POSITIVE POLLING TRENDS....

CJ; you originally posted about "new trend" of Ryan being booed by crowds at a recent Iowa State Fair event.....this is an old link that has nothing to do with the Iowa State Fair........you are a lying fucker aren't you ?

"I am tired of your bullshit" and "welcome to your 2nd term President Obama"..............hand Obama a 2nd term ? No way.

Your convinced that the house has to be destroyed before it can be saved.......reasonable conservatives aren't with you on that.

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 Originally Posted by CJ7

Voting for Nader in Florida, gave Bush the victory in 2000. I think most of the Nader voters wished they had voted for Gore.

dont look now whirlie, but the romney ryan ticket, along with all the deflecting thats already started and sure to follow has already handed Obie another term

that my friend isnt anyones fault but the republican party ... theyve been hunting their on feet since they took over the house ... looks like they've finally made a few kills.

even worse for the house and senate republicans, NOW, Ryan is THEIR boy,

what will they do now? ... here and now the party becomes more divided than ever.

Voting for Nader in Florida, gave Bush the victory in 2000. I think most of the Nader voters wished they had voted for Gore. Originally Posted by joe bloe

well, you dont get it.

being true to your convictions that is.

pretty typical sheep scenario ... let someone or something point me in their direction and tell me what to do, how to do it, and who to do it for.


personally I dont give a fkyin fuk who gets the seat as long as I know I was loyal to myself ... my vote wont put anyone on the ticket in office, and Im totally comfortable with that.

dont look now whirlie, but the romney ryan ticket, along with all the deflecting thats already started and sure to follow has already handed Obie another term

that my friend isnt anyones fault but the republican party ... theyve been hunting their on feet since they took over the house ... looks like they've finally made a few kills.

even worse for the house and senate republicans, NOW, Ryan is THEIR boy,

what will they do now? ... here and now the party becomes more divided than ever. Originally Posted by CJ7

Romney is doing better in the polls than Reagan was at this stage of the campaign in 1980; he beat Carter in 44 states. It's not over yet, not by a long shot.

yeak ok, and McCain got a big bump from Palin too

same scenario different players.

if team romney answers questions like they have been, and hide from the ones they dont even bother to mumble about ... helloooooooooooo Obie, its term 2.

Those weren't boos, those were NOs.....and you are about 1 1/2 years late with the video.

voting for Perot in 1992 gave us Clinton too....

voting for Perot in 1992 gave us Clinton too.... Originally Posted by kcpitchreader

The effect of Ross Perot's candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton,[25] but of the voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important," two thirds voted for Bill Clinton.[26] A mathematical look at the voting numbers reveals that Bush would have had to win 12.2% of Perot's 18.8% of the vote, 65% of Perot's support base, to earn a majority of the vote, and would have needed to win nearly every state Clinton won by less than five percentage points.[27] Furthermore, Perot's best results were in states that strongly favored either Clinton or Bush, or carried few electoral votes, limiting his real electoral impact for either candidate.

Romney is doing better in the polls than Reagan was at this stage of the campaign in 1980; he beat Carter in 44 states. It's not over yet, not by a long shot. Originally Posted by joe bloe

its much tougher to achieve electoral success when you are altruistic

getting people to know and do whats best for the country is much harder than promising to give people things. many people will readily vote to benefit themselves or if you are a rich and fearful democrat (there are plenty of those) pushing to have the government pass out crumbs to assuage and calm the riffraff.

the democrat party has a much easier sell, we will give you stuff.

much easier than the certain knowledge and message that study and work and forebearance and delayed gratification is best for all.

people who vote democrat do not care to understand the foundational underpinnings of this country nor some dusty theory of governance or the separation of powers or the electoral college or the power of private property rights or the complexity of argument as to from where rights may derive and how these things built this country to be the greatest (hell, the liberals who control our schools refuse to even teach kids the superiority of those things). people feel a desire and they go for it, their rights are derived from their votes, their votes determine the government, therefore the government provides them their rights. these rights expand as their stomachs expand. people see a garden and have no knowledge of how it came to be, and to hell with tending it, we will divide it up and in the process they will destroy it, thats the outcome of obamaism.

its why rebublicans get forced into an ever expanding message of "me too-ism" just to get elected, people want instant gratification and many dont want to work for it. the difference is only a slower death. it may be over by a long shot.

