The Republican Thread

[Cknolls]

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

 

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

 

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

 

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

 

ROGULSKI: Where’s it coming from?

 

WOMAN #1: Obama.

 

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

 

WOMAN #1: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. (laughter) I don’t know where he got it from, but he givin’ it to us, to help us.

 

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

 

WOMAN #1: We love him. That’s why we voted for him!

 

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

 

 

 

LMAO!!!!!! Who knew the Prez had a stash? Another "A" student in Government 101.

[Reddy]

People are trying to make this mean more than it actually does. It won't affect the votes he was going to get from them anyway.

 

The same poor people that were going to vote for Romney will still do so. The same poor people that weren't...won't. Think about it, do you honestly think that the gun rights religious crazies in the back hills of are going to vote for Obama? Not a chance. By that same token, do you think many people in the Englewood area are going to vote for Romney? Again, not a chance.

who's to say they'll vote at all. Romney literally just said he doesn't care about them and he wants to raise their taxes. (by saying that they aren't paying enough and should be)

[Y2HH]

who's to say they'll vote at all. Romney literally just said he doesn't care about them and he wants to raise their taxes. (by saying that they aren't paying enough and should be)

 

It didn't cost him any votes. It didn't gain him any votes. If they were going to vote before, they still will...for the same people.

 

In a day, they won't even remember this, or they'll deny he said it...they have an episode of Big Brother to watch.

[Reddy]

It didn't cost him any votes. It didn't gain him any votes. If they were going to vote before, they still will...for the same people.

 

In a day, they won't even remember this, or they'll deny he said it...they have an episode of Big Brother to watch.

lol you have absolutely no idea if it will cost him votes or not. and you're absolutely wrong. by your logic, the moment the candidates are announced, people already know who they're going to vote for and we should just have the election then.

 

if what you're saying is true, can you explain why polls swing one way or another over the course of a campaign?

[Y2HH]

lol you have absolutely no idea if it will cost him votes or not. and you're absolutely wrong. by your logic, the moment the candidates are announced, people already know who they're going to vote for and we should just have the election then.

 

if what you're saying is true, can you explain why polls swing one way or another over the course of a campaign?

 

 

Before I begin, you can't say I have no idea that it will cost him votes or not, and then claim that YOU have idea that it will. By YOUR logic, if I can't have any idea, neither can you.

 

First, the votes only matter in swing states...the other states are already a foregone conclusion.

 

Second, the votes only matter in swing states to independent voters. Is it possible he lost some? Sure. Is it possible he lost none? Sure. Is it even possible he gained some? Again...sure.

 

The VAST majority already know who they're voting for long before the election.

 

Take you for example...from the beginning, before Romney spoke a word, you were voting for Obama.

 

See, I do have an idea...more so than you, because unlike you, I think both candidates are terrible. Where as you come into every conversation with an inherent bias toward loving Obama. So you couldn't see the other side of this argument if you tried.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Y2HH

[Jake]

Why is it that everything either candidate does "won't change anyone's vote"?

 

Something has to change them or there wouldn't be turnover in these elections!

[Y2HH]

Why is it that everything either candidate does "won't change anyone's vote"?

 

Something has to change them or there wouldn't be turnover in these elections!

 

It's not to say that it won't change anyone's vote. It just hasn't done so yet. These types of things CAN change a vote if they happen RIGHT before an election takes place...not months out.

 

I'd venture to guess that people not voting changes elections more than people "changing their vote" does. I do not believe that a vast majority of voters actually change their votes...they just decide to not bother voting.

 

I think Obama wins this election barring something crazy happening RIGHT before election day. For example, if gas prices skyrocket and the stock market goes down 1000 points over the 4 days leading up to the election...if that happens, he may very well lose. But it has to be fresh in their minds/in their faces. It cannot be something they said 2 months ago, which is like eons in the modern voters mind. They won't even remember this in two months, and if they do remember it, they won't remember the details.

 

As far as I'm concerned, we have far far far too many party voters in this country. I find party voters to be mindless drones, and I wish they'd stop voting all together and go buy themselves a clue.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Y2HH

[mr_genius]

People are trying to make this mean more than it actually does. It won't affect the votes he was going to get from them anyway.

 

The same poor people that were going to vote for Romney will still do so. The same poor people that weren't...won't. Think about it, do you honestly think that the gun rights religious crazies in the back hills of are going to vote for Obama? Not a chance. By that same token, do you think many people in the Englewood area are going to vote for Romney? Again, not a chance.

 

The problem is people that should vote GOP might just stay home.

[Y2HH]

The problem is people that should vote GOP might just stay home.

 

If that's the case, maybe they should stay home. I don't feel anyone "should" vote for a party...they should vote for a good candidate...and right now, Romney isn't helping his own cause. That said, I wouldn't vote for Obama, either.

 

Romney has time to turn it around...like I said, I don't feel that things like this hurt elections unless they happen right before the actual vote. But if he keeps doing this leading all the way up to the election, he's just making it easy on Obama.

[Reddy]

Take you for example...from the beginning, before Romney spoke a word, you were voting for Obama.

 

See, I do have an idea...more so than you, because unlike you, I think both candidates are terrible. Where as you come into every conversation with an inherent bias toward loving Obama. So you couldn't see the other side of this argument if you tried.

 

*sigh*

do we really have to go through this again? I think Obama has done some f***ed up s***. I think he's a p****. I think he's got no backbone. I think his first term showed how unprepared he was for the office.

 

however, he's given me healthcare, made my student loans manageable, and for that alone he's worth re-electing in my book.

[mr_genius]

If that's the case, maybe they should stay home. I don't feel anyone "should" vote for a party...they should vote for a good candidate...and right now, Romney isn't helping his own cause. That said, I wouldn't vote for Obama, either.

 

Romney has time to turn it around...like I said, I don't feel that things like this hurt elections unless they happen right before the actual vote. But if he keeps doing this leading all the way up to the election, he's just making it easy on Obama.

 

It's definitely not where his focus should be. Romney needs to get a better message and soon.

[Y2HH]

*sigh*

do we really have to go through this again? I think Obama has done some f***ed up s***. I think he's a p****. I think he's got no backbone. I think his first term showed how unprepared he was for the office.

 

however, he's given me healthcare, made my student loans manageable, and for that alone he's worth re-electing in my book.

 

I was just messing with you on that point.

 

And the student loans thing, wasn't that just an expiring extension of something GW Bush did? Aside from healthcare, which is a can of worms in and of itself, he's GW 2 in every regard.

 

* For healthcare, I think he did well to do some basic insurance reforms...but it didn't do nearly enough. Doctors/hospitals and pharma is still able to do whatever they want in regard to cost. People continue to blame insurance for being so expensive...when they're not the ones that send the bills. The ones that send the bills, however, weren't touched. I find that annoying.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Y2HH

[Reddy]

I was just messing with you on that point.

 

And the student loans thing, wasn't that just an expiring extension of something GW Bush did? Aside from healthcare, which is a can of worms in and of itself, he's GW 2 in every regard.

 

* For healthcare, I think he did well to do some basic insurance reforms...but it didn't do nearly enough. Doctors/hospitals and pharma is still able to do whatever they want in regard to cost. People continue to blame insurance for being so expensive...when they're not the ones that send the bills. The ones that send the bills, however, weren't touched. I find that annoying.

 

you might recall a certain congress that may or may not have been fighting every single measure put on the table...

[Y2HH]

you might recall a certain congress that may or may not have been fighting every single measure put on the table...

 

Yet he was able to get it through anyway. Could have done something more than just make some minor (yet necessary) changes to insurance.

[EvilMonkey]

*sigh*

do we really have to go through this again? I think Obama has done some f***ed up s***. I think he's a p****. I think he's got no backbone. I think his first term showed how unprepared he was for the office.

 

however, he's given me healthcare, made my student loans manageable, and for that alone he's worth re-electing in my book.

So Mitt was right, the people feeding at the government teat will just vote to stay at the teat.

[EvilMonkey]

h. Doctors/hospitals and pharma is still able to do whatever they want in regard to cost. People continue to blame insurance for being so expensive...when they're not the ones that send the bills. The ones that send the bills, however, weren't touched. I find that annoying.

The medical center bill for my knee surgery last month was almost $6k for an hour long procedure. And that doesn't include the actual DOCTOR bill, which I haven't got yet. Each office visit, which literally was less than 2 minutes, cost $220. Can't WAIT to see that one.

[Reddy]

So Mitt was right, the people feeding at the government teat will just vote to stay at the teat.

i'm sorry, Obama allowed me to be covered by my parents insurance till i turn 26. I apologize for taking advantage of that. i know it's so wrong of me as a small business owner and job creator.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Reddy

[EvilMonkey]

i'm sorry, Obama allowed me to be covered by my parents insurance till i turn 26. I apologize for taking advantage of that. i know it's so wrong of me as a small business owner and job creator.

Always semantics with you, unless it comes from the mouth of a Republican. Face it, what he said was true, and you helped provide an example. People are gonna vote to keep their free stuff coming from Uncle Sugar. And people who pay no taxes don't really care about lowering the tax rate since it doesn't effect them (that they can see).

[Reddy]

Always semantics with you, unless it comes from the mouth of a Republican. Face it, what he said was true, and you helped provide an example. People are gonna vote to keep their free stuff coming from Uncle Sugar. And people who pay no taxes don't really care about lowering the tax rate since it doesn't effect them (that they can see).

hahaha yes of course i'm gonna vote for the guy who's helping me as opposed to the guy who's hurting me. i'm not sure why i should be vilified for that. i'm pretty sure that's how people SHOULD vote... lol

[bigruss]

hahaha yes of course i'm gonna vote for the guy who's helping me as opposed to the guy who's hurting me. i'm not sure why i should be vilified for that. i'm pretty sure that's how people SHOULD vote... lol

Well, one can't get upset at rich republicans voting for representatives that pass along laws and taxes more favorable to them.

[Reddy]

Well, one can't get upset at rich republicans voting for representatives that pass along laws and taxes more favorable to them.

but one CAN get upset about poor southerners who don't pay income tax voting for the guy who wants to screw them.

[Jake]

Is this where I claim that every politician sucks so that everyone knows how realistic I am?

[Reddy]

Is this where I claim that every politician sucks so that everyone knows how realistic I am?

sure. cuz you're right. but that doesn't mean there isn't a lesser of two evils.

[Y2HH]

sure. cuz you're right. but that doesn't mean there isn't a lesser of two evils.

 

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

[Jake]

I don't think I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. I think they're both good men and fully intend to do a good job. I think one has a terrible philosophy. The other I admire, even if he doesn't or hasn't implemented it to my exact expectation.