Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on December 14, 2011, 05:05:44 AM
-
In the most pronounced contrast between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s position within the Republican primary contest and his standing in a matchup against President Obama, Gingrich has taken a commanding lead in a new national poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. Newt gets 40 percent of the GOP vote nationally, the highest total for any candidate in the past few months. He’s currently 17 points above his main competitor, Mitt Romney.
But the data also shows that Gingrich is a much weaker candidate against President Obama nationally. While Romney is only bested by the President by two points within the poll, Gingrich is crushed 51 - 40, showing the expansive disconnect between the GOP voters’ desire to have a non-Romney candidate and the chances that candidate has in the general election.
“Why the difference between Gingrich and Romney? Look no further than their favorability ratings,” MSNBC wrote in their analysis of the poll. “Gingrich enjoys strong numbers among Republicans (46 percent positive vs. 21 percent negative), conservatives (42 percent positive vs. 23 percent negative) and Tea Party supporters (54 percent positive vs. 16 percent negative). In fact, they are higher than Romney’s numbers among these same three key Republican groups.”
But that’s as far as the Gingrich appeal goes, according to the data. “Gingrich struggles with other important voting blocs — like women (20 percent positive vs. 38 percent negative), independents (16 percent positive vs. 40 percent negative) and suburban residents (25 percent positive vs. 41 percent negative),” MSNBC continued. “By comparison, Romney fares better among women (22 percent positive vs. 31 percent negative), independents (21 percent positive vs. 29 percent negative) and suburban dwellers (29 percent positive vs. 30 percent negative).”
-more-
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/nbcwsj-gingrich-hits-40-percent-among-gop-down-against-obama-by-11.php?ref=fpb
-
oops.
quick, a reply to support Newt from McWay or 333386...
-
oops.
quick, a reply to support Newt from McWay or 333386...
I dont support Newt. He is my least favorite of all of them.
I am for Paul Bachmann 2012 - Yoda / Hell Cat vs the Communist Neo-Terrorist Traitor / Bumbles Biden
A vote for Obama is a vote for our collapse.
-
Bachmann is a bigger idiot than the rest of the candidates.
Good luck in that support.
-
57 states. you all deserve to be burned at the stake with cooking oil if you have ever watched an obama speech without punching someone else in the room.
-
57 states. you all deserve to be burned at the stake with cooking oil if you have ever watched an obama speech without punching someone else in the room.
And kicking the tv and shooting the Dog.
There is not one sane reason to vote for obama again.
-
And yet you got 4 more years of sucking his black cock staring you in the face.
What then?
-
And yet you got 4 more years of sucking his black cock staring you in the face.
What then?
Again - other than childish attacks - please tell me why you are voting for obama again.
-
And yet you got 4 more years of sucking his black cock staring you in the face.
What then?
x 2
Answer. What will it be? Another 4 years and 80,000 posts? 4 more years of whining? Crying? Never leaving home? Answer!
-
x 2
Answer. What will it be? Another 4 years and 80,000 posts? 4 more years of whining? Crying? Never leaving home? Answer!
So long as Obama continues to run guns to cartels, launders drug money, collapses the economy, engages in ChavezEsqe behavior, appoints criminals to all levels of govt, pisses away our money on corrupt thugs, etc, damn riht I will post about it.
-
Because your whining has made a real difference so far.
-
Wow! :o
I didn't expect Newt's poll numbers to be that bad, considering the CBS poll (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/10/cbs-poll-54-say-obama-doesnt-deserve-re-election/) which showed that 54% of Americans didn't think Obama deserved a second term. I thought that would translate into a guaranteed win for the GOP candidate.
Where does this leave us Republicans? There's Ron Paul, who could win if he wasn't being smeared by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin who are trying to tear the Republican Party apart. There's Mitt Romney who I think could win the general election, but he is burdened by his past stance on many key issues and his convenient flip-flopping. There's Rick Perry, who looked promising until his terrible debate performances. There's Michele Bachmann who is a crazy Christian bitch - and I honestly don't think that the average voter is ready for a woman President, especially if she's Republican. There's Rick Santorum who is a whiny crybaby and too socially conservative to win the election.
