Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The US GOP Primary Results/Prediction thread [UPDATE: Santorum suspends campaign]

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 22 NEXT
 

reonhato:
perry is out, gingrich is out, santorum pretty much has shown the non crazy states are not going to be stupid, so hes out. only leaves paul, huntsman and romney, romney almost a certainty though with 40k more votes over paul in NH

Santorum is probably going to last just long enough to be overtaken in the number of delegates by one of the lower candidates (Paul, Huntsman). Right now, he holds second with 11 delegates, so bowing out now would not make sense unless there was someone who he could transfer his delegates to.

EDIT: And now I can sum up the entirety of the New Hampshire Primary in a single word: "boring."

The Gentleman:

reonhato:
perry is out, gingrich is out, santorum pretty much has shown the non crazy states are not going to be stupid, so hes out. only leaves paul, huntsman and romney, romney almost a certainty though with 40k more votes over paul in NH

Santorum is probably going to last just long enough to be overtaken in the number of delegates by one of the lower candidates (Paul, Huntsman). Right now, he holds second with 11 delegates, so bowing out now would not make sense unless there was someone who he could transfer his delegates to.

EDIT: And now I can sum up the entirety of the New Hampshire Primary in a single word: "boring."

Santorum's delegates frighten me. Seriously, I fully expect to find them beating to death a kid that listen's to Elton John. They refused to blow up an abortion clinic because "there was no guarantee that everyone inside would die painfully".

Rage19:

Seekster:

SourWhisky:
Gingrich is out too much posturing while he was ahead in polls and Rick/Pauls advertising campaigns really took their toll. Perry's "reconsidering" pundit talk for out. So to me it looks like it's down to Paul, Romney and Santorum in reality.

Money intrests (military, FED, Banks) do not like Paul I can see them going to just about any lengths to stop him from getting the nomination, Romneys a Mormon and lets face it to far right evangelical republican voters thats a pretty big hurdle. Santorum is probably the safe bet, candidates have been elected despite being consistantly second and he has far less skeletons in the open as the others, and goes mostly ignored from attacks.

If Santorums the best they can muster through Obamas looking pretty comfortable.

HA HA HA HA HA

Romney will get the nomination and Obama is anything but comfortable. Santorum the safe bet? Are you kidding me?

The whole Republican nomination this year is a mere formality, Romney will win the nomination and probably the most sane out of the bunch (thats right a mormon is the most sane) but even he doesn't have floating voter appeal needed to oust Obama. This is not a positive reflection on Obama though, at this point he is a lame duck President who has done little that he promised and doesn't have the balls to stand up to the GOP controlled Senate, he will still win solely on the virtue of 'not being the other guy'.

Obama completed 35% of his promises. Better than the 17% of Bush 1st time, and 21% of Bush 2nd time. Or even Clinton's 32% (2nd time). Just saying.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Rage19:

Seekster:

HA HA HA HA HA

Romney will get the nomination and Obama is anything but comfortable. Santorum the safe bet? Are you kidding me?

The whole Republican nomination this year is a mere formality, Romney will win the nomination and probably the most sane out of the bunch (thats right a mormon is the most sane) but even he doesn't have floating voter appeal needed to oust Obama. This is not a positive reflection on Obama though, at this point he is a lame duck President who has done little that he promised and doesn't have the balls to stand up to the GOP controlled Senate, he will still win solely on the virtue of 'not being the other guy'.

Obama completed 35% of his promises. Better than the 17% of Bush 1st time, and 21% of Bush 2nd time. Or even Clinton's 32% (2nd time). Just saying.

Source please. I can think of a number of promises that Obama broke.

Disturbing News Everyone: Steven Colbert is polling at 5% in some South Carolina polls. See question 17.

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Rage19:

The whole Republican nomination this year is a mere formality, Romney will win the nomination and probably the most sane out of the bunch (thats right a mormon is the most sane) but even he doesn't have floating voter appeal needed to oust Obama. This is not a positive reflection on Obama though, at this point he is a lame duck President who has done little that he promised and doesn't have the balls to stand up to the GOP controlled Senate, he will still win solely on the virtue of 'not being the other guy'.

Obama completed 35% of his promises. Better than the 17% of Bush 1st time, and 21% of Bush 2nd time. Or even Clinton's 32% (2nd time). Just saying.

Source please. I can think of a number of promises that Obama broke.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/

35% of his campaign promises have been kept.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Obama completed 35% of his promises. Better than the 17% of Bush 1st time, and 21% of Bush 2nd time. Or even Clinton's 32% (2nd time). Just saying.

Source please. I can think of a number of promises that Obama broke.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/

35% of his campaign promises have been kept.

Yeah I thought that is where it is from.

You see that little bit in the Politifact logo where it says "St Petersburg Times", yeah not an objective site. I looked into it myself and Politifact has been criticised for a good time now over favoring Democrats more than Republicans. No its not Fox News or Huffington Post level bias but...well I found a nice article that explains part of the problem in detail:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php#.Tutrjsh_ACs.twitter

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

Source please. I can think of a number of promises that Obama broke.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/

35% of his campaign promises have been kept.

Yeah I thought that is where it is from.

You see that little bit in the Politifact logo where it says "St Petersburg Times", yeah not an objective site. I looked into it myself and Politifact has been criticised for a good time now over favoring Democrats more than Republicans. No its not Fox News or Huffington Post level bias but...well I found a nice article that explains part of the problem in detail:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php#.Tutrjsh_ACs.twitter

"For those current or former political officeholders, PolitiFact has generally devoted an equal amount of time analyzing Republicans (191 statements, 50.4 percent) as they have Democrats (179 stories, 47.2 percent), with a handful of stories tracking statements by independents (9 stories, 2.4 percent)."

I think that's pretty unbiased. Ever think the GOP just plain lies more, or lies about more important things?

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/

35% of his campaign promises have been kept.

Yeah I thought that is where it is from.

You see that little bit in the Politifact logo where it says "St Petersburg Times", yeah not an objective site. I looked into it myself and Politifact has been criticised for a good time now over favoring Democrats more than Republicans. No its not Fox News or Huffington Post level bias but...well I found a nice article that explains part of the problem in detail:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php#.Tutrjsh_ACs.twitter

"For those current or former political officeholders, PolitiFact has generally devoted an equal amount of time analyzing Republicans (191 statements, 50.4 percent) as they have Democrats (179 stories, 47.2 percent), with a handful of stories tracking statements by independents (9 stories, 2.4 percent)."

I think that's pretty unbiased. Ever think the GOP just plain lies more, or lies about more important things?

I think both parties do in equal proportions. Its a simple matter to analyze more statements of one party or the other to give the impression that one is somehow more honest than the other.

I appreciate you taking the time to read that by the way.

Seekster:
Yeah I thought that is where it is from.

You see that little bit in the Politifact logo where it says "St Petersburg Times", yeah not an objective site. I looked into it myself and Politifact has been criticised for a good time now over favoring Democrats more than Republicans. No its not Fox News or Huffington Post level bias but...well I found a nice article that explains part of the problem in detail:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php#.Tutrjsh_ACs.twitter

PolitiFact assigns "Pants on Fire" or "False" ratings to 39 percent of Republican statements compared to just 12 percent of Democrats since January 2010

Uh... You ever think that the reason for this is not necessarily that PolitiFact is biased (it isn't) but rather that the Republican party is simply more dishonest? After all, remember, this is the party of Death Panels, the party that considers out-right denial of global warming part of the party line, the party that considers more and more extreme tax cuts for the super rich a good idea... No. Again, this is just another part of this bullshit "both sides" thing; as I pointed out in another recent thread, if a news organization isn't perfectly split down the line, they immediately get attacked for "bias", even when splitting down the line is completely ludicrous. If the Republicans lie more about more important things, then they deserve to get smacked down by Politifact more. It's that simple.

Rage19:
.......and doesn't have the balls to stand up to the GOP controlled Senate.....

The GOP doesn't control the senate it controls the house. That will likely change merely due to the amount of democratic senators up for re-election in 2012, but the GOP controlling the senate is factually incorrect even if they constantly muck up the works with a filibuster.

Seekster:
Yeah I thought that is where it is from.

You see that little bit in the Politifact logo where it says "St Petersburg Times", yeah not an objective site. I looked into it myself and Politifact has been criticised for a good time now over favoring Democrats more than Republicans. No its not Fox News or Huffington Post level bias but...well I found a nice article that explains part of the problem in detail:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php#.Tutrjsh_ACs.twitter

It's not politifacts job to present which party is more biased towards falsehood than the other. It's job is to fact check and to that end it doesn't matter if there is bias in their selection of statements. Regardless of whether or not there is an inherent bias in selecting statements to review they don't ever outright make the claim that party 'x' is inherently more truthful than party 'y' even if their selection process is somehow biased to merely infer that conclusion.

