doing this as his last hora.

I didn't even know Ron Paul was Jewish!

Bailey
03-09-2012, 09:52 AM
I didn't even know Ron Paul was Jewish!


Oh for the love of pete you dont have to be a spelling nazi every minute of everyday.

linda22003
03-09-2012, 09:53 AM
Romney? Yeah, if you want the platform to be "three inches to the right of Obama." I just think it's incredibly short term logic.

Yes, because in the incredibly short term they have to attract independents, who are freaked out by hard core social conservatives and will run left if that's the choice on the right.

linda22003
03-09-2012, 09:55 AM
Welcome back bud!

I've said it before here, I personally think Obama is going to win a 2nd term and then God help this country.

The RePub field is weak and filled pretend Republicans or nuts. It's really a shame that with all the good
people out there in this land we're stuck with these losers.

I'm sure most of the people on this board could do a better job running this country than the current POTUS. He's nothing more than an empty suit and in way over his widdle head. He isn't a leader, Christ this moron wants to be a "Mother May I" in foreign policy now.

I hope I'm wrong but I'm not optimistic at all.


And that's the whole story in a nutshell. No wonder you run the board.

SarasotaRepub
03-09-2012, 10:03 AM
I didn't even know Ron Paul was Jewish!


:rotfl: I missed that.

Janice
03-09-2012, 11:19 AM
Yes, because in the incredibly short term they have to attract independents, who are freaked out by hard core social conservatives and will run left if that's the choice on the right.

You mean, like they did with Reagan?

linda22003
03-09-2012, 11:38 AM
You mean, like they did with Reagan?

I would never assume that an election would play out exactly the same way a generation later. I would also not assume there's anyone remotely like Reagan in the current race.

linda22003
03-09-2012, 11:39 AM
:rotfl: I missed that.

It's hard to picture Ron doing that circular dance, but you never know. He does keep trim.

Starbuck
03-09-2012, 11:48 AM
I will support the Republican nominee no matter who he is. And the reason for that is, that is where all the rest of the conservatives will be: Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Rand Paul, pick-a-name.....

I will not leave the playing field simply because my choice (Herman Cain) was not selected. If I did that, I would dilute their power.

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 11:49 AM
It's hard to picture Ron doing that circular dance, but you never know. He does keep trim.

Hora may refer to:

Hora (astrology)
Hora (dance)
"Hora" (song)
Hora, any of several Western Classical goddesses, collectively Horae
Hora of Schwarz Stein
Whore in Swedish.
Hour in Spanish.

linda22003
03-09-2012, 11:50 AM
And none of those are "alternative spelling of hurrah". :smile-new:

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 11:51 AM
And none of those are "alternative spelling of hurrah". :smile-new:

I'm going with the Swedish.http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/foolish/foolish015.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

txradioguy
03-09-2012, 12:11 PM
Oh for the love of pete you dont have to be a spelling nazi every minute of everyday.

If she can't prove to herself how much smarter she thinks she is compared to the rest of us her day isn't complete.

Odysseus
03-09-2012, 12:19 PM
I leave for a little bit, and come back and see support for a guy who is basically Obama-light. Wait, actually I think Obama is Romney-light. It's like voting for Stalin because he's "not Hitler."

As I recall, that was a good enough rationale for Winston Churchill.

If Romney gets the nomination, then I'll vote for him. In the primaries, my preferences have been whittled down to the point where I'm down to Newt, Santorum, Romney and Paul, in that order. But Romney, as RINO as might be, isn't Obama, and with a Republican House and Senate, we can roll back much of the damage that Obama has done.


I didn't even know Ron Paul was Jewish!

Awww... You beat me too it. :livid:

He's not, BTW. In fact, he doesn't care much for us at all. Still, given his campaign, I can see him dancing in circles for the next few months.

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 12:21 PM
As I recall, that was a good enough rationale for Winston Churchill.

