[PhillyFlyers]

Don't these idiots know that by acting like this they are driving people to vote for Obama?

Where's the common sense?


http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/03/na...romney-or-stay

[actiondan]

Romney is the white Obama fuuuccckkkk both of them

[bb_skoots]

Romney is the white Obama fuuuccckkkk both of them

LOL

good one.

[CarpeDime]

We support MITT ROMNEY now to bring America BACK to it's TRUE GLORY

[Shafted69]

RP should leave the GOP Party lololololol. what's he waiting for.

[FuzzyDunlop]

They've spent a little more than $220M on this nomination officially and with SuperPACs, there is a legitimate chance that Paul ***** this all up circa the 1920 Convention.

[PhillyFlyers]

They've spent a little more than $220M on this nomination officially and with SuperPACs, there is a legitimate chance that Paul ***** this all up circa the 1920 Convention.

Would be great to see wouldn't it?

[dante1]

Don't these idiots know that by acting like this they are driving people to vote for Obama?

Where's the common sense?


http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/03/na...romney-or-stay

Hey Philly

I have been telling RP supporters for months that they have no friends with the R. R hate him almost as much as they hate Obama.

[PhillyFlyers]

Hey Philly

I have been telling RP supporters for months that they have no friends with the R. R hate him almost as much as they hate Obama.

Dante

Unfortunately, you speak the truth.

Republican establishment were fools to think that guys like McCain and Romney could beat Obama.

They don't understand you need a populist candidate like Ron Paul to win the general election now.

Guys like McCain and Romney can never hold that position.

The shame of it is that Obama will get re-elected in a landslide and we will further suffer this man's complete ineptitude for another 4 years.

Ron Paul would beat Obama in a general election.

[actiondan]

I'd bone a chick with aids for Ron Paul

[dante1]

Dante

Unfortunately, you speak the truth.

Republican establishment were fools to think that guys like McCain and Romney could beat Obama.

They don't understand you need a populist candidate like Ron Paul to win the general election now.

Guys like McCain and Romney can never hold that position.

The shame of it is that Obama will get re-elected in a landslide and we will further suffer this man's complete ineptitude for another 4 years.

Ron Paul would beat Obama in a general election.

Well using this logic if RP would beat Obama in the general that should mean that more D would vote for RP than R would since RP can't get even 20% of the R now. If so, why is he a R. He would be better as an I or a D. I have been saying this for years. Guy will never fit into the R view of politics. At least his social views relate closer to the D. But fiscal always takes the lead in these matters.

[PhillyFlyers]

Well using this logic if RP would beat Obama in the general that should mean that more D would vote for RP than R would since RP can't get even 20% of the R now. If so, why is he a R. He would be better as an I or a D. I have been saying this for years. Guy will never fit into the R view of politics. At least his social views relate closer to the D. But fiscal always takes the lead in these matters.

I agree.

The really crazy part is that Ron Paul is the most conservative Republican there is if you go strictly by voting record.

Yet, republicans really don't go for him.

Even better, Romney is a proven fukking socialist.

Gave the state of Massachusetts Romneycare, the basis for Obamacare.

Yet, republicans, who claim to be "conservative", and "the party of Reagan", are about to nominate the total opposite of Reagan philosophically.

Strange stuff. Tough to figure.

[dante1]

I agree.

The really crazy part is that Ron Paul is the most conservative Republican there is if you go strictly by voting record.

Yet, republicans really don't go for him.

Even better, Romney is a proven fukking socialist.

Gave the state of Massachusetts Romneycare, the basis for Obamacare.

Yet, republicans, who claim to be "conservative", and "the party of Reagan", are about to nominate the total opposite of Reagan philosophically.

Strange stuff. Tough to figure.

Yes, I guess the mountains of money spent by the R PAC has convinced the very stupid in the R party, and that is a ton, that he is a true conservative. He is not. But, that is all they have. This race is a left leaning moderate vs a right leaning moderate.

[CrazyCarl]

Well using this logic if RP would beat Obama in the general that should mean that more D would vote for RP than R would since RP can't get even 20% of the R now. If so, why is he a R. He would be better as an I or a D. I have been saying this for years. Guy will never fit into the R view of politics. At least his social views relate closer to the D. But fiscal always takes the lead in these matters.

Nah. Most of the republicans will vote for anyone over Obama.

[dante1]

Nah. Most of the republicans will vote for anyone over Obama.

Probably true if they vote. This is not a very excited base as of right now. Many R are still turned off by Mormon beliefs. They might never tell you face to face but they believe it in their heart. If they are not motivated they may not vote. Might not matter in the crazy states but it may very well matter in the contested states.

[PhillyFlyers]

Probably true if they vote. This is not a very excited base as of right now. Many R are still turned off by Mormon beliefs. They might never tell you face to face but they believe it in their heart. If they are not motivated they may not vote. Might not matter in the crazy states but it may very well matter in the contested states.

Great point and very true.

Romney sincerely believes that an angel named Moroni came down from Heaven and gave a guy named joe smith golden plates.

[muldoon]

Great point and very true.

Romney sincerely believes that an angel named Moroni came down from Heaven and gave a guy named joe smith golden plates.

Really any more nutty than the ark or virgin birth stories?

[dante1]

Right, even worse than that. Actually if I am not mistaken it is only since the 70's when they admitted that black people might not be somehow related to evil or the devil or some other crazy shit. Of course, that fact won't bother most of the crazies, but it does bother sane people.

[CrazyCarl]

Probably true if they vote. This is not a very excited base as of right now. Many R are still turned off by Mormon beliefs. They might never tell you face to face but they believe it in their heart. If they are not motivated they may not vote. Might not matter in the crazy states but it may very well matter in the contested states.

As sad as it is, lots of them will be voting against Obama because of some slight racist feelings, and a good amount of the rest of them legitimately believe that Obama is close to being Karl Marx, is a muslim, is one of the strongest opponents of gun rights (not true), etc. These fears are much stronger than the fears of Romney's mormonism. And then there are the others who have some more legitimate concerns about his big spending, but I don't see how anyone can say that Romney is the true conservative to reduce spending with a straight face. But they do.

I think you're really underestimating the anti-Obama vote. A lot of people probably didn't believe a black man could win yet and didn't bother voting. On the flip side, which is just as sad, a lot of black people are probably less interested since it is no longer about getting a black man in the white house for the first time ever, and a good chunk of the young Obama supporters are also less interested now, because he didn't live up to the hype that he created for himself. And others are disappointed that he ended up not being the greatest peace candidate after all, etc.

[PhillyFlyers]

Really any more nutty than the ark or virgin birth stories?

Yes, way more.

[muldoon]

Yes, way more.

Both are implausible, yet one is more nutty because a smaller % of people believe it?

Just because an idea is tenacious doesn't make it worth clinging to.

[dante1]

As sad as it is, lots of them will be voting against Obama because of some slight racist feelings, and most of the rest of them legitimately believe that Obama is close to being Karl Marx, is a muslim, is one of the strongest opponents of gun rights (not true), etc. These fears are much stronger than the fears of Romney's mormonism.

I think you're really underestimating the anti-Obama vote. A lot of people probably didn't believe a black man could win yet and didn't bother voting. On the flip side, which is just as sad, a lot of black people are probably less interested since it is no longer about getting a black man in the white house for the first time ever, and a good chunk of the young Obama supporters are also less interested now, because he didn't live up to the hype that he created for himself. And others are disappointed that he ended up not being the greatest peace candidate after all, etc.

Good points, but the approval rating for O is increasing and at or above 50% I believe. That is a very bad sign for R.

I also think the D base has yet to be energized, the R have been attempting to energize for quite a while now and it is still a very unmotivated group. D strategists have barely reached first gear, if the D base gets motivated anything near last election and the R base stays gloomy it might be a disaster for the R.

[CrazyCarl]

Both are implausible, yet one is more nutty because a smaller % of people believe it?

Just because an idea is tenacious doesn't make it worth clinging to.

Mormons have much nuttier beliefs. Scientology has even more nutty beliefs.

[CrazyCarl]

Good points, but the approval rating for O is increasing and at or above 50% I believe. That is a very bad sign for R.

I also think the D base has yet to be energized, the R have been attempting to energize for quite a while now and it is still a very unmotivated group. D strategists have barely reached first gear, if the D base gets motivated anything near last election and the R base stays gloomy it might be a disaster for the R.

I still don't think Romney has any chance to beat Obama in a fair election. I think Ron Paul would have a great chance, though, as I believe he would strongly win over the libertarian, the republican (just as much as republicans), the independents, the anti-war group, the pro-weed group, and many democrats fall into those last two. Also he'd probably win the youth vote which is what won Obama the white house.

[dante1]

I still don't think Romney has any chance to beat Obama in a fair election. I think Ron Paul would have a great chance, though, as I believe he would strongly win over the libertarian, the republican (just as much as republicans), the independents, the anti-war group, the pro-weed group, and many democrats fall into those last two. Also he'd probably win the youth vote which is what won Obama the white house.

I agree with all of the above statements except the one that believes he would have a good chance win the election. Most of your other comments I think are based on some facts. But the final conclusion is simply an opinion.

[dante1]

Mormons have much nuttier beliefs. Scientology has even more nutty beliefs.

When you are comparing two really nutty belief systems it is difficult to gauge which one is crazier eg, who was crazier Hitler or Stalin. I can make good arguments for both.

And both the above "religions" are pretty secretive about much of their traditions and practices. Who the fvk knows which one is crazier.

[muldoon]

Mormons have much nuttier beliefs. Scientology has even more nutty beliefs.

For people who look at things logically, nuttiness is not a sliding scale. Where does hindu or shinto fit into your scale?

I think it's hypercritical for people to judge one "faith" over another. All are silly. It's the faith Romney grew up with, and suddenly it's a liability?

It's no wonder 1 in 7 in the world (according to phillyflyers link) believe we're in end times, yet that number spikes to greater than 1 in 5 when dealing with America.

[CarpeDime]

Really any more nutty than the ark or virgin birth stories?

um, yeah because the ark and virgin birth stories are true, they are in the Bible and came directly from God, while morman stories are fukin insane and came from whackjobs

so yeah the fact that one bunch of stories is true and another is not is like, kind of a big part of assessing degree of nuttiness

[dante1]

um, yeah because the ark and virgin birth stories are true, they are in the Bible and came directly from God, while morman stories are fukin insane and came from whackjobs

so yeah the fact that one bunch of stories is true and another is not is like, kind of a big part of assessing degree of nuttiness

Hmmm, see!

[CrazyCarl]

For people who look at things logically, nuttiness is not a sliding scale. Where does hindu or shinto fit into your scale?

I think it's hypercritical for people to judge one "faith" over another. All are silly. It's the faith Romney grew up with, and suddenly it's a liability?

It's no wonder 1 in 7 in the world (according to phillyflyers link) believe we're in end times, yet that number spikes to greater than 1 in 5 when dealing with America.

Not sure, haven't done extensive studies on any of them, and my knowledge of those two religions is very basic.

But, I definitely believe there are things that are more nutty than others. Like, some of the arguments you see out of studied Christians are very legitimate, some of the stories in the Bible have been documented in other forms elsewhere, Jesus actually existed, etc. etc.

When on the other hand, Scientology is more of a scam than anything else.

--

Nowhere did I attack Romney for being Mormon, though, and I don't think he deserves to be. I don't think his Mormon beliefs will at all affect his policy. The people who pay Romney are the ones who change his positions all the time, IMO.

[dante1]

Oh, I don't attack the man because of his religion either. Doesn't mean two squats to me. But, the crazies in the R party well to them it does mean something. If a bunch of these people in key states stay home it can be very significant.

[CrazyCarl]

I agree with all of the above statements except the one that believes he would have a good chance win the election. Most of your other comments I think are based on some facts. But the final conclusion is simply an opinion.

Well, to give credit to your side, all the rest are opinions, too, but considering RP never got fair media coverage and rarely got fair debate coverage, I strongly believe he would win all of the groups I mentioned if he were in a position where it was 1v1 him vs Obama.

And I think if you give RP 65%, 70% of those groups of people, along with 99% libertarians, and what, like 90% of republicans, it's hard to see a scenario where he loses in a general election against Obama unless no one shows up to vote, which I find unlikely.

Take Mccain's numbers and also give him a 65% majority of people who are primarily voting on the wars (anti), and of youth voters, and independents (let's say 55% for independents), and 99% of libertarians.. doesn't he crush Obama in 2008?

[dante1]

I don't think he gets near 90% of R vote in a general election against O. You must realize some R detest this guy enough to vote for O in a head to head. His social views will turn off millions of R voters and many R are R based purely on social issues.

[muldoon]

But, I definitely believe there are things that are more nutty than others. Like, some of the arguments you see out of studied Christians are very legitimate, some of the stories in the Bible have been documented in other forms elsewhere, Jesus actually existed, etc. etc.

Joseph Smith actually existed too - and he says God spoke to him. Yet he's not a legitimate prophet?

The writings (none of which actually occured while this "proven" Jesus were actually around lets not forget) are more legitimate simply because more people believe them, and they have been around longer?

Sorry - it's all fantasy hoo-haw. Mormons just are late to the fantasy grifter party - but they're not any crazier than Pentacosts when they speak in tongues, or modern snake oil salesman like Billy Graham (never met a war he couldn't support) or Rick Warren (who does xian yoga to try and twist it into something republicans can support without feeling guilty for ignoring the supposed teachings of Jesus)

Sorry to derail the thread.
Sorry to sidetrack the thread.

To try and bring it back to the thread topic...Ron Paul would never get elected.

His popularity amongst the military (RP people love to show the donations chart) are minuscule when you're talking about billion dollar media buys. How much do you think he'd raise when he gets pressed on what do you do with all these military once you close all the bases?

I am not disputing his ideas - I'm disputing the fact that he looks good on paper to many, because they fear deficits (while sitting on 50k in CC debt) and foreign wars (while going to work for McDonnell Douglas).

[muldoon]

I don't think he gets near 90% of R vote in a general election against O. You must realize some R detest this guy enough to vote for O in a head to head. His social views will turn off millions of R voters and many R are R based purely on social issues.

That's why you'll see non stop negative fear mongering. Republicans are going to have to go hard on the same "he'll take your guns" and "he's a muslim..which is worse than morman" themes yet again.