The assertion itself is unfounded and shaky at best without more insight and a insufferable level of scrutiny.

It fundamentally doesn't matter who they target what matters is their method and accuracy in which they review statements. Since traditional media has abdicated the responsibility of sorting out truth from falsehood in favor of the typical "he said, she said, we'll let you decide" in fear of somehow being targeted as biased it's refreshing and noble for an organization to exist that simply confirms the truth or exposes falsehoods with empirical research and investigation.

As long as their methodology when reviewing statements and their research is sound that's enough to put them leagues ahead of the mainstream media in terms of integrity.

Further, the Obama-meter is not something that statement selection could be considered to have a strong bias. It was compiled and started in January of 2009 as Obama took office and it took a giant chuck of statements made during the 2008 campaign. Say if it was created and started last year you can make a case for bias in selection of campaign promises, but the fact that it was compiled before he had an opportunity to deliver on any of his promises suggests that it's at least somewhat legitimate. It is however Erroneous to make the claim that Obama has delivered on 35% of his promises considering the obama-meter is merely a compilation of 500+ promises, but it's pretty close estimate.

I prefer FactChecker on Washington Post, mainly because they'll acknowledge when a statement is simply misleading rather than a lie and explain it thoroughly. Plus, they track the average score of each politician in the 2012 presidential race.

The Gentleman:
I prefer FactChecker on Washington Post, mainly because they'll acknowledge when a statement is simply misleading rather than a lie and explain it thoroughly. Plus, they track the average score of each politician in the 2012 presidential race.

Hmm interesting, I may have to look into that. One of my criticisms of Politifact has been that the way in which they determine something true or false is misleading. I can't think of an example off of the top of my head but I know they do things like rate a false statement as less false if it has been made before by an individual. Also their ratings also tend to make certain assumptions and reading the methodology they use to come to the conclusion really doesnt give me a lot of faith in the consistency of their rating system.

I will check out FactChecker and see if its better.

Bohemian Waltz:

Seekster:
Yeah I thought that is where it is from.

You see that little bit in the Politifact logo where it says "St Petersburg Times", yeah not an objective site. I looked into it myself and Politifact has been criticised for a good time now over favoring Democrats more than Republicans. No its not Fox News or Huffington Post level bias but...well I found a nice article that explains part of the problem in detail:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php#.Tutrjsh_ACs.twitter

It's not politifacts job to present which party is more biased towards falsehood than the other. It's job is to fact check and to that end it doesn't matter if there is bias in their selection of statements. Regardless of whether or not there is an inherent bias in selecting statements to review they don't ever outright make the claim that party 'x' is inherently more truthful than party 'y' even if their selection process is somehow biased to merely infer that conclusion.

I know, I wasnt the one using politifact as a source for claiming that Obama has kept more campaign promises than his predecessors though. Thank you for supporting my argument that politifact is hardly a reliable source for determining such a thing.

As long as their methodology when reviewing statements and their research is sound that's enough to put them leagues ahead of the mainstream media in terms of integrity.

Politifact is run by a mainstream newspaper, they ARE the mainstream media and their integrity is about the same. Plus their methodology is inconsistent and makes a number of assumptions.

Further, the Obama-meter is not something that statement selection could be considered to have a strong bias. It was compiled and started in January of 2009 as Obama took office and it took a giant chuck of statements made during the 2008 campaign. Say if it was created and started last year you can make a case for bias in selection of campaign promises, but the fact that it was compiled before he had an opportunity to deliver on any of his promises suggests that it's at least somewhat legitimate. It is however Erroneous to make the claim that Obama has delivered on 35% of his promises considering the obama-meter is merely a compilation of 500+ promises, but it's pretty close estimate.

"Further, the Obama-meter is not something that statement selection could be considered to have a strong bias."

Did you consider the number of "promises" that politifact took from his predecessors. Honestly 35% of his promises sounds about right for Obama. What doesnt sound right is that he has kept more than Bush or Clinton (perhaps more than Bush but Bush had to become a war-time President early on so his agenda had to change accordingly).

Seekster:

The Gentleman:
I prefer FactChecker on Washington Post, mainly because they'll acknowledge when a statement is simply misleading rather than a lie and explain it thoroughly. Plus, they track the average score of each politician in the 2012 presidential race.

