Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUTiger1 on January 04, 2012, 10:12:13 AM

Title: Iowa and Now NH too!
Post by: AUTiger1 on January 04, 2012, 10:12:13 AM
Discuss!

Rick fucking Santorum, you allow him to even be competitive?  Really Iowa?  Really?   :facepalm:
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: GH2001 on January 04, 2012, 10:16:50 AM
Discuss!

Rick fucking Santorum, you allow him to even be competitive?  Really Iowa?  Really?   :facepalm:

I am at the point now where I am for anyone not named Mitt Romney. I am sick of him. He's a New England liberal to the core. Was nice to see Santorum and Paul do well (even though I don't support them). I think Newt will show better in the upcoming 3 states. He is pissed now and rightfully so. Romney spent a ton of money to squash him like he has done to everyone else who has gotten close to him in the polls (Bachmann in June, Perry, Cain). Romney's ads have also been deemed not true by most reputable fact checkers, but it didn't matter. The message had gotten across to voters. Rick Santorum - you are next.
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: AUTiger1 on January 04, 2012, 10:42:24 AM
I am at the point now where I am for anyone not named Mitt Romney. I am sick of him. He's a New England liberal to the core. Was nice to see Santorum and Paul do well (even though I don't support them). I think Newt will show better in the upcoming 3 states. He is pissed now and rightfully so. Romney spent a ton of money to squash him like he has done to everyone else who has gotten close to him in the polls (Bachmann in June, Perry, Cain). Romney's ads have also been deemed not true by most reputable fact checkers, but it didn't matter. The message had gotten across to voters. Rick Santorum - you are next.

Given the choice between Santorum and Romney, I am writing in someone.  Fuck them both in da mouf.  Seriously, this field of candidates sucks.  Ron Paul is my favorite one of them all and that is bad.  (You know how I feel about Paul, love him, but foreign policy scares me a little).   I don't know enough about Huntsman, but the rest of them ppppppppfffffffffttttttttttttt................

I weep for our future.
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: Kaos on January 04, 2012, 11:15:39 AM
Republican Party election strategy:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jKrQrrAH3Xg/TNswdwY3QKI/AAAAAAAABYA/-9QJQxU_hX8/s1600/visual+pun_4af04e6f3c5a6.jpg)
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: AUTiger1 on January 04, 2012, 11:39:51 AM
Actually since I have stepped away from the ledge and thought about it, Santorum was the perfect candidate for Iowa.  I read that 13% of the voters said "abortion" is the biggest issue in the US right now. ABORTION! And 55% of those people voted for Santorum.

Being that there are many Christian valued voters in the Mid-West, he is everything they want if they don't rank economy and foreign policy above social issues.
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: GH2001 on January 04, 2012, 11:51:05 AM
Actually since I have stepped away from the ledge and thought about it, Santorum was the perfect candidate for Iowa.  I read that 13% of the voters said "abortion" is the biggest issue in the US right now. ABORTION! And 55% of those people voted for Santorum.

Being that there are many Christian valued voters in the Mid-West, he is everything they want if they don't rank economy and foreign policy above social issues.

Iowa is also over a quarter Catholic (Santorum is too). I can get past Paul's looney foreign stances if he can fix this shitmess we're in. Newt's personal past also doesn't bother me like most. I know what his track record is as the Speaker. Economically, both get it if you can get past many of their peripheral issues. I am starting to get past those issues. Romney has proven with his POLICY in OFFICE that he is worthless. I am still pissed at the neocon establishment for railroading Herman Cain. Fuck Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and Mitt Romney in the mouth x 100.
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: GH2001 on January 04, 2012, 11:51:38 AM
Republican Party election strategy:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jKrQrrAH3Xg/TNswdwY3QKI/AAAAAAAABYA/-9QJQxU_hX8/s1600/visual+pun_4af04e6f3c5a6.jpg)

I knew this when they started eating their own starting with Cain.
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: AUTiger1 on January 04, 2012, 12:08:03 PM
Iowa is also over a quarter Catholic (Santorum is too). I can get past Paul's looney foreign stances if he can fix this shitmess we're in. Newt's personal past also doesn't bother me like most. I know what his track record is as the Speaker. Economically, both get it if you can get past many of their peripheral issues. I am starting to get past those issues. Romney has proven with his POLICY in OFFICE that he is worthless. I am still pissed at the neocon establishment for railroading Herman Cain. Fuck Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and Mitt Romney in the mouth x 100.

The great architect strikes again.
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: GH2001 on January 04, 2012, 12:20:03 PM
The great architect strikes again.

Watch Foxnews for more than 5 mins and you'll see how obvious it is. Bill Kristol, Karl Rove and Brit Hume are all neocon cheerleaders with Foxnews as their puppet master. They all want another Bush. Screw that shit. I like the fact that anyone besides Romney makes them shit their pants on the air.
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: AUTiger1 on January 04, 2012, 12:31:53 PM
Watch Foxnews for more than 5 mins and you'll see how obvious it is. Bill Kristol, Karl Rove and Brit Hume are all neocon cheerleaders with Foxnews as their puppet master. They all want another Bush. Screw that shit. I like the fact that anyone besides Romney makes them shit their pants on the air.

Agree.

I watched a debate in 07.  Paul and I forgot who polled better than anyone according to their online poll and I thought Shawn Hannity was going to have a breakdown on the air.   
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: GH2001 on January 04, 2012, 02:43:36 PM
Agree.

I watched a debate in 07.  Paul and I forgot who polled better than anyone according to their online poll and I thought Shawn Hannity was going to have a breakdown on the air.

May have been Tancredo (who I liked) or Fred Thompson. But yeah, I remember that. Hannity seems to have toned that down more now since most of what Paul said in 07,08 has came true. He doesn't seem too keen on Romney.

I did just see a news blurb that Bachmann just ended her campaign. Perry is also rumored to be thinking of doing the same thing, especially if he can't finish top 2 in SC next week. I think Huntsman will exit if he doesn't win NH.
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: GarMan on January 04, 2012, 03:21:09 PM
Regarding the results, you have to remember that unemployment in Iowa is less than 6% right now.  In their eyes, the economy is not as bad, so a social Conservative would do well and obviously did. 

Romney is just coasting with the Repuklickin Establishment right now, and the Master Neo-Con, John McCain, has surfaced to bestow his blessings on the candy-assed soft-belly.  I don't trust the guy.  He's held every position on every major issue over the last 20 years. 

Huntsman was Obama's China boy-toy...  He pretends to be Conservative with his statements, but swings Libertarian.  He'll never overcome the Obama appointment, and he'll never be trusted by true Conservatives...  He doesn't have a chance, and the polls have always shown that.

Paul is a moonbat.  He has a lot of good positions regarding the economy, but he doesn't maintain a reasonable foreign policy.  Just imagine a nuclear capable Iran...  'nuff said. 
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: AUTiger1 on January 04, 2012, 03:34:00 PM
Regarding the results, you have to remember that unemployment in Iowa is less than 6% right now.  In their eyes, the economy is not as bad, so a social Conservative would do well and obviously did. 

Romney is just coasting with the Repuklickin Establishment right now, and the Master Neo-Con, John McCain, has surfaced to bestow his blessings on the candy-assed soft-belly.  I don't trust the guy.  He's held every position on every major issue over the last 20 years. 

Huntsman was Obama's China boy-toy...  He pretends to be Conservative with his statements, but swings Libertarian.  He'll never overcome the Obama appointment, and he'll never be trusted by true Conservatives...  He doesn't have a chance, and the polls have always shown that.

Paul is a moonbat.  He has a lot of good positions regarding the economy, but he doesn't maintain a reasonable foreign policy.  Just imagine a nuclear capable Iran...  'nuff said.


Agree with all of that on Huntsman, Paul and Romney.  I didn't realize that employment was under 6% there.  That would explain why the voters were thinking like that and Santorum did so well.  I don't think Santorum has done enough in NH, SC and FL to stay in it for long.  Newt not making the ballot in Va is looking bad and I think he is out of it before too long. 

I said I agree with that on Huntsman, what I should have said is I agree that he will never shake the appointment to be trusted.   I have read a few things that yes, swing Libertarian and with me, that is ok, b/c I am more Libertarian than I am anything.

I don't trust Romney and I don't like him.  To me, it's business as usual and he is just a watered down version of what we got.   

I said earlier, this should have been a slam dunk for the Republicans, but they are going to run a Kerry'esque candidate and hand the keys right back to Obama.
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: GH2001 on January 04, 2012, 03:57:42 PM
The Master Neo-Con, John McCain, has surfaced to bestow his blessings on the candy-assed soft-belly.  I don't trust the guy.  He's held every position on every major issue over the last 20 years. 
This video pretty much shows how he has done what you are saying on positions. Its an ad crafted by the DNC but I try to ignore that because it is dead on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g#ws)


Quote from: AUTiger1
I said earlier, this should have been a slam dunk for the Republicans, but they are going to run a Kerry'esque candidate and hand the keys right back to Obama.

Pretty much. The GOP has concentrated on eating its on and winning, RATHER than coming up with decent ideas. I think Newt was trying to and the water got very muddied.
Title: Re: Iowa
Post by: djsimp on January 04, 2012, 04:29:50 PM
Gingrich....."He comin!"
Title: Re: Iowa and Now NH too!
Post by: AUTiger1 on January 11, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
What did everyone think about NH last night?  I figured Roms would win in a landslide.  Paul finished strong all things considered and it looks like Huntsman made a good effort.  Interesting and I didn't realize it, but apparently Roms is the first person to win both Iowa and NH.

Just glad that Santorum got his ass beat.  I also had to snicker at Bachmann and Perry.

Title: Re: Iowa and Now NH too!
Post by: GH2001 on January 11, 2012, 04:37:59 PM
What did everyone think about NH last night?  I figured Roms would win in a landslide.  Paul finished strong all things considered and it looks like Huntsman made a good effort.  Interesting and I didn't realize it, but apparently Roms is the first person to win both Iowa and NH.

Just glad that Santorum got his ass beat.  I also had to snicker at Bachmann and Perry.

No offense to Perry and Hunstman, but this is a 4 man race now. I dont think Santorum has the money or power to challenge Romney anywhere other than Evangelical states. Which leaves us Paul, Romney and Newt. I was kind of hoping Paul and Newt would tag team the liberal from Massestupids.
Title: Re: Iowa and Now NH too!
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 11, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
So, hypothetically spekaing, let's say Romney wins the nomination.  Does he choose a running mate from the current bunch?  Does he already have someone picked out?  He wouldn't try to pull a McCain and pick someone like Palin, would he?  And on that note, do you politcal gurus think Palin was picked because McCain knew he would get beat and tried to get that wow factor going?  I doubt he knew she'd be as polarizing as she was.
Title: Re: Iowa and Now NH too!
Post by: GarMan on January 11, 2012, 05:42:12 PM
So, hypothetically spekaing, let's say Romney wins the nomination.  Does he choose a running mate from the current bunch?  Does he already have someone picked out?  He wouldn't try to pull a McCain and pick someone like Palin, would he?  And on that note, do you politcal gurus think Palin was picked because McCain knew he would get beat and tried to get that wow factor going?  I doubt he knew she'd be as polarizing as she was.

I hear a lot of talk about Rubio, but I would be shocked if Romney actually picks him.  Although, he would add an interesting dynamic to the ticket.