Reasons Obama is a shoe-in for re-election

[nikki2200 4]

It's not that easy because you have to break it down by state to count for the electoral college. Unless we are only talking about the popular vote (but then again, why would the popular vote even matter?).

 

Yea. If you want to get all technical about what states actually won because of black turnout. But a 7% differential in the popular vote is huge and it would have to be one of the weirdest elections ever for someone to lose the electoral vote in that situation.

 

It probably played a factor in NC and maybe Virginia. But now come to think of it, the effect was probably even smaller than it would appear because the majority of the black population lives in urban areas that typically go blue anyway and in the south which stayed red. It probably had little to nothing to do with him winning states like Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, etc. So yea. The black voter turnout probably had little to nothing to do with him winning the election at all.

[drobeski 3,061]

Well, those are minor issues, aren't they?

 

I mean, science is ridiculous at its core and wrong all the time about everything. Physics is about to scrap everything and start over with the God particle mess. So, it's probably best to not teach science in schools because it's bullsh!t.

 

As far as fagguts, they keep going around claiming without any scientific evidence (not that you can trust science) that they were born with a different genetic makeups than human beings, chromosomes and all that jazz. So, they are claiming they are the same as retards. Do you think retards should be allowed to serve in the military? I don't. So why should we let homo retards in the military? Just doesn't make any sense. Plus, then you have to have separate living quarters for broads, h0m0s, and actual soldiers. That'll cost ya.

 

And if killing a baby in the tummy is not illegal, then somebody better fix the Scott Peterson verdict of being guilty of two murders.

 

:selfhighfive:

:blammo:

[IGotWorms 3,316]

Yea. If you want to get all technical about what states actually won because of black turnout. But a 7% differential in the popular vote is huge and it would have to be one of the weirdest elections ever for someone to lose the electoral vote in that situation.

 

It probably played a factor in NC and maybe Virginia. But now come to think of it, the effect was probably even smaller than it would appear because the majority of the black population lives in urban areas that typically go blue anyway and in the south which stayed red. It probably had little to nothing to do with him winning states like Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, etc. So yea. The black voter turnout probably had little to nothing to do with him winning the election at all.

 

I agree with you on that point. The black vote might have helped him win it by a slightly larger margin but that's about it.

 

The way some people put it, you'd think Al Sharpton could be elected president since all the blacks would turn out to vote for him!

[SUXBNME 1,340]

I think the biggest impediment to Obama running away with the election is: last time around he got unprecedented numbers of blacks to come out and vote... for him of course. I think most of them still would vote for him, but the question is: will they make the same effort they did last time and actually get their asses to the voting booth?

 

Relatedly, I think the Republicans are going to make Voter ID and fraud a huge issue this election. They are going to want to stop the Obama bum buses.

I kind of doubt it. Black people are shifty, lazy folks that often smell bad, have no morals and are a general drain on society.

 

Plus, Obama didn't pay off their mortgages like he promised.

[TD Ryan2 314]

I have actively participated in a 4page Political Thread at the Geek Club.

eatAbullet

[nikki2200 4]

I have actively participated in a 4page Political Thread at the Geek Club.

eatAbullet

 

Unfortunately... there's not a whole lot else to talk about.

[Little Rusty 17]

I kind of doubt it. Black people are shifty, lazy folks that often smell bad, have no morals and are a general drain on society.

 

Plus, Obama didn't pay off their mortgages like he promised.

[DankNuggs 305]

The black population made up for 2% more of the voter base in 2008 than in 2004 (from 11% to 13%). Hispanics made up 1% more of the voter base in 2008 than 2004 (from 6% to 7%) and 1/3 of them voted for McCain.

 

Obama won the popular vote by 7%.

 

The math is not that hard to figure out.

So he won 100% of 13% of the vote (in simple terms) and won by 7% of the vote. Had he split that 13%, it would have been pretty close.

 

 

But you say the African American vote didn't matter? interesting

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

So he won 100% of 13% of the vote (in simple terms) and won by 7% of the vote. Had he split that 13%, it would have been pretty close.