"I am tired of your bullshit" and "welcome to your 2nd term President Obama"..............hand Obama a 2nd term ? No way.

Your convinced that the house has to be destroyed before it can be saved.......reasonable conservatives aren't with you on that. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Yeah, and in 1776, if we'd only opted for incremental change and worked with King George, what a much different place this would be.

Incrementalism only works in reverse. That's been proven. Your type of incrementalism will only give people who want change a little peace, while they get screwed from behind by the system that claims, "Don't ask for too much, let's get ahead incrementally."

You know full well that if Romney is elected, we will be looking at President Hillary Clinton in 2017. You think McConnell was bad about wanting Obama to be a one-term president, watch Reid and Pelosi go to work on whatever good (which won't be much) that Romney wants to do in his first term.

It just keeps going back and forth like that. Each time the pendulum swings a little harder, and harsher. Eventually, and it will be soon, the pendulum will stop swinging, and there will be total executive control of government - a de facto dictatorship, with a Congress and press as window dressing for the ruling elite. We may already be to that point.

So any incremental change wrought by Romney will be reversed in 2017, if not sooner. It's a waste of time and energy. We have to come up with a way of peacefully throwing out the entire system. If we don't, we're doomed to totalitarianism. Wake up, look around. It's happening. Romney won't stop it, he's part of it.

"Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." THOMAS JEFFERSON, Declaration of Independence

Obviously not a "reasonable conservative".

its much tougher to achieve electoral success when you are altruistic

getting people to know and do whats best for the country is much harder than promising to give people things. many people will readily vote to benefit themselves or if you are a rich and fearful democrat (there are plenty of those) pushing to have the government pass out crumbs to assuage and calm the riffraff.

the democrat party has a much easier sell, we will give you stuff.

much easier than the certain knowledge and message that study and work and forebearance and delayed gratification is best for all.

people who vote democrat do not care to understand the foundational underpinnings of this country nor some dusty theory of governance or the separation of powers or the electoral college or the complexity of argument as to from where rights may derive (hell, the liberals who control our schools refuse to even teach kids the superiority of those things). people feel a desire and they go for it, their rights are derived from their votes, their votes determine the government, therefore the government provides them their rights. these rights expand as their stomachs expand.

its why rebublicans get forced into an ever expanding message of "me too-ism" just to get elected, people want instant gratification and many dont want to work for it. the difference is only a slower death. it may be over by a long shot. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

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

That explains a lot.

LIke you have reapeatedly told us; your record on predicting political out comes sucks !

Yeah, and in 1776, if we'd only opted for incremental change and worked with King George, what a much different place this would be.

Incrementalism only works in reverse. That's been proven. Your type of incrementalism will only give people who want change a little peace, while they get screwed from behind by the system that claims, "Don't ask for too much, let's get ahead incrementally."

You know full well that if Romney is elected, we will be looking at President Hillary Clinton in 2017. You think McConnell was bad about wanting Obama to be a one-term president, watch Reid and Pelosi go to work on whatever good (which won't be much) that Romney wants to do in his first term.

It just keeps going back and forth like that. Each time the pendulum swings a little harder, and harsher. Eventually, and it will be soon, the pendulum will stop swinging, and there will be total executive control of government - a de facto dictatorship, with a Congress and press as window dressing for the ruling elite. We may already be to that point.

So any incremental change wrought by Romney will be reversed in 2017, if not sooner. It's a waste of time and energy. We have to come up with a way of peacefully throwing out the entire system. If we don't, we're doomed to totalitarianism. Wake up, look around. It's happening. Romney won't stop it, he's part of it.

"Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." THOMAS JEFFERSON, Declaration of Independence

Obviously not a "reasonable conservative". Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy