- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,560
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Libertarian.... why did Paul nearly win Iowa? It's because you people are enthusiastic enough to come out to vote for him.
He won the last election because he caried most moderate and independent voters actually, and even a fair portion of conservatives(20 %).
Young people, blacks, and a general hatred for Bush won Obama the election.
Look, if I'm going to debate a bunch of liberals... I'll put this in terms you can relate to.
Obama won the last election because he got the liberal base fired up to come out for him. Record turnouts of young people, blacks, etc.
On the other hand, McCain did not fire up the conservative base the same way.
No it does not show any ambivalence. It shows that some people for whatever reason do not vote. It also shows that unlike your claim, over 1/3 of people do vote. In other words, it shows that you where factually wrong. Do you want me to show how your other assumptions in the OP where wrong? I can.
I will skip the presidential election if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee. I believe there are many others who will do the same.
If Mitt Romney wants to be president, he should be running against Obama in the Democratic primaries.
He's way too liberal for me.
Numbers do not back that up.
Libertarian.... why did Paul nearly win Iowa? It's because you people are enthusiastic enough to come out to vote for him.
It shows you're hung up on details, and you don't understand the big picture. It makes no difference if the number is 50% or 30%. The point is that many people do not care about politics, and they don't vote.
President Obama thanks you for that silly attitude
so you would rather have two more Kagans on the Supreme Court instead of two more John Roberts or Sam Alitos?
great thinking there mate
Obama won because he wasn't Bush.
Obama won more % of black voters than any other candidate in history.
Obama got a huge swell of young voters compared to pervious elections.
Romney has a history of appointing liberal judges.
There are many reasons not to vote, not caring is only one. That does not further your argument, and your facts have been proven wrong in this thread. It's not that I do not understand the big picture, it's that no one is buying into your lies.
Obama won because he wasn't Bush.
Romney has a history of appointing liberal judges.
Proof?
67890
Pointing out that 50% vote, instead of 30%, is getting hung up on details - It doesn't change the bigger point I am making.
But your mind gets so hung up on numbers, minutia, and details that I actually think you don't understand the logic of the argument I've made.
Once again, attacking minutia. Read thru this... Romney's Judiciary
well I suspect he'd call me a liberal judge if I were currently on the bench
Your right, almost double what you claimed is getting hung up on details. Yeah, that's it. You really are making your points...
Wow, some random person's blog. You really convinced me. Hint: that blog uses almost solely editorials as it's source material. That's what we call bad.
Wow you really don't understand!!
You think like a computer. It's interesting actually. You really don't comprehend the big picture at all.
I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase to hunt down specific names and instances when it's fairly common knowledge that Romeny appointed liberal judges... and if you watch the Republican debates this gets brought up and Romeny does not deny it.
If Romeny doesn't even deny it, why would you on his behalf?
The big picture is you have not made your point, you have used lies to try and make it, and you got caught at it. When you got caught, you fall back on silly ad homs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?