 

 

But you say the African American vote didn't matter? interesting

 

I think his point is that 80% or so of that vote was in places (the south) that he lost anyway. Popular vote doesn't matter, just ask President Gore.

[nikki2200 4]

So he won 100% of 13% of the vote (in simple terms) and won by 7% of the vote. Had he split that 13%, it would have been pretty close.

 

 

But you say the African American vote didn't matter? interesting

 

No. I was addressing the comments here that he won because there was record turnout by the black population for the last election. Which accounted for 2% more of the voter base than the previous election.

 

And like we've already deduced, this really didn't affect the election that much except maybe for the margin he won by, due to where the majority of black people live and the electoral college and such.

 

But I guess by your reasoning, if we shipped all the blacks back to Africa... he wouldn't have won the election.

 

 

 

[DankNuggs 305]

No. I was addressing the comments here that he won because there was record turnout by the black population for the last election. Which accounted for 2% more of the voter base than the previous election.

 

And like we've already deduced, this really didn't affect the election that much except maybe for the margin he won by, due to where the majority of black people live and the electoral college and such.

 

But I guess by your reasoning, if we shipped all the blacks back to Africa... he wouldn't have won the election.

 

 

 

 

You are one of the few who see it that way

Florida, Ohio, if they don't get big turnout in '12 he is in big trouble, they'll be bussing me in, waking up dead voters and pets on the rolls. Lol

[jerryskids 5,207]

You are one of the few who see it that way

Florida, Ohio, if they don't get big turnout in '12 he is in big trouble, they'll be bussing me in, waking up dead voters and pets on the rolls. Lol

 

Don't stop her, she's on a roll#@! She made it sound like she derived the answer from first principles, so how could she be wrong?

 

Anyway, seems I caused a bit of a stir with my post. I thought about adding "young voters" to the list, but I'm not really sure where he sits with them these days. Plus the discussion wouldn't have been as fun.

 

I predict that a lot of the Obama campaign attention will center around doing whatever is necessary to get black people to the polls in those battleground states. Nikki thinks it is insignificant. I guess we'll see.

[TD Ryan2 314]

I thought about adding "young voters" to the list, but I'm not really sure where he sits with them these days.

young voters = Ron Paul territory.

but I do believe they'll go for Obama again long before a Romney or Santorum.

[listen2me 23 1,544]

Which guy would most likely try to shut down medical marijuana?

 

 

I'll vote for the other guy.

[listen2me 23 1,544]

So he won 100% of 13% of the vote (in simple terms) and won by 7% of the vote. Had he split that 13%, it would have been pretty close.

 

 

But you say the African American vote didn't matter? interesting

 

How many KKK bed sheet wearing southerns turned out to vote for anyone but "the black guy"?

 

Does that factor in too?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Which guy would most likely try to shut down medical marijuana?

 

 

I'll vote for the other guy.

Exactly. The guy who won't go after medical marijuana is definitely the best man to help stop the train wreck of spending we are now faced with.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How many KKK bed sheet wearing southerns turned out to vote for anyone but "the black guy"?

 

Does that factor in too?

 

They can't vote for Robert KKK Byrd anymore.....or can they?

[listen2me 23 1,544]

Exactly. The guy who won't go after medical marijuana is definitely the best man to help stop the train wreck of spending we are now faced with.

 

You want to hit this thing? :bobmarley:

 

 

Relax turd man.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I don't expect to see Obama get the turnout he had last time.

 

But then, I don't think he is going to be the only candidate with turnout problems. I don't see many Republicans chomping at the bit to vote for Romney either.

[Voltaire 4,564]

It's their marketing campaign. That's how they get all the Southern and middle states. Catering to the bible thumpers. It works well.

 

The south is the ass of the country and it's disgusting to be in with them. The middle states are very capable of keeping brain-dead religious freak zombie politicians on the losing end of election battles. This problem is for southerners to deal with.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The middle states are very capable of keeping brain-dead religious freak zombie politicians on the losing end of election battles. This is the south's problem which is why they're the ass of the country.

 

Yer from Detroit, right?

[gocolts 300]

I like turtles

Did you see what the Chinese are doing with live turtles???

 

Turtle keychains :thumbsdown:

[Voltaire 4,564]

Masturbation bingo. Go in the booth, rub one out, and see where it lands.

 

It's impossible to be anything but flaccid in the 2012 voting booth with names like "Romney" "Santorum" and "Obama" on the ballot.

[Voltaire 4,564]

Yer from Detroit, right?

I'm from north of Eight Mile, not south of it. I may be a short walk away, but much like in Texas terms, being north of the Rio Grande is far preferable to being south of it.

[jerryskids 5,207]

I'm from north of Eight Mile, not south of it. I may be a short walk away, but much like in Texas terms, being north of the Rio Grande is far preferable to being south of it.

 

I think his point was that Detroit is in Michigan, and Michigan seems to be taking a liking to Santorum. At least that is how I read it.

[Voltaire 4,564]

I think you might be the first person I've seen in the last 2 years to predict that the Dems win seats in the Senate. Even the blatant liberal media outlets at CNN and their ilk have gone with the line that since so many Dem seat are up for grabs, and there is so much anger at incumbents, it would be stunning if the Republicans didn't have control of both houses after the national election. Interesting prediction, but it is the path less traveled I suppose.

 

This and foreign policy are why I'll almost certainly vote to reelect President Obama. Although the Tea Party helps improve their image a lot, I still hate the Repugs more than the Dums. Frothy has zero upside, he'd be a terrible president. On the plus side, at least he's sincere and has character. I know what to expect and since I don't like it, I won't vote for him.

 

Romney may actually have a lot of upside, he could potentially be a solid president. But he's such a lying, sleazy, pandering, two-faced scum that I cannot in good conscience vote for him based on crossing my fingers on how he'll turn out, especially with a GOP Congress. Obama is not that bad that I want to roll the dice on a guy who would gladly pimp his mother if it'd win him some votes. With the GOP controlling Congress, they've done a decent job of keeping Obama's worst instincts in check.

[Voltaire 4,564]

I think his point was that Detroit is in Michigan, and Michigan seems to be taking a liking to Santorum. At least that is how I read it.

 

You know what, Romney sucks. He's about as tuned in to his "Michigan roots" as Madonna is. Yay! He knows what Vernors is ... well he can shove a bottle up his ass. I don't see any Michigan there. What I see is an uber-wealthy silver-spoon fed Massachusetts elite guy doing a sh*tty impersonation of a Mississippi evangelical. Fake. Fake. Fake. Fake. His father was a good governor in our state, but that's something I can only learn from the history books. Michigan voters would have to be 80 or so to have ever had a chance to vote for or even remember him.

 

With my two favorite GOP candidates -Gingrich and Paul- pretty much done, the choice is between a decent man who would be a horrible president and a horrible man who may or may not be a decent president. In that case, would not mind seeing this state, or this nomination, go to Santorum.

 

I'll vote for President Obama over either of these two GOP candidates anyways.

[jerryskids 5,207]

This and foreign policy are why I'll almost certainly vote to reelect President Obama. Although the Tea Party helps improve their image a lot, I still hate the Repugs more than the Dums. Frothy has zero upside, he'd be a terrible president. On the plus side, at least he's sincere and has character. I know what to expect and since I don't like it, I won't vote for him.

 

Romney may actually have a lot of upside, he could potentially be a solid president. But he's such a lying, sleazy, pandering, two-faced scum that I cannot in good conscience vote for him based on crossing my fingers on how he'll turn out, especially with a GOP Congress. Obama is not that bad that I want to roll the dice on a guy who would gladly pimp his mother if it'd win him some votes. With the GOP controlling Congress, they've done a decent job of keeping Obama's worst instincts in check.

 

I was thinking yesterday about what makes a great (or very good) president. The two I've seen are Reagan and Clinton. One similarity is that they each had a foil in Congress who would work with him (Tip and Newt). The other, though, is that they were great unifiers and compromisers. Obama is the antithesis of these qualities. He isn't about solving problems; he is about division and blame. I heard him on TV yesterday talking to a crowd about a law he just signed; he basically said "it's about time Congress got off their ass and sent me a good bill." Nice. He wonders out loud how nothing gets done, yet he acts like Veronica from Willy Wonka, stomping his feet when he doesn't get his way. I for one am scared to death of what he'll be like in a second term with no concern for re-election.

 

Romney, on the other hand, has a history of success getting compromises in some difficult places -- very liberal Massachusetss, and the Olympics (which probably makes our government look efficient). I think he has a chance to be a very successful right-leaning moderate (which Reagan was, if you look at his record). I'm sorry that Romney doesn't know the name of the check cashing liquor store on the corner of 8 Mile and Ford Road. Obama might, but it is only because his lackeys told him. I guarantee you that he doesn't care about it, unless it helps him politically.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I think his point was that Detroit is in Michigan, and Michigan seems to be taking a liking to Santorum. At least that is how I read it.

That's part of it. He doesn't really care for Obama (other than foreign policy.....I guess he is talking about assassinations, cuz other than that the world is in chaos), Santorum, or Romney. All three are from the North, yet he complains about the South being the ass of the country. Detroit is a sh!thole, the Northeast, and Cali, both Lib run areas of the country, are losing companies and residents to the Southern states run by more conservative governments. Lower taxes, less regulation, etc.....companies and individuals are voting with their feet.

 

The stereotype that he "elite NE" asswhipes have of the South is that it is filled with toothless rednecks. For every toothless redneck in the South I can show you a dooshnozzle greasy guido Jersey Shore type. And the smart folks from up there are bailing and coming to the South. You boys have fun when it's just you, Snooki, and Snitch (or whatever his name is).

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

Romney, on the other hand, has a history of success getting compromises in some difficult places -- very liberal Massachusetss, and the Olympics (which probably makes our government look efficient). I think he has a chance to be a very successful right-leaning moderate (which Reagan was, if you look at his record). I'm sorry that Romney doesn't know the name of the check cashing liquor store on the corner of 8 Mile and Ford Road. Obama might, but it is only because his lackeys told him. I guarantee you that he doesn't care about it, unless it helps him politically.

 

 

I agree with your assessment of Romney. At least he has been successful at something, which puts him way ahead of Obama's resume.

 

As for the bolded part, I posted this yesterday that illustrates your point vividly. A hugely successful inner city school voucher program in DC raises kids grades and graduation rates, and cuts cost. But the teachers union hates vouchers, so Obama throws poor kids under the bus to pay off his union cronies. The thread got no responses. I'm guessing cuz those of us who have him figured out are not surprised in the least, and the Obama lemmings can't face facts like this. It's better to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalalala".

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=399859

[FeelingMN 273]

LOL... this is a bit ridiculous.

 

The social issues are a strawman from the real issues. Its just a fact that dems are weaker on the economy than repubs. They tend to be stronger on freedom on social issues. Thats why the conversation is perpetually diverted from real issues to the smokescreens...

 

I read this yesterday and it made me scratch my head. Dems tend to be stronger on freedom. I don't care if it's freedom to choose underwear....it's focking freedom. If the Right got out of people's lives and allowed them the freedom to choose their own values in life, they'd dominate the political landscape. But they pander to the extreme just like the Left does with the poor.

 

I think the only reason you think it's a smokescreen is because it doesn't affect you directly.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If the Right got out of people's lives and allowed them the freedom to choose their own values in life, they'd dominate the political landscape.

 

Exactly what "social freedom" has the right taken away from you in the past 50-75 years?

 

Civil rights? Oops, no. The Civil Rights Act passed with a higher percentage of Rep votes, and the Reps overcame Dem filibuster to get it through.