If Romney gets the nomination, then I'll vote for him. In the primaries, my preferences have been whittled down to the point where I'm down to Newt, Santorum, Romney and Paul, in that order. But Romney, as RINO as might be, isn't Obama, and with a Republican House and Senate, we can roll back much of the damage that Obama has done.



Awww... You beat me too it. :livid:

He's not, BTW. In fact, he doesn't care much for us at all. Still, given his campaign, I can see him dancing in circles for the next few months.

This is all a build up to support Dr. Nutz, it doesn't matter who the other candidates are.

Bailey
03-09-2012, 12:32 PM
As I recall, that was a good enough rationale for Winston Churchill.

If Romney gets the nomination, then I'll vote for him. In the primaries, my preferences have been whittled down to the point where I'm down to Newt, Santorum, Romney and Paul, in that order. But Romney, as RINO as might be, isn't Obama, and with a Republican House and Senate, we can roll back much of the damage that Obama has done.



Awww... You beat me too it. :livid:

He's not, BTW. In fact, he doesn't care much for us at all. Still, given his campaign, I can see him dancing in circles for the next few months.


I dont like Romney but anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows he's better then the magic negro but on the other hand the economy is going to get whacked soon after the election and I'd like nothing better(if it has to happen) then to see the obama get the blame.

Bailey
03-09-2012, 12:33 PM
This is all a build up to support Dr. Nutz, it doesn't matter who the other candidates are.



I like to thank most of the CU'ers in teaching me how to tell Ronbots from regular people :D

Odysseus
03-09-2012, 02:46 PM
I like to thank most of the CU'ers in teaching me how to tell Ronbots from regular people :D

The neck bolts are a dead giveaway.

Retread
03-09-2012, 06:00 PM
A B O - But i believe SR is correct. Santorum nor Newt can win and Romney is offensive to just enough of indepentdents to re-elect the little o and then Katy - Bar The Door! The only hope after that is a total Republican congress that has the guts to never agree with him.

Bailey
03-09-2012, 06:04 PM
The neck bolts are a dead giveaway.


Its funny when you talk to a ronbot they sound perfectly normal till you say something wrong about Paul, then its like a switch was flipped in their heads and then they start blaming everything said about paul as a smear from the MSM or conervatives etc. lol

Zeus
03-09-2012, 06:23 PM
Go back and research Back in the Carter days. Even with the country in a period of what was coined "malaise" Reagan was considered to conservative and would scare the Independents to the Carter camp. As you may recall Reagan won by the largest landslide victory in electoral history. It is a fallacy created out of thin air that a social conservative scares people and can't win. It may not look possible anymore but it is still in the realm of possibilities for either Newt or Santorum to win. As i said from the very beginning Paul is just padding his retirement account.

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 06:24 PM
What do I honestly think with no wishful thinking, I think Romney will win.
The differences between him and Bama may not be as wide as we like but they are far more than m00 would like to admit.

Hawkgirl
03-09-2012, 06:33 PM
m00=Mikey128?

Apocalypse
03-09-2012, 07:51 PM
I didn't even know Ron Paul was Jewish!

Do you really want me to turn off my spell checker? I've retired English teachers with my horrid knowledge of the English Lang.
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41606_18303638773_3857_n.jpg (http://images.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0PDoX5ml1pP1h8AvgGjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBpcGszamw 0BHNlYwNmcC1pbWcEc2xrA2ltZw--/SIG=1333c1amh/EXP=1331365862/**http%3a//www.facebook.com/group.php%3fgid=18303638773%26amp;v=wall%26amp;vie was=0)

JB
03-09-2012, 08:37 PM
Seriously, I thought this was conservative underground, not RINO underground. WTH, SarasotaRepub?

I leave for a little bit, and come back and see support for a guy who is basically Obama-light. Wait, actually I think Obama is Romney-light. It's like voting for Stalin because he's "not Hitler."

