Santorum winning.

[silverspoons]

I don't understand why everybody is making such a big deal about Frothy. Maybe I am not understanding the process? Most of the states he won are "non-binding" and in states that aren't, he barely got by with a "win" and they weren't in a "winner takes all" state.

Am I misunderstanding the situation? Is so, can somebody explain it to me?

You are correct. I have tried to stay out of poltics after growing up around it but thanks to Josh I have started look at the numbers. My husband's has been watching this race like a hawk. Last night Rick "won" two states. In those 2 states he got 3 more delegates then Mitt, but Mitt won 1 state and one territory (Amer. Samoa) so Mitt won more delegates last night then anyone (though because HI polls closed so late all the news talked about was Rick).

The big states of California and NY are winner takes all and Ca has 125? delegates and Ny has 95-100 delegates, no way Rick wins either (or Utah that has about 40). There are other states that are solid Mitt. Rick will take a few small conservative states but none will get him close to Mitt. Rick's only chance to get more then 20-30 delegates is PA which has 72 still won't get him near 1144. Rick has no chance.

[spragger]

You are correct. I have tried to stay out of poltics after growing up around it but thanks to Josh I have started look at the numbers. My husband's has been watching this race like a hawk. Last night Rick "won" two states. In those 2 states he got 3 more delegates then Mitt, but Mitt won 1 state and one territory (Amer. Samoa) so Mitt won more delegates last night then anyone (though because HI polls closed so late all the news talked about was Rick).

The big states of California and NY are winner takes all and Ca has 125? delegates and Ny has 95-100 delegates, no way Rick wins either (or Utah that has about 40). There are other states that are solid Mitt. Rick will take a few small conservative states but none will get him close to Mitt. Rick's only chance to get more then 20-30 delegates is PA which has 72 still won't get him near 1144. Rick has no chance.

That is what I was thinking. He "won" here in my home state, MN (which was horrifying enough to think about), but those are non-binding. I suppose people are just surprised that Frothy did so well, but it seems like people are really clinging to false hope.

I'm pretty much terrified at the prospect of any of the Rep choices. At this point, it's like we are living out the South Park school mascot election episode where their only choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. So, I guess I will be voting for the giant douche (Obama) on election day, just so we don't end up with a POS for our president. (At least douches are useful in some scenarios.)

[Gizmola]

It's obvious you don't and that sort of shuts down conversation here. I don't want to argue over it. You won't change my mind and I won't be able to change yours.

Wow, condescending much? Truthfully, I haven't any strong opinions one way or the other. Hence, my question. If you want to assume I was attempting some sort of argument, fine. But you're wrong and I consider your response dismissive and rude. As I wrote in my first post, if you didn't wish to get in a big public discussion we could take it to PM. I simply only ever hear people scream about "oh, noes, bad socialism is bad!!!11!!!!" and "Obamacare going to set up death panel to kill my grandma!!!111!!" so I wanted someone reasonable to give me their perspective. Sorry to have offended you by being interested in your viewpoint.*

*yes, I'm being condescending myself. I own it.

[slickcat79]

Wow, condescending much? Truthfully, I haven't any strong opinions one way or the other. Hence, my question. If you want to assume I was attempting some sort of argument, fine. But you're wrong and I consider your response dismissive and rude. As I wrote in my first post, if you didn't wish to get in a big public discussion we could take it to PM. I simply only ever hear people scream about "oh, noes, bad socialism is bad!!!11!!!!" and "Obamacare going to set up death panel to kill my grandma!!!111!!" so I wanted someone reasonable to give me their perspective.

I'm interested as well. It's hard to find people who are willing to make as strong a statement as "Obama is a horrible president" without being racist/fundamentalist/extreme right-leaning/batshit crazy in some way. I'd love to hear a more nuanced response from someone.

[BayLee_10]

I promised myself that I would stay out of politics, even debating them with friends, then along comes Rick Santorum and drags me back to my soap box. I literally despise that man. And I am not much more fond of Romney, Gingnrich or Paul. I despise them slightly less than Santorum.

I think 'W' was our absolute worst president. He'd be hard to top, but Santorum would have the best chance of doing that.

Another thing, I have come to wonder just how much influence Gothard has in Republican circles. Or maybe I would rather not know.

[fakepigtails73]

dairyfreelife, can I ask why you think he's a horrible, horrible President? Seriously, I'm rather confused about why people dislike Obama so rabidly. I have never been able to ask anyone this question because they start screaming about socialism. If you'd prefer to PM me, that's fine. I'm just curious.

Yeah I'm curious to know as well.

ETA: never mind, I saw yr reply. My bad! :whistle:

[Austin]

I think people actually do believe that Santorum can do everything he says he will do.

Just as everyone who voted for Obama thought he'd do everything he said he was going to do.

We really dont learn, do we?

It's easy to sway people by their emotions...

Not everyone who voted for Obama thought he was some sort of savior. I believe I had very realistic ideas about what he would and wouldn't be able to actually accomplish, and this became even clearer after the 2010 midterms. Maybe that's why I'm not so OMG-he-didn't-give-us-everything-we-wanted-and-he's-not-the-second-coming-after-all.

[MarsGirl]

Not everyone who voted for Obama thought he was some sort of savior. I believe I had very realistic ideas about what he would and wouldn't be able to actually accomplish, and this became even clearer after the 2010 midterms. Maybe that's why I'm not so OMG-he-didn't-give-us-everything-we-wanted-and-he's-not-the-second-coming-after-all.

Oh, I'm sorry. Don't get me wrong. I voted for Obama. And I believe I had realistic ideas of what he was going to do. And after 8 years of Bush, I seriously would have taken a trained monkey as president. Ok, I guess that didn't sound too redeeming. But seriously, I was an Obama supporter down to having a Women for Obama sticker on my car and signs in my yard.

I was just referring to the crazy people who voted for him. People who said things like, "I wont have to pay my mortgage after he's elected." Or stuff like that. There was a contingent who thought he'd solve everything. Which I knew was not possible at the point at which they were so screwed up.

He's still getting my vote this time around. I'm frightened of Frothy... Romney's record seems moderate... but right now he's pandering to the same crowd as Frothy so I don't particularly care for his politics either.

[Austin]

Oh, I'm sorry. Don't get me wrong. I voted for Obama. And I believe I had realistic ideas of what he was going to do. And after 8 years of Bush, I seriously would have taken a trained monkey as president. Ok, I guess that didn't sound too redeeming. But seriously, I was an Obama supporter down to having a Women for Obama sticker on my car and signs in my yard.

I was just referring to the crazy people who voted for him. People who said things like, "I wont have to pay my mortgage after he's elected." Or stuff like that. There was a contingent who thought he'd solve everything. Which I knew was not possible at the point at which they were so screwed up.

He's still getting my vote this time around. I'm frightened of Frothy... Romney's record seems moderate... but right now he's pandering to the same crowd as Frothy so I don't particularly care for his politics either.

Oh, I totally agree. I wasn't saying that you, in particular, had unrealistic expectations, but I run across it all the time, especially as I'm starting to talk to people as part of the campaign. There are some very, very legitimate criticisms of the president and his administration, many of which I share. I do not give him a pass for those, but I have tried to gain an understanding of why failures occurred and what the circumstances were, who the players were. Some were just outright failures of the administration, no doubt. Many of us wanted single payer health care, and he was not able to deliver that, and we're disappointed. But Obamacare the Affordable Care Act is what I consider to be a decent first step, much as Medicare, as it was then (which was a pale facsimile of what it is now), was when LBJ got it passed in 1965. There was also a great deal of opposition to Medicare then, just like we've seen to the ACA now, with the same cries of "socialism" and "government takeover".

But I hear people say teh crazee, like "I thought I would get to keep my house even though I borrowed way more money than I could ever hope to pay back" if Obama was elected, or "I'm not voting for him this time because gasoline is $3.80 (or whatever) a gallon", as if the president, any president, has much control over such a thing. Really?

The choices on the ballot will not be Jesus or the Holy Spirit. It will be Obama or Romney, or Obama or Santorum, or some similar matchup. Flawed human beings, some with arguably more flaws than others, but flawed nonetheless. And this is the reality: within the next presidential term, we will probably have at least one supreme court justice retire, perhaps two. Even a soulless, fake-conservative like Romney will appoint someone to pander to his extremist base, someone who is another Thomas or Scalia, and this is the thing that keeps me awake at night. It will change the precarious balance of the present court and the right will finally be able to lay waste to women's rights and minority rights while wrapping themselves in the American flag. Our outrage will be meaningless and marginalized and the results will remain long after Romney (or whomever) is out of office. I don't want my future granddaughters to have fewer rights than I have. How outrageous would that be? But if one doesn't believe it's possible, they're lying to themselves.

So even if I loathed this president for his failings (real ones or my imagined ones), I would find a way to pull the lever for him because of the supreme court issue alone. Because that's what's for real and what will last. I really hope people think about that. There is an agenda on the right, and it doesn't have a lot to do with smaller government and freedom. They have been trying to bring that agenda to fruition for close to 40 years and it is within their grasp now and they are more mobilized than ever. I hope people think very seriously about that.

[MarsGirl]

Amen to that, Austin... I've never been in so much fear of what people are just letting happen... I dont want to picture a country in which some of the things that are proposed actually happen...

[dairyfreelife]

I'm interested as well. It's hard to find people who are willing to make as strong a statement as "Obama is a horrible president" without being racist/fundamentalist/extreme right-leaning/batshit crazy in some way. I'd love to hear a more nuanced response from someone.

How is not wanting to argue about something that's a no-win argument condescending? You're wording about why I don't like our President came across as a passive-aggressive attempt to me at starting an argument so that's why I didn't want to go there or PM you. It's very, very hard and even impossible at times to get anywhere when discussing politics so that's why I didn't want to get into it. Been in enough arguments with people over political leanings to know you can't change anyone's mind very easy so sorry if I sounded grumpy in the response.

Here's a simple response: I think he lacked political experience more than anything when he got elected and just doesn't know what he's doing really. That's why I think he sucks. I continue to get the impression he's just trying things out and not really sure what he's doing. I mean, no President knows for sure how to run a country, but normally they have some experience with the government and politics. Obama really did have much. Now I do think his health care was a great idea because we need something done with the shitty health care system in this country and nabbing Bin Laden, though that was mostly military's doing, was great, but outside of that, I just think he's not good at his job. If other people love him and think he's great, then that's fine. I'm not going to ask why someone likes him nor would I ask why someone doesn't. Some people think he's the best and other hate his guts. I don't hate the guy, but I do think he's just not a good president. We've had worse, certainly and Obama for another term I would take in a heartbeat over Santorum. I answered you a little, but didn't get into it. I probably shouldn't have said horrible twice, but I don't like the guy as president.

I will say I agree with stupid socialist responses. I've heard them too. I remember my dad and I arguing recently about Obama because I said I would take Obama again in a heartbeat over Santorum and he hated that. The guy came back that Obama is trying to raise our gas prices so we'll go buy green vehicles. I'd never heard that before and asked how Obama could do that when he doesn't have any control over barrell and gas prices, which vary by state and even by station sometimes? He went into some spiel, but I admit I was only half listening so I can't really remember what he said, but I do remember telling him that sounded like a crazy conspiracy theory. The deptartment of energy president (I think he's called the president or maybe leader or head, can't remember), whom I can't recall the name of, did state that once, but has recently recalled that statement. I don't think Obama ever stated that unless I missed something. I'm not big on socialist country, one government and other nonsense (imo) conspiracy theories. I think the GOP wants a bigger government than the Democrats. Recent bills in places have shown just how big they want the government.

And thanks Slickcat for assuming people can't like the President unless they are racist. His race doesn't determine his competency and I didn't think that mattered, but I guess it does for people like you. I am not a Republican at all nor a fundamentalist and thanks for assuming too that I must be batshit crazy for thinking our President mostly sucks at his job. I didn't know you had to be crazy to not like the President.

[Austin]

Here's a simple response: I think he lacked political experience more than anything when he got elected and just doesn't know what he's doing really. That's why I think he sucks. I continue to get the impression he's just trying things out and not really sure what he's doing. I mean, no President knows for sure how to run a country, but normally they have some experience with the government and politics. Obama really did have much. Now I do think his health care was a great idea because we need something done with the shitty health care system in this country and nabbing Bin Laden, though that was mostly military's doing, was great, but outside of that, I just think he's not good at his job. If other people love him and think he's great, then that's fine. I'm not going to ask why someone likes him nor would I ask why someone doesn't. Some people think he's the best and other hate his guts. I don't hate the guy, but I do think he's just not a good president. We've had worse, certainly and Obama for another term I would take in a heartbeat over Santorum. I answered you a little, but didn't get into it. I probably shouldn't have said horrible twice, but I don't like the guy as president.

I'm not trying to get into anything with you, and you certainly don't have to respond, but let's say that you have a point. I happen to think you do, as clearly inexperience was a problem. But now three-plus years into it, who is more qualified than President Obama to be president, based upon the experience argument (among those who are actually running)?

He is doing things differently now, as are most first-term presidents at this juncture. He is no longer trying to compromise with recalcitrant GOPers, as everyone knows that "no compromise" is the choice the GOP has made. I believe he's gotten his team in better order, and the "old guard" has been replaced in some measure with people who are better qualified and better positioned to advise him.

If you are a student of history, you already know that most first-term presidencies are littered with rookie mistakes. Ron Suskind took at critical look at the Obama presidency in his book Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President. Suskind pulled no punches and I found it quite instructive.

[DarkAnts]

Yeah I'm curious to know as well.

ETA: never mind, I saw yr reply. My bad! :whistle:

I get so tired of people blaming him for things that Bush did or things that happened during Bushes terms. They also seem to lack the understanding that a president has very little power. The president is a figure head. It was never designed to be a dictator or king like position.

[DarkAnts]

If the unthinkable happens and Frothy ends up with the GOP nom, I don't think he'll put Newt as r.-mate. He'll need someone a tad more moderate (Romney?). Unless the GOP is now so endebted to the Tea Party and to Fundies that they disregard having a balanced ticket.

Frothy would have to win 70% of all remaining delegates to get the nomination. He is still very far behind in the delegate count.

[spragger]

Frothy would have to win 70% of all remaining delegates to get the nomination. He is still very far behind in the delegate count.

I do not get this "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em thing. After months of telling people all the other candidates are POS, then we are supposed to believe they can work with them. I hate politicians.

[slickcat79]

And thanks Slickcat for assuming people can't like the President unless they are racist. His race doesn't determine his competency and I didn't think that mattered, but I guess it does for people like you

Except that that's basically the opposite of what I said :roll:

I am not a Republican at all nor a fundamentalist

Which is why I wanted you to respond instead of tossing out a strong statement and then running away from explaining it.

I didn't know you had to be crazy to not like the President.

You didn't say you didn't like him, you said he was a horrible (horrible!) president and he sucks at his job. All we asked is why. I do think it's crazy to think someone is horrible without being able to explain why, but I didn't say you fell into that group. Some of Obama's most vocal detractors hate that the president is a black man. They claim he is a socialist, they are afraid that the government is going to take over their lives, and many of them are total hypocrites about it too. It sounds like your dad and my dad would get along famously, so I know we've both heard enough twisted right-wing rhetoric and lies to write books about it. When someone who I think has reasonable opinions expresses something that I don't agree with, I want to understand their thinking.

Obama's lack of experience was the main reason that I voted for Clinton in the primaries. When he claimed he was going to set a timetable for getting troops out of Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East), I didn't think that timetable was 3+ years. I'm disappointed that he caved to conservatives on health care reform. None of those things is enough to make me claim he is horrible at his job, especially after the Bush administration.

[spragger]

Except that that's basically the opposite of what I said :roll:

Which is why I wanted you to respond instead of tossing out a strong statement and then running away from explaining it.

You didn't say you didn't like him, you said he was a horrible (horrible!) president and he sucks at his job. All we asked is why. I do think it's crazy to think someone is horrible without being able to explain why, but I didn't say you fell into that group. Some of Obama's most vocal detractors hate that the president is a black man. They claim he is a socialist, they are afraid that the government is going to take over their lives, and many of them are total hypocrites about it too. It sounds like your dad and my dad would get along famously, so I know we've both heard enough twisted right-wing rhetoric and lies to write books about it. When someone who I think has reasonable opinions expresses something that I don't agree with, I want to understand their thinking.

Obama's lack of experience was the main reason that I voted for Clinton in the primaries. When he claimed he was going to set a timetable for getting troops out of Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East), I didn't think that timetable was 3+ years. I'm disappointed that he caved to conservatives on health care reform. None of those things is enough to make me claim he is horrible at his job, especially after the Bush administration.

With all due respect, why are you drawing somebody into a debate they clearly are not interested in having? There are things I don't like about Obama as well, but I'm not interested in listing them here. (Like I said earlier in the thread: Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich). I'm not going so far as to call you a troll because I don't know you, but it seems like you're just looking for a fight.

[Austin]

[With all due respect, why are you drawing somebody into a debate they clearly are not interested in having? There are things I don't like about Obama as well, but I'm not interested in listing them here. (Like I said earlier in the thread: Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich). I'm not going so far as to call you a troll because I don't know you, but it seems like you're just looking for a fight.

#1 - Slickcat is not a troll, and has been a member of the FJ community for some time.

#2 - Throwing out hyperbolic statements and then trying to disappear usually doesn't work that well at FJ. I have a lot of opinions that I don't post here because, frankly, I can't back them up other than they're my personal sensibilities. If people engage in that sort of thing, they're going to get called on it.

[spragger]

#1 - Slickcat is not a troll, and has been a member of the FJ community for some time.

#2 - Throwing out hyperbolic statements and then trying to disappear usually doesn't work that well at FJ. I have a lot of opinions that I don't post here because, frankly, I can't back them up other than they're my personal sensibilities. If people engage in that sort of thing, they're going to get called on it.

