Rand Paul Closing in on Hillary's Numbers

[Alyosha]

In May he was 8 points behind, in July only 4.

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/hillary-clinton-still-top-rand-paul-closing/thu-07312014-732am

[Captain Obvious]

It's way too early for any of that to mean anything.

[Alyosha]

Only that when the Republicans do find a way to rig it so Jeb Bush gets the nomination, I can say "I told you so" when she beats him by very large numbers.

[Chris]

Even Democrats are starting to support him: Cory Booker: Rand's Right, Drug Laws Not Inherently Racist But Have A Racial Outcome (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/07/30/cory_booker_rands_right_drug_laws_not_inherently_r acist_but_have_a_racial_outcome.html).

[Peter1469]

And Rand made inroads in Silicon Vally as I posted not long ago.

The tide is turning against the corrupt establishment.

[Matty]

He was sucking up to the far left on m s n b c. That's a big uuugh in my book. I won't vote for a RINO.

[Alyosha]

He was sucking up to the far left on m s n b c. That's a big uuugh in my book. I won't vote for a RINO.

Uhhh what? He just said he refuses to go on MSNBC and talk about real ideology until they apologize for lying about him.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/31/rand_paul_wants_msnbc_hacks_and_cranks_to_apologiz e_to_him_on_tv_for_24.html

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-to-msnbc-host-when-your-network-does-24-hour-news-telling-the-truth-then-we-can-talk/

[Matty]

Uhhh what? He just said he refuses to go on MSNBC and talk about real ideology until they apologize for lying about him.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/31/rand_paul_wants_msnbc_hacks_and_cranks_to_apologiz e_to_him_on_tv_for_24.html

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-to-msnbc-host-when-your-network-does-24-hour-news-telling-the-truth-then-we-can-talk/


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wGtIu6_hrD4

[Chris]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wGtIu6_hrD4

July 30:

MSNBC Host Repeatedly Tries to Get Rand Paul to Talk About Past ‘Controversial’ Comments — Watch His Plan Backfire (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/30/msnbc-host-repeatedly-tries-to-get-rand-paul-to-talk-about-past-controversial-comments-watch-his-plan-backfire/),
Rand Paul To MSNBC: When Your Network Stops Lying, Then We Can Chat (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-msnbc-civil-rights-act),
Rand Paul: MSNBC has 'partisan cranks and hacks' (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/30/msnbc-has-partisan-cranks-and-hacks/).

[Paperback Writer]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wGtIu6_hrD4

That's sucking up to MSNBC? What's your definition then?

[birddog]

Only that when the Republicans do find a way to rig it so Jeb Bush gets the nomination, I can say "I told you so" when she beats him by very large numbers.

If Jeb is nominated, he will beat the pants off The Hildebeast! Of course that would be a ghastly sight! :laugh:

[The Xl]

He was sucking up to the far left on m s n b c. That's a big uuugh in my book. I won't vote for a RINO.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tqpyMtDMsus/UvfhH95g90I/AAAAAAAACNI/hX6v2u9mRnw/s1600/1.gif

[The Xl]

Rand is winning me over, but I'm still skeptical.

If he let's me down and turns into a conservative Obama, I'm done voting, period.

[Captain Obvious]

He was sucking up to the far left on m s n b c. That's a big uuugh in my book. I won't vote for a RINO.

You voted for Robomny, correct?

[Captain Obvious]

If Jeb is nominated, he will beat the pants off The Hildebeast! Of course that would be a ghastly sight! :laugh:

Jeb?

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130820204929/random-ness/images/8/8c/Hysterical-laugh.gif

[Paperback Writer]

We don't exactly choose our PM, not sure if I'd want to be blamed for it, anyway. If the entire Parliament blew up with all that sodding lot in it, I'd cheer on the return of our gracious monarch.

[PolWatch]

Until the major parties admit that nominating/electing people who fall into the extreme side of their parties isn't the smartest move, we will continue to see no progress on anything. If RINO means a conservative willing to compromise, then please, give me a RINO candidate...I don't know what they call a conservative leaning dem, but I'd consider one of them too. The satisfaction either party would get from 'winning' with an extreme candidate would be cancelled out when 'no change' is the result.

[Captain Obvious]

We don't exactly choose our PM, not sure if I'd want to be blamed for it, anyway. If the entire Parliament blew up with all that sodding lot in it, I'd cheer on the return of our gracious monarch.

Constitutional monarchy, right?

The whole concept of royalty is a slap in the face to everyone. I don't get the whole royalty fetish, especially over here.

[Paperback Writer]

Constitutional monarchy, right?

The whole concept of royalty is a slap in the face to everyone. I don't get the whole royalty fetish, especially over here.


My support of a monarch comes from the understanding that most parents, with rare exceptions, love their children. Most monarchs wish to leave their children a legacy, not a smoldering pile of ash. We've had bad royals, but most have not been.

Politicians have a snatch and grab mentality and usually leave things worse than they've found it.

[PolWatch]

Constitutional monarchy, right?

The whole concept of royalty is a slap in the face to everyone. I don't get the whole royalty fetish, especially over here.

they are kinda like endangered species...in their natural habitat. Americans love anything in short supply (remember all the to-do about the Cabbage Patch dolls?)

[Captain Obvious]

My support of a monarch comes from the understanding that most parents, with rare exceptions, love their children. Most monarchs wish to leave their children a legacy, not a smoldering pile of ash. We've had bad royals, but most have not been.

Politicians have a snatch and grab mentality and usually leave things worse than they've found it.

Rubbish

[Paperback Writer]

Rubbish

Yup. **picks teeth**

[Libhater]

Only that when the Republicans do find a way to rig it so Jeb Bush gets the nomination, I can say "I told you so" when she beats him by very large numbers.

Jeb Bush, tell me it ain't so!

[Matty]

You voted for Robomny, correct?

T
who?

[Captain Obvious]

T
who?

It was a rhetorical question, you don't need to answer it.

[Alyosha]

If Jeb is nominated, he will beat the pants off The Hildebeast! Of course that would be a ghastly sight! :laugh:

No, he won't. She leads him by 20 points versus Rand's 4.

[Green Arrow]

Of course he can kick her ass. That's like saying water is wet :tongue:

[Cigar]

:smiley_ROFLMAO: Rand Paul will newer be President of The United States

[Paperback Writer]

:smiley_ROFLMAO: Rand Paul will newer be President of The United States

And Nigel weren't supposed to represent the UK's interests at the EU, either.

[Matty]

Never!

[Green Arrow]

:smiley_ROFLMAO: Rand Paul will newer be President of The United States

Neither will Hillary :D

[birddog]

No, he won't. She leads him by 20 points versus Rand's 4.

Poll numbers mean nothing now. Hillary garners nearly all of the polling support for the Ds now, but the R polling voting is split multiple ways. If Paul was the only one being seriously considered presently by the Rs, he would be ahead of Hillary, and Jeb would be close. It's a matter of "focus."

If all else fails, THINK!

[Green Arrow]

Poll numbers mean nothing now. Hillary garners nearly all of the polling support for the Ds now, but the R polling voting is split multiple ways. If Paul was the only one being seriously considered presently by the Rs, he would be ahead of Hillary, and Jeb would be close. It's a matter of "focus."

If all else fails, THINK!

Past experience shows that when neocons like McCain and Romney are nominated, they lose big to the Democrat. Jeb is a neocon.

[Cigar]

Neither will Hillary :D


{//archived//}

[PolWatch]

Never say "never"...even with a nice sauce Vera Cruz, crow ain't tasty....

[Green Arrow]

Never say "never"...even with a nice sauce Vera Cruz, crow ain't tasty....

I'm mostly just busting Cigar's balls. I think it's likely Hillary can become President...but I also think it's likely Rand Paul can.

[Peter1469]

If Jeb is nominated, he will beat the pants off The Hildebeast! Of course that would be a ghastly sight! :laugh:

I guess I can go to Europe in November of 2016 if Jeb is the nominee. When are people going to stop supporting the two party system?

[Matty]

Why would you need to go to Europe? You can vote third party right here. It's a wasted vote but you can do it. Or according to some here all votes don't count. The electoral college is all that counts.

[Green Arrow]

Why would you need to go to Europe? You can vote third party right here. It's a wasted vote but you can do it. Or according to some here all votes don't count. The electoral college is all that counts.

In Europe, your third party can actually be represented in government.

[Matty]

Past experience shows that when neocons like McCain and Romney are nominated, they lose big to the Democrat. Jeb is a neocon.


I don't think you quite get how disgusted Americans are with the disgusting democrats. November will tell me if I am right.

[Peter1469]

Why would you need to go to Europe? You can vote third party right here. It's a wasted vote but you can do it. Or according to some here all votes don't count. The electoral college is all that counts. Vacation, do something interesting rather than see another choice between two asshats.

[Green Arrow]

I don't think you quite get how disgusted Americans are with the disgusting democrats. November will tell me if I am right.

I really don't give a shit. I'll care when they are equally disgusted with the Republicans. When Americans wake up and kick out BOTH parties, that's when I care.

[Matty]

Republicans have no responsibility for the reason America is disgusted with Democrats. It's all on the democrats.

[Green Arrow]

Republicans have no responsibility for the reason America is disgusted with Democrats. It's all on the democrats.

Republicans have their own reason to be disgusted with them.

[donttread]

In May he was 8 points behind, in July only 4.

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/hillary-clinton-still-top-rand-paul-closing/thu-07312014-732am

Rand may be the man. Still the Donkephant will not surrender their kingdom easily

[zelmo1234]

If Jeb is nominated, he will beat the pants off The Hildebeast! Of course that would be a ghastly sight! :laugh:

I don't think so, but the election would likely have record low turnouts, I would not vote for Jeb.

I would rather see Rand be the VP nomination behind either an outsider like Carson or a Gov.
Senators tend to make terrible Presidents, Give him 8 years to learn the executive branch and then he can be President

[zelmo1234]

Until the major parties admit that nominating/electing people who fall into the extreme side of their parties isn't the smartest move, we will continue to see no progress on anything. If RINO means a conservative willing to compromise, then please, give me a RINO candidate...I don't know what they call a conservative leaning dem, but I'd consider one of them too. The satisfaction either party would get from 'winning' with an extreme candidate would be cancelled out when 'no change' is the result.

