If Santorum wins the nomination...

[werepossum]

Here is how I always look at voting:
Lets say a vote has a max power of 2.
Not voting at all has a power of 0.
Voting against the person you don't want by voting for a third party has a power of 1.
Voting against the person you don't want by voting for the other major party candidate has a power of 2.

Voting against someone will always take a vote away from them, but voting for the other major party is the most powerful way to go about it. Of course, many people will say they need to vote their conscience and vote for someone with no chance of winning.

I tend to agree. I usually say a pox on both parties and vote Libertarian, but sometimes just not voting for someone isn't enough.

But in the end, only the losing party & candidate really gives a crap whether you voted for his opponent or for a third party. The winner got all the votes he needed either way.

 

[tweaker2]

If the poll sampling in this thread is indicative of what we can expect in November, well....wow.

Can we assume that Santorum is really that bad when compared with Obama?

 

[werepossum]

If the poll sampling in this thread is indicative of what we can expect in November, well....wow.

Can we assume that Santorum is really that bad when compared with Obama?

We can certainly assume that Santorum is really that bad when compared with Obama in the eyes of a computer tech site's political forum. But by that same standard, Obama is Ron Paul's bitch. LOL

 

[pcgeek11]

If the poll sampling in this thread is indicative of what we can expect in November, well....wow.

Can we assume that Santorum is really that bad when compared with Obama?

This forum is far far away from a representation of the public.

 

[lothar]

If the poll sampling in this thread is indicative of what we can expect in November, well....wow.

Can we assume that Santorum is really that bad when compared with Obama?

Ron Paul wins all the polls here.

 

[Ausm]

This forum is far far away from a representation of the public.

Do you want to rub my plastic Jesus so your dream may come to fruition?

 

[Mursilis]

Those are all good points. And where the baby is old enough to reasonably survive eviction, I support banning abortions in favor of forced labor (if eviction is desired by the mother.) Currently I believe that's about five months' gestation or roughly one pound.

Ultimately I have no problem with people on either side of this thorny debate as long as they realize that there are serious competing interests, not merely right and wrong. My own analysis of relative values puts me against banning abortion until the baby is viable outside the womb, but I can certainly understand your honestly coming to the opposite conclusion. Innocent life certainly is a compelling interest even weighed against personal liberty.

So true, which is why I don't expect this debate to ever be "settled", unlike other major moral issues (slavery, for example) that this nation as faced. Even if the pro-life side suceeds and gets abortion banned again, the pro-choice side isn't just going to go away. But the thing I find most infuriating about pro-choicers, and the media is complicit in this, is the constant attempt to characterize the pro-life position as solely a religious position, as if there's simply no secular basis to oppose abortion. I've literally never seen the pro-life side in any televised debate or discussion represented by anyone other than some priest or minister, or someone affiliated with a religious organization. It's as if the pro-choice movement is afraid to even confront the idea that there can be a secular, non-religious basis to ban abortion. Instead, they stubbornly stick with the argument that pro-lifers are just a bunch of angry males looking to oppress women because their god told them they should, no different than, say, if Jews decided to ban pork for the rest of us. It's a far more complex debate than that, and I respect you for acknowledging that, even if we don't agree.

 

[Mursilis]

If the poll sampling in this thread is indicative of what we can expect in November, well....wow.

Can we assume that Santorum is really that bad when compared with Obama?

Others have already stated that this poll is hardly scientific, which is true, but regardless, I would expect Obama to pound Santorum in November. Obama would have to literally beat his own wife live on primetime TV to lose to Santorum. Probably more than once.

 

[cybrsage]

If the poll sampling in this thread is indicative of what we can expect in November, well....wow.

Can we assume that Santorum is really that bad when compared with Obama?

It is not, this forum is heavily DNC oriented. A poll of Romney vs Obama will garner the same Obama numbers.

 

[cybrsage]

I wasn't talking about the presidential race in that question.

You are attempting to twist what I said about a presidential election and apply it to a non-presidential election. I am simply not allowing you to do it.

Once you realize that congressman do not have term limits, you will understand why trying to apply a reasoning which uses term limits as its basis to those who do not have term limits is a rather stupid thing to attempt to do.

 

[cybrsage]

There are lots of laws on the books that could be ruled violations of the Constitution, but that are never brought up because the laws are never enforced.

Is that the only criticism of the GOP that you have?

I now see you think the Constitution is not important. Wow. It explains much about why you are such a DNC shill, though.

By the way, if this specific constitutional violation is as significant and important as you're making it out to be, why didn't you create a thread about it.. instead of just one post in a totally unrelated thread?

It was posted in a thread where many people posted about things they disliked about the party they usually support. I know you wanted 100 threads wherein each one there was one post, but no one else saw fit to do something that idiotic.

 

[zsdersw]

It was posted in a thread where many people posted about things they disliked about the party they usually support. I know you wanted 100 threads wherein each one there was one post, but no one else saw fit to do something that idiotic.

Surely it's important enough to get its own thread. You've created threads for many things that pale in comparison.

 

[zsdersw]

You are attempting to twist what I said about a presidential election and apply it to a non-presidential election. I am simply not allowing you to do it.

I'm acknowledging that you're voting against the incumbent in the presidential race, but my question specifically stated any race... so I'm asking about those.

Once you realize that congressman do not have term limits, you will understand why trying to apply a reasoning which uses term limits as its basis to those who do not have term limits is a rather stupid thing to attempt to do.

I'm not at all interested in or talking about term limits. I'm simply asking if there are any Republican incumbents in any race that you're voting against.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm acknowledging that you're voting against the incumbent in the presidential race, but my question specifically stated any race... so I'm asking about those.



I'm not at all interested in or talking about term limits. I'm simply asking if there are any Republican incumbents in any race that you're voting against.

Seriously, he will never admit he is wrong... ever. He is the exact reason why the ignore button was invented.

 

[cybrsage]

Surely it's important enough to get its own thread. You've created threads for many things that pale in comparison.

No need, there was a thread created by zsdersw where people were already posting such things. You should go look it up sometime.

 

[zsdersw]

No need, there was a thread created by zsdersw where people were already posting such things. You should go look it up sometime.

Even before that thread of mine was created you didn't feel it was a matter worth making a thread about.

It took a request from me to list things critical of your "team" for you to even mention it. That points to you being a shill, I'm afraid.

 

[Xonoahbin]

Yeah, definitely voting for Obama, but mostly because I'd be absolutely terrified by what Santorum would do as President. If Santorum won, I'd probably flee the country.

 

[sm625]

Sad that 100 people on here would actually vote for obama again. They are either recipients of that drunken sailor government spending binge, or just unbelievably stupid and braindead. I'm talkin majorly braindead... like "oh lets make Detroit, the richest per capita city in the country 50 years ago, into a bastion of public employee liberal slaughter, and see how long it takes all the wealth to be driven out." Obama wants our whole country to suffer through that same ideology. And there are actually millions of frickin morons retarded enough to vote for it and even cheer it with glee. You people make me sick. I spit on your tent when your bullcrap has lost you everything you had.

And if you think that romney or santorum is the alternative I am suggesting, then you really do belong in a tent city.

 

[werepossum]

So true, which is why I don't expect this debate to ever be "settled", unlike other major moral issues (slavery, for example) that this nation as faced. Even if the pro-life side suceeds and gets abortion banned again, the pro-choice side isn't just going to go away. But the thing I find most infuriating about pro-choicers, and the media is complicit in this, is the constant attempt to characterize the pro-life position as solely a religious position, as if there's simply no secular basis to oppose abortion. I've literally never seen the pro-life side in any televised debate or discussion represented by anyone other than some priest or minister, or someone affiliated with a religious organization. It's as if the pro-choice movement is afraid to even confront the idea that there can be a secular, non-religious basis to ban abortion. Instead, they stubbornly stick with the argument that pro-lifers are just a bunch of angry males looking to oppress women because their god told them they should, no different than, say, if Jews decided to ban pork for the rest of us. It's a far more complex debate than that, and I respect you for acknowledging that, even if we don't agree.

Well put.

 

[soundforbjt]

Sad that 100 people on here would actually vote for obama again. They are either recipients of that drunken sailor government spending binge, or just unbelievably stupid and braindead. I'm talkin majorly braindead... like "oh lets make Detroit, the richest per capita city in the country 50 years ago, into a bastion of public employee liberal slaughter, and see how long it takes all the wealth to be driven out." Obama wants our whole country to suffer through that same ideology. And there are actually millions of frickin morons retarded enough to vote for it and even cheer it with glee. You people make me sick. I spit on your tent when your bullcrap has lost you everything you had.

And if you think that romney or santorum is the alternative I am suggesting, then you really do belong in a tent city.

We know, you're a Paulbot. He's (RP) a fake libertarian.

 

[fskimospy]

Sad that 100 people on here would actually vote for obama again. They are either recipients of that drunken sailor government spending binge, or just unbelievably stupid and braindead. I'm talkin majorly braindead... like "oh lets make Detroit, the richest per capita city in the country 50 years ago, into a bastion of public employee liberal slaughter, and see how long it takes all the wealth to be driven out." Obama wants our whole country to suffer through that same ideology. And there are actually millions of frickin morons retarded enough to vote for it and even cheer it with glee. You people make me sick. I spit on your tent when your bullcrap has lost you everything you had.

And if you think that romney or santorum is the alternative I am suggesting, then you really do belong in a tent city.

Kids, this is why you stay in school.

 

[Fern]

Yeah, definitely voting for Obama, but mostly because I'd be absolutely terrified by what Santorum would do as President. If Santorum won, I'd probably flee the country.

I'm curious. What do you think he would do?

Now, I'm not asking what you think he would like to do. I think that's a very different thing.

I think people tend to think the President has a lot more power than they really do. (This is somewhat understandable, and to an extent true, given the increased use of exec orders etc to get around Congress, but abortion etc isn't going to affected by that. You cannot overrule the SCOTUS with an exec order.)

I think the list of what he would like to do is rather long. But given Congress, filibusters and the SCOTUS etc, the list of what he could actually do is extremely short.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I'm curious. What do you think he would do?

Now, I'm not asking what you think he would like to do. I think that's a very different thing.

I think people tend to think the President has a lot more power than they really do. (This is somewhat understandable, and to an extent true, given the increased use of exec orders etc to get around Congress, but abortion etc isn't going to affected by that. You cannot overrule the SCOTUS with an exec order.)

I think the list of what he would like to do is rather long. But given Congress, filibusters and the SCOTUS etc, the list of what he could actually do is extremely short.

Fern

Trust me, the list of what he can do is extremely long. He might not be able to accomplish some of the big ticket items, but go check out what Obama can do through executive orders, through federal bureaucratic priorities, through the priorities of his cabinet members, through judicial appointments, etc, etc, etc.

The presidency is by leaps and bounds the most powerful political office in the country, and this office exerts an enormous amount of influence both within and without the country. If I had to choose between controlling both houses of Congress or the Presidency, I would choose the Presidency in a second. In effect what I'm saying is that such an office alone is more powerful than at least about 269 Congressional seats.

 

[Fern]

Trust me, the list of what he can do is extremely long. He might not be able to accomplish some of the big ticket items, but go check out what Obama can do through executive orders, through federal bureaucratic priorities, through the priorities of his cabinet members, through judicial appointments, etc, etc, etc.

The presidency is by leaps and bounds the most powerful political office in the country, and this office exerts an enormous amount of influence both within and without the country. If I had to choose between controlling both houses of Congress or the Presidency, I would choose the Presidency in a second. In effect what I'm saying is that such an office alone is more powerful than at least about 269 Congressional seats.

Well, indulge me. Tell what he can do about abortion and gay marriage, which seems to be left's major concerns about him.

I'm thinking not a whole lot. About all I can think of off the top of head is bringing back the former military policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Personally I think that highly unlikely. (Imagine trying to reinstall DADT after everybody's already told. How do you 'untell'?). Perhaps there's something about abortion he could on the marginal edges of it, but I can't think of anything.

BTW: I do trust you on this. I'm thinking you know much more about than I about exec orders and the like.

Fern

 

[pcgeek11]

Do you want to rub my plastic Jesus so your dream may come to fruition?

So, do you think the forum is a good representation of the US in general?