Hmm interesting, I may have to look into that. One of my criticisms of Politifact has been that the way in which they determine something true or false is misleading. I can't think of an example off of the top of my head but I know they do things like rate a false statement as less false if it has been made before by an individual. Also their ratings also tend to make certain assumptions and reading the methodology they use to come to the conclusion really doesnt give me a lot of faith in the consistency of their rating system.

I will check out FactChecker and see if its better.

Admittedly, it tends to be more focused on the GOP right now because of the 2012 primary contest, but their scale (which is a 1-4 where 1 = misleading, 2 = deliberately misleading, 3 = deliberately false, and 4 = boldface lie that goes directly against the truth) is preferable in my opinion.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

The Gentleman:
I prefer FactChecker on Washington Post, mainly because they'll acknowledge when a statement is simply misleading rather than a lie and explain it thoroughly. Plus, they track the average score of each politician in the 2012 presidential race.

Hmm interesting, I may have to look into that. One of my criticisms of Politifact has been that the way in which they determine something true or false is misleading. I can't think of an example off of the top of my head but I know they do things like rate a false statement as less false if it has been made before by an individual. Also their ratings also tend to make certain assumptions and reading the methodology they use to come to the conclusion really doesnt give me a lot of faith in the consistency of their rating system.

I will check out FactChecker and see if its better.

Admittedly, it tends to be more focused on the GOP right now because of the 2012 primary contest, but their scale (which is a 1-4 where 1 = misleading, 2 = deliberately misleading, 3 = deliberately false, and 4 = boldface lie that goes directly against the truth) is preferable in my opinion.

Yeah I would agree with that, I mean what exactly is the difference between "half true" and "half false"?

Seekster:

Bohemian Waltz:
It's not politifacts job to present which party is more biased towards falsehood than the other. It's job is to fact check and to that end it doesn't matter if there is bias in their selection of statements. Regardless of whether or not there is an inherent bias in selecting statements to review they don't ever outright make the claim that party 'x' is inherently more truthful than party 'y' even if their selection process is somehow biased to merely infer that conclusion.

I know, I wasnt the one using politifact as a source for claiming that Obama has kept more campaign promises than his predecessors though. Thank you for supporting my argument that politifact is hardly a reliable source for determining such a thing.

No you simply dismissed them as a biased source and called into account their credibility. I agree making the claim that Obama has fulfilled more promises than his predecessor is erroneous, especially due to politifact only existing for 5 years and thus unable to measure GWB or Clinton's campaign promises in a similar fashion.

However, claiming they're biased without substantial evidence to back up that claim nor a refutation on the actual facts presented and checked bothered me. If the sky is blue it's blue, doesn't matter if the fellow who points it out is or isn't biased.

Seekster:

As long as their methodology when reviewing statements and their research is sound that's enough to put them leagues ahead of the mainstream media in terms of integrity.

Politifact is run by a mainstream newspaper, they ARE the mainstream media and their integrity is about the same.

That's subjective on how you define main-stream media, so I'm not going to further address that issue as it's pointless.

Seekster:
Plus their methodology is inconsistent and makes a number of assumptions.

You don't get to make a claim like this without proof to back it up. Prove they're methodology is inconsistent or point out assumptions, otherwise you're, to borrow one of your own regional colloquialisms, pissing into the wind.

I'm asking you to back your claims up with evidence. Much like politifact does.

Seekster:
"Further, the Obama-meter is not something that statement selection could be considered to have a strong bias."

Did you consider the number of "promises" that politifact took from his predecessors. Honestly 35% of his promises sounds about right for Obama. What doesnt sound right is that he has kept more than Bush or Clinton (perhaps more than Bush but Bush had to become a war-time President early on so his agenda had to change accordingly).

It doesn't sound correct, because as far as I know that statement hasn't been proven. What has been proven and presented is the researched analysis done by the obama-meter. You don't get to take a side swipe at the source without debunking the material.

Seekster:
I will check out FactChecker and see if its better.

I agree with TheGent factchecker in my opinion is objectively better.

I don't know what disturbs me more.

Romney winning SC over Santorum, or 40% of SC voters saying they went prefer Obama over a GOP candidate (source: Reuters)

This is South freaking Carolina. Only states more conservative and further right wing are Alabama, Texas, and Alaska. Colorado might be up there, and I blame Focus on the Family for that. Santorum is so right wing he's in danger of falling off the aircraft. Something's wrong here.

Bohemian Waltz:
-snip-

I don't know what to say, I DID provide evidence of selection bias and the fact that a newspaper is going to be inherently biased no matter who it is should be self explanatory.

