Russia
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 8:02am
NYTimes Connections
- rgio - Jun 26, 2024 - 7:45am
Wordle - daily game
- rgio - Jun 26, 2024 - 7:41am
WikiLeaks
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:50am
NY Times Strands
- ptooey - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:41am
Trump
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:21am
Anti-War
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:11am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 26, 2024 - 5:52am
Radio Paradise Comments
- Coaxial - Jun 26, 2024 - 5:15am
Ukraine
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 26, 2024 - 5:11am
Joe Biden
- kurtster - Jun 25, 2024 - 9:24pm
Hockey + Fantasy Hockey
- GeneP59 - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:59pm
::odd but intriguing::
- Beaker - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:09pm
Israel
- R_P - Jun 25, 2024 - 2:42pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - Jun 25, 2024 - 1:15pm
Climate Change
- R_P - Jun 25, 2024 - 12:08pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:26am
*** PUNS *** FRUIT
- Proclivities - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:23am
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- oldviolin - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:10am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 25, 2024 - 9:45am
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2024 - 9:40am
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:37am
Music Videos
- miamizsun - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:11am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- wossName - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:47am
China
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:44am
MTV's The Real World
- R_P - Jun 24, 2024 - 11:11pm
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - Jun 24, 2024 - 7:14pm
Breaking News
- Red_Dragon - Jun 24, 2024 - 5:35pm
Baseball, anyone?
- rgio - Jun 24, 2024 - 5:02pm
Outstanding Covers
- oldviolin - Jun 24, 2024 - 10:45am
Little known information... maybe even facts
- Proclivities - Jun 24, 2024 - 8:56am
How do you create optimism?
- R_P - Jun 24, 2024 - 8:27am
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:04pm
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 7:49pm
favorite love songs
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 3:35pm
Prog Rockers Anonymous
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:24pm
The Dragons' Roost
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:01pm
Dumb Laws
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 1:51pm
BEATLES Make History AGAIN!!
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 9:12am
TV shows you watch
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:57am
Congress
- R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 5:53pm
Song of the Day
- thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 3:32pm
What do you snack on?
- thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 3:20pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Jun 22, 2024 - 2:44pm
What did you have for dinner?
- triskele - Jun 22, 2024 - 2:31pm
Jam! (why should a song stop)
- thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:53pm
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes
- fractalv - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:46pm
Things I Saw Today...
- R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:38pm
Some bands or songs are recurring too much in Rock channe...
- mlebihan29 - Jun 22, 2024 - 9:26am
Fox Spews
- R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 9:19am
Sonos
- thatslongformud - Jun 22, 2024 - 6:18am
Name My Band
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 22, 2024 - 4:44am
Too much classic rock lately?
- thisbody - Jun 21, 2024 - 4:01pm
Girls Just Want to Have Fun
- oldviolin - Jun 21, 2024 - 2:22pm
Musky Mythology
- R_P - Jun 21, 2024 - 12:26pm
Electronic Music
- Manbird - Jun 21, 2024 - 12:14pm
LeftWingNutZ
- Steely_D - Jun 21, 2024 - 8:07am
The Obituary Page
- ColdMiser - Jun 21, 2024 - 7:56am
Basketball
- GeneP59 - Jun 20, 2024 - 4:53pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- Antigone - Jun 20, 2024 - 4:04pm
Shall We Dance?
- Steely_D - Jun 20, 2024 - 1:18pm
Predictions
- oldviolin - Jun 20, 2024 - 11:18am
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone
- oldviolin - Jun 20, 2024 - 11:10am
Just Wrong
- ColdMiser - Jun 20, 2024 - 7:43am
Pink Floyd Set?
- Coaxial - Jun 20, 2024 - 5:46am
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon?
- Coaxial - Jun 19, 2024 - 6:14pm
SCOTUS
- ColdMiser - Jun 19, 2024 - 7:15am
20+ year listeners?
- islander - Jun 18, 2024 - 7:41pm
Other Medical Stuff
- miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
Hello from Greece!
- miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
Europe
- R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 9:33am
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:57pm
What Did You See Today?
- Manbird - Jun 16, 2024 - 2:39pm
Geomorphology
- kurtster - Jun 16, 2024 - 1:29pm
Artificial Intelligence
- thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:53am
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Mitt Romney
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
cc_rider
![cc_rider Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/41446-1383753621.jpg)
Location: Bastrop Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:01pm |
|
Romulus wrote: We can't deny the media isn't deceptive and persuasive. Blasphemy! Fox 'News' is fair and balanced! MSNBC leans forward! No WAY could legitimate news outlets be deceptive or persuasive. They just report the facts, right? Right? Please, tell me they just report the facts...
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:58am |
|
steeler wrote:
That itself is a myth.
How do you explain, for example, the rallying of Santorum to challenge Romney these last couple months? He complained about being ignored and written off by the media, and, in those early stages, he was polling low and being written off by prognosticators. Remember him standing at the far end of all of the early debates? He had no traction of which to speak nationally. He bet the ranch on Iowa, spent nearly all of his pre-2012 tinme there, and that strategy seems to have actually worked for him.
We've seen almost every GOP nominee cycle from bottom to top and back to bottom again — and everywhere inbetween. It has been a remarkable primary in that regard. Gingrich has been pronounced dead by prognosticators several times now.
The reality is that folk are free to vote for whomever they wish. If someone is so wishy-washy on his or her voting preference (much less commitment) as to be swayed into voting for someone else whom they don't even like just because of what someone has written in the media, well, that sort of speaks for itself.
Fair enough, but, Santorum was/(is?) and employee of Fox. Bain Capital owns half of Clear Channel. And neither of them have been vetting properly as much as they dog on Ron Paul. Gingirch is an excellent debater. That helps. Ron Paul is very much an imperfect messenger with a less than stellar appearance, so it all comes into play. If Santorum was vetted properly by Fox, I don't think his numbers would be up so high. We can't deny the media isn't deceptive and persuasive.
|
|
steeler
![steeler Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/a4529003424b285578cba.gif)
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:51am |
|
Romulus wrote: And by the media either ignoring or repeating "Ron Paul can't win" myth over and over.
People willfully accept what's presented to them.
That itself is a myth. How do you explain, for example, the rallying of Santorum to challenge Romney these last couple months? He complained about being ignored and written off by the media, and, in those early stages, he was polling low and being written off by prognosticators. Remember him standing at the far end of all of the early debates? He had no traction of which to speak nationally. He bet the ranch on Iowa, spent nearly all of his pre-2012 tinme there, and that strategy seems to have actually worked for him. We've seen almost every GOP nominee cycle from bottom to top and back to bottom again — and everywhere inbetween. It has been a remarkable primary in that regard. Gingrich has been pronounced dead by prognosticators several times now. The reality is that folk are free to vote for whomever they wish. If someone is so wishy-washy on his or her voting preference (much less commitment) as to be swayed into voting for someone else whom they don't even like just because of what someone has written in the media, well, that sort of speaks for itself.
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:49am |
|
Beaker wrote: Do you truly believe that a Ron Paul presidency would be the best choice for America right now? That Ron Paul would provide superior stewardship to your country over Romney, Santorum, or even Obama?
Yes, because 1. We are broke. 2. Neither one of the 3 GOP stooges will admit that and propose borrowing and printing more money to bomb Iran. and a big 3. Individual liberty matters! The TSA and Drones aren't the answer. Would prefer Obama over Ron Paul?
|
|
jagdriver
![jagdriver Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/21644.png)
Location: Now in Lobster Land Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:49am |
|
sirdroseph wrote:
Sure we will give peace a chance. How do you know it won't work, we have never tried it before and the war thing does not seem to be helping any, now does it?
Give chance a piece!
|
|
sirdroseph
![sirdroseph Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/78797-1637776963.png)
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:48am |
|
Beaker wrote: Do you truly believe that a Ron Paul presidency would be the best choice for America right now? That Ron Paul would provide superior stewardship to your country over Romney, Santorum, or even Obama?
Sure we will give peace a chance. How do you know it won't work, we have never tried it before and the war thing does not seem to be helping any, now does it? Besides, I thought you were concerned about the deficit, he and Johnson are the only ones with the chutzpah to actually present a true deficit reduction plan, those is the facts jack.
|
|
Red_Dragon
![Red_Dragon Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/18168-1646400561.png)
Location: Dumbf*ckistan ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:46am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: As in: You don't want anyone to be president, or there's no one on the ballot you want to vote for? Answer to the first is move to Cuba, answer to the second is write it in.
there ya go.
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:45am |
|
Beaker wrote: Libertarians will be taken seriously when they've got a successful track record of effective representation as witnessed by significant numbers of them holding senate and congressional seats over the course of several election cycles. Pushing a nutcase such as Ron Paul into the bright spotlight that is a run for POTUS seems counter-productive. Surely for the good of the Libertarian movement, they could have found a better representative for this (and last) contest. Put a serious candidate forward, and the Libertarians will be taken seriously. Until then,its just a waste.
my 2cents
That is Ron Paul you fruit. 12 terms in Congress and head of the House Financial Services Committee? The system is rigged against any 3rd party. That's why they have to run as R's. And when they do, the system unites against them because they challenge the corrupt establishment.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
![ScottFromWyoming Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/12405-1675359826.png)
Location: Powell Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:43am |
|
oldslabsides wrote:and when there is no such person? ![](graphics/smiles/icon_wink.gif) As in: You don't want anyone to be president, or there's no one on the ballot you want to vote for? Answer to the first is move to Cuba, answer to the second is write it in.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
![ScottFromWyoming Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/12405-1675359826.png)
Location: Powell Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:42am |
|
Romulus wrote: followed next week by HOT DOG SALES SKYROCKET!
I said this morning I can't believe I'm taking Santorum's side but NPR was all "Romney had a solid performance yesterday, taking 6 out of 10 states, and winning hotly-contested Ohio." Wait, what? He won Ohio, split the delegates (again) and comes away leading, but not really pulling away with any conviction, yet they're literally saying now that he's the presumptive nominee. I guess they're looking at the calendar and trying to guess what will happen but this is the most interesting primary season in a long time (hillary/obama was pretty great too, I guess) and they should just let it play out.
|
|
Red_Dragon
![Red_Dragon Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/18168-1646400561.png)
Location: Dumbf*ckistan ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:36am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: Well if that's your metric, we can all stay home. At some point, we have to start voting for the person we want to win, and not try to play bookmaker and strategize... because that's how Romney has kept his frontrunner status, by repeating "I'm the only one who can win" over and over and over.
and when there is no such person?
|
|
sirdroseph
![sirdroseph Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/78797-1637776963.png)
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:32am |
|
Beaker wrote:And then what? Proclaim from your megaphone how you helped him win 0 or maybe 1 electoral vote?Seems pointless. But I suppose it gives you a platform to shriek forevermore at whoever wins these contests for the Oval Office. That is what I am doing, I am left with no choice. What is the matter with voting for who you feel is the best candidate especially when they are an official choice on the ballot? Last time I checked this was a representative republic where our leaders are elected after counting all of the votes. What would you do a.: If you were an American and could vote here and b. were left with the choice of Paul and Obama? Would you not vote? How would that help? BTW, I am amused if you think Romney, Santorum or Gingrich is any different than Obama especially regarding the economy and the deficit. You are no different than the liberals who support Obama just because he is a Democrat. Funny how the most hatred and vitriol are reserved for those that are most alike. I find this ironic and amusing.
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:31am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: Well if that's your metric, we can all stay home. At some point, we have to start voting for the person we want to win, and not try to play bookmaker and strategize... because that's how Romney has kept his frontrunner status, by repeating "I'm the only one who can win" over and over and over.
And by the media either ignoring or repeating "Ron Paul can't win" myth over and over. People willfully accept what's presented to them.
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:29am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote:You're not wrong, probably, in your assessment of the voters except that anyone voting Romney is trying to choose the best candidate to run against Obama. He's nobody's first choice but if you have to choose ABCorD, you hold your nose and pick one. Had an "Anyone but Obama" guy spouting off in the office yesterday and he said he could walk down the street and pick a guy who could be a better president. I chuckled to myself that it ain't that easy, then I thought, sure, I can name a few people in this county who would be the best president this country's ever had. But there's one problem: they aren't running. All this talk of Mitt attracting this voter and Santo attracting that voter, makes no sense. At this point, few people are voting for Any Of The Above out of a true belief that they are uniquely qualified to lead the nation. It's a question of "you gotta eat. Want a lukewarm hotdog, or some of this soup from last week?" You spend 5 minutes going I Don't Care, Whatever, then just grab a hotdog and the press screams "HOT DOGS PREFERRED BY NATION'S LUNCH-EATERS." followed next week by HOT DOG SALES SKYROCKET!
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
![ScottFromWyoming Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/12405-1675359826.png)
Location: Powell Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:28am |
|
Beaker wrote:And then what? Proclaim from your megaphone how you helped him win 0 or maybe 1 electoral vote?Seems pointless. But I suppose it gives you a platform to shriek forevermore at whoever wins these contests for the Oval Office. Well if that's your metric, we can all stay home. At some point, we have to start voting for the person we want to win, and not try to play bookmaker and strategize... because that's how Romney has kept his frontrunner status, by repeating "I'm the only one who can win" over and over and over.
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:27am |
|
Beaker wrote:And then what? Proclaim from your megaphone how you helped him win 0 or maybe 1 electoral vote?Seems pointless. But I suppose it gives you a platform to shriek forevermore at whoever wins these contests for the Oval Office. So does participating in a false choice of Mitt vs O. If you vote on principle, it's never wasted.
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:25am |
|
Beaker wrote: So when Ron Paul bows out of the race, or goes into the convention only to throw his support away/to some candidate you dislike, who then will you vote for in November? Ron Paul won't be on your ballot.
Lots of people will write him in anyway. And not sure R's. Many folks jumped the D's shipped already, thanks to Obombya, just like the former R's did thanks to Bush. So the myth that RP will hand the election to O is a myth. He pulls support from all sides.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
![ScottFromWyoming Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/12405-1675359826.png)
Location: Powell Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:23am |
|
LordBaltimore wrote:
But you see I question that Idaho and Arizona actually share Romney's values. Romney is a very centrist GOPer while those states are very conservative. Had they voted their actual values they would have probably gone for Santorum (yikes!) or maybe Paul (alright!).
Again, thank God it's not Santorum who's the Mormon in this race.
You're not wrong, probably, in your assessment of the voters except that anyone voting Romney is trying to choose the best candidate to run against Obama. He's nobody's first choice but if you have to choose ABCorD, you hold your nose and pick one. Had an "Anyone but Obama" guy spouting off in the office yesterday and he said he could walk down the street and pick a guy who could be a better president. I chuckled to myself that it ain't that easy, then I thought, sure, I can name a few people in this county who would be the best president this country's ever had. But there's one problem: they aren't running. All this talk of Mitt attracting this voter and Santo attracting that voter, makes no sense. At this point, few people are voting for Any Of The Above out of a true belief that they are uniquely qualified to lead the nation. It's a question of "you gotta eat. Want a lukewarm hotdog, or some of this soup from last week?" You spend 5 minutes going I Don't Care, Whatever, then just grab a hotdog and the press screams "HOT DOGS PREFERRED BY NATION'S LUNCH-EATERS."
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:22am |
|
Beaker wrote: Are you sure he'll be on the ballot?
Why wouldn't he. Libertarian party has ballot access to 50 states... amiright?
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 11:11am |
|
LordBaltimore wrote:Okay I'm going to come right out here and point out an elephant in the room that will probably offend some people. So what.
Romney's percentages in the Western states look more like Soviet election percentages than anything else. And I think we all know why that is.
It appears that certain individuals are voting for this guy solely because he has the same religion as they do and are expecting special favors in return. It can't be because of any substantive stance on any issues, because let's face it — Romney has no substantive stances.
We'll of course see a repeat of this in the general election too. And it stinks, because I hate to see people be so cynical about the political process that they vote for someone solely based on what their personal religious beliefs are. There's people dying in Afghanistan and a huge debt crisis, America deserves better than people blindly voting based on one personality trait of a candidate.
Most people act based on the appearance of something. It's a superficial world. Newt is correct when he said, "People don't care what I do, they care about what I say".
|
|
|