I hate to say it... but I think Jon Huntsman might be the GOP's best shot? He's not solid on fiscal or economic issues, but he doesn't carry the baggage that the others do. His "moderate" streak could help him immensely in a general election, especially his positions on immigration, gay rights, and Afghanistan which could MAYBE steal some of Obama's left-wing base. He is good-looking and somewhat Presidential which matters a lot for the average uninformed voter. His challenge is getting the Republican nomination - which seems highly unlikely at this point due to the speed with which the first primaries are coming up.
At this point, I would prefer a Jon Huntsman Presidency over all of the other Republicans except for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. But I would still probably vote third party if Huntsman were the GOP nominee.
-
speaking of Huntsmann - he was rated the MOST conservative cnadiadte by george will, eric erickson, and the WSJ.
The most conseravtive columnist, blogger, and publication - they all called Huntsy the #1 most conseravtive guy in the race.
Yet "he worked for obama...." is all morons remember. What's up with that?
-
speaking of Huntsmann - he was rated the MOST conservative cnadiadte by george will, eric erickson, and the WSJ.
The most conseravtive columnist, blogger, and publication - they all called Huntsy the #1 most conseravtive guy in the race.
Yet "he worked for obama...." is all morons remember. What's up with that?
Huntsman made a HHHHUUUGGGEEE mistake in how he rolled out his campaign.
-
speaking of Huntsmann - he was rated the MOST conservative cnadiadte by george will, eric erickson, and the WSJ.
The most conseravtive columnist, blogger, and publication - they all called Huntsy the #1 most conseravtive guy in the race.
Yet "he worked for obama...." is all morons remember. What's up with that?
Meh... I don't consider myself a conservative, so I won't comment on that, but I do have my own issues with Huntsman.
Pros: Free trade, Diplomacy, Afghanistan, gun rights, China, OK record on taxes, OK on gay rights, seems good on immigration
Cons: Bad record on spending, terrible position on Israel & Iran, wrong on bailouts and "stimulus" spending
My main fear is Jon Huntsman being a George W. Bush repeat when it comes to fiscal/economic issues.
-
I have said I like the Paul/Huntsman combo.
Mitt however is the default candidate and really the only one that can beat Obama in the election if the nutjobs stand behind him while he pulls independents and moderates. Do you see independents or moderates voting for dumbass Perry? Or batshit Bachmann? Or that laughable Cain? No one is going to vote for Sanororororotum anyway. He is just stealing oxygen from the debates.
That aside, out of all the Repubs running only Paul and Romney are solid VP material at best. Yes, VP material. There is no outstanding POTUS candidate on that stage. And after Paul and Romney, the rest of the litter box is nothing more than 3rd tier VP wannabees.
-
I have said I like the Paul/Huntsman combo.
Mitt however is the default candidate and really the only one that can beat Obama in the election if the nutjobs stand behind him while he pulls independents and moderates. Do you see independents or moderates voting for dumbass Perry? Or batshit Bachmann? Or that laughable Cain? No one is going to vote for Sanororororotum anyway. He is just stealing oxygen from the debates.
That aside, out of all the Repubs running only Paul and Romney are solid VP material at best. Yes, VP material. There is no outstanding POTUS candidate on that stage. And after Paul and Romney, the rest of the litter box is nothing more than 3rd tier VP wannabees.
LOL!!!!! and remind me why Obama was presidential material in 2008 again considering the fact that his record was dratically less than that of Romney?
-
LOL!!!!! and remind me why Obama was presidential material in 2008 again considering the fact that his record was dratically less than that of Romney?
To me he wasn't. I was behind Hillary. When Obama won out, I still wasn't behind him. I waited. He picked Biden and I was like "ho-hum. Let's see what McCain does". McCain picked Palin and that sealed the deal for me. I didn't vote for Obama as much as I voted against Palin.
Romney and Obama are not very different at all. Basically skin color only.
-
newt needs cardio
-
Again - other than childish attacks - please tell me why you are voting for obama again.
because the average of my investments has been over 24% annual return.
-
because the average of my investments has been over 24% annual return.
And what would have the return been without Obama?
-
In the most pronounced contrast between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s position within the Republican primary contest and his standing in a matchup against President Obama, Gingrich has taken a commanding lead in a new national poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. Newt gets 40 percent of the GOP vote nationally, the highest total for any candidate in the past few months. He’s currently 17 points above his main competitor, Mitt Romney.
But the data also shows that Gingrich is a much weaker candidate against President Obama nationally. While Romney is only bested by the President by two points within the poll, Gingrich is crushed 51 - 40, showing the expansive disconnect between the GOP voters’ desire to have a non-Romney candidate and the chances that candidate has in the general election.
“Why the difference between Gingrich and Romney? Look no further than their favorability ratings,” MSNBC wrote in their analysis of the poll. “Gingrich enjoys strong numbers among Republicans (46 percent positive vs. 21 percent negative), conservatives (42 percent positive vs. 23 percent negative) and Tea Party supporters (54 percent positive vs. 16 percent negative). In fact, they are higher than Romney’s numbers among these same three key Republican groups.”
But that’s as far as the Gingrich appeal goes, according to the data. “Gingrich struggles with other important voting blocs — like women (20 percent positive vs. 38 percent negative), independents (16 percent positive vs. 40 percent negative) and suburban residents (25 percent positive vs. 41 percent negative),” MSNBC continued. “By comparison, Romney fares better among women (22 percent positive vs. 31 percent negative), independents (21 percent positive vs. 29 percent negative) and suburban dwellers (29 percent positive vs. 30 percent negative).”
-more-
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/nbcwsj-gingrich-hits-40-percent-among-gop-down-against-obama-by-11.php?ref=fpb
Gingrich has just way too many holes to poke...1.6 from Fannie Mae, 300,000 dollar congressional fine, 2 affairs while married....delivering divorce papers to his wife while she's in the hospital with cancer.....how do you overcome 20 years of shit accumulated????
Then there's Romney.....he's obviously not liked by the party because they've leapfrogged every other contender ahead of him. And of course there's the "Mormon Religion".....he'll get killed in the Bible Belt.
Obama could not have a better set of circumstances...he's going to compete against a very weak and very battered opponent and will have the resources to crush him
-
You forgot the one big thing Obama fears Vince - his record of failure, treason, disaster, incompetence , etc.
-
You forgot the one big thing Obama fears Vince - his record of failure, treason, disaster, incompetence , etc.
Obama has gotten rid of Bin Laden and Ghadaffi, passed Obamacare, eliminated numerous terrorist leaders, ended Don't Ask Don't Tell, closed out the war in Iraq, etc......
I don't think that's failure dipshit.
-
Obama has gotten rid of Bin Laden and Ghadaffi, passed Obamacare, eliminated numerous terrorist leaders, ended Don't Ask Don't Tell, closed out the war in Iraq, etc......
I don't think that's failure dipshit.
That is funny considering Obama will not run on any of those things other than obi.
-
Obama has gotten rid of Bin Laden and Ghadaffi, passed Obamacare, eliminated numerous terrorist leaders, ended Don't Ask Don't Tell, closed out the war in Iraq, etc......
I don't think that's failure dipshit.
Bin Laden = Thank our civilian and military intelligence, not Obama
Other terrorists = See above.
Ghadaffi = The US didn't kill him; Libyans did.
Obamacare = Epic failure.
Pulling out of Iraq = Bush's doing (no really, it was already in the cards)
Ending DADT = At least he did one thing right.
-
Obama has one accomplishment during his first term-- killing a terrorist that would have remained free but for Bush era interrogation policies.
So his only accomplishment is contradicting everything he campaigned on while riding the co tails of a man he has blamed for everything from the failure of the chevy volt to Michelle Obama having more back hair than bigfoot.
If Newt gets the nomination, he can beat Obama.
Trust me-- Newt will go on the attack unlike the rest of the GOPanzies who from 2008 until now still dont even have the balls to call Osama out on his personal relationships and associations with radicals, racists and terrorists, his lack of experience and outright stupidity on every single meaningful issue that is important to the American people.
Newt will pull no punches with respect to Obama's lies ( transparency, bipartisanship, civility+ hope and change) , his corruption ( Solyndra, big labor, Osamacare), his obvious and overwhelming failures ( the stimulus package among dozens of other things) and his unbelievably incompetent and radical appointments: Van Jones, Holder, Napolitano--etc.
Newt is smarter than Obama ( by a longshot), more articulate, more experienced and is going to make Obama look like the chump amateur stooge he is if they ever have a live debate. Trust me, Newt's personal flaws aside, Obama makes him look like Albert Einstein, Moses , Thomas Jefferson and Milton Friedman all rolled into one. Most importantly, Newt doesn't give a fuck. he's running his own campaign, he shoots from the hip, he says what he feels and he has nothing to lose. Someone like that is exactly what the GOP needs. Not another fucking "moderate" douchebag robot betting other candidates 10,000$ during a televised debate. Romney is so spineless he makes jellyfish cringe. More importantly, he is like kryptonite to the average GOP voter.
I would still like RP to win the nomination-- partially because of the same reasons that I feel Newt could win.-- Also because he would fundamentally transform America within 1 week of taking office.
However, if Newt gets it-- I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing.
To be honest, I am starting to feel like Romney has blown it.
-
Bin Laden = Thank our civilian and military intelligence, not Obama
Other terrorists = See above.
Ghadaffi = The US didn't kill him; Libyans did.
Obamacare = Epic failure.
Pulling out of Iraq = Bush's doing (no really, it was already in the cards)
Ending DADT = At least he did one thing right.
Can't get all the blames on his watch without getting the successes on his watch....sorry number boy but Obama has been effective where Bush hasn't been
-
Can't get all the blames on his watch without getting the successes on his watch....sorry number boy but Obama has been effective where Bush hasn't been
Really? Don't get me wrong, I'm no supporter of Bush, but what EXACTLY did Obama do differently that Bush or McCain would not have done? Let's see - would Bush/McCain have taken Bin Laden out? Yes. Would they have taken other terrorists out? Yes. Would they have taken Ghadaffi out? Yes. Would they have passed Obamacare? No, and thank God for that. Would they have pulled out of Iraq? Maybe McCain wouldn't have, but Bush had already promised the Iraqi government to leave by 2011. Ended DADT? Probably not, but that is a MINOR success in comparison to the HUGE mistakes elsewhere.
-
Would they have pulled out of Iraq? Maybe McCain wouldn't have, but Bush had already promised the Iraqi government to leave by 2011.
You break the SOFA, and methinks the violence and pushback from the iraqi govt would have been insane.
they tolerated us for 9 years. If we had 'changed our mind', the world would have been all over our shit.
Plus we keep 16,000 people there. It's our biggest 'embassy' in the world now... essentially a base with that many people and their protectors.
-
And what would have the return been without Obama?
last two years under Bush they were in the negative numbers.
-
Here's the thing - when Obama left IN PLACE the loose oil regulation that allowed the Gulf Oil Spill - he DESERVED the blame for it - because he had 2 years to change shitty policy, and did not.
Obama had 2 years to change/keep Bush policy on killing bad guys. He kept it. So it became his own. IF IF IF the raid went bad and we ended up losing 50 SEALS and OBL was at the corner market laughing the whole time... None of you repus would have said "It's not obama's fault - that's just bush policy in action".
