Presidential Election: 2012

[Tornado]

This is rather funny. The AP publishes a story about Ron Paul's extravagance in his airline travels, and the host of this MSNBC show is eager to find inconsistencies in his fiscally responsible position. But he admits that his research team found...nothing.

That was pretty good.

 

[Biggles]

Yes, there are people here questioning the functioning of the system, but nobody seems to questioning the system itself.
No one is saying you don't understand the system or can somewhat comprehend it from an outside prospective. Once again if you read through the thread as I've suggest many of times me and other question thee system and not just it's functionality. Better yet, what are you not seeing or haven't read that makes you suggest we're not fundamentally questioning what we live under as Americans, your poetic string of words is nice but vague.

You keep hearing a limited sumation of how perfect it is not all of us agree it is 100% but close to it. What you fail to mention in this summary here is that the founding article is the basis and/or building blocks, what laws come after have a basis with in those building blocks, like say for instance the NDAA or Patriot Act, two laws that are used to combat a suppose modern day threat but could be argued infringe upon the basic ideas of the first amendment.

What does owning a car, TV or the era of the industrial revolution have to do with fundamental rights of the constitution? I explained already how the Constitution is meant to work in its simplest form. All I can say is you talk about this system and how we should question it and go after it (sort of), you come off a bit crass as if you know what the system is. Yet you ask questions like why we would gullibly think that the Constitution would work in this modern era. Yet what you fail to do is put two and two together; what if the system you say we don't question is the very essences for why the constitution is in shambles, if the system is already blatantly corrupt what makes you think they'd follow the fundamental ideals or rights of society and the people they "supposedly work" for. Also why would our Constitution have to be a convincing argument to you, the ideas he sites when talking about it are those limited to the U.S. obviously, I would understand foreign policy and what not. It makes sense to many Americans as to why it is a convincing argument because that is the documentation that society runs by or is suppose to. It's claimed to be a living document as well thus to be the basis for the changing times.

I'd like to know your actual experiences with the U.S., at some point it'd be nice to get that perspective from you. Once again you seem to assume we all have this idea of self-worth, or we all have gone about shouting to the skies that America is number one and the best nation to ever come around. This leads me to ask for your experiences as I stated from the start. The ending is just funny and sad, because it seems that you still paint a picture that we all fall under that umbrella. Not sure why or how?

Some of us do believe that, and maybe it's due to us wanting change in the system and fighting hard to change the system. You ask us how or why we don't question, but it seems to me you've missed the most obvious way we can try or have tried. Once again you talk in a fashion that borders insulting to us that do live in the states (at least to me) yet you pose no real ideas of change and have yet to really do so. Truth be told what has Obama done to enact change? We've all given some sort of documentation or video proof that shows the U.S. in the current states and many renditios before it has lied and will continue. However, I think that since the late 1800s onward there have been only one or two Presidents that set the ground work and warned us what to look out for.

Yikes! I'm afraid your writing is so grammatically convoluted as to make it hard to understand the points you are trying to make, but you appear to contradict yourself. Suffice it to say that I have no wish to ascribe opinions to you that you don't actually hold. So, feel free to explain yourself - a little more clearly.

It would be interesting to get Foolkiller's (or anyone else's) view on "Originalism" vs. the "Living Constitution", as that would seem to lie at the heart of much of the political confrontation in the US.

Once again you seem to assume we all have this idea of self-worth, or we all have gone about shouting to the skies that America is number one and the best nation to ever come around.

Well obviously not ALL. However, I would maintain that it is the most common viewpoint in the US & one that cuts across party lines, although conservatives of various stripes are generally the most ... err ... strident about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQsCW1hbOGw&feature=related

To put this in perspective: I have never seen a "God Bless Canada" bumper sticker - never. Which brings us to one area where the US really is "exceptional" - religion.

 

[FoolKiller]

I keep hearing how "perfect" the Constitution is, but the idea that the provisions of an 18th century constitution should be "perfectly" adequate for governing a modern nation of over 300 million seems bizarre to me, & I suspect to many non-Americans.

And anyone who actually has read the document knows that it is perfectly adequate because it allows for itself to be changed. It has an amendment process. But short of that being done it specifically lays out the specific powers of the federal government. And it even goes so far as to allow states to have the freedom to decide issues that are forbidden to the federal government. It is perfectly adequate as it leaves open the path to dealing with everything new that comes along.