But seriously, I don't understand how someone can remotely consider themselves a conservative and cast a vote for the guy.Outstanding.

JB
03-09-2012, 08:39 PM
Yes, because in the incredibly short term they have to attract independents, who are freaked out by hard core social conservatives and will run left if that's the choice on the right.No one really cares about independents. In a presedential election they just don't matter that much.

Zeus
03-09-2012, 08:57 PM
No one really cares about independents. In a presedential election they just don't matter that much.

Independents/moderates for the most part are lefties in hiding or denial and assorted sheeple waiting to see which way the political winds are blowing so they know what to think.

Janice
03-09-2012, 09:01 PM
http://i.imgur.com/24szJ.png


Even with the country in a period of what was coined "malaise" Reagan was considered too conservative and would scare the Independents to the Carter camp. As you may recall Reagan won by the largest landslide victory in electoral history. It is a fallacy created out of thin air that a social conservative scares people and can't win.

Yup. Its a fallacy propagated by the left (the media and democrats - oops did I just repeat myself?) in hopes of pushing the GOP to coddle moderates (read rinos) and reject conservative candidates out of hand. One of the problems with that of course is the GOP really doesnt need to be "pushed" in that direction as they are already there. But it also helps the talking heads on the morning shows to advance this agenda -- also in hopes of steering the election more to the left.

So in the end the choices are either something like a full on leftist or moderate leftist.

Retread
03-09-2012, 09:44 PM
Well shock and surprise. I'm registered as an independent as are many of my friends and relatives. There is not a one of the group who hasn't voted in every election since they became qualified to vote. So eventhis group "just doesn't matter'? I think differently. Without the independents neither Ronnie or #43 could have won. Disinterest them and you've just lost.

JB
03-09-2012, 09:58 PM
Well shock and surprise. I'm registered as an independent as are many of my friends and relatives. There is not a one of the group who hasn't voted in every election since they became qualified to vote. So eventhis group "just doesn't matter'? I think differently. Without the independents neither Ronnie or #43 could have won. Disinterest them and you've just lost.Not necessarily. You may identify as an Independent but you probably vote for candidates on the Right more often than not.

Deciding not to vote this year because you don't like the R candidate is not a trait held solely by Independents. There are R's on this board that won't vote for Paul if he were to be the nominee. They just won't vote. Or vote third party.

Reagan had Regan Democrats and needed no one's help in '84. Kerry won the Independent vote in 2004 and look what it did for him.

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 10:04 PM
Not necessarily. You may identify as an Independent but you probably vote for candidates on the Right more often than not.

Deciding not to vote this year because you don't like the R candidate is not a trait held solely by Independents. There are R's on this board that won't vote for Paul if he were to be the nominee. They just won't vote. Or vote third party.

Reagan had Regan Democrats and needed no one's help in '84. Kerry won the Independent vote in 2004 and look what it did for him.

When it comes down to November I would vote for Paul rather than Obama even though I'm not impressed with him. That is a highly improbable scenario, if you don't believe me look at the odds on some of the betting sites.

Hawkgirl
03-09-2012, 10:24 PM
Independents decide the election. Righties or Lefties usually don't cross their party lines...Whichever way the Independents sway...so shall the vote.

Retread
03-09-2012, 10:40 PM
Not necessarily. You may identify as an Independent but you probably vote for candidates on the Right more often than not.

Deciding not to vote this year because you don't like the R candidate is not a trait held solely by Independents. There are R's on this board that won't vote for Paul if he were to be the nominee. They just won't vote. Or vote third party.

Reagan had Regan Democrats and needed no one's help in '84. Kerry won the Independent vote in 2004 and look what it did for him.

Kerry lost the independent vote. That's the story from the numbers. Without the independents, W could not have won. It was on a state by state basis.