No, you would have said "Are you kidding me? Obama's been in office for 3 years - that shit is on HIM. Success or fail - it's obama's call if that policy is in place, so it's OBAMA'S policy now.
can't separate blame and credit, and if 50 dead seals had been paraded on al-jazeera, none of yall would hav been blaming BUSH policy ;)
-
Here's the thing - when Obama left IN PLACE the loose oil regulation that allowed the Gulf Oil Spill - he DESERVED the blame for it - because he had 2 years to change shitty policy, and did not.
Obama had 2 years to change/keep Bush policy on killing bad guys. He kept it. So it became his own. IF IF IF the raid went bad and we ended up losing 50 SEALS and OBL was at the corner market laughing the whole time... None of you repus would have said "It's not obama's fault - that's just bush policy in action".
No, you would have said "Are you kidding me? Obama's been in office for 3 years - that shit is on HIM. Success or fail - it's obama's call if that policy is in place, so it's OBAMA'S policy now.
can't separate blame and credit, and if 50 dead seals had been paraded on al-jazeera, none of yall would hav been blaming BUSH policy ;)
Because it wouldn't have been the "policy" that got them killed, it would have been some kind of mistake. But, rather than create hypothetical scenarios, the facts are that the terrorists killed are the results of 10-12 years of intelligence gathering and all admins should get credit.
But, if you ask someone like Vince to list Obama's accomplishments, 3 of the 5 will entail the above, which is not something he campaigned on, and certainly don't have the magnitude of impact that his failures do.
-
IMO, the policy would certainly have been what got them killed. One roaming military vehicle we didn't notice - with RPGs - and we lose all those Seals and it's an international incident - all obama's fault.
But when it goes right - it's all Bush's credit for having that policy from years earlier.
Tell me this - if it's bush policy that gets all the credit - why did they even need obama's green light to do the mission?
Cause it's his baby now. It's obama policy now. His call to keep it in place, so his credit/blame. I'm all for blaming obama for gulf oil spill from bush decisions on the equipment safety requirements, becaus barry had time to play golf, it means he had time to fix requirements and did not.
-
IMO, the policy would certainly have been what got them killed. One roaming military vehicle we didn't notice - with RPGs - and we lose all those Seals and it's an international incident - all obama's fault.
But when it goes right - it's all Bush's credit for having that policy from years earlier.
Tell me this - if it's bush policy that gets all the credit - why did they even need obama's green light to do the mission?
Cause it's his baby now. It's obama policy now. His call to keep it in place, so his credit/blame. I'm all for blaming obama for gulf oil spill from bush decisions on the equipment safety requirements, becaus barry had time to play golf, it means he had time to fix requirements and did not.
You can't be serious with the bolded part above.
And, as stated, I didn't say Bush's policy got all the credit. I said they all get credit.
-
IMO, the policy would certainly have been what got them killed. One roaming military vehicle we didn't notice - with RPGs - and we lose all those Seals and it's an international incident - all obama's fault.
But when it goes right - it's all Bush's credit for having that policy from years earlier.
Tell me this - if it's bush policy that gets all the credit - why did they even need obama's green light to do the mission?
Cause it's his baby now. It's obama policy now. His call to keep it in place, so his credit/blame. I'm all for blaming obama for gulf oil spill from bush decisions on the equipment safety requirements, becaus barry had time to play golf, it means he had time to fix requirements and did not.
Because Obama is the commander and chief you fucking moron.
-
Grape Ape understands it:
Because it wouldn't have been the "policy" that got them killed, it would have been some kind of mistake. But, rather than create hypothetical scenarios, the facts are that the terrorists killed are the results of 10-12 years of intelligence gathering and all admins should get credit.
But, if you ask someone like Vince to list Obama's accomplishments, 3 of the 5 will entail the above, which is not something he campaigned on, and certainly don't have the magnitude of impact that his failures do.