Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That doesn't make sense. There are no candidates running against Obama, for them to try and prop up Paul "to strengthen liberal candidates". If anything this would be counter productive as Paul's core base is very liberal, many of those on the left respect him, and he's the only candidate that could beat Obama. If MSNBC wanted to prop up a candidate for Obama's own political gain, they would keep showing Bachmann, Palin, Cain,.and all the other loons.
....no....as everyone knows, the hardcore liberals and conservatives will vote for their parties, no matter what (if a blind chimp ran under the liberal ticket, there are people who would vote for him just because he got the party's endorsement). The independents, centrists, and libertarians are the ones who make or break an election. If MSNBC (and the other liberal newscasters) can pull enough of those people to vote for Ron Paul (instead of the GOP endorsed candidates), then Obama has a higher margin compared to republicans.
If you were in charge of the democratic race, which would you want?
49% Obama, 51% GOP
or
49% Obama, 40% GOP, 11% Ron Paul?
The liberal political machine is only featuring Ron Paul because they are shooting for that second option. Get it?
Huh? 82 people said it leans right, 41 says it leans left. I don't see how you got that idea when twice the amount of votes went to it leans right. (which it does)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
....no....as everyone knows, the hardcore liberals and conservatives will vote for their parties, no matter what (if a blind chimp ran under the liberal ticket, there are people who would vote for him just because he got the party's endorsement)
"Hardcore liberals" as in the ones that support the green party likely, but democrats don't always vote complete party lines no matter what like the hardcore right who will vote for and blindly support anyone who has an (R) next to their name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
. The independents, centrists, and libertarians are the ones who make or break an election.
If MSNBC (and the other liberal newscasters)
MSNBC isn't a "liberal" network like fox that is nothing but hard right propaganda. MSNBC starts off the day with a 3 hour republican show, the rest of the day is just regular, unbiased news and the only lean to the left is when the talking head shows come on at prime time. Also most left leaning people get their news from various different sources and come up to conclusions for themselves, unlike most right wingers who just plop on the couch and let fox do all the thinking for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
can pull enough of those people to vote for Ron Paul (instead of the GOP endorsed candidates), then Obama has a higher margin compared to republicans.
That makes no sense, making Ron Paul the GOP's candidate would be the worst thing for Obama as he's the only one that could win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
If you were in charge of the democratic race, which would you want?
49% Obama, 51% GOP
While polls with "Obama v. unknown (R)" have the GOP up by one or two points, once you put a name behind that (R) their numbers plunge.
As i mention before, if there was some kind of left leaning conspiracy, they would be pushing the hard right, wing nut candidates that would give Obama the biggest leads and chance to win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
or
49% Obama, 40% GOP, 11% Ron Paul?
I have no idea where you are getting this from, but it would be very interesting to have an Obama (D) Paul (L) and unknown (R) running this campaign season for president. Paul's been the #1 candidate as winner of the republican debate polls on both fox, and msnbc. His backing is strong from left leaning people who feel let down by Obama being a sell out to the republicans and corporations, all but abandoning the base. Independents sick of the cronyism and by both the D's and R's, and many on the right who have seen that the tea party are nothing but hard right nutcases along with the neocons are driving the republican party and country into the ground.
Huh? 82 people said it leans right, 41 says it leans left. I don't see how you got that idea when twice the amount of votes went to it leans right. (which it does)
Did you read the thread? People who are liberal claim it leans right whereas people who are conservative claim it leans left. The fact that twice as many people claim it leans right shows us that the forum has twice as many liberals as conservatives. That was kind of the point of the poll. Again - read the thread.
Quote:
"Hardcore liberals" as in the ones that support the green party likely, but democrats don't always vote complete party lines no matter what like the hardcore right who will vote for and blindly support anyone who has an (R) next to their name.
lol, no....hardcore liberals are those who have voted for a liberal candidate consistently for their entire lives. Hardcore liberals are also ones who have a lack of self-awareness (re-read what you posted maybe)
Quote:
MSNBC isn't a "liberal" network like fox that is nothing but hard right propaganda. MSNBC starts off the day with a 3 hour republican show, the rest of the day is just regular, unbiased news and the only lean to the left is when the talking head shows come on at prime time. Also most left leaning people get their news from various different sources and come up to conclusions for themselves, unlike most right wingers who just plop on the couch and let fox do all the thinking for them.
lol...MSNBC is just as bad as fox. It is just as biased towards the liberal side of things as Fox is towards the republican. MSNBC shows republican news in an effort to make liberal news look better by comparison. Claiming MSNBC is unbiased is like saying Michael Moore presents a fair and balanced view of things.