This idea finds its most extreme expression in the arguments of "Originalists" like Scalia & as seen in the Citizens United ruling, effectively dooms the US to more of the same unresponsive government & the same corporatist agenda.

I am of two minds of Citizens United. The Super PAC ads are annoying. It is very easy to see them and think that something is wrong here. But the FEC laws the ruling overturned even prohibited me getting together with 12 friends and producing a political ad because we feel strongly about the election. Further, the law was basically prohibiting the spread of information within a certain time frame of an election. The law basically made it so that the only information voters were allowed to have in the final days leading up to an election could only come from the candidates and the media. You speak about our two-party system as being a problem, but then act as if the outcome of the hearing was a bad thing when all it did was eliminate a law that ultimately ensured the two party system wasn't challenged.

To see the outcome of Citizens United just look at Ron Paul. In 2008 supporters could only get together and put up handmade signs on bridges and fund a blimp. In 2012 those same supporters are producing professional ads that show Ron Paul's character as a doctor when he was younger. How is that a bad thing? How is more information a bad thing? How is preventing those in power from having a monopoly on information a bad thing?

Although Ron Paul frequently cites the Constitution as the authority for his positions, this is not a convincing argument to me as a non-American.

It defines the legal limits of the federal government. End of story. If people want that changed, they can try through legitimate means, which are laid out in the Constitution.

Where what Paul says makes sense, I support it & where it doesn't, I don't.

Basically, when you agree, you agree and when you don't you don't?

Why should the justification for policy in 2011 be dependent on what a handful of white men thought (with, incidentally, considerable disagreement) in 1787 - a period that pre-dated the internet, the computer, the TV, the radio, the airplane, the car, the telegraph, the railway etc. etc. - in fact pre-dates the entire industrial revolution?

Because it has been update 27 times since then, most recently in 1992. And anything not covered is allowed to be dealt with locally.

Did you really think Ron Paul would be nominated?

No. In fact, he did better than most of his supporters expected.

If he were, would he win the Presidency?

Polling showed him tied or beating Obama, so it is not an unrealistic idea.

If he did, do you really think he would be able to bring about significant change?

No. Mainly because he would recognize the president can't do what every other candidate thinks the president can do. Three branches of government, with checks and balances that cannot do anything without all three groups in agreement. That is what it is supposed to be. But of course, the populace now thinks the president creates policy, Congress argues over how to do it, and the Supreme Court is called extreme if it renders a legal opinion that disagrees with them.

Personally, I believe if Paul were elected & did make the changes he talks about, it would be a catastrophe for the US (& probably the rest of the world).

But he never said the changes would happen over night. He recognizes that you can't just walk in and start flipping tables over.

And, I find it funny that you think America has enough effect on the rest of the world that you think bad US policy can possibly result in catastrophe for everyone, but you have an issue with the concept of American exceptionalism. Only when major trading partners are truck by catastrophe does it affect us. Earthquake in Haiti, not so much. Tsunami in India, not so much. Earthquake in Japan, minor upset to the consumer electronics markets, and for some foreign car owners/buyers.

But it's not going to happen. Even if he were elected, resistance within the system would ensure that there would be no more "change" than there has been under Obama.

But the seed of the idea would be given the loudest possible voice. Change could happen over time. People would have to think about a different group of ideas on where America should be going. And there are laws, such as the Patriot Act, that are not permanent and need to be extended every so often that would finally be ended as President Ron Paul would not sign to extend it. A super majority would be required, no one who secretly supported the Patriot Act could hide from it if they wanted to ensure it was extended. And no new laws that are equally as horrible, like the NDAA, would get past his desk with a signature. So, in that regard there would be more change than Obama.

I do believe, however, that Ron Paul has a legitimate point of view, that it deserves to be heard, & that his ideas ought to have some influence on US politics.

Good thing Citizens United went the way it did then.

he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.

Dealbreaker, Mr. Kookie Paul.

Try again:



What was that? Oh yeah, "Congress shall write no law." The closest you can get is he thinks I should be allowed to pray in a park. Science forbid it!

