POSITIVE POLLING TRENDS....

Well CJ; I provided a link, all you have is your bullshit verbage......where is the link to a filed story or video that confirms the "ryan crowds booed" ??????

Please post....or STFU.

sure they were ... everyone that disagrees with ryans ss epiphany is an obama goon


just wait until all of those Obama goons go to the polls ... what is it, about 70% of the country are pro ss?

romney and ryan are about 70% FUCKED

trendy aint it? Originally Posted by CJ7

Gotcha, you don't believe in incremental changes, you'r a revolutionary type......march onward comrade...btw, how is that working out ?

Well, let's see. Reagan advanced some pretty significant incremental gains. HW Bush retreated on many of those, the Clinton came along, and at first retreated, then advanced some incremental gains. Then we had W. A few incremental gains, but a huge retreat in a lot of areas. Now we have Obama, and we are worse off than we have ever been.

The problem with incrementalism is that you have to drag along a lot of people who aren't interested in advancing. Then you have the problem of the incrementalists being unable to agree on which increment to advance first. So incrementalism is slow, at best. Then you will have a someone come along like Obama, and all the advances that have been are reversed. Incrementalism has gained us nothing. In fact, it has made us worse.

Then you have to start over, one step forward, two steps back. All incrementalism does is allow the ruling elite the chance to give the appearance of change, when none is actually occurring. And in the event an advance is made, it can be quickly reversed, because there is no uniform resistance. We're all focusing on our pet "increments."

If we are going to change, and we aren't, the change needs to be fast and wholesale. That's the only way it will last. We can fool ourselves that we are slowly advancing, but we always see the advances reversed by clever rhetoric, and charismatic leaders tied to the elite.

We could have incrementally won the War in the Pacific by invading Japan, and it would have cost thousands of lives and taken months, if not years. Or we could execute wholesale change by dropping the Bomb on them, and get it over with.

Which is more effective? Which promoted long term change? Which convinced those opposed to us, to eventually join our side (after much compassion and education after the fact)?

Incrementalism is wasting time and energy that could be put to much better use uniting for wholesale change and an immediate return to the Constitution.

It won't happen, but that's the only way to get there. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Obie had enough electorates to win before the west coast even had time to start a vote count

I was watching the 10 News (central) when they announced VICTORY ... I remember turning off the tv.

Well CJ; I provided a link, all you have is your bullshit verbage......where is the link to a filed story or video that confirms the "ryan crowds booed" ??????

Please post....or STFU. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

well theres the town hall meeting in 2011... want to start there?

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote, W won the electoral vote.

And the electoral college is provided for in the Constitution. It's designed to prevent the big states from running roughshod over the smaller states. That was back when being a state meant something.

Incrementalism is like masturbating to porn. It makes you feel good, you get to pretend you're part of the action, but in the end, you're alone and nothing has changed.

It is how we got here; it is how we can get out.....so far, nobody has offered up any reasonable alternative out of the mess........so sit on the sidelines and play the velvet revolutionary, Foghorn J. Leghorn will look stylish in a Che Guevarra beret.....

Incrementalism is like masturbating to porn. It makes you feel good, you get to pretend you're part of the action, but in the end, you're alone and nothing has changed. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah; where is the link? And your OP was about a recent Ryan gathering at the Iowa State Fair, not some meeting in 2011....are you backing off your exaggerated story now CJ???


Either put up or shut up................

well theres the town hall meeting in 2011... want to start there? Originally Posted by CJ7

I am under the impression Obama lost the popular vote in 08. The electoral college still voted him in.


I really don't want to be a downer on this thread but I'm just curious. What will happen if obama loses to romney say... 60/40 on poplar vote and still gets reelected because the electoral college (why do we need them anyway? Not constitutional as far as I know) votes obama in no matter what. It would just look better if he didn't lose soooo badly.

After everything he's gotten away with, this is not outside the realm of possibilities. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Obama won the popular vote by 6% in 2008. It would be extremely unlikely for anyone to win a presidential election by 20% and lose the Electoral College vote. Reagan won 49 states against Modale in 1984 with a 59% to 41% victory. Reagan beat Carter in 1980 by 10% and won 44 states. The Electoral College is constitutional. The founders chose not to decide presidential elections with a simple majority vote.

Gore won the popular vote (barely) in 2000 over Bush, but lost the Electoral College vote.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

It is how we got here; it is how we can get out.....so far, nobody has offered up any reasonable alternative out of the mess........so sit on the sidelines and play the velvet revolutionary, Foghorn J. Leghorn will look stylish in a Che Guevarra beret..... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Why do you equate me with a totalitarian? You understand nothing.

Where in that quote did i call you totalitarian ?

I didn't realize Leghorn was totalitarian ! Learn something new every day.

Incrementalism is like masturbating to porn. It makes you feel good, you get to pretend you're part of the action, but in the end, you're alone and nothing has changed. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'd say voting third party is closer to the masturbation analogy. A symbolic vote for Ralph Nader or Gary Johnson is closer to pretending to be part of the action.

Incrementalism does work. The Democrats have proven that. In the course of my lifetime, they've gone from John Kennedy to Barack Obama. They've gone from a centrist supply sider who wanted to build up the military to the Marxist freak we've got today, and they did it incrementally, within the Democratic Party.

Id say voting for YOUR CHOICE regardless of party is the ONLY thing to do ..anything less and you shouldnt be at a poll in the first place

Yeah; where is the link? And your OP was about a recent Ryan gathering at the Iowa State Fair, not some meeting in 2011....are you backing off your exaggerated story now CJ???


Either put up or shut up................ Originally Posted by Whirlaway

how do trends get started?

at town hall meetings in 011


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfegLR6YxQg

Do you really want to argue about masturbation, Joe? No telling who will post to this.

A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote that says "I'm tired of your bullshit." A vote for Gary Johnson says "I realize there in no demonstrable difference between the major party candidates." A vote for Gary Johnson says "I know neither one of you will protect my freedom, and I don't want to be responsible for the destruction you will cause this country." A vote for Gary Johnson says, "I'm not playing your game anymore, and I'm banding with others to peacefully overturn what you have turned our country into."

In other words, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE