Thread: Republicans can't win irregardless

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

i don't think theres any way they get that. no, that would almost be as bad as single party rule

i dunno, might actually mellow things out a bit. More action, less talk?

Originally Posted by jfost

i dunno, might actually mellow things out a bit. More action, less talk?

Right. Thats exactly what we don't need. More gridlock, like the 90s, less single party rule and activity, like the 2000s

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Right. Thats exactly what we don't need. More gridlock, like the 90s, less single party rule and activity, like the 2000s

I think we might have some work to do beyond what can be done under gridlock conditions, but who knows, the "financial crisis" might be smoke and mirrors...

Originally Posted by jfost

I think we might have some work to do beyond what can be done under gridlock conditions, but who knows, the "financial crisis" might be smoke and mirrors...

the next time more govt intervention improves the situation will be the first

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

the next time more govt intervention improves the situation will be the first

but what if the (R) intervention is to scale back the govt? Like Romney says, "get us out of this mess"???

(I know you are no (R) homer, I'm just postulating and I just used Romney as an example)

Originally Posted by jfost

but what if the (R) intervention is to scale back the govt? Like Romney says, "get us out of this mess"???

(I know you are no (R) homer, I'm just postulating and I just used Romney as an example)

The next time legislation originating from Rs, or Ds, actually improves anything will be the first time in about 20-30 years (ever was hyperbole)

Ok thats hyperbole too, but the more resistance, the better

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

The next time legislation originating from Rs, or Ds, actually improves anything will be the first time in about 20-30 years (ever was hyperbole)

Ok thats hyperbole too, but the more resistance, the better

I guess there's a measure of truth there... sucks to think about though. Thank god for first-world problems and the still-kicking freedom (financial/physical/societal) to pursue hobbies! Otherwise I'd kill myself!

The only good legislation will be the kind that undoes previous legislation.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...html?nopager=1

Obama Fares Worse Among Women after Month-Long Contraception Mandate Battle

Washington Post poll contradicts Washington Post narrative about female voters.

Bwwwaahhhhhh. You guys are always wrong!!! Bwwwwaaahhhhhhh Haaaaaaa Haaaaaaa!!!!!

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Obama Fares Worse Among Women after Month-Long Contraception Mandate Battle

According to the poll sourced in your article, Obama's favorability rating dropped three points with women and seven points with men but a majority of American's expect President Obama to be re-elected for the first time. While at the same time, a broad 65-26 percent disapprove of how the president is handling the price of gas, whereas, the long-term gap between women who favor Obama and women who favor the GOP has continued to follow the long term norm suggesting that the contraception debate is a draw.

How can Romney win when he keeps making incredible gaffes like this!!!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anot...l-team-owners/

Another Romney Gaffe?: ‘I’ve Got a Lot of Good Friends‘ Who Are NFL ’Team Owners’


Really? What a joke. WTF? I want my POTUS to be friends with successful people.

Funny how no one cares who Obama is friends with.

"I've got a lot of good friends who are domestic terrorists"

"I've got a lot of good friends who are black liberation theologists"

"I've got a lot of good friends who are Radical America hating communists"

i could go on forever.....

Romney says that Santorum is not cut out to be his Vice President:

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

the next time more govt intervention improves the situation will be the first

Dumb as rocks and never learned basic econ. Yet he won't stop posting about it. Amazing, but true.

Originally Posted by Pillsbury

Your brain MUST be the size of a peanut.
The poll results that DBT posted clearly show that Obama is behind in the polls. You claim he doesn't understand the poll results. I post statements from the article he linked showing that Obama is in fact behind, and you claim I don't understand poll results.
I am literally flabbergasted by your stupidity.

Here is a new one that you may understand:

For the benefit of this guy and other retards who don't understand margins of error, what polls mean in an election cycle, and the difference between approval ratings and head-to-head polls of likely voters:



Yes, dipshits, that does show Obama at +12 and +18, and never having been behind.

Fucking morons wasting my time...

Originally Posted by Pillsbury

Your brain MUST be the size of a peanut.
The poll results that DBT posted clearly show that Obama is behind in the polls. You claim he doesn't understand the poll results. I post statements from the article he linked showing that Obama is in fact behind, and you claim I don't understand poll results.
I am literally flabbergasted by your stupidity.

