What To Look For If Romney Were To Win

[BigDave]

Haven't said anything about Voter ID. I'm referring to restrictions on early voting, restrictions on voting nights and weekends, absentee voting restrictions, removing of thousands from voter rolls in the swing states, throwing out registration forms of Democrats, putting the wrong voting dates on ballets, 48-hour deadline to turn in new voter forms or face a felony charge,  Corporations coercing their employees to vote for Romney, and various other laws that make no sense whatsoever. At least 180 bills restricting various voting rights have been passed all over the country, right before the election, that predominantly affect students, the elderly, the poor and minorities.  It's amazing what the right can rationalize.

Or Leftist Voter fraud like making it hard for Soldiers overseas to vote or not counting their votes because most will vote for Romney

[analog kid]

Or Leftist Voter fraud like making it hard for Soldiers overseas to vote or not counting their votes because most will vote for Romney

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/

[BigDave]

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/

Left wing bias with Factcheck!

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2081824/posts   

[analog kid]

Left wing bias with Factcheck!

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2081824/posts   

You cannot be serious.

[BigDave]

You cannot be serious.

A lot of those fact checkers carry the water for Obama. I don't want to hear what leftist sources have to say about anything. I hear that too much on NBC,ABC,CBS,CNN and MSNBC

[PB the Deplorable]

You cannot be serious.

Now that the biased left-wing media is pretty much understood by everyone to be... biased and left-wing, it wouldn't shock me to find some have just moved to the next level as 'fact checkers'.  They are not going to give up their dominating influence easily.

For example, where are they on these biased debate 'moderators' (Dem-erators) that seem to have colluded with Obama beforehand?  I wouldn't mind seeing a comparison of exposed Obama lies on the campaign trail vs Romney, and not just total numbers - level of importance.

[Pragmier]

Freerepublic.com seems to be down atm.

[RealCool Daddio]

Facts, by definition, are without bias.  Blaming the truth because you don't like it is just plain weak, regardless of which side of the political fence you are on.  It is just as bad as blaming the moderator when your guy loses, but taking credit when he he wins. This is opinion: Romney won fair and square in the first debate, the second was probably an Obama win (but close), Obama is spanking Willard tonight.  This is fact: most on the right will disagree with the previous sentence.

[BigDave]

Facts, by definition, are without bias.  Blaming the truth because you don't like it is just plain weak, regardless of which side of the political fence you are on.  It is just as bad as blaming the moderator when your guy loses, but taking credit when he he wins. This is opinion: Romney won fair and square in the first debate, the second was probably an Obama win (but close), Obama is spanking Willard tonight.  This is fact: most on the right will disagree with the previous sentence.

Same ole argument,People with a leftist bent think they have ownership of the truth. While in their world Conservatives aren't capable of telling the truth. Thank goodness for Foxnews and Conservative websites so Conservative no longer have to have Liberalism jammed down their throats

[John Smith]

It must be tough when you can't find the talking point to match the question being ask in real-time, Romney is getting his ass handed to him tonight.

[Blinko]

[PB the Deplorable]

... Obama is spanking Willard tonight.  This is fact: most on the right will disagree with the previous sentence.

I agree with it.  I would vote for the Obama we saw tonight.  Unfortunately, not much of what he said was recognizable to someone paying the slightest bit of attention over the past 4 years.

It's as if Obama decided - for this debate - to find out what he should be doing on Foreign Affairs, what he should have been doing all along, what would actually make sense, what regular Americans would want to hear, then claim that as his policy.   It wasn't a coincidence Romney was left to agree wih Obama much of the time.

It's too bad they didn't have a remote on Rev Wright or some of Obama's other Leftist friends watching from their rat-holes - that might have been fun.  But it was pure baloney - if Obama gets re-elected, we'll going right back to the same drift and weakness.

[RealCool Daddio]

Same ole argument,People with a leftist bent think they have ownership of the truth. While in their world Conservatives aren't capable of telling the truth. Thank goodness for Foxnews and Conservative websites so Conservative no longer have to have Liberalism jammed down their throats

Again, facts is facts - they are neither liberal or conservative. The fact that you feel that the opinions of one side versus the other equates to fact would seem to indicate you have given up thinking for yourself.  Would you believe Foxnews if they told you the Earth is flat?

[Blinko]

Again, facts is facts - they are neither liberal or conservative. The fact that you feel that the opinions of one side versus the other equates to fact would seem to indicate you have given up thinking for yourself.  Would you believe Foxnews if they told you the Earth is flat?

Most people aren't equipped to think for themselves, we're just reflections of external stimuli. For the average american that stimuli is pop culture.

Ever listen to the average american hold a conversation? it's absurd. Everything is topical , shallow , surface level knowledge about trivial nonsense.

People pursue material wants as a means to better themselves , but they don't pursue knowledge. Every so often you might encounter some self assured blowhards like us who play intelligencia because we listen to talk radio or read books. But it's the same stupid game ,pseudo-intellectual turds regurgitating what Limbaugh said, what Alex Jones said .I hardly see people even talk anymore , it's mostly staring at phones.

Lets stare at phones together.

People get their facts from the telescreen , as intended.

People are profane.

[Pragmier]

I find it easier to learn by listening to things I already don't know. Inspired by a certain baseball great...

For you diehards, inTrade.com will let you place a wager on the election. All trades close at $10 or $0, depending on if the outcome is true or not. It even allows for short selling.

[PB the Deplorable]

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/

I wonder where the 'fact checkers' are on the topic of how the "media" covers certain things - covering up and spinning on behalf of Obama, flat out lying and negative spin on any story involving Romney.


If the 'fact checkers' were the honest brokers they claim to be, they would include this in their perview.  I'm not saying they don't, I just assume they are another arm of the media that's in the tank for Obama, and don't I don't pay them much attention.

I will say that what little I have seen hasn't been all that impressive, and did not seem impartial - specifically it downplayed Obama's 'errors', and amplified Romney's.

[onan]

I wonder where the 'fact checkers' are on the topic of how the "media" covers certain things - covering up and spinning on behalf of Obama, flat out lying and negative spin on any story involving Romney.


If the 'fact checkers' were the honest brokers they claim to be, they would include this in their perview.  I'm not saying they don't, I just assume they are another arm of the media that's in the tank for Obama, and don't I don't pay them much attention.

I will say that what little I have seen hasn't been all that impressive, and did not seem impartial - specifically it downplayed Obama's 'errors', and amplified Romney's.

Factcheck Run by Conservative Philanthropist Annenberg Foundation
Looking Beneath the Fold, We Find an Enlightening Barack Obama Connection
...
Factcheck run by Annenberg Foundation
To better understand the potentially conservative bias of the website -- factcheck.org -- it is first worthwhile to examine who runs it -- namely the Annenberg Foundation. The Annenberg Foundation is one of the twelve largest organizations in the US operating under a 3 billion dollar grant given by Walter Annenberg. The foundation's primary goal has been to provide grants to schools in order to improve quality of education. However, a number of satellite media-related organizations have sprung from Annenberg-funded projects, one of them being factcheck.org.

Walter Annenberg -- A Powerful Conservative Publishing Mogul and Ambassador to England
Examining the Foundation itself, it is worthwhile to take a look at is founder Walter Annenberg. Born in 1908, Walter was raised by his conservative father who resourcefully scratched together a media empire by the name of Triangle Publications. Walter later inherited Triangle and used its various publications to vitriolically attack a number of liberal politicians. Annenberg's efforts endeared him to a number of conservative politicians including Richard Nixon, who appointed him as ambassador of England, and was close friends to Ronald Reagan whom he first introduced to Margaret Thatcher. While in England Annenberg gained notoriety by facilitating a number of business deals between US and British interests.
...
http://voices.yahoo.com/factcheck-run-conservative-philanthropist-annenberg-2018865.html

[Juan]

Heather MacDonald in City Journal wrote an interesting article about how the vision of foundations changes from the founders' original intentions.

If the practical visionaries who established America’s great philanthropic foundations could see their legacy today, they might regret their generosity. Once an agent of social good, those powerful institutions have become a political battering ram targeted at American society.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_4_a1.html

[Sardondi]

This is the argument Keith Olbermann (you remember him - that rational guy who was always so polite) used. The mere fact that the "Annenberg Foundation" was founded by Walter ipso facto means that whatever comes out of FactCheck.org is somehow conservative scriptural writ and unassailable. That's hardly the case. The Annneberg Foundation is a far cry from the man. It's worse now that the Annenberg's children now run it, who turned on their parents and have changed the entire tenor of the AF and factcheck. It's simply not the same, and is in no way a "conservative organization". But it is associated with Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.

In 1995, back when that rock-ribbed conservative was still alive, the conservative Annenberg Foundation somehow overcame these supposed conservative principles to give unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers (who is sorry he didn't do more to bring about violent revolution in America than just set bombs, kill people and rob banks to fund the revolution) the job of founding the "Chicago Annenberg Challenge", funded by the Annenberg family money. It was supposed to be a Chicago public school "reform project". Guess who Ayers appointed as its Board Chairman and President in 1995? Barry Obama. And thereafter Ayers and Obama worked closely together to use the Annenberg Family money to build Obama's political career.

That's some "conservative" organization all right.

[analog kid]

I wonder where the 'fact checkers' are on the topic of how the "media" covers certain things - covering up and spinning on behalf of Obama, flat out lying and negative spin on any story involving Romney.


If the 'fact checkers' were the honest brokers they claim to be, they would include this in their perview.  I'm not saying they don't, I just assume they are another arm of the media that's in the tank for Obama, and don't I don't pay them much attention.

I will say that what little I have seen hasn't been all that impressive, and did not seem impartial - specifically it downplayed Obama's 'errors', and amplified Romney's.

A Pew study showed that Obama received more negative press than any other candidate, on all the news networks. If the media was doing its job, Romney would have never made it passed the primaries, with all of his baggage. The right lives in a media bubble and wants to think they're persecuted by the "liberal elite," but the fact is, their positions are unpopular and their candidates are shit sandwiches. They're going to have to modernize and move towards the center if they want a Republican president.

[PB the Deplorable]

... The right lives in a media bubble and wants to think they're persecuted by the "liberal elite," but the fact is, their positions are unpopular and their candidates are shit sandwiches. They're going to have to modernize and move towards the center if they want a Republican president.

I think people agree with more Conservative positions than Liberal ones overall.  Of course any large movement is going to have things people can point to as not having majority support.  Of course there are going to be things which are misrepresented and flat out lied about by opponents.

In recent elections, the Rs have just run Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush II, Bush II, McCain, and Romney.  As far as I'm concerned those were all 'moderates'.  People thought Bush was a Conservative because he was Reagans VP - when they found out he wasn't, he lost.  Bush II ran as a Conservative (a 'compassionate' one, which apparently meant Big Spending) - his spending and getting us into major wars was the opposite of Conservatism.  Had the Ds run a better candidate n '04 he would have lost.

Look at Sen. Scott Brown in Mass - a 'moderate', an R that worked with Ds and voted with them numerous times.  Just what the media is telling the Rs they need more of.  Similar to McCain.  Romney was pretty 'moderate' getting elected in MAss and with RomneyCare and all.  Brown just lost his Senate seat.  McCain lost his Presidential run.  The media didn't support any of them despite their demands that the Rs run these type of candidates.

I agree with the shit sandwiches - what the Rs need is to run articulate Conservatives.  The problem with them running a 'moderate' is moderates don't stand for anything.  Too many R voters will stay home, not enough 'moderate' voters will turn out for them, people won't ring doorbells or make phone calls on their behalf. 

I would say the Rs need to make some changes, obviously - but not to just go Democrat 'lite'.  That won't work because no one wants a party like that.

[analog kid]

I think people agree with more Conservative positions than Liberal ones overall.  Of course any large movement is going to have things people can point to as not having majority support.  Of course there are going to be things which are misrepresented and flat out lied about by opponents.

Conservative positions yes, but not Republican positions so much I wouldn't think. 59% of Americans think a woman should have the right to choose, and I'm pretty sure a majority of them agree that billionaires should be taxed.

[MV/Liberace!]

perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to, "Oh... never mind, then."

[RealCool Daddio]

I think people agree with more Conservative positions than Liberal ones overall.

That depends entirely on what you mean by conservative positions.  Based on your many posts, I am guessing you mean conservative positions on fiscal matters, foreign policy, and size of government.  If that's what you mean, then I would agree.


The problem is that modern American conservativism is now MOSTLY about social issues - abortion, contraception, school prayer, the role of "God" in society, gay marriage, stem cell research, climate change denial - a long, long list of issues where they are very clearly in the minority of public opinion.  Any small government republican who does not take a hardline view on these issues is immediately then deemed a moderate, and suffers the consequences you outlined (McCain, for example).   But any "true conservative" must pass a bizarre evangelical/young earth/anti-science/anti immigrant/magical pussy juice litmus test to appeal to the republican base - and ultimately still be unelectable.

[Juan]

I agree, the Republicans need all the can get to win, but I don't see any chance of the social conservatives accepting the libertarians.

Where can I get an Obamacheck?