DescentBB

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-AA9F1fS

many of the other denizens in the clown car are amusing. Graham is flat out dangerous, if this is how he thinks......

People here got on about TB posting news about Islamist terrorist news. Your postings trying to ridicule the GOP is now bordering on pathological.

Woody, these people are running to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. That ought to be a matter of concern. If Graham's 'first act' is to completely disregard separation of powers and the Constitution that separation is enshrined in, he is dangerous. This ought to be prime discussion material. Too bad you don't feel that to be the case, or that my pointing it out to be merely bashing the GOP. If any Dem came up with such idiocy, believe me, you'd hear it here from me as well.

Political chest beating…nothing more.

…yawn…

Graham doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning the primaries.

agree, to some extent, Spidey.....but, what does it say about leadership and judgement if the first suggestion is that you would stage a coup d'etat if elected?

woodchip wrote:Graham doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning the primaries.

since I won't be participating in those primaries, what makes you say that? He is every bit as prominent as any other candidate in the field. Honest question......

Offhand his overall demeanor, acts and looks like a politicized Mr Rogers, Has no real credentials as a fighter like Scott Walker has.

Not to worry, every president breaks their very first thing promise.

The problem here is the primary/general voting system, I totally believe it could be fixed without violating the constitution.

The law says everyone has the right to vote, nothing says that vote can’t be a two part process.

In other words, voting in the primary is what registers you to vote in the general.

I’m sure anyone with a bit of thinking can make an argument against that idea, but hell, I haven’t heard any better ideas. So, I'm open to ideas.

Of course one party may object to any changes simply because they don't have the same level of problems.

He is every bit as serious as Obama was when he urged his supporters to bring guns to the campaign fight to get him elected.

slick, if you get off on citing hyperbolic rhetoric as the median characteristic of your opponents then you have to look in the democrats mirror for the same thing to make an honest assessment of where your side is.

Of course I am attributing the desire to be honest to you and that is giving you much more credit than you have earned...

I guess trolling must be fun for you so it isn't likely you join us in seeing the irony in your post title.

woodchip wrote:Graham doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning the primaries.

Since Graham has declared war on ISIS, let's send HIM over there to fight and kill as many terrorists as he thinks is necessary to protect the U.S. That will be far more productive than him ever being elected president.

woodchip wrote:Offhand his overall demeanor, acts and looks like a politicized Mr Rogers

now that's funny!!

Has no real credentials as a fighter like Scott Walker has.

you mean the guy who likened ISIS to schoolteachers and the like? And, wouldn't go out on a limb and acknowledge evolution? Yeah, there's
credentials. I don't care how much lipstick the Koch bros. want to put on that pig, it isn't going to happen. If he survives the primaries victorious, the Dems(any Dem) will destroy him. Completely.

Walker took the best your party could throw at him and is still in office. That is the real bottom line.

Spidey wrote:Not to worry, every president breaks their very first thing promise.

The problem here is the primary/general voting system, I totally believe it could be fixed without violating the constitution.

The law says everyone has the right to vote, nothing says that vote can’t be a two part process.

In other words, voting in the primary is what registers you to vote in the general.

I like the idea, but can see this risk: we only have the extreme fringe NOW in the primaries. What if the general public doesn't vote in the primaries? Then you are left with the loons determining the outcome of the general. On the other hand, the idea can't possibly be constitutional, as the primaries are party functions, run by the parties in most states(some states still don't HOLD primaries, by the way), and the election is a separate entity. Nice out of box thinking though.

woodchip wrote:Walker took the best your party could throw at him and is still in office. That is the real bottom line.

not really translatable to the national level, and right now, he stands at 38% positives in his own state. Like many of the Tea Party extremists, once you let them govern for a while, the bloom falls off the rose.

Funny I read 43%. You're not cleverly listing the independent approval rating now are you?

might have, Woody.....I'd have to go back and double-check. Still, a 37% favorable among independants speaks strongly to a Presidential run, where independants are the whole ball of wax.

Just ask Romney about the independent vote. He got the majority and still lost.

woodchip wrote:Just ask Romney about the independent vote. He got the majority and still lost.

no, he didn't. Well, at least he didn't carry self-described MODERATES, which is the word I should have used. Independants include Libertarians, Greens and other splinter types. The moderates are the key. Obama won them in 2012 by 15%-plus. Walker would lose them by double that, I will guarantee.

You want to counter this with a link?:

"This enabled Obama to win re-election even though he lost the independent vote. Romney won independents by a 50% to 46% margin."

http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/07/ ... a-victory/

why, yes I will: Moderates, as I noted--
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-ro ... on-2012-11

I looked at that but didn't use the link. I suggest you read a little closer. From your link:

He was, of course, wrong. Romney won self-identified Independents in Ohio by a overwhelming 10 points, according to exit polls, but lost the state to President Barack Obama by 2 points.

A similar trend was seen across much of the country — Romney won among Independents by 5 points, 50-45, but lost to Obama, 51-48.


Are you trying to be like your thread title?

come on, Woody, read a little, and perhaps learn a little:
"In 2012, a much more reliable indicator of success — and a better example of the "swing" vote — came from voters who identified as "moderate." In every critical battleground state, Obama won the moderate vote. In Iowa, he captured more than 60% of it. Overall, Obama beat Romney by 15 points among moderates."

continue down a bit and you'll see a polling graphic that explains why self-identifying 'independant' is misleading, more and more. I admitted that I mispoke when referring to Moderates and Independants, but past that, you aren't making much headway with the Walker argument. Hell, an overall 43% support in your own state is nothing to build national momentum upon.

I consider myself an independent and a moderate, although the definition of moderate is on a sliding scale in this country, and I didn't vote for Romney.

Slick, I appreciate your conceding defeat on the independent vote, moderates were never had the cache the independents did.

woodchip wrote:Slick, I appreciate your conceding defeat on the independent vote, moderates were never had the cache the independents did.

just showing my age. As the article I link explains, the term Independant used to mean Moderate voters, but now includes all sorts of fringe groups, largely anti-government types, along with moderate non-party identifiers. My point was that Walker could never win a US general election, and further, that his own state doesn't like him. You've produced nothing to refute that assertion.

And it is too early for your assertions to hold any water.

woodchip wrote:And it is too early for your assertions to hold any water.

I am aware of that, time will tell.

Good. D'accord.