Seekster:

Bohemian Waltz:
-snip-

I don't know what to say, I DID provide evidence of selection bias and the fact that a newspaper is going to be inherently biased no matterwho it is should be self explanatory.

When it comes to fact-checking, method is much more important in determining bias. The editorial board may determine what facts get checked, but that doesn't necessarily mean the factchecking itself is wrong.

On an entirely different note, Jon Huntsman appears to be dropping out some time later today. Looks like that "ticket to ride" was for a train being put in a yard.

Okay, that was terrible, but the top post has been updated with the news and I finally got around to updating the New Hampshire results with the final vote totals.

The Gentleman:

On an entirely different note, Jon Huntsman appears to be dropping out some time later today. Looks like that "ticket to ride" was for a train being put in a yard.

Yup.

Shame. Even if with his full support of the Ryan plan and being so anti-abortion, he was still one of the saner candidates among them.

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

I think that's pretty unbiased. Ever think the GOP just plain lies more, or lies about more important things?

I think both parties do in equal proportions.

So, Did Bush ever find those Weapons of Mass Destruction he invaded Iraq over?

I personally want Huntsman, because I like his politics better than Romney, I like him person-wise better than Romney, I like his message of "Country First" (if he keeps to it), and I like that he is more honest than Romney...

However, unless some miricale happens and he jumps up in the polls, It will probly go to Romney. *sigh* Well, at least he aint Obama.

Bymidew:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

I think that's pretty unbiased. Ever think the GOP just plain lies more, or lies about more important things?

I think both parties do in equal proportions.

So, Did Bush ever find those Weapons of Mass Destruction he invaded Iraq over?

Nope but now we know that Saddam didnt have them and he never will. We went into Iraq on bad intel but we did go in, we did what we could for the Iraqis and its up to them now. That is all there is to it.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

Bohemian Waltz:
-snip-

I don't know what to say, I DID provide evidence of selection bias and the fact that a newspaper is going to be inherently biased no matterwho it is should be self explanatory.

When it comes to fact-checking, method is much more important in determining bias. The editorial board may determine what facts get checked, but that doesn't necessarily mean the factchecking itself is wrong.

On an entirely different note, Jon Huntsman appears to be dropping out some time later today. Looks like that "ticket to ride" was for a train being put in a yard.

Okay, that was terrible, but the top post has been updated with the news and I finally got around to updating the New Hampshire results with the final vote totals.

Yeah I heard Huntsman is dropping out, I am surprised it took him this long. He was never going to win anything after New Hampshire and he didnt win New Hampshire. Huntsman seems like a good guy and a competent man but he never had a reason to be in the GOP race, we already have Romney to fill basically every role Huntsman fills.

Seekster:

Yeah I heard Huntsman is dropping out, I am surprised it took him this long. He was never going to win anything after New Hampshire and he didnt win New Hampshire. Huntsman seems like a good guy and a competent man but he never had a reason to be in the GOP race, we already have Romney to fill basically every role Huntsman fills.

I'm not surprised. If he's smart (which he appears to be, mostly) he's playing the long game and aiming for 2016, using 2012 as a practise run for how a Presidential run is organised and the like.

Seekster:

Nope but now we know that Saddam didnt have them and he never will. We went into Iraq on bad intel but we did go in, we did what we could for the Iraqis and its up to them now. That is all there is to it.

The 100,000-110,000 dead Iraqi civilians appreciate the effort. Or they would, but now they never will.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

Yeah I heard Huntsman is dropping out, I am surprised it took him this long. He was never going to win anything after New Hampshire and he didnt win New Hampshire. Huntsman seems like a good guy and a competent man but he never had a reason to be in the GOP race, we already have Romney to fill basically every role Huntsman fills.

I'm not surprised. If he's smart (which he appears to be, mostly) he's playing the long game and aiming for 2016, using 2012 as a practise run for how a Presidential run is organised and the like.

I assume you mean 2020? *smirk*

Huntsman might have a shot someday, but not if he runs against the likes of Rubio.

EDIT: Looks like Huntsman will endorse Romney.

Edit 2: Also it looks like Romney has finally gotten his national RCP average above 30% approval, something he has been unable to do up until now.

Seekster:

Nope but now we know that Saddam didnt have them and he never will. We went into Iraq on bad intel but we did go in, we did what we could for the Iraqis and its up to them now. That is all there is to it.