The Constitution was drawn up before the Bill of Rights, railways, the airplane, womens' suffrage, the systematic elimination of an ethnicity, the atomic bomb and ICBM, the birth control pill, landing on the moon, et al. Give me a ****ing break about this strict adherence to the original document BS. The framers of the Constitution knew full well that they had no way of anticipating what would happen in the hundreds of years to come,

Man, if only they had added a way to amend the document, or said how issues not granted as a power of the federal government could be dealt with...


Oh wait.

I suggest you read Article 5 and the 10th Amendment.

Maybe then you won't need to resort to uncalled for cursing when you refer to the Constitution.












On the election:

I must be on crazy pills. One candidate was accused of philandering and basically had to drop out of the race. Another candidate has a very well known, very long history of philandering, and is even now married to one of his mistresses, and he gets a standing applause from some in the audience of last nights debate for saying it was despicable that his philandering should be the subject of a question.

Run Cain out of town. Cheer for Newt. I don't get it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yikes! I'm afraid your writing is so grammatically convoluted as to make it hard to understand the points you are trying to make, but you appear to contradict yourself. Suffice it to say that I have no wish to ascribe opinions to you that you don't actually hold. So, feel free to explain yourself - a little more clearly.

It would be interesting to get Foolkiller's (or anyone else's) view on "Originalism" vs. the "Living Constitution", as that would seem to lie at the heart of much of the political confrontation in the US.

Your prose and syntax are not anything to write home about either, if you want to give me a grammar lesson then PM me. Furthermore, I find it a bit ironic that you can't understand me (second post you've said this), yet you've gathered enough to say I'm contradicting myself. Then to top it off, you don't explain how !


So let me make it very clear to you so we don't keep coming to this impasse; there is nothing wrong with the constitution, it was constructed to evaluate and protect the most basic of rights in the simplest of ways, as well as being built upon to fit a modern era. Those in power are corrupt and tarnish the constitution, thus allowing outsiders as yourself to see something wrong with the document when really it's the people in power.

Well obviously not ALL. However, I would maintain that it is the most common viewpoint in the US & one that cuts across party lines, although conservatives of various stripes are generally the most ... err ... strident about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQsCW1hbOGw&feature=related

To put this in perspective: I have never seen a "God Bless Canada" bumper sticker - never. Which brings us to one area where the US really is "exceptional" - religion.

However what?! The conservative idea that America is number one and we are the ideal model for other nations to strive for is not a common viewpoint. Even when cutting across party lines it still isn't a critical point or focus of many Americans. You act like there is a 90 percentile of people in America that just go around whistling a tune and singing America is number one. For someone that knows people in the U.S. and is suppose to be informed you sure aren't. It's easy for anyone to say America is great when people in this nation don't have jobs, homes, and many other necessities and get a positive reaction.

Were you purposely trying to get to religion being a craw in your side? I'd assume you were from various parts of other post, but I could have misread them up until now.

I am of two minds of Citizens United. The Super PAC ads are annoying. It is very easy to see them and think that something is wrong here. But the FEC laws the ruling overturned even prohibited me getting together with 12 friends and producing a political ad because we feel strongly about the election. Further, the law was basically prohibiting the spread of information within a certain time frame of an election. The law basically made it so that the only information voters were allowed to have in the final days leading up to an election could only come from the candidates and the media. You speak about our two-party system as being a problem, but then act as if the outcome of the hearing was a bad thing when all it did was eliminate a law that ultimately ensured the two party system wasn't challenged.

To see the outcome of Citizens United just look at Ron Paul. In 2008 supporters could only get together and put up handmade signs on bridges and fund a blimp. In 2012 those same supporters are producing professional ads that show Ron Paul's character as a doctor when he was younger. How is that a bad thing? How is more information a bad thing? How is preventing those in power from having a monopoly on information a bad thing?

Truth be told, I never looked at it this way and you have a great point here. However, then I go back and look at it the way others might or as I did before seeing the point you just made. When I look at Obama and Romeny Pacs there is no transperancy and the fact that big corporations are sourcing money to these two should worry all of us. We know that there are big companies giving money for the PACs but we don't know who they are for sure. I know I'd like to know because it'd help me answer questions on policies made by the right and left in the past four years.

On the election:

I must be on crazy pills. One candidate was accused of philandering and basically had to drop out of the race. Another candidate has a very well known, very long history of philandering, and is even now married to one of his mistresses, and he gets a standing applause from some in the audience of last nights debate for saying it was despicable that his philandering should be the subject of a question.

Run Cain out of town. Cheer for Newt. I don't get it.

Skin color . Cain didn't make much sense, his 999 plan wasn't enough to get the media to keep interest in him and Newt has been a topic of debate for a decade on and off in the political world. Someone that is a direct nemesis of Romeny is something that helps sell the GOP for the RNC and media. That is probably why Newt gets to stay, but Cain is yesterday's news.

 

[Keef]

Run Cain out of town. Cheer for Newt. I don't get it.

Cain was black. Yeah, I said it. Per your average unspoken white-American prejudiced stereotype, Obama's successful marriage makes him more white than anything. Double standards abound and you know this.

 

[Omnis]

Newt is also Xerxes. That's why.

 

[Keef]

I'll never vote for somebody named after a Monty Python joke.



Burn him.

 

[FoolKiller]

Speaking of double standards in the election; this video takes place just after Romney, Newt, and Santorum were all three asked to weigh in on a question regarding abortion. The moderator then began to move on without asking the only doctor on stage, Ron Paul. Fortunately there were enough Ron Paul supporters in attendance to call them out.



(side note: as I was putting this together on my laptop my two-year-old daughter climbed up next to me and said, "I see," and then pointed at Ron Paul. I asked her if she liked him and she got a big smile and nodded. Best Ron Paul endorsement ever.)

As a follow up to the above video I ran across this article from USA Today in 2003:

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Do I hear flip flops?


Also, Ron Paul gets a huge endorsement:



Colbert bump?


And finally, Bill Maher supports Ron Paul on an issue and then after his own audience has a mild reaction he calls them brainwashed liberals.

 

[Keef]

Bill O'Reilly is a complete idiot. But he's right this time.

 

[Keef]

So Jack Hunter is from South Carolina. He writes for the Charleston City Paper. He's been a very important figure for liberty and Ron Paul's campaign, especially in writing and on the radio. He's a public figure representing Ron Paul, especially in South Carolina and states around there. He also played an important role in getting Rand Paul elected in Kentucky.

But Ron Paul isn't doing well in South Carolina. That is Jack's home state. I'm kind of disappointed. Maybe it's just not Paul's crowd, but I expected more of Hunter. He probably expected more of himself.

 

[Liquid]

BBC - Gingrich 'wins S. Carolina'

Can one of our American posters give us the inside scoop? I've got no television footage and only news/forum posts to work from.

 

[FoolKiller]

So Jack Hunter is from South Carolina. He writes for the Charleston City Paper. He's been a very important figure for liberty and Ron Paul's campaign, especially in writing and on the radio. He's a public figure representing Ron Paul, especially in South Carolina and states around there. He also played an important role in getting Rand Paul elected in Kentucky.

But Ron Paul isn't doing well in South Carolina. That is Jack's home state. I'm kind of disappointed. Maybe it's just not Paul's crowd, but I expected more of Hunter. He probably expected more of himself.

How is it Hunter's fault? South Carolina has a lot of religious conservatives. They are not Paul's big group because he doesn't want, or pretend to want, to turn the US into a theocracy.



So, a winner for each state. I guess all that "this state picks the winner" stuff is in the toilet now. It is anyone's game.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

BBC - Gingrich 'wins S. Carolina'

Can one of our American posters give us the inside scoop? I've got no television footage and only news/forum posts to work from.

Well I killed my cat due to it...

Oh you mean you wanted actual info!?

 

[Biggles]

Your prose and syntax are not anything to write home about either, if you want to give me a grammar lesson then PM me.

LMSCorvette

I'm not wanting to give you a grammar lesson, I'm wanting to understand what you're trying to say!

Better yet, what are you not seeing or haven't read that makes you suggest we're not fundamentally questioning what we live under as Americans, your poetic string of words is nice but vague.

We've all given some sort of documentation or video proof that shows the U.S. in the current states and many renditios before it has lied and will continue.

Yet what you fail to do is put two and two together; what if the system you say we don't question is the very essences for why the constitution is in shambles, if the system is already blatantly corrupt what makes you think they'd follow the fundamental ideals or rights of society and the people they "supposedly work" for.

