What's new
By:

Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

Scat said:
Hyperbole
Click to expand...

Definately. He hasn't even been in office 4 years.

More seriously, it may just be the nostalgia effect, but it seems to me that partisanship went up a little bit. I don't recall any highly-ranked Democrats in 2001 saying their primary mission was to make Bush a one-term President.
 
One Brow said:
Definately. He hasn't even been in office 4 years.

More seriously, it may just be the nostalgia effect, but it seems to me that partisanship went up a little bit. I don't recall any highly-ranked Democrats in 2001 saying their primary mission was to make Bush a one-term President.
Click to expand...

That and the fact that both houses were under Dem control his first two years.
 
LogGrad98 said:
How can expanding our empire be a bad thing? I mean we have already annexed all of Europe as the 51st thru 55th states. we rule all of the middle east, and soon we will set up our own governor in Korea. Once we own the world the dollar will be what we say it is. Go empire!!1!
Click to expand...

Oh how about reading history, and learning that all empires eventually come to an end. This empire is collapsing from within as we speak, along with the dollar.
 
Gojazz79 said:
Voting for "change" is what brought us Obama. Voting to just change this is stupid. I like some of Pauls domestic ideas. However as stated many times already his foreign policy is just insane.
Click to expand...

Voting for "change" was just a commercialized slogan for Obama's campaign. I don't want change, I want to go back to our original constitution and sound money.
Like Ron Paul has said, "I can get you a gallon of gas for a silver dime."
Is there anyone here that wouldn't like a gallon of gas for a dime?

Get the Federal Reserve the hell out, and get the treasury printing it's own money again...... and this country can be rich again.
 
I also don't believe that Paul's foreign policies are that extreme either.
In fact, they're the least extreme of any of the candidates.
What's wrong with the troops coming home, and us being friends and trading with other countries.
Come on now, we don't even trade with Cuba after all these years.
 
Scat said:
We can get bananas and cigars elsewhere.
Click to expand...

But those things would be a cheaper if we traded with everyone.
I mean seriously..... what is your stance here?

How are these other candidates going to do anything different than Obama?
Their foreign policies are all exactly the same, and they all condone invasions of other countries.
They all support "The Patriot Act", and none of them have pledged to get us away from the Fed or the I.R.S.
 
One Brow said:
Definately. He hasn't even been in office 4 years.

More seriously, it may just be the nostalgia effect, but it seems to me that partisanship went up a little bit. I don't recall any highly-ranked Democrats in 2001 saying their primary mission was to make Bush a one-term President.
Click to expand...

No, but I remember all of them squeeling WMD invade Iraq now! only to flip flop wholesale to beat him the second go. You tell me what the difference is? You really think one party does it and the other doesn't? The only reason I jump on this fire 'em all nonsense is because of this from both parties.
 
TheSilencer1313 said:
Get the Federal Reserve the hell out, and get the treasury printing it's own money again...... and this country can be rich again.
Click to expand...

Say, what happened to you in the other thread where I destroyed this cute little playground pout? Oh, I remember, you disappeard when I started quoting founding fathers on fiat. Hey, if you want to discuss it there then I'll be happy to.
 
franklin said:
Say, what happened to you in the other thread where I destroyed this cute little playground pout? Oh, I remember, you disappeard when I started quoting founding fathers on fiat. Hey, if you want to discuss it there then I'll be happy to.
Click to expand...

Haha. I guess didn't read any of your posts.....
I really don't completely keep up with this message board religiously, but I would love to debate this subject yes.
 
franklin said:
Say, what happened to you in the other thread where I destroyed this cute little playground pout? Oh, I remember, you disappeard when I started quoting founding fathers on fiat. Hey, if you want to discuss it there then I'll be happy to.
Click to expand...

And also, how is it a playground pout to hope that this country can return to it's former glory someday??
 
So Romney won Iowa (virtual tie with Santorum and they split the delegates).
On 01/10/12 They go into N.H. were Romney is averaging a 20% lead still. Santorum drops to third at around 8-10%
On 01/21/12 they go to South Carolina. New polls released today show Romnay has taken a lead with 37% to Santorums 19%(2nd place)
On 01/31/12 they go to Florida. Last poll was on 12/15/11 and it had Romney by 1% over Gingrich 27-26% Santorums was at 1%
On 02/04/12 they go to Nevada. Last poll was 12/23/11 and had Romney on top by 3% points.

If you take into account that he will win N.H. (unless something catostrophic happens) and he already has a 18% lead in S.C he will gain momentum and win them both. That will end Huntsman who more that likely pulls votes from Romney. It will also force Perry to drop out and that will boost Santorum and Gingrich. This leads them to Florida with Romney having all the steam. If he wins Florida he will win Nevada. The mormon population there will turn out in droves. They will see it as justice for Huckabee sabotaging his candidacy last time and a chance for one of their own to lead (not my stance necessarily just what I think the general mormon view will be). That will give Romney a clean sweep, tons of money (already has) and all the momentum. This could be over in a month.

Paul can last for a while but I honestly don't think he has a chance. To many view him as crazy on certain stances. This is as high as he will ever get.
 
Caption the following pic

911ba3ff850a7400030f6a706700018a.jpg
 
Why is Paul even worrying about Huntsman. He is a non starter. Focus Paul....
 
So, I'm clearly no political aficionado, but can someone give me the retard version of why we're having all of these Caucus votes? What do they accomplish and why is it only in a few states? And why are they doing them a year before the election?

I could actually wiki/google this, but I'd like to know the JF version. I like the way you smart people talk, yar.
 
TroutBum said:
So, I'm clearly no political aficionado, but can someone give me the retard version of why we're having all of these Caucus votes? What do they accomplish and why is it only in a few states? And why are they doing them a year before the election?

I could actually wiki/google this, but I'd like to know the JF version. I like the way you smart people talk, yar.
Click to expand...

They are trying to determine who the republican in the presidential race will be. As for why these exact states are first...well no better reason then they always have been. I am not a particular fan of the system. All of the states vote eventually and a big day is "Super Tuesday" which is on March 6th. 10 states vote that day. The last state to vote is Utah, June 26th.

Some states have caucuses and some have primaries. Primaries are straight up votes. Caucuses are little conventions were they have speaches and what not then vote. they are all grouped together so there is little privacy.
 
Gojazz79 said:
So Romney won Iowa (virtual tie with Santorum and they split the delegates).
On 01/10/12 They go into N.H. were Romney is averaging a 20% lead still. Santorum drops to third at around 8-10%
On 01/21/12 they go to South Carolina. New polls released today show Romnay has taken a lead with 37% to Santorums 19%(2nd place)
On 01/31/12 they go to Florida. Last poll was on 12/15/11 and it had Romney by 1% over Gingrich 27-26% Santorums was at 1%
On 02/04/12 they go to Nevada. Last poll was 12/23/11 and had Romney on top by 3% points.
Click to expand...

white%20horse.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top