The 100,000-110,000 dead Iraqi civilians appreciate the effort. Or they would, but now they never will.[/quote]

I don't care if they appreciate the effort of the United States, I do hope the Iraqis appreciate that a lot of people including over a hundred thousand of their own countrymen have died because of petty partisan and sectarian infighting. I would hope the Iraqis would have enough self-respect not to increase that tally. If the Iraqis can form a stabilish (or stable by Middle Eastern standards) country with a free society (well by Middle Eastern standards) and a democratic system of government we will be satisfied even if they want to keep hating us for the sacrifices we made. If they do not do this then we will forever curse the day that we decided to stay and help the Iraqis rebuild instead of just leaving them to fight each other after dealing with Saddam.

Seekster:
I assume you mean 2020? *smirk*

Huntsman might have a shot someday, but not if he runs against the likes of Rubio.

EDIT: Looks like Huntsman will endorse Romney.

Edit 2: Also it looks like Romney has finally gotten his national RCP average above 30% approval, something he has been unable to do up until now.

No, it's 2016. Romney has a serious problem connecting with the majority of voters on the necessary personal level to push swing voters to his side. Between his comments about corporations, his "I like to fire people" comment (which would have been a normal, minor gaffe had it not been symbolic of public perception of him), and his general image of being plastic and artificial (say nothing of his position changes), reinforce the image of Romney as "the guy who fired your dad."

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
I assume you mean 2020? *smirk*

Huntsman might have a shot someday, but not if he runs against the likes of Rubio.

EDIT: Looks like Huntsman will endorse Romney.

Edit 2: Also it looks like Romney has finally gotten his national RCP average above 30% approval, something he has been unable to do up until now.

No, it's 2016. Romney has a serious problem connecting with the majority of voters on the necessary personal level to push swing voters to his side. Between his comments about corporations, his "I like to fire people" comment (which would have been a normal, minor gaffe had it not been symbolic of public perception of him), and his general image of being plastic and artificial (say nothing of his position changes), reinforce the image of Romney as "the guy who fired your dad."

Obama also has problems connecting with American voters to about the same extent as Romney. Since they both have the weakness its not going to benefit either of them.

The Gentleman:
Disturbing News Everyone: Steven Colbert is polling at 5% in some South Carolina polls. See question 17.

yes!! Steven Colbert should run with Mickey Mouse as his vice-president!!!

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Obama completed 35% of his promises. Better than the 17% of Bush 1st time, and 21% of Bush 2nd time. Or even Clinton's 32% (2nd time). Just saying.

Source please. I can think of a number of promises that Obama broke.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/

35% of his campaign promises have been kept.

..35%? So that's an "F". smh at politicians. Is this just an US thing, or do Europeans face similar disappointment with their politicans?

So the one Republican candidate who didn't utterly terrify me has dropped out?

- Time to pull out the trusty old comfort blankie!

*sucks thumb*

LiquidGrape:
So the one Republican candidate who didn't utterly terrify me has dropped out?

- Time to pull out the trusty old comfort blankie!

*sucks thumb*

Out of curiosity, why does Romney terrify you (as you implied) but Huntsman doesnt?

Bymidew:

Seekster:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

I think that's pretty unbiased. Ever think the GOP just plain lies more, or lies about more important things?

I think both parties do in equal proportions.

So, Did Bush ever find those Weapons of Mass Destruction he invaded Iraq over?

no but famous leftist like Christopher Hitchens fully supported the invasion.

Seekster:

Bymidew:

Seekster:

I think both parties do in equal proportions.

So, Did Bush ever find those Weapons of Mass Destruction he invaded Iraq over?

Nope but now we know that Saddam didnt have them and he never will. We went into Iraq on bad intel but we did go in, we did what we could for the Iraqis and its up to them now. That is all there is to it.

Yeah, we mustn't call George W. Bush on war crimes and lying his way into an unnecessary war. That would be RUDE.

So, GOP gets "Lying their way into an unnecessary war", "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", "Obama is a Kenyan Muslimofascist Commienazi", and Newt Gingrich's marriage vows - all three sets of them. What have the Dems got to prove your assertion that 'BOTH SIDES DOOOO IIIIT!'?

Volf99:

Bymidew:

Seekster:

I think both parties do in equal proportions.

So, Did Bush ever find those Weapons of Mass Destruction he invaded Iraq over?

no but famous leftist like Christopher Hitchens fully supported the invasion.

True, both sides were at fault. The Neocons for deliberately lying, and the Liberals for being gullible enough to believe anything the neocons said.

Oh we got a live one here, how long will he last, wait and see.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked