You actually believe if the Liberal stations had aired the truth about the first four year's with the economy, Benghazi, the IRS, Obamacare, Russia invading the Ukraine ("I'll have more flexibility after the election"), Syria, the Arab Spring, The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Queda not "on the run", etc, their viewers would have voted for Obama/Biden anyway?

yes.  people in America vote for the party.  i know people who were aware about most of this, and still manage to blame someone else.  about the best you can manage from lifelong Dem voters is a conversion to Bernie Sanders.

how many people here would still vote for a republican candidate who'd been revealed to be say...i dunno, embezzling money from his company, if it meant keeping a Diane Feinstein out of office?  I'm willing to be more than a few.

yes.  people in America vote for the party.  i know people who were aware about most of this, and still manage to blame someone else.  about the best you can manage from lifelong Dem voters is a conversion to Bernie Sanders.

how many people here would still vote for a republican candidate who'd been revealed to be say...i dunno, embezzling money from his company, if it meant keeping a Diane Feinstein out of office?  I'm willing to be more than a few.

You call some of my other ideas 'far fetched", so I'm going to have to return the favor.  No party is going to support someone who is a proven or admitted embezzler.  In fact, it's more likely the candidate will withdraw from the race to avoid embarrassing the party -- that may or may not be a voluntary move.

Perhaps a little more realistic scenario would be to cast the Republican as a man of family values only to be proven an adulterer while his wife is battling cancer (ala US Senator (D) John Edwards).  That's a hypothetical since Edwards wasn't upfront about his actions until after he dropped out of the race.

Based on the last two elections, it's looking like the more likeable and less open about their past a candidate is, the less mud anyone can sling and the fewer attacks from the opponents and media.  It's almost as if you have to create an enigmatic persona which lets voters imagine you to be whatever they need you to be.

Based on the last two elections, it's looking like the more likeable and less open about their past a candidate is, the less mud anyone can sling and the fewer attacks from the opponents and media.  It's almost as if you have to create an enigmatic persona which lets voters imagine you to be whatever they need you to be.

not only that, but you HAVE to connect with the social media generation, because they're going to be giving the that majority of your campaign, for free. 

Romney couldnt do that, and Obama could.  really, its the same thing that swung the election for Bush vs Kerry.  Kerry was seen as the stuffy old guy, and Bush was the "guy you could have a beer with".  same principle, except now its a new generation taking that spot, and right now, they're not connecting with the current Republican stances.

let's just be realistic.  the majority in america arent against abortion, gay marriage or the like, and these are issues that the republicans have traditionally taken very loud stances against.  which is totally stupid, because its going to go down at a state level anyways.

there's a lot of social causes that the Republican party could easily drop to help themselves, but they're too stubborn because for some reason, they believe that they'll lose the hardcore voter who's went Republican 6 elections in a row.  all Obama did was recognize that dems vote for dems anyways, and then he played to the middle (which was a lie, but that didnt matter, because all he had to do was win the job).  Obama threw out the fiction that he was going to be a real moderate.  and the fence voters looked at romney, with his rather staunch conservative values, and then looked at obama, and thought "well, at least Obama''s going to work across the aisle".  Sure, it was a lie, but it worked.  hopefully the dems pay up for that deceit this time around, but at some point, the republicans have to stop catering to the old fanbase and try to actually create a new one. 

let's just be realistic.  the majority in america arent against abortion, gay marriage or the like, and these are issues that the republicans have traditionally taken very loud stances against.  which is totally stupid, because its going to go down at a state level anyways.

I'll have to disagree on the Gay Marriage stat.

Most Americans are NOT in favor or redefining marriage, regardless of what the lying politicians and media say. 

40 states out of 58 ( ) voted for Defense of Traditional Marriage laws, including Hawaii:

Hawaii State Constitution.  Article I, Section 23:

The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. [Add HB 117 (1997) and election Nov 3, 1998]

Most people are fine with Civil Unions or non-married partnerships to allow Gay couples the same legal status as married heterosexual couples.  Heck, my company has recognized "significant other" status for same sex couples since I started with them in the early 90s.  That allows both to be on the employee's health, dental and life insurance benefits exactly the same way a traditional "spouse" can.

If 40 states voiced their opinions in favor of preserving the definition of marriage (1 man & 1 woman), then I think they may have polled heavily in places like San Francisco, New York, and New Orleans just to skew the population, then extrapolating the results nationally.  Either that, or they worded the questions so that they implied people are in favor of Gay Marriage when in fact they really answered something like "should a homosexual couple have the same rights as a traditional heterosexual couple?" 

It would not be the first time polls asked a question one way and interpreted it to say something else.

e.g. "Would you support new common sense gun laws if they could prevent another Sandy Hook School type of massacre?"

According to Obama, Schatz, and anyone else pushing an anti-gun agenda, the results showed 90% in favor of new gun control laws.  Adding the hypothetical "IF" trips up the respondent, since the question presupposes the new laws can actually do what the anti-gunners say they will.  We all know that none of the new laws address mental illness or criminals with guns.  They always target the law-abiding owner who almost never use their guns for murder, much less a massacre.

 

I'll have to disagree on the Gay Marriage stat.

Most Americans are NOT in favor or redefining marriage, regardless of what the lying politicians and media say. 

40 states out of 58 ( ) voted for Defense of Traditional Marriage laws, including Hawaii:

that was nearly 20 years ago.  that absolutely does not reflect the attitudes of today.  20 years ago, people thought Nickelback was cool.

the fact that, what, 37 states already had it legal at a state level kind of flies in the face of the idea that a majority were against it. 


i really think you're understating that shift in attitude, just as it's bitten the past couple republican candidates in the ass. 

the other stupid part of it is is that most of the issues that alienate so many voters (like gay marriage) that they spent time condemning were pretty much already handled at a state level, and states that wanted it had it, and states that didnt didnt.  so why spend time opening yourself up to attacks when you arent even a factor in the issue as it stands?  it was just dumb.  they never needed to open their mouths, because at the end of the day, they werent going to change anything one way or the other.  but they decided to plant themselves on divisive issues that they coudlnt even control.

that was nearly 20 years ago.  that absolutely does not reflect the attitudes of today.  20 years ago, people thought Nickelback was cool.

the fact that, what, 37 states already had it legal at a state level kind of flies in the face of the idea that a majority were against it. 


i really think you're understating that shift in attitude, just as it's bitten the past couple republican candidates in the ass. 

the other stupid part of it is is that most of the issues that alienate so many voters (like gay marriage) that they spent time condemning were pretty much already handled at a state level, and states that wanted it had it, and states that didnt didnt.  so why spend time opening yourself up to attacks when you arent even a factor in the issue as it stands?  it was just dumb.  they never needed to open their mouths, because at the end of the day, they werent going to change anything one way or the other.  but they decided to plant themselves on divisive issues that they coudlnt even control.

Who or what is Nickelback?

Okay, so you have a "feeling"  or "think" I'm underestimating the public's attitude shift.

I gave you specific evidence on the attitudes as recorded in voter choices.  What evidence do you have to the contrary?  You can't go off what the media tells us, because they are vested in creating controversy.  Anything other than a CNN non-scientific online poll?

Politicians always focus on divisive issues like homosexual marriage, minimum wage, equal pay for women, and abortion exactly because they are topics many people find emotionally important to them.  Emotion will get a voter to get up and go to the poll quicker than any pragmatic issue like taxes.

20 years ago, people thought Nickelback was cool.

Hey, why am I being attacked here? 

Who or what is Nickelback?

Okay, so you have a "feeling"  or "think" I'm underestimating the public's attitude shift.

I gave you specific evidence on the attitudes as recorded in voter choices.  What evidence do you have to the contrary?  You can't go off what the media tells us, because they are vested in creating controversy.  Anything other than a CNN non-scientific online poll?

Politicians always focus on divisive issues like homosexual marriage, minimum wage, equal pay for women, and abortion exactly because they are topics many people find emotionally important to them.  Emotion will get a voter to get up and go to the poll quicker than any pragmatic issue like taxes.

im going off the fact that gau marriage had already been legalized at a state level in most states prior to the supreme court ruling.   Most of those states also signed onto that 20 year old document.


Things change a LOT in 20 years. Hell, 10 years ago we had an assault weapons ban nationwide.

People want change, well then they need to accept that other changes already happened.  If you want to take the white house back, you cant go with what was valid 20 yeara ago.

im going off the fact that gau marriage had already been legalized at a state level in most states prior to the supreme court ruling.   Most of those states also signed onto that 20 year old document.


Things change a LOT in 20 years. Hell, 10 years ago we had an assault weapons ban nationwide.

People want change, well then they need to accept that other changes already happened.  If you want to take the white house back, you cant go with what was valid 20 yeara ago.

Please explain why Gov. Abercrombie and the legislature felt the need to have a special session, spending money the state could not afford, to force through the gay marriage bill?  Why could it not be passed in the normal session?  There is an answer, of course.  Just wonder what your feeling is.

Please explain why Gov. Abercrombie and the legislature felt the need to have a special session, spending money the state could not afford, to force through the gay marriage bill?  Why could it not be passed in the normal session?  There is an answer, of course.  Just wonder what your feeling is.

that didnt happen in the other 30 something states.

if you really think it wasnt going to pass in the normal session though....

it was a waste of money, but it looked more to me like Abercrombie trying to change his legacy on his way out.

this is all pointless anyways.  im just saying, it would be a fantastic thing for the republican party to just drop most of these issues since they'd all be states rights issues for the most part.  focus on real issues that they have control over like foreign policy and the economy, and stop giving people a free target to shoot down.

that didnt happen in the other 30 something states.

if you really think it wasnt going to pass in the normal session though....

it was a waste of money, but it looked more to me like Abercrombie trying to change his legacy on his way out.

The official reason the Gov gave was "tax implications."  They wanted to have it done in time to meet a Dec 31 deadline for implementing some sort of taxes affected by the law.

Here's the HNN quote:

"There are serious, deep and wide-ranging consequences, particularly with regard to tax law, that have to be in effect by December 31
if they're to be taken full advantage of, presuming that the bill has enough votes for passage," Gov. Abercrombie explained.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23383679/abercrombie-to-call-for-special-session-on-same-sex-marriage

There was no urgency based on legacy or individual Constitutional rights.  It was about putting tax law into effect to align with same sex marriages.

By holding a special session, he all but guaranteed the bill would pass.  How else could they justify the special session and the expense?

The official reason the Gov gave was "tax implications."  They wanted to have it done in time to meet a Dec 31 deadline for implementing some sort of taxes affected by the law.

Here's the HNN quote:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23383679/abercrombie-to-call-for-special-session-on-same-sex-marriage

There was no urgency based on legacy or individual Constitutional rights.  It was about putting tax law into effect to align with same sex marriages.

By holding a special session, he all but guaranteed the bill would pass.  How else could they justify the special session and the expense?

that still doesnt explain the other 36 states.

or prove that it wouldnt have passed normally.  his ulterior motives arent really what's at issue here, just whether or not thre's actually that many people against gay marriage.

that still doesnt explain the other 36 states.

or prove that it wouldnt have passed normally.  his ulterior motives arent really what's at issue here, just whether or not thre's actually that many people against gay marriage.

You have many questions.  Got any answers?  As I said before, unless you have some information on the nation's attitude toward gay marriage changing, it's talk.

You have many questions.  Got any answers?  As I said before, unless you have some information on the nation's attitude toward gay marriage changing, it's talk.

you dont either (and no, a 20 year old act doesnt count).


i'll just say this, their gay marriage stances certainly didnt help romney or hurt obama.

FWIW, I think the "37 state" statistic is a bit of a red herring. Very brief research (read: looked at Wikipedia) indicated that 24 states had same-sex marriage established by judicial decree (either federal or state) rather than by a vote of the legislature or of the people.

you dont either (and no, a 20 year old act doesnt count).


i'll just say this, their gay marriage stances certainly didnt help romney or hurt obama.

No, Hawaii is just ONE example.  I guess I have to spoon feed you the rest.  Since you're too lzy to Google stats to support your own position, it's not a shock I have to help you out finding opposing data...

AR:  The state's constitutional ban on gay marriage passed in 2004

NC voted to defend traditional marriage in 2012. 

That's NOT 20 years ago.

Time and again, voters spoke up and protected traditional marriage, making gay marriage illegal.  In 7 states, the courts decided to override the will of the people, ruling the laws unconstitutional or illegal.

When the Supreme Court ruled 2 weeks ago, there were 37 states that permitted gay marriage.  A few of them went through the same special session BS Hawaii's gov't did.  Seems fishy that these states all decided on holding special sessions for "tax implications."  It's almost as if the IRS was offering to send money to states that implemented gay marriage laws before the election.

No, Hawaii is just ONE example.  I guess I have to spoon feed you the rest.  Since you're too lzy to Google stats to support your own position, it's not a shock I have to help you out finding opposing data...

AR:  The state's constitutional ban on gay marriage passed in 2004

NC voted to defend traditional marriage in 2012. 

That's NOT 20 years ago.

Time and again, voters spoke up and protected traditional marriage, making gay marriage illegal.  In 7 states, the courts decided to override the will of the people, ruling the laws unconstitutional or illegal.

When the Supreme Court ruled 2 weeks ago, there were 37 states that permitted gay marriage.  A few of them went through the same special session BS Hawaii's gov't did.  Seems fishy that these states all decided on holding special sessions for "tax implications."  It's almost as if the IRS was offering to send money to states that implemented gay marriage laws before the election.

ok, so you have two states, out of 48, and a handful out of the thirty seven that you assume passed over people's head on the assumption that everyone would vote against it.  even WITH that, that's still over half the states who voted it in.


times changed.  just accept it.  regardless of whether or not there's some ridiculous IRS conspiracy, there's a hell of a lot more support for it than you seem to think.

ok, so you have two states, out of 48, and a handful out of the thirty seven that you assume passed over people's head on the assumption that everyone would vote against it.  even WITH that, that's still over half the states who voted it in.


times changed.  just accept it.  regardless of whether or not there's some ridiculous IRS conspiracy, there's a hell of a lot more support for it than you seem to think.

Because you say so?

Right...

Back to topic. I think Ben Carson is the only conservative candidate who can pull votes from the middle... he's not a career politician and eloquently presents his views on hard issues.  The rest are too embedded with the Republican party old timers.