If Santorum wins the nomination...

[zsdersw]

You are not very good at trying to hide your democrat partisanship. According to you, anyone who would vote for Santorum over Obama MUST be a republican partisan. There can be no other reason because, well, because you are a democrat partisan hack.

Actually, you're not correctly relaying what I've said. Voting for Santorum (instead of a third-party or write-in candidate) means you either support him and his policies specifically or you always vote for the Republican candidate, whomever it may be... or some combination thereof.

If it is, as you claim your intentions are, simply about voting against the incumbent, why wouldn't you pick a third-party candidate?

 

[cybrsage]

Actually, you're not correctly relaying what I've said. Voting for Santorum (instead of a third-party or write-in candidate) means you either support him and his policies specifically or you always vote for the Republican candidate, whomever it may be... or some combination thereof.

If it is, as you claim your intentions are, simply about voting against the incumbent, why wouldn't you pick a third-party candidate?

You said if a person votes for Santorum they must be a partisan hack, but if they vote for Obama they may or may not be a partisan hack. AKA, support a republican, you are a definately a hack, support a democrat, you are not necessarily a hack.

This shows you are a democrat partisan hack yourself. Try as you might to shift the conversation away from your own statement, you will fail. You showed your true colors...you can stop pretending to be something other than a dem partisan hack now.

 

[Ausm]

Alan Simpson's synopsis of Rick Santorum.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57382599/santorum-homophobic-former-senator-says/

I rubbing my plastic Jesus really hard now hoping he gets the nomination!!

 

[PingSpike]

The Republican establishment isn't that dumb IMO, but since the advent of the tea party, a pretty significant rift has developed between the RNC and many of the party faithful. Usually rifts like this have been the domain of the Democratic party, ie blacks, environmentalists, feminists, progressives, academics, etc. Republicans have enjoyed the simplicity of a fairly monolithic base over the years, mostly being business owners and social conservatives. Tea partiers advancing such hopeless candidates as Perry, Bachman, and Palin has made the nomination process considerably more difficult for them I imagine, considering the establishment knows that Romney is the only one with any chance against Obama, and I'd consider even that chance pretty slim.

The schisms within the GOP are a natural result of the party blowing smoke up its demographics asses for decades while doing nothing but occasional warmongering and profiting off corruption. The GOP is suppose to be the fiscally conservative party, but I think most of its supporters have been having a harder and harder time swallowing that lie. And even if you don't care about that, rather you sit around all day blaming the gays and abortions for society's ills...what has that party done about those 'problems' anyway? Nothing. And of course not, they'd never risk actually destroying or martyring their scape goat. I mean that's the only thing the deranged remaining collective has to rally around at this point isn't it?

Not that the Democratic party is much better. Obama the change machine managed to change into Bush Junior.

 

[zsdersw]

You said if a person votes for Santorum they must be a partisan hack, but if they vote for Obama they may or may not be a partisan hack. AKA, support a republican, you are a definately a hack, support a democrat, you are not necessarily a hack.

This shows you are a democrat partisan hack yourself. Try as you might to shift the conversation away from your own statement, you will fail. You showed your true colors...you can stop pretending to be something other than a dem partisan hack now.

The people who offered an explanation for picking Obama (such as hating Santorum) are not necessarily Democratic shills. Many are, however, because of their statements in other threads.

The people who pick Santorum in this poll are Republican shills. None of them have offered an explanation for their vote and have demonstrated in other threads their unwavering support of the GOP no matter what they do.

Additionally, with only a small handful of exceptions the only people who picked the 3rd or 4th option in the poll are people who are typically conservative.

 

[dank69]

It's not a revision at all. I've consistently said "many" who picked Obama in the poll, and never said "all".

Odd that you claim that. I'm not the only one that read it as if you were saying that everyone who voted for Obama was a partsan shill:

I like how you think that nobody could support Obama without being a partisan shill. You realize how ridiculous that is, right?

And again, you pointed to your caveat 'unless they've provided an alternate explanation' here:

That's why I said... unless they've provided an alternative explanation.

Many alternative explanations are valid, including hating Santorum.

I'll make it crystal clear. If you think everyone who voted for Obama in your poll is a partisan hack unless they gave an explanation, then you are wrong. If you don't think everyone that voted for Obama in your poll without giving an explanation is a partisan hack, you didn't communicate that effectively in your original statement.

 

[zsdersw]

Odd that you claim that. I'm not the only one that read it as if you were saying that everyone who voted for Obama was a partsan shill:

And again, you pointed to your caveat 'unless they've provided an alternate explanation' here:
I'll make it crystal clear. If you think everyone who voted for Obama in your poll is a partisan hack unless they gave an explanation, then you are wrong. If you don't think everyone that voted for Obama in your poll without giving an explanation is a partisan hack, you didn't communicate that effectively in your original statement.

There's no effective difference between my original statement and the one you supposedly agree with.

Both you and eskimospy replied by saying I was speaking in absolute terms; that I was talking about "everyone" who picked Obama... when I never was.

 

[dank69]

There's no effective difference between my original statement and the one you supposedly agree with.

There is an effective difference. The fact that I am not the only one who misunderstood your intentions supports my claim that there is a difference. Your addition of a single caveat implies that there are no other caveats. Writing 'unless they gave an explanation' implies that there are no other exceptions.

 

[zsdersw]

There is an effective difference. The fact that I am not the only one who misunderstood your intentions supports my claim that there is a difference. Your addition of a single caveat implies that there are no other caveats. Writing 'unless they gave an explanation' implies that there are no other exceptions.

The first word of my statement is many. All of your replies implied I said everyone.

 

[Skitzer]

I will be voting for Ron Paul even if he doesn't win the nomination.
He is the only one who makes sense to me.

 

[Atreus21]

That's not what you said, though. You said the non-Santorum candidates had "no problem with abortion", suggesting that they think it's fine in any and all circumstances and should not be restricted in any way.

Okay. Rephrase. My vote goes to the least pro-abortion candidate there is, assuming he's not the anti-christ.

 

[cybrsage]

The people who offered an explanation for picking Obama (such as hating Santorum) are not necessarily Democratic shills. Many are, however, because of their statements in other threads.

The people who pick Santorum in this poll are Republican shills. None of them have offered an explanation for their vote and have demonstrated in other threads their unwavering support of the GOP no matter what they do.

Additionally, with only a small handful of exceptions the only people who picked the 3rd or 4th option in the poll are people who are typically conservative.

And you use this as your attempt to say you are not a democrat shill? you just said all who support the republican are shills but not all who support the democrat are shills...and then you try to say this means you are not a democrat shill!




You do not you do not have to vote for Obama in the next election, you can write in George Will. Are you going to do that, or are you a democrat shill who will only vote for the DNC's choice?

 

[cybrsage]

There is an effective difference. The fact that I am not the only one who misunderstood your intentions supports my claim that there is a difference. Your addition of a single caveat implies that there are no other caveats. Writing 'unless they gave an explanation' implies that there are no other exceptions.

You are quickly learning that anyone who disagrees with him in politics is a shill for [insert party here].

 

[Atreus21]

This.

I am so sick of social issues dominating an election. What have Republicans done to turn back the clock on ANY social issue?

Abortion is still legal.

Partial-birth abortion, despite the best efforts of the left, is not.

The only thing 8 years of Bush accomplished was 2 wars, wider income disparity, and huge deficits. His social agenda amounted to NOTHING.

Except the partial-birth abortion ban.

 

[zsdersw]

And you use this as your attempt to say you are not a democrat shill? you just said all who support the republican are shills but not all who support the democrat are shills...and then you try to say this means you are not a democrat shill!




You do not you do not have to vote for Obama in the next election, you can write in George Will. Are you going to do that, or are you a democrat shill who will only vote for the DNC's choice?

Note my choice in the poll...

 

[zsdersw]

You are quickly learning that anyone who disagrees with him in politics is a shill for [insert party here].

Actually, we agree in politics on quite a few things. The one difference is that I actually criticize both parties... you only criticize one.

 

[dank69]

The first word of my statement is many. All of your replies implied I said everyone.

And once again, I will point you to this exchange:

I like how you think that nobody could support Obama without being a partisan shill. You realize how ridiculous that is, right?

That's why I said... unless they've provided an alternative explanation.

Many alternative explanations are valid, including hating Santorum.

The key here is that while you acknowledge that there are many different explanations that may be valid in your eyes, looking only at your original statement and this followup exchange, it seems you think that anyone that does not explicitly post their expalanation in this thread is a patisan shill.

Notice the flow:
Eskimo - ... you think nobody could support Obama without being a partisan shill. ...
You - [yes] unless they've provided an alternative explanation.

The yes above is implied because of the way you worded your response. 'That's why I said' implies you are agreeing with eskimo's interpretation.

 

[dank69]

You are quickly learning that anyone who disagrees with him in politics is a shill for [insert party here].

No, I am able to see what he meant is different from what he typed, even if he thinks they are the same. Your repeated claims that he is a democratic shill are laughable, and just add more evidence showing you do not know how to debate or even think critically, not that anyone here doesn't already know this.

 

[zsdersw]

And once again, I will point you to this exchange:

The key here is that while you acknowledge that there are many different explanations that may be valid in your eyes, looking only at your original statement and this followup exchange, it seems you think that anyone that does not explicitly post their expalanation in this thread is a patisan shill.

Notice the flow:
Eskimo - ... you think nobody could support Obama without being a partisan shill. ...
You - [yes] unless they've provided an alternative explanation.

The yes above is implied because of the way you worded your response. 'That's why I said' implies you are agreeing with eskimo's interpretation.

I'm not agreeing with his interpretation, I'm saying "yes" to the question he asked: "You realize how ridiculous that is, right?". He made an incorrect interpretation and said it was ridiculous... I'm agreeing it's ridiculous.

 

[zsdersw]

Okay. Rephrase. My vote goes to the least pro-abortion candidate there is, assuming he's not the anti-christ.

Ok, that's better.

 

[dank69]

I'm not agreeing with his interpretation, I'm saying "yes" to the question he asked: "You realize how ridiculous that is, right?". He made an incorrect interpretation and said it was ridiculous... I'm agreeing it's ridiculous.

But even his interpretation was a slight strawman, and of course that strawman is ridiculous.

Your statement:
Many who picked Obama are partisan shills, too... unless they've expressed an alternative explanation for selecting Obama

His strawman, omitting your qualifier:
I like how you think that nobody could support Obama without being a partisan shill.

Your clarification:
That's why I said... unless they've provided an alternative explanation.

So merging his incomplete interpretation with your clarification we end up with:
I like how you think that nobody could support Obama without being a partisan shill unless they've provided an alternative explanation.

Which is exactly the same thing you said the first time. Both statements imply that the only way a person who voted for Obama in your poll isn't a partisan hack is if they posted their explanation, regardless of whether you add the word everyone or leave it out.

 

[zsdersw]

But even his interpretation was a slight strawman, and of course that strawman is ridiculous.

Your statement:
Many who picked Obama are partisan shills, too... unless they've expressed an alternative explanation for selecting Obama

His strawman, omitting your qualifier:
I like how you think that nobody could support Obama without being a partisan shill.

Your clarification:
That's why I said... unless they've provided an alternative explanation.

So merging his incomplete interpretation with your clarification we end up with:
I like how you think that nobody could support Obama without being a partisan shill unless they've provided an alternative explanation.

Which is exactly the same thing you said the first time. Both statements imply that the only way a person who voted for Obama in your poll isn't a partisan hack is if they posted their explanation, regardless of whether you add the word everyone or leave it out.

My original statement was: Many who picked Obama are partisan shills, too... unless they've expressed an alternative explanation for selecting Obama..

There are partisan shills all over this forum. The lopsided results in favor of Obama suggests that, as I originally said, many are partisan shills. The only reason we'd have to conclude they're not a shill is their reason for picking Obama that they expressed in a post in this thread.

 

[dank69]

My original statement was: Many who picked Obama are partisan shills, too... unless they've expressed an alternative explanation for selecting Obama..

There are partisan shills all over this forum. The lopsided results in favor of Obama suggests that, as I originally said, many are partisan shills. The only reason we'd have to conclude they're not a shill is their reason for picking Obama that they expressed in a post in this thread.

I think your conclusion is ill advised. You put up a specific situation, Obama v Santorum and asked how they would vote. If you put up a different situation, say Romney v Obama, I'd venture a guess that the vote would not be quite so lopsided. Based on the results from your poll and my assumption of how a Romney v Obama poll would go, I would conclude that people here just really think Santorum is bad, not that they would vote for Obama no matter what.

However, I do think most people here would vote for Obama vs [pick your current GOP candidate from the current crop]. I also don't think that necessarily makes them shills, as the current crop is terrible all around.

 

[cybrsage]

Actually, we agree in politics on quite a few things. The one difference is that I actually criticize both parties... you only criticize one.

We do agree on many things, one of which we disagree on is that you saying everyone who votes for a republican is a shill, but not all those who vote for a democrat is a shill shows your bias. You claim it does not, others say it does.

You also tend to pretend I do not criticize both parties as it is the only way you can continue to pretend I am a shill (while amazingly your bias proves you are not one...).

 

[cybrsage]

No, I am able to see what he meant is different from what he typed, even if he thinks they are the same.

His statement, which he refuses to correct (which means he wants it as it is) is quite heavily biased towards the DNC point of view. ALL supporters of the republican are obvious shills...but only some of the democrat supporters are potentially shills.

You do not see how horribly biased that is? ALL who vote republican are shills but only SOME who vote democrat are shills. This alone does not make him a DNC shill...it is him claiming there is no bias in the statement which seals the deal.

He is like a Ron Paul supporter in this case. No matter how many times you tell a RP supporter their position is obviously biased, they will deny it.