Quote:
That makes no sense, making Ron Paul the GOP's candidate would be the worst thing for Obama as he's the only one that could win.
Think about what I said. Please...I don't know how to dumb it down any more.
Quote:
While polls with "Obama v. unknown (R)" have the GOP up by one or two points, once you put a name behind that (R) their numbers plunge.
As i mention before, if there was some kind of left leaning conspiracy, they would be pushing the hard right, wing nut candidates that would give Obama the biggest leads and chance to win.
I have no idea where you are getting this from, but it would be very interesting to have an Obama (D) Paul (L) and unknown (R) running this campaign season for president. Paul's been the #1 candidate as winner of the republican debate polls on both fox, and msnbc. His backing is strong from left leaning people who feel let down by Obama being a sell out to the republicans and corporations, all but abandoning the base. Independents sick of the cronyism and by both the D's and R's, and many on the right who have seen that the tea party are nothing but hard right nutcases along with the neocons are driving the republican party and country into the ground.
My points went completely over your head. Again - I don't know how to say what I did any simpler, but you are incredibly biased towards the liberal point of view, and the fact that you can't even see that is a major problem with politics today.
And anyone who uses the term 'wingnut' in a post immediately loses my respect. It is not something you see the more learned posted using. As an FYI.
Ron Paul is a threat to the two party con game that has earned the "political players" comfy corporate positions once out of office. Those opinion-news networks wouldn't exist either if people got away from the left/right paradigm, where all they have to do to get ratings is bash each other.
The fact that twice as many people claim it leans right shows us that the forum has twice as many liberals as conservatives
LOL really?? That kind of spin would make Beck proud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
Think about what I said. Please...I don't know how to dumb it down any more.
I was about to pull out the Dr. Seuss books to get things as simple and dumbed down as possible, but I don't think even the most basic of statements will work. Quite common with the hard right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
My points went completely over your head. Again - I don't know how to say what I did any simpler,
Back at cha'
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
but you are incredibly biased towards the liberal point of view, and the fact that you can't even see that is a major problem with politics today.
More hard right brainwashed ideology. Once the right wing programming has been done, any kind of rational conversation with this type of individual is not possible.
Good day sir/madam.
LOL really?? That kind of spin would make Beck proud.
Yes or no question: Did you read that thread? Because I am repeating what liberal posted said in that thread. Please read before you continue making a fool of yourself.
Quote:
I was about to pull out the Dr. Seuss books to get things as simple and dumbed down as possible, but I don't think even the most basic of statements will work. Quite common with the hard right.
Back at cha'
More hard right brainwashed ideology. Once the right wing programming has been done, any kind of rational conversation with this type of individual is not possible.
Good day sir/madam.
Again - try reading. I have never voted for a conservative in a presidential election. (Go back and look at thread I posted around election time, my history on CD backs this up). Pretty strange voting record if I were 'hard right' as you ever so ignorantly claim.
But hey, when you can't debate facts, bash a person for their political leanings. I guess that works for you.
Ron Paul is ignored, except by the lunatic fringe, because in both 1988 and 2008 he got less than 0.5% of the popular vote. Even Ross Perot beat Ron Paul hands down as far as popular votes. Why should anyone who cannot get more than 0.5% of the popular vote be taken seriously?
States do not even officially recognize a political party unless they can get 3% of the popular vote in most cases. Ron Paul is about as fringe as it gets - conservative right-wing constitutionalist on domestic issues, and an extreme leftist isolationist that hates the military when it comes to foreign policy.
Interested where you got your numbers for 2008. Paul certainly got more than .5% of the vote while he was in the race.
Someone said to me on Saturday evening, the media, and both sides fear Paul, because he is his own person, does not bow down or kiss A-- and will tell you things exactly as they are in black and white. You fear someone you feel is powerful, and in his own right, and the things he says, Paul will make one listen. Someone said to me, he is no one's fool.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