Support the right? Most of the time, yes, at the national level as most of the dims want to destroy the constitution. At the local level I vote the person, not the party. I grew up a southern Christian Democrat but, like Ronnie, I did not leave them, they left me. I haven't missed an election since JFK.

My personal evaluation of Santorum is sanctimonious as far as I’m concerned but – A B O.

Adam Wood
03-09-2012, 11:45 PM
I didn't even know Ron Paul was Jewish!LOL!



http://i41.tinypic.com/33mmonm.gif

"Funny, he doesn't look Druish."


:lol:




M00, I partially agree with you. I don't want to vote for Romney in the general. Nor do I want to vote for Paul in the general. For that matter, there's nobody that I want to vote for in the general. I want to vote for Herman Cain. But if I start putting "want" in my left hand and "bullshit" in my right, guess which one fills up sooner. FTR, I cast my lot for Newt on Tuesday, and I never, ever thought I would be doing that.

But, as I think everyone else in this thread has agreed, anyone with two neurons within spark gap range realizes that if Romney (or Paul) winds up the nominee, then by God, that's who it has to be instead of re-electing President Zero. Obama irritates and worries me now; the idea of him unfettered in a second term frankly just scares the shit out of me. He clearly doesn't feel any sort of restraint from Congress, as this latest incident with the birth control shows. Whoinahell knows what all he might do that will be damned-near impossible to undo just by Presidential fiat?

There is one redeeming factor involving a Romney Presidency: he's going to know that he has to dance with the one who brung him, and he knows that's the right-hand end of the right side of the spectrum. His feet will he held to the fire: people are going to watch him like a hawk, so he damned well better produce on that promise of getting all of the states waivers on Obamacare, for example. If he doesn't hold true on that, he's going to be miserable well before his first 100 days are up.

Even if Romney is a RINO (in whole or in part), I still think that he's a much better choice. At least Romney has some sort of experience running a business. At least he has done silly little things like having made a budget and met payroll. Shit, Zero the Gay Blockhead has been in office for over three years and hasn't managed to do that yet. Even if Romney sucks, I think that it is reasonable to say that he'll at least be better for the economy than the Teleprompter-in-Chief. That alone is a reason to vote for him over Obama in my book.



In my perfect little dream world, this will go down to a brokered convention, and a back-room deal will present a Cain/Gingrich or Cain/Paul ticket. It's pretty damned unlikely, but a man can dream, can't he?

Regardless of my dreams, though, the brass ring here still needs to be denying Obama a second term. Maybe sending a RINO to Pennsylvania Aveue sends a crappy message to the RNC, but holy shit, what a disastrous message a second Obama term sends to everyone.

wwworkingguy
03-09-2012, 11:55 PM
The voice of reason....... anyone but Nobama.

I would personally urge everyone going forward to vote for Romney.
Why prolong this torture?..... Romney will prevail ..... the sooner we stop
bloodying each other and focus on the Slime-in-Chief, the better.
The Demonrats are watching and laughing ......
but they truly have no reason to laugh unless we give it to them because
their candidate is the most flawed I've ever seen since I've been observing politics.

JB
03-10-2012, 04:18 AM
Independents decide the election. Righties or Lefties usually don't cross their party lines...Whichever way the Independents sway...so shall the vote.
Kerry lost the independent vote. That's the story from the numbers. Without the independents, W could not have won.Here's a couple links that say otherwise. Maybe you guys have different info.

Independents go for Kerry (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/)

"This reduced role for independents was evident even in 2004. John Kerry did what every Democrat was told was necessary to do win the Presidency - he won independents - and yet he still lost the election". Link (http://ndn.org/node/496)

Hawkgirl
03-10-2012, 09:05 AM
Here's a couple links that say otherwise. Maybe you guys have different info.