Yeah, when I looked at the post count and it was high, my guess was that = not a troll. (Although on some boards they stick around just for entertainment and nobody cares because they will generally back down, and people find them amusing.)

On the other hand, I don't think stating a general dislike (hyperbolic or not) of a political candidate is something that one should have to back up with a serious debate, especially after saying they were not interested in discussing it. *shrug* It still seems like Slickcat is the one provoking an argument in this situation, which was the point of my original comment.

[slickcat79]

With all due respect, why are you drawing somebody into a debate they clearly are not interested in having? There are things I don't like about Obama as well, but I'm not interested in listing them here. (Like I said earlier in the thread: Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich). I'm not going so far as to call you a troll because I don't know you, but it seems like you're just looking for a fight.

I asked DFL to explain a statement that she made. That's not a debate. I don't want to fight with DFL because I feel like we'd probably fall on the same side of the argument most of the time, otherwise we wouldn't be on this forum. I probably shouldn't have quoted gizmola's response in my original post because I don't really think DFL was being condescending, but I liked gizmola's language about the people who complain about socialism and death panels. When I say I'd like to hear a more nuanced view about people's dislike of Obama, I mean that sincerely, and I hoped that DFL could provide it.

You're the one who's been here for three weeks and is comparing the president to a giant douche...but I might be a troll? Thanks, I'll take that into consideration :roll:

[Guest Anonymous]

#1 - Slickcat is not a troll, and has been a member of the FJ community for some time.

#2 - Throwing out hyperbolic statements and then trying to disappear usually doesn't work that well at FJ. I have a lot of opinions that I don't post here because, frankly, I can't back them up other than they're my personal sensibilities. If people engage in that sort of thing, they're going to get called on it.

Yep. If dairyfreelife didn't want to talk about why she thinks the president is horrible x 2 then she shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. If someone doesn't want to discuss or defend their views they can keep their inflammatory statements to themselves, and they'll never have an issue over it.

[Austin]

Yeah, when I looked at the post count and it was high, my guess was that = not a troll. (Although on some boards they stick around just for entertainment and nobody cares because they will generally back down, and people find them amusing.)

On the other hand, I don't think stating a general dislike (hyperbolic or not) of a political candidate is something that one should have to back up with a serious debate, especially after saying they were not interested in discussing it. *shrug* It still seems like Slickcat is the one provoking an argument in this situation, which was the point of my original comment.

She didn't say, "I don't like him". She said, "He's a horrible, horrible president".

[Witsec7]

Yep. If dairyfreelife didn't want to talk about why she thinks the president is horrible x 2 then she shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. If someone doesn't want to discuss or defend their views they can keep their inflammatory statements to themselves, and they'll never have an issue over it.

This. I cannot understand why she can't explain what is 'horrible' about the president, she made the claim, time for her to back it up.

[spragger]

I asked DFL to explain a statement that she made. That's not a debate. I don't want to fight with DFL because I feel like we'd probably fall on the same side of the argument most of the time, otherwise we wouldn't be on this forum. I probably shouldn't have quoted gizmola's response in my original post because I don't really think DFL was being condescending, but I liked gizmola's language about the people who complain about socialism and death panels. When I say I'd like to hear a more nuanced view about people's dislike of Obama, I mean that sincerely, and I hoped that DFL could provide it.

You're the one who's been here for three weeks and is comparing the president to a giant douche...but I might be a troll? Thanks, I'll take that into consideration :roll:

Here is the context of my original comment (further up the thread) about the "giant douche":

I'm pretty much terrified at the prospect of any of the Rep choices. At this point, it's like we are living out the South Park school mascot election episode where their only choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. So, I guess I will be voting for the giant douche (Obama) on election day, just so we don't end up with a POS for our president. (At least douches are useful in some scenarios.)

I was not calling the president that to be inflammatory (like a troll would), or with any seriousness. My point was the same that they make in the SP episode. It's interesting that you focused on that part of my comment, when it is not the substance of what I was saying.

I am a long-time lurker here at FJ and finally decided to join and comment. That doesn't make me a troll. My experience here so far has been a good one, so I hope that doesn't change just because I made a comment that some people don't like. What would you have people do that make a statement they don't feel like discussing at length?

I hope I don't have to list out all the reasons I think Smuggar is a worthless, egotistical POS every time I say it because that could get very tedious.

[Guest Anonymous]

What would you have people do that make a statement they don't feel like discussing at length?

If someone isn't willing/emotionally up to/prepared to discuss something, then I would have them not bring it up. It doesn't seem that difficult a concept to me. There are some things that get discussed here that I can't handle getting deep into, so I don't post in those threads.