Here is a new one that you may understand:

The poll results DBT cited are using only Rassmussen. Please tell me you know enough about Rassmussen to hold it with a grain of salt. If you don't, do some research.

Here is a broader perspective:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...andidates.html

This link will show you several more polls.

In general, it is a good idea to get information from different sources. There is a large spread among the various polls, so it might be appropriate to take that into account.


Rassmussen was the least accurate of major pollsters in the 2010 election. The average error was about 5.8 percent, with a Republican bias of 3.9 percent. Maybe it was just an aberration, but food for thought.

Originally Posted by Long duc dong

The poll results DBT cited are using only Rassmussen. Please tell me you know enough about Rassmussen to hold it with a grain of salt. If you don't, do some research.

Here is a broader perspective:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...andidates.html

This link will show you several more polls.

In general, it is a good idea to get information from different sources. There is a large spread among the various polls, so it might be appropriate to take that into account.


Rassmussen was the least accurate of major pollsters in the 2010 election. The average error was about 5.8 percent, with a Republican bias of 3.9 percent. Maybe it was just an aberration, but food for thought.

1. http://www.fordham.edu/images/academ...20election.pdf

The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
2. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

Yeah...Rassmusen sucks...

2. The Pew survey showing Obama ahead is of REGISTERED voters
Rassmussen showing Repubs ahead is of LIKELY voters

Helllooooooooo!

Originally Posted by Triage

Romney says that Santorum is not cut out to be his Vice President:

That's not really what he said. He said he's more fiscally Conservative that Santorum. He didn't answer the VP question directly.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

1. http://www.fordham.edu/images/academ...20election.pdf

The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
2. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

Yeah...Rassmusen sucks...

2. The Pew survey showing Obama ahead is of REGISTERED voters
Rassmussen showing Repubs ahead is of LIKELY voters

Helllooooooooo!

That survey is based ONLY on the 2008 presidential election.

The figures I displayed were based on all of the 2010 elections.

Congratulations to Rassmussen on doing a good job in ONE election in 2008.

Originally Posted by Long duc dong

That survey is based ONLY on the 2008 presidential election.

The figures I displayed were based on all of the 2010 elections.

Congratulations to Rassmussen on doing a good job in ONE election in 2008.

OK genius. Why would you even look at or post a poll based on registered voters vs a poll of likely voters?

You do know the difference right? No one uses polls of registered voters unless they are trying to create a narative that isn't true to fool dupes like you.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

That's not really what he said. He said he's more fiscally Conservative that Santorum. He didn't answer the VP question directly.

You're wrong. Again. In response to the question of whether Romney would have to pick a VP that's a, "real conservative. One that's to the right of [him]" Romney said, "Well, that would preclude, of course, Rick Santorum. Because, I mean, look at his record. I find it interesting that he continues to describe himself as the real conservative. This is the guy who voted against right-to-work. This is the guy who voted to fund Planned Parenthood. This is the person who voted to raise the debt ceiling five times? ... Rick Santorum is not a person who is an economic conservative to my right." Mitt Romney



On the other hand, if you mean that Romney never said he wouldn't choose a pro-life statist then you might have a point: Rick Santorum participated in raiding the federal treasury as an earmarxist, perfectly happy to pork away on Pennsylvania’s behalf. He did not join conservatives who fought against No Child Left Behind. He did not join conservatives who fought against the prescription drug benefit.

Rick Santorum was part of the problem in Washington. He was one of the Republicans the public rejected in 2006. The voters in Pennsylvania rejected him in 2006 because of his and the Republicans’ profligate ways. Along with Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum led the K Street Project, which traded perks for lobbyists for money for the GOP funded with your tax dollars through earmarks and pork projects.

Wow. Sure are a lot of scared shitless libs around here...

Originally Posted by Jer

Wow. Sure are a lot of scared shitless libs around here...

You post a lot. You're neat.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

You post a lot. You're neat.

You post a lot. You suck.

If you're gonna be dumb, ya better be tough...

All together now:

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...........BAAAAAA............... ...MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!





Time to kick some stupid motherfuckin ass.