The last 2 were very moderate Republicans and they got there asses handed to them.

The Republicans don't win with moderates.

[zelmo1234]

Past experience shows that when neocons like McCain and Romney are nominated, they lose big to the Democrat. Jeb is a neocon.

Both ere to the far left of the Republican party. Rand has some very conservative ideas.

His foreign policy is dangerous, but I think we are heading for a major war anyway so might as well get it over with

[Peter1469]

We need to pack the Senate with Rands. The president is not very relevant in domestic issues.

[Green Arrow]

I don't think so, but the election would likely have record low turnouts, I would not vote for Jeb.

I would rather see Rand be the VP nomination behind either an outsider like Carson or a Gov.
Senators tend to make terrible Presidents, Give him 8 years to learn the executive branch and then he can be President

"Tend to"? What Senator as President was terrible besides Obama?

All this nonsense about previous occupations is just that: nonsense. We've had a shitty Senator President. We've had good Senator Presidents. We've had shitty governors as President, we've had good governors as President.

Focusing on previous occupation is stupid. Presidents succeed or fail based on their ideas and their ability to make deals, and that's it.

[Peter1469]

At the risk of yanking ransom's chain, I disagree. :smiley:

There is a big difference in executive functions vice legislative functions. Senators have to make deals and compromise on everything. Presidents and governors have to lead and bring people together. It is two entirely different skill sets.


"Tend to"? What Senator as President was terrible besides Obama?

All this nonsense about previous occupations is just that: nonsense. We've had a shitty Senator President. We've had good Senator Presidents. We've had shitty governors as President, we've had good governors as President.

Focusing on previous occupation is stupid. Presidents succeed or fail based on their ideas and their ability to make deals, and that's it.

[Matty]

RoflmaoRoflmao

[Green Arrow]

At the risk of yanking ransom's chain, I disagree. :smiley:

There is a big difference in executive functions vice legislative functions. Senators have to make deals and compromise on everything. Presidents and governors have to lead and bring people together. It is two entirely different skill sets.

I get that, but the record of our Presidents does not bear this through. If it did, every governor President would be great and every Senator President would be from meh to terrible. Yet, we've had good governor Presidents and bad governor Presidents, good senator Presidents and bad, etc. Coolidge, Reagan, good governor Presidents. Carter and Bush, bad governor Presidents. Madison and Kennedy, good Congressman Presidents. Barack Obama, bad Congressman President.

[Bob]

In May he was 8 points behind, in July only 4.

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/hillary-clinton-still-top-rand-paul-closing/thu-07312014-732am

Can republicans be that stupid?

[Bob]

I get that, but the record of our Presidents does not bear this through. If it did, every governor President would be great and every Senator President would be from meh to terrible. Yet, we've had good governor Presidents and bad governor Presidents, good senator Presidents and bad, etc. Coolidge, Reagan, good governor Presidents. Carter and Bush, bad governor Presidents. Madison and Kennedy, good Congressman Presidents. Barack Obama, bad Congressman President.

WTF are you talking about now? Bush was a good Governor/ president. I realize it is fashionable for a few to beat him up, but even historians are raising his ranking. I believe by ten years, he will vault much higher.

Then Kennedy? I realize I voted for him and the man was killed when I was on duty in the Army in Germany, but he got killed. That elevated him. Not what he did when alive. He was not in office long enough to do much more than get into some major squabbles with the Soviets.

[Green Arrow]

Can republicans be that stupid?

To allow Hillary to win by nominating a neocon like Jeb Bush? Yes, yes they can be that stupid.

[Green Arrow]

WTF are you talking about now? Bush was a good Governor/ president. I realize it is fashionable for a few to beat him up, but even historians are raising his ranking. I believe by ten years, he will vault much higher.

Then Kennedy? I realize I voted for him and the man was killed when I was on duty in the Army in Germany, but he got killed. That elevated him. Not what he did when alive. He was not in office long enough to do much more than get into some major squabbles with the Soviets.

I don't care, Bob. I DO NOT CARE. You like Bush, I do not. I like Kennedy, you don't. Great. Fine. Discussion over.

[Bob]

"Tend to"? What Senator as President was terrible besides Obama?

All this nonsense about previous occupations is just that: nonsense. We've had a shitty Senator President. We've had good Senator Presidents. We've had shitty governors as President, we've had good governors as President.

Focusing on previous occupation is stupid. Presidents succeed or fail based on their ideas and their ability to make deals, and that's it.

You clearly have never been in management. It is much more than just being in the job. Not all Governors were top rated presidents. But managing a complex system is much more than just fancy bull shit.Obama ought to drive that point home.

[Bob]

I don't care, Bob. I DO NOT CARE. You like Bush, I do not. I like Kennedy, you don't. Great. Fine. Discussion over.

This is what I hate about talking to socialists.

It is not that I like Bush, but I admit he did in fact do what the good presidents always do. First, he led. Then he had the nation behind him. Then the troops adored him. Even in war, they loved him.

[Green Arrow]

This is what I hate about talking to socialists.

It is not that I like Bush, but I admit he did in fact do what the good presidents always do. First, he led. Then he had the nation behind him. Then the troops adored him. Even in war, they loved him.

Great. I'm happy for you. I think he did the things that sucky Presidents do. Oh well.

[Bob]

To allow Hillary to win by nominating a neocon like Jeb Bush? Yes, yes they can be that stupid.

What makes Jeb Bush a Neo Con?

Hillary has never governed. At least she was Sec. of State but she also has competition.

[Bob]

Great. I'm happy for you. I think he did the things that sucky Presidents do. Oh well.

Nah, you just have a lot of personal bias.

[Green Arrow]

What makes Jeb Bush a Neo Con?

Hillary has never governed. At least she was Sec. of State but she also has competition.

Amnesty, terrible foreign policy, soft on civil liberties.

[Green Arrow]

Nah, you just have a lot of personal bias.

Not really. I met Bush Jr. once. Nice guy. I have a lot respect for him and think he is a good person, but he did things as President that I can't approve of.

Oh well. Time marches on.

[Bob]

"Tend to"? What Senator as President was terrible besides Obama?

All this nonsense about previous occupations is just that: nonsense. We've had a shitty Senator President. We've had good Senator Presidents. We've had shitty governors as President, we've had good governors as President.

Focusing on previous occupation is stupid. Presidents succeed or fail based on their ideas and their ability to make deals, and that's it.

We will pay more attention to you once you voted for half a dozen presidents and used your skills to analyze them.

[Bob]

Not really. I met Bush Jr. once. Nice guy. I have a lot respect for him and think he is a good person, but he did things as President that I can't approve of.

Oh well. Time marches on.

He was way more than nice. He was a very gifted leader. Thankfully he is rising in the rankings and ranks over Bill Clinton. Actually, though Clinton is a D, he still understood how government works and had the ability to attract serious people that worked for him. not all worked out but still as I said,he ranks below Bush.

[Green Arrow]

We will pay more attention to you once you voted for half a dozen presidents and used your skills to analyze them.

Anyone will pay attention to me whenever they please. You don't speak for anyone but your own self.

[Green Arrow]

He was way more than nice. He was a very gifted leader. Thankfully he is rising in the rankings and ranks over Bill Clinton. Actually, though Clinton is a D, he still understood how government works and had the ability to attract serious people that worked for him. not all worked out but still as I said,he ranks below Bush.

Ah, yes. Opinion polls. Those are so reliable.

[Bob]

Amnesty, terrible foreign policy, soft on civil liberties.

What the hell? Explain all of that.

[Bob]

Ah, yes. Opinion polls. Those are so reliable.

i realize you think you are the ultimate brilliant person, but please, don't be so quick to tell we who have voted on a dozen or more presidents we don't know squat.

[Green Arrow]

What the hell? Explain all of that.

It doesn't need explanation. He favors amnesty, he favors the same interventionist foreign policy of every President post-WWII, and he favors the same attacks on our civil liberties as the last two administrations. This isn't rocket science.

[Green Arrow]

i realize you think you are the ultimate brilliant person, but please, don't be so quick to tell we who have voted on a dozen or more presidents we don't know squat.

I'll tell you whatever I want to tell you. You can choose to ignore it at your leisure.

[Bob]

Anyone will pay attention to me whenever they please. You don't speak for anyone but your own self.

You are not doing well with Peter and he agrees more with me on this issue.

[Green Arrow]

You are not doing well with Peter and he agrees more with me on this issue.

I really don't care. I respect Peter. I don't have to drink whiskey every time I see Peter has posted.

[Bob]

I'll tell you whatever I want to tell you. You can choose to ignore it at your leisure.

Were you in my oldest sons class of thinkers, I would think more before batting your musings down. But i ignore much of what you say and you know why.

[Green Arrow]

Were you in my oldest sons class of thinkers, I would think more before batting your musings down. But i ignore much of what you say and you know why.

The feeling is mutual.

[Bob]

I really don't care. I respect Peter. I don't have to drink whiskey every time I see Peter has posted.

That is your problem. Right there you stated it. You ASSume you know a hell of a lot more than I know.

[Green Arrow]

That is your problem. Right there you stated it. You ASSume you know a hell of a lot more than I know.

No, you ASSume how I feel about what you know. It's cool, though. I'm not in a position to care.

[Bob]

No, you ASSume how I feel about what you know. It's cool, though. I'm not in a position to care.


I have to admit. i was NEVER 1/10 the smart alec I find myself confronted with. I notice in your many replies, you really think you know it all. Even with Peter, you shrug him off.

[Green Arrow]

I have to admit. i was NEVER 1/10 the smart alec I find myself confronted with. I notice in your many replies, you really think you know it all. Even with Peter, you shrug him off.

It's called "disagreeing." Peter handles it like a man. You don't. Oh well.

[Bob]

It's called "disagreeing." Peter handles it like a man. You don't. Oh well.

That is what i mean. Smart alec. And you are wrong. When I am wrong, I handle it well.

[Green Arrow]

That is what i mean. Smart alec. And you are wrong. When I am wrong, I handle it well.

LOL. Right. You handle disagreement like my little sister.

[Peter1469]

I am not linking it to the past. I only say that certain experience is better than other experience.

And then I remember it doesn't matter when the US is not active in the world. A president is useless with domestic policy.


I get that, but the record of our Presidents does not bear this through. If it did, every governor President would be great and every Senator President would be from meh to terrible. Yet, we've had good governor Presidents and bad governor Presidents, good senator Presidents and bad, etc. Coolidge, Reagan, good governor Presidents. Carter and Bush, bad governor Presidents. Madison and Kennedy, good Congressman Presidents. Barack Obama, bad Congressman President.

[Green Arrow]

I am not linking it to the past. I only say that certain experience is better than other experience.

And then I remember it doesn't matter when the US is not active in the world. A president is useless with domestic policy.

Right. And if you have a good Congress, the President could be Satan and we'd be just fine.

[donttread]

A good congress? Why not a Unicorn, Nessie or bigfoot all of which would be easier to find

[Green Arrow]

A good congress? Why not a Unicorn, Nessie or bigfoot all of which would be easier to find

http://m.quickmeme.com/img/27/27667eaca37ac2070615b44cfdd7ef6bd41959969b30c5c1c3 ebad86295fe7e9.jpg

[texan]

I have been warning people, do not under estimate this guy. From either side of the isle.

[zelmo1234]

I get that, but the record of our Presidents does not bear this through. If it did, every governor President would be great and every Senator President would be from meh to terrible. Yet, we've had good governor Presidents and bad governor Presidents, good senator Presidents and bad, etc. Coolidge, Reagan, good governor Presidents. Carter and Bush, bad governor Presidents. Madison and Kennedy, good Congressman Presidents. Barack Obama, bad Congressman President.

Here is a list of the Presidents that were Senators.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_became_president.htm

And if you look at the list of terrible Presidents? most of them are on this list. And at the Risk of Blasphemy, if Kennedy would not have been killed, he would have went down as average, nothing special.

Here is your list of Presidents that were Gov's

http://governors.rutgers.edu/on-governors/us-governors/governors-and-the-white-house/governors-who-became-president

And you will notice that some of the better ones on the Senator list are also on this list.

Yes there are some failures on this list as well, but in large I would take this list over the other.

[zelmo1234]

That is your problem. Right there you stated it. You ASSume you know a hell of a lot more than I know.

You two need to get a room! I think that you are an old married couple :)

[Green Arrow]

You two need to get a room! I think that you are an old married couple :)

Pah, as if. I'm just drunk and bored.

[zelmo1234]

I don't care, Bob. I DO NOT CARE. You like Bush, I do not. I like Kennedy, you don't. Great. Fine. Discussion over.

History will judge President Bush on a few things,

The Iraq war will likely fade as something that was a bad decision as ISIS takes over more and more territory in the middle east. God forbid they are able to organize another attack, but if that happens, then those that are all for appeasement will be looked on very poorly.

But the run away spending and the fact that he laced the courage to stand up to congress on the housing issue will haunt him through history!

Kennedy, was an average to slightly above average, but he was killed and that tends to increase your position in history.

[Bob]

History will judge President Bush on a few things,

The Iraq war will likely fade as something that was a bad decision as ISIS takes over more and more territory in the middle east. God forbid they are able to organize another attack, but if that happens, then those that are all for appeasement will be looked on very poorly.

But the run away spending and the fact that he laced the courage to stand up to congress on the housing issue will haunt him through history!

Kennedy, was an average to slightly above average, but he was killed and that tends to increase your position in history.

It is just too easy to trash Bush over Iraq. The Democrats whine where is the WMD drowns out the nature of the true mission there.

FREEDOM

That is why Bush called it Iraqi Freedom. Not Iraqi WMD.

Bush handed them freedom and then came Obama. Obama did not work at all to preserve Iraqi Freedom.

I lectured many times that the Iraqi Army left after Saddam were not well trained. General Franks was supposed to meet his match per Democrats. Franks destroyed them. Bremer did not run off Saddam'a Army. He could not find them.

When he has to rebuild the army, where were Saddam's troops? When you have to construct a new army, it is not easy. Bush and Bremer got blamed but General Franks stomped their asses. They feared Americans.

[Bob]

You two need to get a room! I think that you are an old married couple :)

He is drunk again. I should not take advantage of him. zelmo1234

[Green Arrow]

History will judge President Bush on a few things,

The Iraq war will likely fade as something that was a bad decision as ISIS takes over more and more territory in the middle east. God forbid they are able to organize another attack, but if that happens, then those that are all for appeasement will be looked on very poorly.

But the run away spending and the fact that he laced the courage to stand up to congress on the housing issue will haunt him through history!

Kennedy, was an average to slightly above average, but he was killed and that tends to increase your position in history.

I've already said I don't dislike Bush, I just disagree with his actions as President.

[Dr. Who]

Until the major parties admit that nominating/electing people who fall into the extreme side of their parties isn't the smartest move, we will continue to see no progress on anything. If RINO means a conservative willing to compromise, then please, give me a RINO candidate...I don't know what they call a conservative leaning dem, but I'd consider one of them too. The satisfaction either party would get from 'winning' with an extreme candidate would be cancelled out when 'no change' is the result.
A Dino? At any rate I agree with you. Too many extreme candidates on either side makes for political intertia.

[Dr. Who]

This is what I hate about talking to socialists.

It is not that I like Bush, but I admit he did in fact do what the good presidents always do. First, he led. Then he had the nation behind him. Then the troops adored him. Even in war, they loved him.
So it's not his policy that makes him good, it was his ability to garner support through the manipulation of the truth? Of course he garnered the support of the people and the troops. He had a national disaster fall in his lap and an easy target that he could manipulate for 8 years, whether the allegations were true or not. Of course I don't really blame it on G.W., but really on his masters behind the scenes. Bush from what I've seen is an average guy, mostly a nice guy, with a family heavily invested in global interests. Baby Bush was chosen for his easy going nature and his ability to be told what to do and not ask too many questions. Daddy Bush and Cheney were really pulling the strings.

[Redrose]

To allow Hillary to win by nominating a neocon like Jeb Bush? Yes, yes they can be that stupid.

I'll make a prediction, Hillary will never be president, Bill Clinton will not allow that.

In 2008 he made a comment during the Democratic primaries, that hurt her more than helped. I think subconsciously, he did that, who knows, maybe it was on purpose.

A few months ago, Karl Rove mentioned Hillary's head troubles were so bad, she needed a month to recover. The left ripped him apart for exaggerating Hill's health issue and insinuating she is too ill to be president.

Bill Clinton comes to the rescue to "defend" Hillary and to garner sympathy for her said "she was so ill, she needed 6 months to recover". He took Rove's comment and magnified. He made it worse.

He basically sabotages her. IMO he enjoys being called Mr. President. He doesn't want to be Mr. Hillary Clinton or worse the "First Gentleman" or "First Dude".

[GrassrootsConservative]

If Hillary is ever president Bill will always be First Lady when I refer to him.

[1751_Texan]

In May he was 8 points behind, in July only 4.

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/hillary-clinton-still-top-rand-paul-closing/thu-07312014-732am

In Ohio. Poll cited in piece.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/ohio/release-detail?ReleaseID=2066

In Florida he is 3rd.





Florida voters back Clinton over Bush 49 - 42 percent in the 2016 White House race. The Democrat tops other Republicans by wider margins:




53 - 39 percent over Rubio;
53 - 37 percent over Paul;
54 - 33 percent over Christie;
51 - 38 percent over U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.





http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=2063

[Mainecoons]

PolWatch, you had a RINO, George Bush. How did that work for you? How did it work for America?

Not so hot for the latter, in case you didn't notice.

[donttread]

It is just too easy to trash Bush over Iraq. The Democrats whine where is the WMD drowns out the nature of the true mission there.

FREEDOM

That is why Bush called it Iraqi Freedom. Not Iraqi WMD.

Bush handed them freedom and then came Obama. Obama did not work at all to preserve Iraqi Freedom.

I lectured many times that the Iraqi Army left after Saddam were not well trained. General Franks was supposed to meet his match per Democrats. Franks destroyed them. Bremer did not run off Saddam'a Army. He could not find them.

When he has to rebuild the army, where were Saddam's troops? When you have to construct a new army, it is not easy. Bush and Bremer got blamed but General Franks stomped their asses. They feared Americans.

You do know about doublespeak right?

[birddog]

Dubya was a good President, but was far from perfect. There were WMDs, and there were other reasons for the Iraq War. I did not agree with ground troops being put there.

Bush was too cooperative and weak when it came to dealing with the lying dimocrats. Bush was an honest man, and we would be far better off if he was still President.

[Peter1469]

Put up a "Bush" in 2016 and see a third party get lots of votes. Real conservatives are sick to milk toast.

[Green Arrow]

Put up a "Bush" in 2016 and see a third party get lots of votes. Real conservatives are sick to milk toast.

As much as I want to see Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders win, I actually hope the general election IS Bush vs. Clinton. That will be the best year for third parties probably ever.

[PolWatch]

PolWatch, you had a RINO, George Bush. How did that work for you? How did it work for America?

Not so hot for the latter, in case you didn't notice.

'HAD' a Rino? isn't he still in office?

[Mainecoons]

The ObamaDrones seem to think so.

:grin:

[Peter1469]

As much as I want to see Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders win, I actually hope the general election IS Bush vs. Clinton. That will be the best year for third parties probably ever.

True. I would vote 3rd party in that case.

[Mainecoons]

Me too. I'd sooner vote for Castro than for another damned Bush.

[Matty]

Me too. I'd sooner vote for Castro than for another damned Bush.
Castro isn't running but yo u can vote for the Hildebeast.

[Mainecoons]

Barf!

:grin:

[Chris]

Rather, if you partisan Republicans don't nominate someone worth voting for, you all are voting for Hillary.

[Matty]

Rather, if you partisan Republicans don't nominate someone worth voting for, you all are voting for Hillary.
Why don't you third party people run somebody worth voting for? That road runs two ways.

[Chris]

Why don't you third party people run somebody worth voting for? That road runs two ways.

We do and we vote for them. If you don't want to vote for Hillary, join us. :)

[Matty]

We do and we vote for them. If you don't want to vote for Hillary, join us. :)
Because I haven't liked any third party candidates. You better get us one that can top 50% of the vote or you vote for Hillary.

[Matty]

Now that's an undeniable fact. No third party candidate has ever come close to being in the range of capturing 50% of the vote.

[Chris]

Because I haven't liked any third party candidates. You better get us one that can top 50% of the vote or you vote for Hillary.

A lot of us haven't liked any Republican candidates in a long time. I mean, Bush, McCain, Romney?

Vote third party or vote for Hillary if you like.

[Matty]

A lot of us haven't liked any Republican candidates in a long time. I mean, Bush, McCain, Romney?

Vote third party or vote for Hillary if you like.
Well more of us don't like third party that you have put forth so vote Hildebeast if you like. Obama did so well and all you may as well finish what you started.

[Chris]

Now that's an undeniable fact. No third party candidate has ever come close to being in the range of capturing 50% of the vote.

1856 Fremont took 33% and four years later Lincoln won with ~40%. Guess which third party that was.

[Matty]

I liked Romney. We'd be a hellavua lot better off if he was in the White House.

[Bob]

Well more of us don't like third party that you have put forth so vote Hildebeast if you like. Obama did so well and all you may as well finish what you started.

They act like they love Rand Paul and yet he is a republican.

[Matty]

1856 Fremont took 33% and four years later Lincoln won with ~40%. Guess which third party that was.
Try to work in the 21st century. And, 33 and 40 aren't winning numbers, you have to do better.

[Chris]

They act like they love Rand Paul and yet he is a republican.

Rather some of us are undecided but interested in seeing what Rand is and what he becomes.

Rand is a Republican establishment Republicans dislike.

[Bob]

1856 Fremont took 33% and four years later Lincoln won with ~40%. Guess which third party that was.

This talk of a third party is naive. Talk about the track record of any third party please.

Do you think the public will just go along because they are a third party? any third party faces a fourth party and a fifth party.

Be a realist. It will be a D or a R.

I choose to not have it be a D.

[Chris]

Try to work in the 21st century. And, 33 and 40 aren't winning numbers, you have to do better.

You made a univeral claim that was untrue and could be untrue again if you all don't vote for Hillary.

[Matty]

They act like they love Rand Paul and yet he is a republican.


He is, but I don't think I like him. I'm watching him ass kiss the far left. We already have far left in the WH and it isn't working out too well.

[Matty]

You made a univeral claim that was untrue and could be untrue again if you all don't vote for Hillary.


I won't vote for Hillary, but you will.

[Bob]

Rather some of us are undecided but interested in seeing what Rand is and what he becomes.

Rand is a Republican establishment Republicans dislike.

I don't understand where that comes from.

I happen to like Rand. But do not like the fact he is not prepared to manage an enormous government. His foreign policy sounds like what Obama jammed down our throat.

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-official-facts-obama-policy-direct-danger-united-024816529.html

[Chris]

This talk of a third party is naive. Talk about the track record of any third party please.

Do you think the public will just go along because they are a third party? any third party faces a fourth party and a fifth party.

Be a realist. It will be a D or a R.

I choose to not have it be a D.


Republican Party was once a third party. That is historically factual and realistic. It can happen again. Vote third party or vote for Hillary.

[Matty]

This talk of a third party is naive. Talk about the track record of any third party please.

Do you think the public will just go along because they are a third party? any third party faces a fourth party and a fifth party.

Be a realist. It will be a D or a R.

I choose to not have it be a D.




I think they want to be " right fighters" it turns out badly for the country but they want to be "right fighters" anyway.

[Chris]

I don't understand where that comes from.

I happen to like Rand. But do not like the fact he is not prepared to manage an enormous government. His foreign policy sounds like what Obama jammed down our throat.

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-official-facts-obama-policy-direct-danger-united-024816529.html


I've posted many times on how establish Republican dislike him.

[Matty]

Republican Party was once a third party. That is historically factual and realistic. It can happen again. Vote third party or vote for Hillary.
Won't happen.

[Chris]

I think they want to be " right fighters" it turns out badly for the country but they want to be "right fighters" anyway.

Yes, "we" are right.

[Chris]

Won't happen.

You don't know that. People are growing tired of the duopoly.

[Bob]

I liked Romney. We'd be a hellavua lot better off if he was in the White House.

Romney was far more popular than the 3rd party types and D's admit.

[Bob]

I've posted many times on how establish Republican dislike him.

They like the man. He simply lacks experience to be on top.

[Matty]

Yes, "we" are right.
How's it workin for ya? You refused to vote Romney and you got obummer. How's that working for ya? Mr. Right?

[Bob]

1856 Fremont took 33% and four years later Lincoln won with ~40%. Guess which third party that was.

We have a better example. Ross Perot. Ross came out on fire and a lot of the R figured he could win.

He lost. And he cost GW Bush the election.

I have been to this dance before. That is why I believe your 3rd party is little different than the R or D and are never qualified to manage government with perhaps the exception of a former NM Governor, Johnson. I had never heard of Johnson nor has most of America. NM is one of those states where nothing much happens to be on the national stage.

[Matty]

You don't know that. People are growing tired of the duopoly.


I do know that. "People" aren't paying attention. Your war on the Republican Party is leading down an un retractable path. The democrats are importing hundreds of thousands of guaranteed new voters ensuring that you will have nothing but democrats running this country into the ground. Yet your war is with the Republicans. Right fighters.

[Chris]

Romney was far more popular than the 3rd party types and D's admit.

Won't vote for a big government conservative.

[Chris]

How's it workin for ya? You refused to vote Romney and you got obummer. How's that working for ya? Mr. Right?

Romney would've been as big a bummer, just another Bush clone like Obama.

[Matty]

Won't vote for a big government conservative.
Then you will vote for Hildebeast, a even bigger government progressive.

[Chris]

We have a better example. Ross Perot. Ross came out on fire and a lot of the R figured he could win.

He lost. And he cost GW Bush the election.

I have been to this dance before. That is why I believe your 3rd party is little different than the R or D and are never qualified to manage government with perhaps the exception of a former NM Governor, Johnson. I had never heard of Johnson nor has most of America. NM is one of those states where nothing much happens to be on the national stage.


Right, so if Republicans had voted third party Perot he'd've won. So vote third party.

[Matty]

Romney would've been as big a bummer, just another Bush clone like Obama.
He certainly didn't indicate that. Oh well.

[Matty]

Right, so if Republicans had voted third party Perot he'd've won. So vote third party.
Soon as you put up one that can win. So far a flat out failed effort.

[Bob]

Right, so if Republicans had voted third party Perot he'd've won. So vote third party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)#Current_U.S._third_par ties

Third party candidates very rarely win any elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_ elections). For example, such a candidate only won a U.S. Senate election twice (0.6%) since 1990. Therefore, it is very rare to have a national officeholder not affiliated with and endorsed by one of the two major parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_officeholders_in_the_United_States). Currently, there are only two U.S. Senators (Angus King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_King) and Bernie Sanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders)), who are neither Democrat nor Republican, while no U.S. Representative hails from outside the major parties. Although third party candidates rarely actually win elections, they can have an effect on them. If they do well, they are often accused of having a spoiler effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect). Sometimes they have won votes in the electoral college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college), as in the 1832 Presidential election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1832#Results) . They can draw attention to issues that may be ignored by the majority parties. If such an issue finds acceptance with the voters, one or more of the major parties may adopt the issue into its own party platform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform). Also, a third party may be used by the voter to cast a protest vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_vote) as a form of referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum) on an important issue. Third parties may also help voter turnout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout) by bringing more people to the polls. Third party candidates at the top of the ticket can help to draw attention to other party candidates down the ballot, helping them to win local or state office. In 2004 the U.S. electorate consisted of an estimated 43% registered Democrats and 33% registered Republicans, with independents and those belonging to other parties constituting 25%.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)#cite_note-Neuhart-2)
The only three U.S. Presidents without a major party affiliation were George Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington), John Tyler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyler), and Andrew Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson), and only Washington served his entire tenure as an independent. Neither of the other two were ever elected president in their own right, both being vice presidents who ascended to office upon the death of a president, and both became independents because they were unpopular with their parties. John Tyler was elected on the Whig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)) ticket in 1840 with William Henry Harrison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison) but was expelled by his own party. Andrew Johnson was elected with Abraham Lincoln on the National Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_Party_(United_States))ticket in 1864, after serving as Democratic Senator and Governor in Tennessee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee), but effectively governed as an independent as the new party floundered into oblivion.
Lincoln Chafee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Chafee) was the most recent serving governor not from one of the two major parties. Chafee was elected Governor of Rhode Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Rhode_Island) as independent in 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island_gubernatorial_election,_2010), before changing his affiliation to the Democratic Party in May 2013.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)#cite_note-3)

[Green Arrow]

This talk of a third party is naive. Talk about the track record of any third party please.

Do you think the public will just go along because they are a third party? any third party faces a fourth party and a fifth party.

Be a realist. It will be a D or a R.

I choose to not have it be a D.

And how did that choice work out for you in 2008 and 2012? Oh, right. It was a D because of your choice. Funny how neither you nor Matalese are to blame for supporting loser Republican candidates the same way you two blame third party voters.

[Matty]

This will be the new ruling body in America. Listen to Gutierrez. Listen and grow to love him. Thanks and praise be unto obummer


http://www.c-span.org/video/?320829-1/congressional-hispanic-caucus-unaccompanied-immigrant-children

[Bob]

Matalese Chris is trying to help Hillary Clinton

[Matty]

And how did that choice work out for you in 2008 and 2012? Oh, right. It was a D because of your choice. Funny how neither you nor Matalese are to blame for supporting loser Republican candidates the same way you two blame third party voters.
You voted for Obama remember? You won? Remember?

[Bob]

And how did that choice work out for you in 2008 and 2012? Oh, right. It was a D because of your choice. Funny how neither you nor Matalese are to blame for supporting loser Republican candidates the same way you two blame third party voters.


You ran last. We came in 2nd place. And you plan to lose the next election.

[Peter1469]

time to stop voting D and R.

Only fools do that these days.

[PolWatch]

Never say never...at a time when the country was mired controversy over civil rights & Viet Nam:

Wallace ran a campaign supporting "law and order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order_%28politics%29)" and racial segregation that strongly appealed to rural white Southerners and blue-collar union workers in the North. Wallace was leading the three-way race in the Old Confederacy with 45% of the vote in mid-September. Wallace's appeal to blue-collar workers and union members (who usually voted Democratic) hurt Humphrey in Northern states like Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, and Wisconsin. A mid-September AFL-CIO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL-CIO) internal poll showed that one in three union members supported Wallace, and a Chicago Sun-Times poll showed that Wallace had a plurality of 44% of white steelworkers in Chicago. Both Humphrey and Nixon were able to peel back some Wallace support by November; the unions highlighted the flow of Northern union jobs to Wallace's Alabama, a right-to-work state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_state) (although Wallace publicly opposed right-to-work laws), and Nixon persuaded enough Southerners that a "divided vote" would give the election to Humphrey. From October 13–20, Wallace's support fell from 20% to 15% nationally. In the North, the former Wallace vote split evenly between Humphrey and Nixon. In the border South, Wallace defectors were choosing Nixon over Humphrey by three to one.[3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_presidential_campaign,_1968#cite_no te-Carter-3)

from Wiki (of course) bold, red emphasis my addition. His numbers dropped, but whether I liked him or not, he had a major influence on the election. In fact, Nixon carried Alabama in 1980 when they realized Wallace didn't really have a chance. (the first Rep to carry Alabama since the Civil War).

[Matty]

You ran last. We came in 2nd place. And you plan to lose the next election.
Nope. He WON. He voted for Obama.

[Matty]

time to stop voting D and R.

Only fools do that these days.
Tell us that when your candidate hits the 50% mark. Til then..........

[Bob]

Matalese
I do not plan to argue that 3rd parties are futile choices with these pair. They won't listen nor do they intend to learn from past errors.

I plan to find a topic that one might discuss and not run into such hot air.

[Peter1469]

Tell us that when your candidate hits the 50% mark. Til then..........

Don't care. The establishment of both parties is evil. Support that?

[The Xl]

I hope this thread shines a light on the fact that their are both old fools and young fools.

Someone like Matalese is beyond saving.

[Chris]

He certainly didn't indicate that. Oh well.

I've already posted way more than enough elsewhere to establish Romney as a big government establishment Republican.

[Matty]

Don't care. The establishment of both parties is evil. Support that?


I support the Republican Party. I don't believe them to be evil. It saddens me that you do.

[Chris]

Matalese Chris is trying to help Hillary Clinton

No, you and Mat are trying to help Hillary.

[Peter1469]

I support the Republican Party. I don't believe them to be evil. It saddens me that you do. They spend like drunken democrats.

[Matty]

I hope this thread shines a light on the fact that their are both old fools and young fools.

Someone like Matalese is beyond saving.


At least I know how to spell "there" you need to get an education. I don't need saving. So put it where the moon doesn't shine!

[Paperback Writer]

As long as everyone's content with the direction your country is going, keep doing what you're doing. Finally we seem to be on the verge of an establishment backlash. Couldn't come soon enough. My only regret is that Ukip seems rather anti-monarchy and I do so love the Queen.

Hear that, Morissey?

[Chris]

The the lesser of two evils argument goes like this, if you don't vote for X you vote for Y.

Now mat and bob substitute R(epublican) and D(emocrat): if you don't vote for R you vote for D.

All I've done is use their very argument for third party.

But R = D. Thus voting third party is truly lesser of two evils.

[The Xl]

At least I know how to spell "there" you need to get an education. I don't need saving. So put it where the moon doesn't shine!

I thought I was on ignore? Haha.

Speaking of education, Mrs. Grammar Nazi, I think you missed a comma.

In any case, you do need saving, although it's far too late for someone as obstinate as you are, and your advanced age means change is unlikely.

The fact of the matter is, you vote for politicians, Republicans, who champion nearly identical policies to Obama and the left, and you can't even see it. It's folk like you who are responsible for the destruction of the country. Just sheer ignorance.

[Matty]

The the lesser of two evils argument goes like this, if you don't vote for X you vote for Y.

Now mat and bob substitute R(epublican) and D(emocrat): if you don't vote for R you vote for D.

All I've done is use their very argument for third party.

But R = D. Thus voting third party is truly lesser of two evils.


Right Fighter. Got us Obama. How's that working for you? Was the question.

[The Xl]

Romney was on record for gun control, NDAA, Patriot Act, banker bailouts, passed Romneycare in his state and wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare with his Pepsi to Obamas coke nationally, was pro life until he was against it, etc.

Don't you get it? Romney was the same thing, essentially.

[Green Arrow]

Nope. He WON. He voted for Obama.

I didn't win, because that's not the outcome I wanted. I lost, just as all of us intelligent individuals lose to members of the herd like you. You don't think for yourself. I don't even know if you know how to think for yourself. I'd say I hope you are proud of that, but I already know you are quite proud of the fact that you are just another grain of sand on the beach. Unremarkable and just like all the other grains.

[Alyosha]

Right Fighter. Got us Obama. How's that working for you? Was the question.

Same as it was working out for us under Bush. Bush expanded Medicaid first and actually promoted more progressive pieces of legislation than Obama. If anyone should be disappointed in Obama it should be Democrats since Bush outdid him with his "compassionate conservatism".

Nothing ever changes. No campaign promises are ever kept. Look at records. Massachusetts under Romney got "Romneycare", gay marriage, abortion on demand, and gun control. But you believe he would have kept his campaign promises this time based on what? Can't be his record.

[Matty]

Of course I think for myself. That's why I had the intelligence not to vote for Obama. But you lacked the intelligence it took to see him for what he really was, therefore you stupidly voted for him. So, I don't think a non intelligent person such as yourself should preach to me about intelligence.

[Matty]

I didn't win, because that's not the outcome I wanted. I lost, just as all of us intelligent individuals lose to members of the herd like you. You don't think for yourself. I don't even know if you know how to think for yourself. I'd say I hope you are proud of that, but I already know you are quite proud of the fact that you are just another grain of sand on the beach. Unremarkable and just like all the other grains.



Of course I think for myself. That's why I had the intelligence not to vote for Obama. But you lacked the intelligence it took to see him for what he really was, therefore you stupidly voted for him. So, I don't think a non intelligent person such as yourself should preach to me about intelligence.

[Chris]

Right Fighter. Got us Obama. How's that working for you? Was the question.

The real question is how's it working for you? Time to vote against the Donkephant.

[Chris]

Romney was on record for gun control, NDAA, Patriot Act, banker bailouts, passed Romneycare in his state and wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare with his Pepsi to Obamas coke nationally, was pro life until he was against it, etc.

Don't you get it? Romney was the same thing, essentially.


All that will be ignored. It doesn't matter. He's a Republican, they are Republicans.

[Chris]

Of course I think for myself. That's why I had the intelligence not to vote for Obama. But you lacked the intelligence it took to see him for what he really was, therefore you stupidly voted for him. So, I don't think a non intelligent person such as yourself should preach to me about intelligence.

You're not thinking outside the Republican box.

[The Xl]

All that will be ignored. It doesn't matter. He's a Republican, they are Republicans.

Right.

Nothing else Matalese says should be entertained until she defends Romneys record.

[Matty]

Same as it was working out for us under Bush. Bush expanded Medicaid first and actually promoted more progressive pieces of legislation than Obama. If anyone should be disappointed in Obama it should be Democrats since Bush outdid him with his "compassionate conservatism".

Nothing ever changes. No campaign promises are ever kept. Look at records. Massachusetts under Romney got "Romneycare", gay marriage, abortion on demand, and gun control. But you believe he would have kept his campaign promises this time based on what? Can't be his record.



The first 43 presidents ran up ten trillion in debt Bush is one of those 43. Obama when he leaves office will have racked up another ten trillion single handedly. You guys made a wise choice yes?

[Matty]

You're not thinking outside the Republican box.


Yes, i am Chris. I am glued to C span and watch closely what goes on. Tell me. Did you watch the debate on the border bill yesterday? I bet you did not.

[Chris]

Yes, i am Chris. I am glued to C span and watch closely what goes on. Tell me. Did you watch the debate on the border bill yesterday? I bet you did not.

No, why do I want to watch Republicans and Democrats debate?

http://i.snag.gy/Nhetf.jpg

[Alyosha]

The first 43 presidents ran up ten trillion in debt Bush is one of those 43. Obama when he leaves office will have racked up another ten trillion single handedly. You guys made a wise choice yes?

Us guys didn't vote for Obama, thanks.
http://ivn.us/2012/07/17/100-ways-mitt-romney-is-just-like-barack-obama/


4. The signature legislative accomplishment of the man that Republicans have chosen to repeal and replace “ObamaCare” was “RomneyCare,” which was the blueprint and model for The Affordable Care Act (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/11/white-house-met-with-three-romney-advisors-to-draft-obamacare/).
5. The most controversial aspect of “ObamaCare” for its critics, was the individual mandate. Mitt Romney, like Barack Obama, believes individual mandates (http://youtu.be/y6DrH6P9OC0) can be a good ingredient of public policy.
6. Mitt Romney reminds critics that he believed “RomneyCare” was good for the state of Massachussetts, but shouldn’t be implemented nationwide, and that’s how he’s substantively different from Barack Obama. In 2007, however, Romney said (http://www.redstate.com/rightwingnut2/2011/04/10/romney-in-2007-romneycare-will-be-a-model-for-the-nation/): “I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation,” suggesting that, like Obama, he is not opposed to federal mandates either– just controversial ones that his partisan opponents pass.
“ObamaCare” would keep everything in it other than the individual mandate, according to Mitt Romney’s own words (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-28-2012/roberts--rules-of-order):

7. Like Obama and the Democrats provided for in the Affordable Care Act, Romney’s legislative alternative would make sure people who want to keep their current insurance can do so.
8. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney wants to expand federal spending on Medicaid to help each state cover residents who cannot afford health insurance.
9. Also like Obama, Romney’s “alternative” would make sure people with preexisting conditions will be covered.
10. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama flip flopped (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/07/obamacare_tax_flip_flop_romney_s_evolving_record_o n_whether_health_insurance_mandates_are_a_tax_.htm l) on whether “ObamaCare” is or is not (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-campaign-calls-obamacare-a-penalty-not-a-tax/) a tax when it was politically suitable.
11. The same Wall Street recipients of TARP (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/02/tarp-recipients-paid-out-114-m.html) bailout money that were top Obama donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638) in 2008 are top Romney donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286) in 2012.
12. The Obama Administration has failed to (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-can-t-obama-bring-wall-street-to-justice.html) prosecute a single Wall Street executive for malfeasance related to the 2007 – 2008 financial crash. Wall Street’s aforementioned donation patterns make for a compelling conclusion: A Romney Administration would be no different.
13. Setting aside the justice system, legislative fixes for perverse incentives on Wall Street have likewise been underwhelming. Dodd-Frank has been impotent to prevent risky trading (http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/11/news/economy/politics-jpmorgan-regulation/index.htm) and stress tests for federally insured banks only anticipate another housing crash (http://ivn.us/2012/04/03/peter-schiff-who-predicted-the-financial-crisis-forecasts-the-worst-to-come-around-2013/), not a catastrophic hit to America’s very monetary system itself. Instead of a substantive alternative to Obama and the Democrats, Romney’s solution seems to be to do even less: he wants to repeal (http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/11/news/economy/politics-jpmorgan-regulation/index.htm) Dodd-Frank.
14. Like Obama, Romney supports taxpayer bailouts (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/17/1065790/-Mitt-Romney-s-bailout-problem) of struggling corporations– handouts that go from hardworking Americans to wealthy companies with irresponsible management.
15. The most controversial bailout for Republicans and one of the motivators behind the Tea Party protest movement that began in 2009 was the TARP bailout of big Wall Street financials. Like Obama– who voted for it as a US Senator and continues to support and defend it as President, Mitt Romney supported and continues to support TARP (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-03-26/romney-TARP-bank-bailout/53794680/1).
16. Not only does Mitt Romney approve of Barack Obama’s federal management of auto industry bankruptcies, he takes credit for it (http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-takes-credit-for-the-auto-bailout-say-what/).
17. Republicans criticize Obama for his role in getting Solyndra’s hands dirty with federal money (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/solyndra--explained/2012/06/01/gJQAig2g6U_blog.html), but at his own big financial company, Bain and Co., Mitt Romney secured millions in a federal bailout (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58952.html) of his corporation’s own struggling finances.
18. Though he’s flip-flopped on this issue along with so many others, Mitt Romney has also supported the federal stimulus package passed by the Democrats and signed by Barack Obama, writing (http://www.humanevents.com/2011/06/30/has-mitt-romney-flipflopped-on-obamas-stimulus/) that the “‘all-Democrat’ stimulus that passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.”
19. Another thing that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have in common is that the numbers (http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-12/five-charts-prove-we’re-depression-and-stimulus-hasnt-worked) strongly suggest (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/qe-2-was-disaster-here-why-us-fiscal-stimulus-was-complete-failure-well)they were both wrong about the 2009 economic stimulus package.
20. Both Mitt Romney (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_Federal_Reserve/) and Barack Obama (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/obama-administration-ramps-up-opposition-to-fed-audit-provision.php) oppose a full, yearly, public, top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve’s finances and activities, citing the need for “Fed independence” from Congress.
21. On monetary policy, both Mitt Romney (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_Federal_Reserve/) and Barack Obama (http://www.docudharma.com/diary/28332/obama-opposed-the-federal-reserve-audit) do not see any urgent need to change the status quo and any reform of the Federal Reserve system is not a public policy priority for either candidate.
22. Like Barack Obama, who reappointed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Mitt Romney has approved (http://youtu.be/aX6T--U8Ll8) of Ben Bernanke’s handling of the financial crisis and monetary policy in America.
23. Mitt Romney approves of (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Romney-Geithner-TARP-Republican/2012/01/31/id/426118) Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner’s record on economic policy as well.
24. Like Barack Obama, economic stimulus via federal spending on infrastructure development is a policy priority (http://youtu.be/aEXWdba511w) for Mitt Romney.
25. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama favor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitt-romney-middle-class-tax-cut-wont-help-middle-class/2012/07/09/gJQAXtmJYW_blog.html) the extension of Bush’s deficit-funded tax cuts for the middle class.
26. Though they are currently sparring over whether or not to extend the tax cuts for high income earners (ibid.), Mitt Romney supports making these tax cuts permanent for them as well (ibid.), and as president, Barack Obama has already extended these tax cuts (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html) for high income earners once. Actions matter more than rhetoric. Are the two really so different?
27. Both Mitt Romney (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57337409-503544/mitt-romney-backs-payroll-tax-cut-extension/) and Barack Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/obama-signs-payroll-tax-cut-extension_n_1295208.html) supported the payroll tax cut extensions.
28. Neither Mitt Romney, nor Barack Obama have charted a course away from the bipartisan consensus that deficit-funded tax cuts stimulate economic growth (http://ivn.us/2010/12/11/independent-perspective-tax-cut-debate/), so that other than putting up a big showy fight over the details of tax policy, their substantive philosophies of fiscal policy are essentially the same.
29. Like Obama, Mitt Romney is open to (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/27/romney-and-the-vat/) a Value Added Tax as a potential fiscal policy solution.
30. In discussions of tax policy, Mitt Romney’s working definition of “wealthy” or “high income” seems to be $200,000 a year (ibid.), the same as that commonly used by Barack Obama.
31. Like Obama (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/obama-plan-means-higher-taxes-on-53-of-business-income-study.html), Romney supports raising taxes on businesses (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/02/politics/main3445281.shtml), and did so as governor of Massachusetts, despite speciously claiming otherwise by calling his tax hikes on businesses in the commonwealth “closing tax loopholes.”
32. Both Mitt Romney (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/20/487285/ryan-romney-budget-debt/) and Barack Obama (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/04/06/Obamas-and-Paul-Ryans-Conflicting-Budget-Visions.aspx#page1)‘s federal budget plans would add trillions of dollars to the already unsustainable national debt over the next ten years.
33. Neither Mitt Romney (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/mitt-romney-budget-promises_n_1445368.html), nor Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/20/obama.cabinet.cuts/index.html) have offered a plan of detailed, substantive spending cuts to the out-of-control federal budget that pass the straight face test.
34. On Social Security, Mitt Romney’s plan (http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Social-Security.php) is to manage, tinker, and keep “kicking the can down the road.” Barack Obama’s plan (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Obama/Social-Security.php) is to manager, not tinker… and keep kicking the can down the road.
35. Both Barack Obama (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/white-house-backs-off-of-obama-earmarks-pledge/) and Mitt Romney (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/17/news/chi-120217mitt-romney-earmarks) have taken strong positions against earmarking in the US Congress.
36. Neither Barack Obama (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881855,00.html), nor Mitt Romney (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/12/mitt-romney-earmarks_n_1271392.html)‘s actions are consistent with their rhetoric on earmarks.
37. Spending categorized as defense-related has only gone up (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spend.php?span=usgs302&year=2008&view=1&expand=30&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy12&local=s&state=US&pie=#usgs302) during President Obama’s first term from $616 billion under Bush in 2008 to $768 billion in 2011, and Obama still wants even more (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/defense-enjoys-short-term-boost-under-obama-budget/). So does Romney (http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/romney-defense-spending/index.htm).
38. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have (http://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150795727/are-obama-and-romney-the-same-guy) international backgrounds and parents with international backgrounds…
39. But both are foreign policy amateurs with backgrounds in domestic policy, finance, law, and community organizing rather than foreign policy…
40. Yet their team of foreign policy experts, from Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to Mitt Romney’s team of Bush-era neoconservative foreign policy advisers (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/why-colin-powell-bashed-mitt-romneys-foreign-policy-advisers/), indicates their equal commitment to Washington’s unpopular and incoherent foreign policy status quo.
41. And for the first time since 1944 (http://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150795727/are-obama-and-romney-the-same-guy), neither of the two major parties’ candidates, Barack Obama, nor Mitt Romney, have military experience.
42. Despite running on a platform of change, Obama’s first term as president has demonstrated his commitment to the Bush era strategies of nation building and counter-insurgency. Mitt Romney doesn’t think (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/politics/scrutiny-of-romneys-stance-on-afghan-war-now-more-likely.html?_r=2) Obama’s commitment to nation building is strong enough.
43. Both Mitt Romney (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/29/us/election-news/candidates-on-executive-power.html) and Barack Obama (http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/29/obamas-doctrine-of-pre-emptive) support the Bush era doctrine of preemptive war.
44. Mitt Romney agrees with President Obama (http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/romney-president-has-power-act-unilat) that the president can act unilaterally to take the country to war without Congress.

[Alyosha]

More


44. Mitt Romney agrees with President Obama (http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/romney-president-has-power-act-unilat) that the president can act unilaterally to take the country to war without Congress.
45. Though Obama paints Romney as an American unilateralist willing to take military action without the blessing and cooperation of the international community, Romney and Obama actually both agree (http://features.rr.com/article/07wHdv12J65V2) with the Bush era foreign policy of unilateral US military action, and Obama took unilateral military action in the Osama bin Laden raid.
46. Though he has, unsurprisingly, held a different position before, Romney says (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-bin-busted-candidate-like-myself-would-have-done-bin-laden-raid-except-2007-mitt/%20) he would have ordered the bin Laden raid like Obama did.
47. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama believe the US military can be used for humanitarian intervention (http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/103782/start-the-attack-then-work-backwards) overseas without an imminent threat to American national security.
48. Mitt Romney approves (http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2011/08/romney-new-libyan-government-extradite-lockerbie-bomber) the NATO-led ousting of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya supported by (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66502.html) the Obama Administration.
49. Mitt Romney (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Foreign_Policy.htm) and Barack Obama (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9127324/Barack-Obama-US-will-not-countenance-Iranian-nuclear-weapon.html) both agree that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a national security priority for the United States.
50. Both Mitt Romney (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/mitt-romney-says-he-could-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress-approval/258607/) and Barack Obama (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-04/politics/politics_obama-aipac_1_nuclear-weapon-weapons-grade-uranium-obama-pledges?_s=PM:POLITICS) would unilaterally take the US to war against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
51. Barack Obama has been a consistent supporter and escalator (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/09/military_afghanistan_enablers_091409w/), as both Senator (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/) and President (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/when-is-an-iraq-withdrawal-not-a-withdrawal/), of George W. Bush’s war and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq. Mitt Romney thinks he isn’t supportive enough (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/mitt-romney-calls-obama-iraq-decision-an-astonishing-failure/2011/10/21/gIQANpjD4L_blog.html).
52. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are actively trying to outdo each other (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/romney-accuses-obama-of-dawdling-with-iran-sanctions/) on which candidate supports economic sanctions against Iran the most.
53. Barack Obama has involved the US in Syria’s foreign civil war. Mitt Romney wants to get even more involved (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301611/romney-s-syria-problem-andrew-c-mccarthy).
54. Mitt Romney supports (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/1123/In-debate-Romney-says-handle-Pakistan-like-Indonesia-in-the-1960s) continuing the Bush and Obama administration policy of cooperation with Pakistan despite its hostile activities toward US operations in Afghanistan and the fact that it appeared to have been harboring Osama bin Laden.
55. Mitt Romney supports (http://youtu.be/OBBg7zWiOIM) the Obama Administration’s policy of unmanned aerial warfare via predator drone in Pakistan.
56. Tim Pawlenty– on Romney’s short list (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/16/us-usa-campaign-romney-vicepresident-idUSBRE86F1BM20120716) for a VP– has suggested (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/pawlenty-obamas-drone-strikes-dont-go-far-enough/) that Mitt Romney would expand Barack Obama’s already unprecedented use of (http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155389081/are-drones-obamas-legacy-in-war-on-terrorism) drone warfare.
57. Mitt Romney supported (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_War_in_Afghanistan/) Barack Obama’s massive surge (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-president-obamas-speech-afghanistan-delivered-west/story?id=9220661#.UAWRh_V0hvA) of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
58. Though he tries to distinguish his position on Afghanistan from that of Obama’s, The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/politics/scrutiny-of-romneys-stance-on-afghan-war-now-more-likely.html?_r=2) reports that “despite the tough critique, Mr. Romney has loosely embraced the main thrust of White House policy for troop levels after the election: a timetable for pulling out nearly all troops by the end of 2014.”
59. Both Mitt Romney (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/mitt-romney-to-travel-to-israel-in-first-foreign-trip-of-candidacy/) and Barack Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/04/aipac-obama-israel-iran_n_1319494.html) consider Israel America’s best long-term strategic ally in the Middle East and are committed to using US military power to go to war alongside Israel against its regional enemies.
60. Barack Obama has failed to close (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/guantanamo-closure-anniversary_n_1195984.html) Guantanamo Bay as promised on the campaign trail and as president; Mitt Romney said (http://youtu.be/wEJCf7xx2QU%20) in one presidential debate: “My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo.”
61. Both Barack Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30947588/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-showfor-thursday-may/#.UAWc0_V0hvA) and Mitt Romney (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/29/us/election-news/candidates-on-executive-power.html) support indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial as a valid and legal tool in the national security state’s war on terrorism.
62. Both Barack Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18policy.html) and Mitt Romney (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Homeland_Security/) support the controversial practice of extraordinary rendition.

[The Xl]

The odds of Matalese successfully refuting that post is 0%.

[Alyosha]

There are 30 or so more, do you wish to contradict any of them Matalese and Bob ?

[Matty]

All that will be ignored. It doesn't matter. He's a Republican, they are Republicans.


What I voted for Romney for was his business acuity. I wanted a hard line business man, a capitalist with the knowledge of what it took to turn this country around and to reduce the national debt. I have an idea he would have teamed with Ryan and we would be on the path to a recovery. A painful but much needed recovery. But it won't happen now. The slide is too steep, the divide is too wide. This country is gone gone gone.

[Matty]

There are 30 or so more, do you wish to contradict any of them @Matalese (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=796) and @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) ?

I state why I voted for him. Arguing at this point is futile. You guys won and we lost. And, the country lost.

[Alyosha]

I state why I voted for him. Arguing at this point is futile. You guys won and we lost. And, the country lost.

If I had won Gary Johnson would be president right now. Just because I don't want your choice doesn't mean I want the Democrat's either. I'd like a little less government, thanks.

[Matty]

The real question is how's it working for you? Time to vote against the Donkephant.
Put some one who can carry more than 50% of the vote. Who ya got?

[Matty]

If I had won Gary Johnson would be president right now. Just because I don't want your choice doesn't mean I want the Democrat's either. I'd like a little less government, thanks.


Well had you voted for Romney you'd be on the way to achieving that, but what you got was Obama.

[Rebel Son]

What I voted for Romney for was his business acuity. I wanted a hard line business man, a capitalist with the knowledge of what it took to turn this country around and to reduce the national debt. I have an idea he would have teamed with Ryan and we would be on the path to a recovery. A painful but much needed recovery. But it won't happen now. The slide is too steep, the divide is too wide. This country is gone gone gone.

I argued this last election, there is a time and place to battle. That one was not the time or the place, any vote besides for the "rino Rommney" ( and yes he is ) was a vote for extreme socialism. It's what we have now thanks to those who threw away their votes. I like Gary Johnson, I'd support him in a second if I thought he had a snowball's chance in hell of getting it.

I see another debockle coming again and I also see another progressive win for the same reason. If we continue down this same path it will only get worse. Time comes to pick the best of the worst.

[Alyosha]

Well had you voted for Romney you'd be on the way to achieving that, but what you got was Obama.

No, I would not. When I say "less government" I mean more civil liberties and Romney's record on that is worse than Obama's which means he has a horrible record.

No thanks. The only difference between the two of them is that one is a rich dude who got his break in life from his father and the other rich dude got his break in life from Valerie Jarrett.

[Rebel Son]

No, I would not. When I say "less government" I mean more civil liberties and Romney's record on that is worse than Obama's which means he has a horrible record.

No thanks. The only difference between the two of them is that one is a rich dude who got his break in life from his father and the other rich dude got his break in life from Valerie Jarrett.

So you will end up with an even worse progressive in power and dig us into a hole we may never recover from because you believe in something?

[Chris]

Put some one who can carry more than 50% of the vote. Who ya got?

And I ask the same of you. You seem to think anyone with an R by their name will do, I don't.

[Chris]

So you will end up with an even worse progressive in power and dig us into a hole we may never recover from because you believe in something?

We'd be in the same dire straits had Romney won.

[Matty]

And I ask the same of you. You seem to think anyone with an R by their name will do, I don't.
Who ya got Chris? How can I find out about them if you hold a closely guarded secret?

[Matty]

We'd be in the same dire straits had Romney won.
Prove it.

[Alyosha]

Prove it.

I just did with a partial list of the 100 ways they agreed.

[Chris]

Who ya got Chris? How can I find out about them if you hold a closely guarded secret?

Who you got, matalese? Romney, lol.

[The Xl]

Refute it, Matalese. The ball is in your court.

[Matty]

Romney had the intelligence to know what a threat Putin would be. Stupid old Obama and Hildebeast thought they could re set the damn buttons. Like they were in a staples commercial or something.

[Chris]

Prove it.

Been demonstrated many times, and Xl and Aly demonstrated it again. We're waiting for you to at least deny it.

[Matty]

Who you got, matalese? Romney, lol.
Yes, now who you got?

[Rebel Son]

We'd be in the same dire straits had Romney won.

Not as bad I think, I don't like Romney. Never have but the difference would have been worth the wait to lay the ground work for somebody who does believe in the constitution. As it is, we are getting more communist by the day. Are you willing to go it again and let the socialist get a farther handle on things. I argued the point that the scotus was about to get appointed, nobody cared. I shouldn't hear any libertarian bitch about what was put in because you in essence threw your vote away on an idea. I have the same idea, but I've the presense to know we could not win that last election.

[Alyosha]

So you will end up with an even worse progressive in power and dig us into a hole we may never recover from because you believe in something?

They are both progressives, did you read that Romney agreed with the individual mandate, or no? Romney would have extended our military more, agreed with more spying, less rights under the Patriot Act. The only difference is that he would have proposed to Congress a tax cut for businesses and Congress would not have agreed.

It would have been worse than Obama because the one thing smaller government he would have done, no one in the Senate would have agreed to.

[Rebel Son]

They are both progressives, did you read that Romney agreed with the individual mandate, or no? Romney would have extended our military more, agreed with more spying, less rights under the Patriot Act. The only difference is that he would have proposed to Congress a tax cut for businesses and Congress would not have agreed.

It would have been worse than Obama because the one thing smaller government he would have done, no one in the Senate would have agreed to.

I already said I don't like Romney.........

So how do you like the new scotus? You helped do that,,would Romney done the same, I don't know. But it was a sure bet with Obama.

[Alyosha]

So how do you like the new scotus? You helped do that,,would Romney done the same, I don't know. But it was a sure bet with Obama.

I like it just fine. You telling me the Roberts court voted for freedom or something?

[Matty]

So, in conclusion, Chris doesn't have a candidate in mind worthy of naming so folks can read about him. That says a lot. End of discussion. I won't vote for a mystery candidate.

[Chris]

Not as bad I think, I don't like Romney. Never have but the difference would have been worth the wait to lay the ground work for somebody who does believe in the constitution. As it is, we are getting more communist by the day. Are you willing to go it again and let the socialist get a farther handle on things. I argued the point that the scotus was about to get appointed, nobody cared. I shouldn't hear any libertarian bitch about what was put in because you in essence threw your vote away on an idea. I have the same idea, but I've the presense to know we could not win that last election.

The problem is while you, and matalese and bob believe in some Republican cause, others do not, and we feel you all have thrown your votes away, and will, apparently, do so again.

[Chris]

So, in conclusion, Chris doesn't have a candidate in mind worthy of naming so folks can read about him. That says a lot. End of discussion. I won't vote for a mystery candidate.

Reps don't have a candidate either.

[Matty]

I like it just fine. You telling me the Roberts court voted for freedom or something?
Roflmao. Ginsberg just noted that men cannot make decisions for women because they don't understand. Guess that means we need to revoke Roe v Wade.

[Matty]

Reps don't have a candidate either.
That's a dodge.

[Rebel Son]

I like it just fine. You telling me the Roberts court voted for freedom or something?

They suck and you know it, you don't run 30 troops into a opposing bank of 3000, It's a no win situation. It's what I equate the last vote with, I agree with your ideas and thoughts but you have to pick your battles. Otherwise you end up like we are now, we will most likely get another socialist next time because nobody can come to an agreement. 12 years of communist rule IE. Well done!!

[Rebel Son]

The problem is while you, and matalese and bob believe in some Republican cause, others do not, and we feel you all have thrown your votes away, and will, apparently, do so again.

NO, you threw your votes away and we have a communist in the white house again.

[Green Arrow]

Put some one who can carry more than 50% of the vote. Who ya got?

Why? You didn't. Romney only carried 47.2% and McCain only carried 45.7%. Why do you keep demanding standards you can't even uphold?

[Green Arrow]

NO, you threw your votes away and we have a communist in the white house again.

No offense, but my vote is my vote. I alone decide what my vote is worth. And yes, I threw it away on one of the two loser parties. I won't make that mistake again.

[Matty]

Why? You didn't. Romney only carried 47.2% and McCain only carried 45.7%. Why do you keep demanding standards you can't even uphold?
And the third party guy? What did he carry?

[Chris]

That's a dodge.

Same dodge as yours. Just as my lesser of two evils argument was the same as yours. Criticizing my argument criticizes your own.

Besides, I am here discussing Rand Paul who, while Republican, is libertarian/Tea Party enough to consider.

[Chris]

NO, you threw your votes away and we have a communist in the white house again.

Same argument, you threw your votes away. And, no, we don't have a communist in office, we have a social democrat, same as Romney would've been, as demonstrated by Xl and Aly.

[Rebel Son]

Same dodge as yours. Just as my lesser of two evils argument was the same as yours. Criticizing my argument criticizes your own.

Besides, I am here discussing Rand Paul who, while Republican, is libertarian/Tea Party enough to consider.

That I can agree with and he might have enough of a chance to make it. Thing being that even if he doesn't, it gives people something to think about. Before it was like shooting a fish in the ocean at night......

[Chris]

That I can agree with and he might have enough of a chance to make it.

SO we wait and watch. Can he move center enough to get the votes but still remain true to his libertarian principles?

[Matty]

And the third party guy? What did he carry?


Bump?

[Rebel Son]

SO we wait and watch. Can he move center enough to get the votes but still remain true to his libertarian principles?

I don't know, but it will be the only way to go if we ever want to be in contention. Even if not, if close enough it could make a difference in future elections. I would hate to get another commie in office but this step with Rand could be what the country needs. It's gonna take alot of work though.

[Paperback Writer]

Roflmao. Ginsberg just noted that men cannot make decisions for women because they don't understand. Guess that means we need to revoke Roe v Wade.

Ginsberg was a Clinton appointee and also on Bush's SCOTUS.

[Matty]

Bump?
I'm still looking but wiki says it was just under 1% of the vote. :)



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson_presidential_campaign,_2012

[Paperback Writer]

And the third party guy? What did he carry?

I'm sure it was what one would expect from a two party monopoly that has convinced people that to vote for a third party is to destroy Murrica.

The UK now has a rising UKIP party that is changing the whole of the country both by its representation at the EU and it's ability to spoil majorities in Parliament. That's only a good thing. I'm glad we don't believe in the 2 story diagram your lot draws of political power.

[Matty]

I'm sure it was what one would expect from a two party monopoly that has convinced people that to vote for a third party is to destroy Murrica.

The UK now has a rising UKIP party that is changing the whole of the country both by its representation at the EU and it's ability to spoil majorities in Parliament. That's only a good thing. I'm glad we don't believe in the 2 story diagram your lot draws of political power.


Britash was screwed long before we were. Stick a fork in it Britash is done

[Matty]

Ginsberg was a Clinton appointee and also on Bush's SCOTUS.
Yes sweetie we KNOW, it's a lifetime appointment.

[Paperback Writer]

Britash was screwed long before we were. Stick a fork in it Britash is done

We're in transition and moving away from centralisation if Scotland's upcoming vote is any indication, whilst Murrica is becoming the Soviet Union. :)

[Chris]

I don't know, but it will be the only way to go if we ever want to be in contention. Even if not, if close enough it could make a difference in future elections. I would hate to get another commie in office but this step with Rand could be what the country needs. It's gonna take alot of work though.

Same argument can be made for third parties: We will never see the downfall of the current duopoly unless more dissatisfied people see it as an alternative and start voting that way.

[Matty]

We're in transition and moving away from centralisation if Scotland's upcoming vote is any indication, whilst Murrica is becoming the Soviet Union. :)
Britashistan

[donttread]

I'm sure it was what one would expect from a two party monopoly that has convinced people that to vote for a third party is to destroy Murrica.

The UK now has a rising UKIP party that is changing the whole of the country both by its representation at the EU and it's ability to spoil majorities in Parliament. That's only a good thing. I'm glad we don't believe in the 2 story diagram your lot draws of political power.

Plus if they commit voter fraud against each other don't ys think they rig the numbers against 3rd parties?

[Peter1469]

vote 3rd party!

[Paperback Writer]

Britashistan

Guatamurrica.

[The Xl]

vote 3rd party!

You hate freedom, America, Captain Planet, Captain Crunch, the Green Ranger from Power Rangers, the Dallas Cowboys, Macho Man Randy Savage, and you love Hamas.

Murica'

[donttread]

you hate freedom, america, captain planet, captain crunch, the green ranger from power rangers, the dallas cowboys, macho man randy savage, and you love hamas.

Murica'

lol

[Bob]

There are 30 or so more, do you wish to contradict any of them @Matalese (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=796) and @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) ?
Alyosha. 30 or so more what? I shall return to other pages or this page, to find out what you are talking about. That was a blind question so far as I am concerned. I don't know what I would want to contradict.

[Bob]

vote 3rd party!

Democrats won't. A good plan if you aim to elect another Democrat Peter1469

I am about done trying to reason with those who wish the worst for America.

Again, some of them are nice people. I refuse to put some Pvt in charge of Peter's unit so please don't ask me to elect amateurs.

[Peter1469]

The GOP establishment is as corrupt as the dem establishment.

Don't vote evil. Karma is a killer.
Democrats won't. A good plan if you aim to elect another Democrat @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10)

I am about done trying to reason with those who wish the worst for America.

Again, some of them are nice people. I refuse to put some Pvt in charge of Peter's unit so please don't ask me to elect amateurs.

[Bob]

Same argument can be made for third parties: We will never see the downfall of the current duopoly unless more dissatisfied people see it as an alternative and start voting that way.

You people are not trying to damage democrats. Why?

[Bob]

The GOP establishment is as corrupt as the dem establishment.

Don't vote evil. Karma is a killer.

That can be claimed about the 3rd parties. They can't attract voters.

[Bob]

Same argument, you threw your votes away. And, no, we don't have a communist in office, we have a social democrat, same as Romney would've been, as demonstrated by Xl and Aly.

You are wrong about Romney. Put it this way. Obama is terrible for America. Rand is a nice person but has no pull power with the country. I admire him for what he tries to do as Senator but come to think of it, what has he done as Senator for America?

[Chris]

You are wrong about Romney. Put it this way. Obama is terrible for America. Rand is a nice person but has no pull power with the country. I admire him for what he tries to do as Senator but come to think of it, what has he done as Senator for America?


Nice opinion. I disagree for reasons already given above.

[Bob]

Barriers to third party success[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_party_(United_States)&action=edit&section=11)]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Libertarian_Presidential_Election_Results.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Libertarian_Presidential_Election_Results.png )
Winner-take-all vs. proportional representation[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_party_(United_States)&action=edit&section=12)]In winner-take-all (or plurality-take-all), the candidate with the largest number of votes wins, even if the margin of victory is extremely narrow or the proportion of votes received is not a majority. Unlike in proportional representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation), runners-up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runners-up) do not gain representation in afirst-past-the-post system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system). In the United States, systems of proportional representation are uncommon, especially above the local level, and are entirely absent at the national level. In Presidential elections, the majority requirement of the Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)), and the Constitutional provision for the House of Representatives to decide the election if no candidate receives a majority, serves as a further disincentive to third party candidacies.
In the United States, if an interest group is at odds with its traditional party, it has the option of running sympathetic candidates in primaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election). If the candidate fails in the primary and believes he has a chance to win in the general election he may form or join a third party. Because of the difficulties third parties face in gaining any representation, third parties tend to exist to promote a specific issue or personality. Often, the intent is to force national public attention on such an issue. Then one or both of the major parties may rise to commit for or against the matter at hand, or at least weigh in. H. Ross Perot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Ross_Perot) eventually founded a third party, the Reform Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America), to support his 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996) campaign. In 1912 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912), Theodore Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt) made a spirited run for the presidency on the Progressive Party ticket, but he never made any efforts to help Progressive congressional candidates in 1914, and in the 1916 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1916), he supported the Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)#Current_U.S._third_par ties

[Peter1469]

That can be claimed about the 3rd parties. They can't attract voters.
Because dumb people vote only D or R.

[Bob]

Nice opinion. I disagree for reasons already given above.

What has Rand done for America?

[Matty]

Because dumb people vote only D or R.
And really stupid people vote for someone who hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

[Bob]

Because dumb people vote only D or R.


Have I called you dumb?

[Matty]

What has Rand done for America?
Well, he stayed up all night running his mouth once.

[Matty]

Have I called you dumb?
No, he called you and I dumb.

[Bob]

The problem is while you, and matalese and bob believe in some Republican cause, others do not, and we feel you all have thrown your votes away, and will, apparently, do so again.

I am a dozen more times anti democrat than pro republican.

The third party is not trying to hurt Democrats, it wants republicans to bail out and hand it all over to Democrats.

Besides, no third party can win. The system won't allow it.

[Peter1469]

And really stupid people vote for someone who hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

Because of the two party fantasy. It is two sides of the same coin.

[Peter1469]

No more voting for crap that smell better than the other side.

If the GOP nominates crap, vote third party.

Or what we really need is None of the Above. Throw the entire system into chaos.

I am amazed at how many otherwise thinking people have fallen to this two party system that is in reality one party.