 

Not sure what rights the right has taken away from you, just sure that every election time the dems that if you elect Reps you will lose this right, and that right. Never seems to happen, but the lefty base laps it up with a spoon.

[FeelingMN 273]

I was thinking yesterday about what makes a great (or very good) president. The two I've seen are Reagan and Clinton. One similarity is that they each had a foil in Congress who would work with him (Tip and Newt). The other, though, is that they were great unifiers and compromisers. Obama is the antithesis of these qualities. He isn't about solving problems; he is about division and blame. I heard him on TV yesterday talking to a crowd about a law he just signed; he basically said "it's about time Congress got off their ass and sent me a good bill." Nice. He wonders out loud how nothing gets done, yet he acts like Veronica from Willy Wonka, stomping his feet when he doesn't get his way. I for one am scared to death of what he'll be like in a second term with no concern for re-election.

 

Romney, on the other hand, has a history of success getting compromises in some difficult places -- very liberal Massachusetss, and the Olympics (which probably makes our government look efficient). I think he has a chance to be a very successful right-leaning moderate (which Reagan was, if you look at his record). I'm sorry that Romney doesn't know the name of the check cashing liquor store on the corner of 8 Mile and Ford Road. Obama might, but it is only because his lackeys told him. I guarantee you that he doesn't care about it, unless it helps him politically.

 

There's a lot of truth in what you say. I think Boehner could be that guy for Obama.

 

But I'm wondering if we've entered a new political reality dominated by the 24 hour newscycle, and an aggressive blogosphere....neither of which Clinton nor Reagan had to contend with. We saw these things emerge with Bush, and now with Obama....and ain't it funny how these guys are two of the most polarizing political figures we've had in a long, long time....probably since the Civil War.

 

There's just too many power players behind the scenes for any President to be all that effective anymore in my opinion. Maybe I'm just overly cynical. Even if Romney were a great compromiser...and I think that's a great attribute to have as a leader...he'd never be characterized as that by the left. They'd portray him as a caricature, the hardcore lefties would sieze upon it, the Dems would react to satisfy their base, and voila you have exactly what we have had the past 12-14 years in this country.

 

None of this is meant as an excuse for Obama though. He certainly has his drawbacks, and I think he sucks as a leader.

[FeelingMN 273]

Exactly what "social freedom" has the right taken away from you in the past 50-75 years?

 

Civil rights? Oops, no. The Civil Rights Act passed with a higher percentage of Rep votes, and the Reps overcame Dem filibuster to get it through.

 

Not sure what rights the right has taken away from you, just sure that every election time the dems that if you elect Reps you will lose this right, and that right. Never seems to happen, but the lefty base laps it up with a spoon.

 

Hey, maybe you're braindead this morning you redneck fock. Go back to our little discussion about Santorum and his feelings on the Griswold case...you know, the one that established marital privacy rights....rights that Santorum thinks don't really exist That's the focked up rhetoric the Right is engaged in.....to pander to some antiquarian sect. It's bullsh!t. Let people marry who they want to marry....let them decide their own values...and the Right would dominate the political landscape.

 

Also, you braindead fock....where did I say anything about "losing" anything? Where did I say anything about anything being taken away from me? Try reading....instead of listening to the radio

 

I just thought it was odd that Dank stated the Dems tended to be stronger on social freedoms...yet that is a smokescreen. I don't care if I'm the freest motherfocker around, if every other American can't claim to be as free, then I think it's wrong...and it's something I think a true American should stand up for. Then again, some of us think our troops are whiners, so this point is probably lost on them.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Hey, maybe you're braindead this morning you redneck fock. Go back to our little discussion about Santorum and his feelings on the Griswold case...you know, the one that established marital privacy rights....rights that Santorum thinks don't really exist That's the focked up rhetoric the Right is engaged in.....to pander to some antiquarian sect. It's bullsh!t. Let people marry who they want to marry....let them decide their own values...and the Right would dominate the political landscape.