Also why would our Constitution have to be a convincing argument to you, the ideas he sites when talking about it are those limited to the U.S. obviously, I would understand foreign policy and what not.

It makes sense to many Americans as to why it is a convincing argument because that is the documentation that society runs by or is suppose to. It's claimed to be a living document as well thus to be the basis for the changing times.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude or embarrass you, but when you post these sorts of "stream-of-consciousness" sentences, it's pretty much impossible to know what you're actually trying to say. I'm asking you to take the time & trouble to read back through what you've written & edit it before posting.

Your prose and syntax are not anything to write home about either

Please feel free to correct my prose & syntax where you feel it's necessary.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

LMSCorvette

I'm not wanting to give you a grammar lesson, I'm wanting to understand what you're trying to say!


Please feel free to correct my prose & syntax where you feel it's necessary.

Sir I explained it to you in the follow up post that you've mentioned. Besides that bit about prose and syntax, the rest is me trying to put it into a more streamline thought of what I was trying to say before.

 

[Famine]

Can someone tell me how a guy who has opinions for money and has sexual morals that make Clinton look like a Trappist Monk managed to get any votes at all?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Can someone tell me how a guy who has opinions for money and has sexual morals that make Clinton look like a Trappist Monk managed to get any votes at all?

He spent tons of money in that state, and people tend to not fact check past last week when it comes to these things. Oh and a simple cave man slogan never hurts. All this makes a win for Newt in SC.

 

[Famine]

Even so, the vox pops who have been claiming Newt stands for what they stand for must be smoking some pretty strong herbs - he stands for whatever's profitable. He'd probably be a Democrat if someone paid him enough...

 

[Zenith]

Can someone tell me how a guy who has opinions for money and has sexual morals that make Clinton look like a Trappist Monk managed to get any votes at all?

Agreed. It bewilders me that nobody seems to think that these could be important insights into the character of a presidential candidate.

Perhaps the act of cheating on a cancer-stricken wife is so taboo that they've decided to ignore its existence.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Even so, the vox pops who have been claiming Newt stands for what they stand for must be smoking some pretty strong herbs - he stands for whatever's profitable. He'd probably be a Democrat if someone paid him enough...

True, but like I said you're talking about a crowd that doesn't do their homework and simple things like "Obama has ruined everything" will get you at least a few votes.

 

[Biggles]

Besides that bit about prose and syntax, the rest is me trying to put it into a more streamline thought of what I was trying to say before.

Yes, I did notice that you made the effort express yourself more clearly.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes, I did notice that you made the effort express yourself more clearly.

Well since you asked me (a second time), I made sure to try and convey a single train of thought and not one of multiple pieces. I must admit that when I read your post(s), there are so many things that jump at me I want to respond to them all at once. This is probably the reason why you don't understand me or can't really get a grasp for what I'm writing and for that I apologize.

 

[Sam48]

I was at a Chinese new year party when my brother called me telling me Newt won and Paul finished last. That kinda ruined my mood for the rest of the night, but anyway, off to the swing state. Maybe Paul will have better luck there.

 

[Biggles]

I must be on crazy pills

Ah, poor Foolkiller.

Those must be the pills that come in a big bottle labelled:

CONSTITUTIONAL

Cures all known ills!​

I know, there's been a lot of slick advertising promoting this product:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0

But you obviously neglected to read the small print:

Results vary. Side effects may include unrealistic optimism, dashed hopes, delusion & depression.

The good news? Therapy is available. May I suggest the Canadian online pharmacy. Prescriptions are available from Dr. Biggles.

 

[YSSMAN]

BBC - Gingrich 'wins S. Carolina'

Can one of our American posters give us the inside scoop? I've got no television footage and only news/forum posts to work from.

Well, it is a fairly simple case of the Republicans not having any idea what is going on. We have a party that is essentially split into four separate factions:

1. Romney - Moderate, modern Conservatism that is trying to hide behind a pro-business candidate

2. Gingrich - Classic, Reagan style Neo-Conservatism. More worried about what America was than what it is becoming.

3. Paul - The Libertarian wing of the Republican party. Appeals to young, educated people, and this scares the party establishment

4. Santorum - The "Values" candidate, more worried about what America is becoming than what it used to be, openly uses hate and fear to drive politics


A win by Gingrich basically shows that this is anyone's game. Although primaries are normally to the point where they're showing a general direction, it seems that with the way things are, it is turning into a process that is going to be very similar to the Democat's situation in 2008. Gingrich is going to perform well in the South, whereas Romney will likely do well in areas in the North and on the coasts. Gingrich will claim that it will make Romney a weak candidate nationally.

In my opinion, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are out. A win by Gingrich is going to give him a lot of money from the Neo-Cons, and it will propel him pretty far in traditionally more Conservative areas of the South and Central states. Ron Paul could run third party, just to do it, but that still seems incredibly unlikely as well. He will likely put his money toward elections in states where he can get delegates, and use those at the convention to get some of his policies put on the platform.

Between Gingrich and Romney, I'd still bet on Romney to get the national nomination. But, it is a tough call. After his rough week with his personal taxes and discussions about his wealth, he has a lot of ground to lose. From the Democrat's perspective, they're likely looking at each as a positive. Gingrich has a lot of serious issues when it comes to personal fidelity, and Romney with his wealth. Both are very inconsistent with their views on issues, and both will not do well with Independents or Moderates.

As I've said before, it is Obama's race to lose. If he can't get his people together on his accomplishments, and re-invigorate the young people that have been greatly disillusioned by his actions as of late, he's done for. Thing is, they just won't vote. This year is shaping up to be a year of disappointments on both sides in terms of voter numbers, I'd bet.

 

[Keef]

How is it Hunter's fault? South Carolina has a lot of religious conservatives. They are not Paul's big group because he doesn't want, or pretend to want, to turn the US into a theocracy.

I didn't mean to suggest it was his fault. I just assumed that your boy was some sort of hometown hero in that state and everybody loved him. I'm sure the results wouldn't have been as good without him, but I expected more. I only recently learned from a southern friend that South Carolina is full of people whom I would call "misguided". I've never been to Myrtle Beach. Apparently it's the trailer park of beach resort cities.

So, a winner for each state. I guess all that "this state picks the winner" stuff is in the toilet now. It is anyone's game.

I like how Paul is doing well but not fluctuating up and down like the other candidates. In a way I like it. Besides that it's just stressful. Long-term strategy wears on me real quick.

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

Gingrich will not win a long, drawn-out fight.

The GOP higher-ups want Romney and I foresee a backroom deal being struck at the time of the national convention for Romney as the nominee with the promise of a position in a Mittens administration for the Hypocrite King of Ethics.

As I've said before, it is Obama's race to lose. If he can't get his people together on his accomplishments, and re-invigorate the young people that have been greatly disillusioned by his actions as of late, he's done for. Thing is, they just won't vote. This year is shaping up to be a year of disappointments on both sides in terms of voter numbers, I'd bet.

A Romney v. Obama election will come down to economic figures in 2012. Things looking up in the fall? Obama wins. Things get bad in the fall? Romney eeks out a win.

 

[YSSMAN]

A Romney v. Obama election will come down to economic figures in 2012. Things looking up in the fall? Obama wins. Things get bad in the fall? Romney eeks out a win.

That's far too simple. Romney still lacks too much support from within his party, and even if Obama voters are disillusioned, they'll likely still vote for him just to block a bad Republican from taking office.

'Murica. Hooray.

 

[arora]

Ah, poor Foolkiller.

Those must be the pills that come in a big bottle labelled:

CONSTITUTIONAL

Cures all known ills!...,.... ​

while I don't agree at all, epic post is epic funny LOL 👍​

 

[Keef]

A Romney v. Obama election will come down to economic figures in 2012. Things looking up in the fall? Obama wins. Things get bad in the fall? Romney eeks out a win.

A Romney vs. Obama election will actually come down to whether or not Romney can corral Ron Paul supporters like myself. Up to 20% of Republican voters support Paul right now, many of those young, smart, fervent supporters who are very unlikely to compromise their vote. I would have a difficult time deciding who to vote for, though I would probably vote Libertarian party as I did 4 years ago. Many like myself would do the same.

And the end result of that would be Obama winning the election. It's a numbers game and will be to the end - without the support of so many young people like myself, Romney is unlikely to beat Obama. Even TV pundits are starting to talk about that fact.