Independents go for Kerry (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/)

"This reduced role for independents was evident even in 2004. John Kerry did what every Democrat was told was necessary to do win the Presidency - he won independents - and yet he still lost the election". Link (http://ndn.org/node/496)

Opinions are like buttholes...everyone has one. These days, you can find just about anything on the internet that either supports your opinion or opposes it. A quick google search gave me this article if you want a linky dink.:cool:

"When an incumbent is seeking re-election, voters think retrospectively. Voters in the incumbent's party will favor their candidate, and those in the opposition party will try to punish the incumbent. Essentially, Democrats and Republicans will cancel out each others' vote. In next year's contest, independent voters hold the key to Obama's re-election bid, just as they decided the fates of both George Bushes, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman."

http://articles.courant.com/2011-10-08/news/hc-op-dautrich-obama-election-1008-20111008_1_independent-voters-approval-rating-gop-challenger

wwworkingguy
03-10-2012, 10:16 AM
Opinions are like buttholes...everyone has one. These days, you can find just about anything on the internet that either supports your opinion or opposes it. A quick google search gave me this article if you want a linky dink.:cool:

"When an incumbent is seeking re-election, voters think retrospectively. Voters in the incumbent's party will favor their candidate, and those in the opposition party will try to punish the incumbent. Essentially, Democrats and Republicans will cancel out each others' vote. In next year's contest, independent voters hold the key to Obama's re-election bid, just as they decided the fates of both George Bushes, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman."

http://articles.courant.com/2011-10-08/news/hc-op-dautrich-obama-election-1008-20111008_1_independent-voters-approval-rating-gop-challenger

In the last election there were new type voters as well, young 1st time voters & race voters. The race voters were composed of 2 types; 1) Blacks voting their race & 2) White guilt and white feel good voters. Especially in category #2 the Race-Baiter-in-Chief will lose quite a bit of support.

Zeus
03-10-2012, 10:59 AM
Not necessarily. You may identify as an Independent but you probably vote for candidates on the Right more often than not.

Deciding not to vote this year because you don't like the R candidate is not a trait held solely by Independents. There are R's on this board that won't vote for Paul if he were to be the nominee. They just won't vote. Or vote third party.

Reagan had Regan Democrats and needed no one's help in '84. Kerry won the Independent vote in 2004 and look what it did for him.
But But But Reagan was a social conservative and as some of the wise sages on this board have repeated the MeMe 'Social Conservatives can't win elections'. Trouble with that Meme is it is blantantly untrue,not only can a social conservative win but win but a large majority. Sorry to all the marvelous Mystics on board but History bears out that which I speak. The only evidence on your side is media Meme's and myths.

SarasotaRepub
03-10-2012, 01:34 PM
Moved. Never really was a Dome type thread...:star:

fettpett
03-10-2012, 06:32 PM
In the last election there were new type voters as well, young 1st time voters & race voters. The race voters were composed of 2 types; 1) Blacks voting their race & 2) White guilt and white feel good voters. Especially in category #2 the Race-Baiter-in-Chief will lose quite a bit of support.

"young" voters didn't come out in the "Droves" that have been touted..only about 6% of the actual vote totals is in the 18-25 age range

http://www.nccivitas.org/2008/myth-young-voter/

JB
03-10-2012, 09:20 PM
Opinions are like buttholes...everyone has one.OK but I wasn't giving you my opinion. I was giving you the digits. Kerry won more Independent voters but lost the election. They were irrelevant in the 2004 Presedential election, which is what I said in my initial reply.

m00
03-10-2012, 10:05 PM
Yes, because in the incredibly short term they have to attract independents, who are freaked out by hard core social conservatives and will run left if that's the choice on the right.

I completely disagree with this.

One thing I think Newt Gingrich really gets is that nobody is going to win against Obama who runs a partisan or special-interest driven campaign. What you want to run is an American campaign. Note that Reagan accomplished this, and even though he was a conservative his platform and what he spoke about was incredibly inclusive - the shining city on the hill spoke to everyone. If you go back and watch his debates, there was nothing he said that was particularly polarizing or could be considered a pander.