 

Also, you braindead fock....where did I say anything about "losing" anything? Where did I say anything about anything being taken away from me? Try reading....instead of listening to the radio

 

I just thought it was odd that Dank stated the Dems tended to be stronger on social freedoms...yet that is a smokescreen. I don't care if I'm the freest motherfocker around, if every other American can't claim to be as free, then I think it's wrong...and it's something I think a true American should stand up for. Then again, some of us think our troops are whiners, so this point is probably lost on them.

 

I addressed this claim by you:

 

If the Right got out of people's lives and allowed them the freedom to choose their own values in life

 

Still waiting for you to show where the Right has not allowed people the freedom to choose their own values in life.

 

I guess you have nothing since the best ya got is calling me a redneck. Face it, Pal, it's an election year and the dems are pulling out the BS scare tactic talking points to rile up their mental-midget base. You are exhibit A.

[jerryskids 5,207]

There's a lot of truth in what you say. I think Boehner could be that guy for Obama.

 

But I'm wondering if we've entered a new political reality dominated by the 24 hour newscycle, and an aggressive blogosphere....neither of which Clinton nor Reagan had to contend with. We saw these things emerge with Bush, and now with Obama....and ain't it funny how these guys are two of the most polarizing political figures we've had in a long, long time....probably since the Civil War.

 

There's just too many power players behind the scenes for any President to be all that effective anymore in my opinion. Maybe I'm just overly cynical. Even if Romney were a great compromiser...and I think that's a great attribute to have as a leader...he'd never be characterized as that by the left. They'd portray him as a caricature, the hardcore lefties would sieze upon it, the Dems would react to satisfy their base, and voila you have exactly what we have had the past 12-14 years in this country.

 

None of this is meant as an excuse for Obama though. He certainly has his drawbacks, and I think he sucks as a leader.

 

Interesting point on Boehner -- I was thinking that he is best suited to play the foil as well. But Obama isn't a compromiser so it won't work. And really, would we not elect Romney because the best foil is also Republican? That reeks of trying to get too cute with the system. IMO, let's do our part to get one of the pieces in place and put the right kind of president there. On a side note, I think a Boehner/Hillary combo might be pretty greta, but it will never happen.

 

Also interesting is your comment about our youtube politics. It's possible that we've gotten to a point where it just doesn't matter. But I don't think that means we just give up either.

[DankNuggs 305]

I was thinking yesterday about what makes a great (or very good) president. The two I've seen are Reagan and Clinton. One similarity is that they each had a foil in Congress who would work with him (Tip and Newt). The other, though, is that they were great unifiers and compromisers. Obama is the antithesis of these qualities. He isn't about solving problems; he is about division and blame. I heard him on TV yesterday talking to a crowd about a law he just signed; he basically said "it's about time Congress got off their ass and sent me a good bill." Nice. He wonders out loud how nothing gets done, yet he acts like Veronica from Willy Wonka, stomping his feet when he doesn't get his way. I for one am scared to death of what he'll be like in a second term with no concern for re-election.

 

Romney, on the other hand, has a history of success getting compromises in some difficult places -- very liberal Massachusetss, and the Olympics (which probably makes our government look efficient). I think he has a chance to be a very successful right-leaning moderate (which Reagan was, if you look at his record). I'm sorry that Romney doesn't know the name of the check cashing liquor store on the corner of 8 Mile and Ford Road. Obama might, but it is only because his lackeys told him. I guarantee you that he doesn't care about it, unless it helps him politically.

Nice post

[MDC 5,895]

I was thinking yesterday about what makes a great (or very good) president. The two I've seen are Reagan and Clinton. One similarity is that they each had a foil in Congress who would work with him (Tip and Newt). The other, though, is that they were great unifiers and compromisers. Obama is the antithesis of these qualities. He isn't about solving problems; he is about division and blame. I heard him on TV yesterday talking to a crowd about a law he just signed; he basically said "it's about time Congress got off their ass and sent me a good bill." Nice. He wonders out loud how nothing gets done, yet he acts like Veronica from Willy Wonka, stomping his feet when he doesn't get his way. I for one am scared to death of what he'll be like in a second term with no concern for re-election.

 

I think it might be easier to compromise if the GOP didn't operate from the position that the president is really a Muslim Manchurean Candidate who's bent on destroying all that is good and wholesome. I'm not letting Obummer off the hook here, but it's probably hard to try to find common ground with people who think your birth certificate is a phony and you're a closet socialist pole-smoking radical Islamist and possibly the anti-Christ. It's probably also not easy to find common ground when the speaker of the house says his number one priority isn't jobs or the economy or the overseas wars or anything, his top priority is getting you out of office.

 

It's probably kinda tough to meet a bunch of shrieking hysterical lunatics halfway on that, you know? Like if a coworker said they thought I was the anti-Christ, that might be an obstacle on meeting halfway to come up with some ideas for a presentation or something. Just sayin.

[eaglesalltheway 0]

I was thinking yesterday about what makes a great (or very good) president. The two I've seen are Reagan and Clinton. One similarity is that they each had a foil in Congress who would work with him (Tip and Newt). The other, though, is that they were great unifiers and compromisers. Obama is the antithesis of these qualities. He isn't about solving problems; he is about division and blame. I heard him on TV yesterday talking to a crowd about a law he just signed; he basically said "it's about time Congress got off their ass and sent me a good bill." Nice. He wonders out loud how nothing gets done, yet he acts like Veronica from Willy Wonka, stomping his feet when he doesn't get his way. I for one am scared to death of what he'll be like in a second term with no concern for re-election.

 

Romney, on the other hand, has a history of success getting compromises in some difficult places -- very liberal Massachusetss, and the Olympics (which probably makes our government look efficient). I think he has a chance to be a very successful right-leaning moderate (which Reagan was, if you look at his record). I'm sorry that Romney doesn't know the name of the check cashing liquor store on the corner of 8 Mile and Ford Road. Obama might, but it is only because his lackeys told him. I guarantee you that he doesn't care about it, unless it helps him politically.

I seem to remember Obama trying to unify, but the Republicans were completely against it. During the healthcare debate, Obama brought together both parties in a room and sat down with them to try and get it moving (Rush, Hannity, etc said it was just for show, and that may be true, I don't think we'll ever truly know, because the Republicans completely shut down any compromise). I think that's the point where Obama figured "What's the use?" I have never seen (and it could be because I pay attention more than before) a party so against a President. Obama could come out tomorrow and say "The sky is blue" and there will be some Republicans who will argue "No, it's gray". IMO, it's the republicans that need to learn to compromise.

[FeelingMN 273]

I addressed this claim by you:

 

 

 

Still waiting for you to show where the Right has not allowed people the freedom to choose their own values in life.

 

I guess you have nothing since the best ya got is calling me a redneck. Face it, Pal, it's an election year and the dems are pulling out the BS scare tactic talking points to rile up their mental-midget base. You are exhibit A.

 

And again I'll redirect you to our little discussion of Santorum and the Griswold case. He's been specific in stating that he thought the rights established in that case....marital privacy rights....were created from nothing. He doesn't believe in marital privacy rights. Tell me how that can't be construed as invasive?

 

Go to Santorum's website....and the first issue he addresses is.....wait for it.....pornography. Yep...pornography...the thing that is rooning America. Again, quit propping up beliefs as issues and you'd gain broader support. This isn't some liberal media bias...it's straight from the candidate himself. Issue #1....pornography.

 

Just focus on the economy, domestic policy, foreign policy, etc....and leave the social issues out of it. Hey wait...isn't that what a certain Republican Congressman is all about? Yet he's unelectable.....because of the base. Travesty.

 

Also, I won't vote for Obama...unless your Party is crazy enough to nominate Santorum. So not sure how anyone is riling me up....braindead redneck.