In our day and age, this is about focusing on issues such as the national deficit, corruption and inefficiency in the public sector, civil liberties vs encroaching government, securing our borders against illegal immigration, and how to achieve a strong national defense during times of economic hardship. Romney is the most special-interest candidate on the Republican side, and his special-interest is the banking and finance sectors. I seriously doubt people are going to cross parties for Romney.

RedGrouse
03-11-2012, 06:01 PM
I am not committed yet. I am anyone but Obama.

mike128
03-13-2012, 02:37 AM
Seriously, I thought this was conservative underground, not RINO underground. WTH, SarasotaRepub?

I leave for a little bit, and come back and see support for a guy who is basically Obama-light. Wait, actually I think Obama is Romney-light. It's like voting for Stalin because he's "not Hitler."

But seriously, I don't understand how someone can remotely consider themselves a conservative and cast a vote for the guy.
m00, You're exactly right. But you better be careful expressing your true views on this forum about Flip Romney. Your threads may get moved, censored or deleted, just like mine did many times, unless you bow to the altar of Romney. You may either get trashed as a DU troll, or maybe you won't even get to see this reply.

I can understand the strong desire by most on this forum to beat Obama, and I want that just as much as they do. But you and I both know that Romney is not the candidate who can accomplish that. Just be careful here, and watch out!

Zathras
03-13-2012, 04:38 AM
m00, You're exactly right. But you better be careful expressing your true views on this forum about Flip Romney. Your threads may get moved, censored or deleted, just like mine did many times, unless you bow to the altar of Romney. You may either get trashed as a DU troll, or maybe you won't even get to see this reply!

Well, if you didn't come off as a raving maniac when you post, maybe it wouldn't happen.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/HeroesAtWork/deadhorse.jpg

Odysseus
03-13-2012, 08:28 AM
But But But Reagan was a social conservative and as some of the wise sages on this board have repeated the MeMe 'Social Conservatives can't win elections'. Trouble with that Meme is it is blantantly untrue,not only can a social conservative win but win but a large majority. Sorry to all the marvelous Mystics on board but History bears out that which I speak. The only evidence on your side is media Meme's and myths.

Reagan wasn't just a social conservative, he was a total conservative, social, fiscal, foreign policy, you name it. He understood that the moral issues were the foundation of the fiscal issues. He was able to build a coalition that included every kind of conservative, including Democrats who were alienated by their party's hard left tilt. The point is not that social conservatives cannot win, it's that someone who is only a social conservative, but also a free spending big government type cannot win.


I completely disagree with this.

One thing I think Newt Gingrich really gets is that nobody is going to win against Obama who runs a partisan or special-interest driven campaign. What you want to run is an American campaign. Note that Reagan accomplished this, and even though he was a conservative his platform and what he spoke about was incredibly inclusive - the shining city on the hill spoke to everyone. If you go back and watch his debates, there was nothing he said that was particularly polarizing or could be considered a pander.

In our day and age, this is about focusing on issues such as the national deficit, corruption and inefficiency in the public sector, civil liberties vs encroaching government, securing our borders against illegal immigration, and how to achieve a strong national defense during times of economic hardship. Romney is the most special-interest candidate on the Republican side, and his special-interest is the banking and finance sectors. I seriously doubt people are going to cross parties for Romney.

I agree with you about Newt, who is certainly the best of the four, but if he doesn't get the nomination, then we will be stuck with Romney, and this is looking more and more likely, unless there's a brokered convention. Either way, any of the four is better than Obama.


m00, You're exactly right. But you better be careful expressing your true views on this forum about Flip Romney. Your threads may get moved, censored or deleted, just like mine did many times, unless you bow to the altar of Romney. You may either get trashed as a DU troll, or maybe you won't even get to see this reply.

I can understand the strong desire by most on this forum to beat Obama, and I want that just as much as they do. But you and I both know that Romney is not the candidate who can accomplish that. Just be careful here, and watch out!

The reason that you are getting the business is because you are incapable of discussing anything else. Moo's been here for years and has credibility that you lack.

AmPat
03-13-2012, 09:13 AM
m00, You're exactly right. But you better be careful expressing your true views on this forum about Flip Romney. Your threads may get moved, censored or deleted, just like mine did many times, unless you bow to the altar of Romney. You may either get trashed as a DU troll, or maybe you won't even get to see this reply.

I can understand the strong desire by most on this forum to beat Obama, and I want that just as much as they do. But you and I both know that Romney is not the candidate who can accomplish that. Just be careful here, and watch out!
Oh grow up! Your poor, pathetic, victim routine doesn't play here. Your post and previous posts, are extremely irritating because you come off as the all knowing Sage, the purveyor of all that is wise and just. The One who must be listened to if the world is to be saved.

There are not many on this board that don't already know and agree with exactly what you are saying. The problem is you preach AT us as though we need you to navigate these treacherous waters for us. You cannot take the podium and give us speeches every time and speak as though you are the only one who "gets it."
:rolleyes:
Your conclusion that the two of you are the only ones that "know that Romney is not the candidate" is just one recent example.

m00
03-13-2012, 09:45 PM
I agree with you about Newt, who is certainly the best of the four, but if he doesn't get the nomination, then we will be stuck with Romney, and this is looking more and more likely, unless there's a brokered convention. Either way, any of the four is better than Obama.

I think it's entirely possible to have a contested convention where the pledged delegates become unbound. Especially if Gingrich does well in the south. And this is what I hope for. Then we'll see if Romney can stand on his own without the Democrat-supporting media driving this election and telling us who is inevitable. Note I said Democrat-supporting, because it's bad enough that the mainstream media has a single political ideology (liberal), but what's particularly galling is when they openly support a candidate in a different political party from the one they are trying to influence. If Romney can win a contested convention without the aid of his money or the media, then so be it.

But here's my point. Romney is outspending his opponents 5, 6, to 1 (or more). He's not going to be able to outspend Obama. He claims to have the plan to fix our economy, but he is backed by the finance and banking sectors and yet these are the guys that created the mess we're in by colluding with big government! Romney's history and positions directly conflict with everything the tea-party stands for. If we want to beat Obama and fix the economy, can we please not do it with the guy who is bankrolled by the people who broke the economy in the first place?

Zathras
03-13-2012, 10:33 PM
The reason that you are getting the business is because you are incapable of discussing anything else. Moo's been here for years and has credibility that you lack.

And it's also the reason he's not getting the Dead Horse pic that you do when you post one of your many hate filled rants about Mitt Romney that say absolutely nothing new.

m00
03-22-2012, 11:35 AM
Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's senior campaign adviser, was asked in a CNN interview Wednesday morning whether the former Massachusetts governor had been forced to adopt conservative positions in the rugged race that could hurt his standing with moderates in November's general election.

"I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes," Fehrnstrom responded. "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html

I think Romney's senior campaign adviser sums things up pretty well.

JB
03-22-2012, 07:16 PM
I think Romney's senior campaign adviser sums things up pretty well.When I saw that both Santorum and Gingrich brought Etch A Sketchs to their press conferences the next day to make it an issue, I knew desperation had overcome them and their campaigns. They need to bail now.

Rockntractor
03-22-2012, 07:31 PM
When I saw that both Santorum and Gingrich brought Etch A Sketchs to their press conferences the next day to make it an issue, I knew desperation had overcome them and their campaigns. They need to bail now.

Is the stuff in an etch a sketch safe? Could one of them choke if it broke and they tried to eat it?

JB
03-22-2012, 07:37 PM
Is the stuff in an etch a sketch safe?I don't know. I never cracked one open when I was a kid.

Let's let Barry snort the stuff first and see what happens. What sucks is I'll probably have to supply the dollar.