Khross wrote:
Rorinthas:
Your post is full of funny for the exact same reason as Arathain's ...
Your post is full of funny for the exact same reason as Arathain's ...
shhhh! it's a secret!
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| So, Iowa Caucus... https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8028 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | So, Iowa Caucus... |
Where the hell did Santorum's showing come from? Have I been tuning out enough such that I missed some vast upswing in the waves of "The race is going to be Romney vs. X" punditry? In other news, strong showing for Paul. If he can nail a solid, dogging-their-heels showing like that in maybe two more States, I think that bodes very well for him as others (like Bachman, apparently) start dropping. I was a little disappointed that he lost ground from his first/second exit poll leads earlier in the evening, as that would have really sold the deal for him, but being 3% off the two-way dead heat ain't bad, either, especially when you consider that each of those three candidates has Iowa support equal to the rest of the field combined... I'm hoping a strong, close three-way race proves an excellent position for Paul, so he can save us from Romney. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
60k votes, or whatever the total is, is statistically insignificant. I don't understand why there is so much impetus on this caucus thing. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Three reasons, they are the first to actually do anything resembling voting in the primaries, if you haven't been involved in it you usually don't understand the caucus system, and a win here is a win you can brag about on the road. Heck, the delegates aren't even assigned for months afterwards. Iowa's 15 minutes are over for this cycle, on to New Hampshire. Historically, they don't even pick the winners, just do the first whinnying out of the also rans. So Bachmann is out, the Cowboy is sulking in Texas, and Dr. Paul is considering changing to a Libertarian ticket. We shall see what we shall see. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I just don't get why television news devotes what must be thousands of hours of programming time, and the candidates themselves make campaign ending decisions based on such a miniscule input. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | So, Iowa Caucus... |
Nothing better to do I guess. It shows who had thick skin and legs and who doesn't? I told an Iowan this: Santorum has everything that Newt has except for two ex-wives. |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
I wouldn't want to be a Republican right now. Your real choices are a guy that implemented public health care in his own state and is generally left of Obama, and a textbook religious royalty hypocrite that claims to want smaller, less-intrusive government while simultaneously saying things like contraception should be banned and US citizens have no right to privacy from the government. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Santorum's been pretty much living in Iowa for something like 6 months. He's done more "work" there than anyone. But he can't do that in every state, and thank God for that. I think it's noteworthy that when Paul had his upswing, and finally got the media attention he's been looking for, and the other candidates began focusing on him, he dropped pretty quickly. I've said it before; he's a great idea, but once the general masses start looking into him, they don't like what they see. I think if he has another significant upswing, the same thing will happen. Oh - **** Santorum. If he gets nominated, I'll vote for Obama. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Oh - **** Santorum. If he gets nominated, I'll vote for Obama. Heh ...So much funny. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Romney's gonna win the candidacy and the presidency IMO. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Khross wrote: Arathain Kelvar wrote: Oh - **** Santorum. If he gets nominated, I'll vote for Obama. Heh ...So much funny. why do you say that? do you like him? |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
It has nothing to do with liking or disliking Santorum (he's an established politician, so see Midgen's signature for my opinion on that ...). That said, your post is still full of funny. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
Khross wrote: It has nothing to do with liking or disliking Santorum (he's an established politician, so see Midgen's signature for my opinion on that ...). That said, your post is still full of funny. Arathain wrote: why do you say that?
|
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | So, Iowa Caucus... |
Why would you rather have a marxist wannabe dictator who just gave himself the power to detain US citizens indefinitely and is going around ignoring advise and consent? You really think he cares about your bedroom freedoms when it's obvious he doesn't give two farts about you civil liberties, financial freedoms, and consent of the governed? |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
Rorinthas: Your post is full of funny for the exact same reason as Arathain's ... |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
Khross wrote: Rorinthas: Your post is full of funny for the exact same reason as Arathain's ... shhhh! it's a secret!
|
|
| Author: | Khross [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
Fairly certain my well established opinion of the American electoral process is not a secret unless you're simply too vapid to remember it. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
Rorinthas wrote: Why would you rather have a marxist wannabe dictator who just gave himself the power to detain US citizens indefinitely and is going around ignoring advise and consent? You really think he cares about your bedroom freedoms when it's obvious he doesn't give two farts about you civil liberties, financial freedoms, and consent of the governed? I don't believe for a second that Santorum is willing to or even competent enough to roll back any of what Obama put in place. He's a homophobe, a hypocrite, and a moron. He's a bigot that does not support religious freedoms. Obama is bad - I think he'd be worse. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
Khross wrote: Fairly certain my well established opinion of the American electoral process is not a secret unless you're simply too vapid to remember it. How many times do we have to have this conversation? I'm not interested in memorizing your opinions, nor am I interested in playing guessing games with your opinion. If you have something to say, just say it and stop wasting everyone's time. And how narcissistic do you have to be to assume that your opinion on a particular matter is so "well established" throughout the glade that one must be "vapid" to not remember it? You have seriously got to be kidding me. Furthermore, nothing in your above posts is even clear enough to suggest that what's "funny" even has anything to do with your "well established opinion". I'll tell you what: I'm no longer interested in your opinion, if you even have one. Post a complete, coherent thought, and I'll respond. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I believe the answer you are looking for is: you're calling heads on a two-headed coin. So don't be pissed when after the election you've "won" that the end result is the same. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Hopwin wrote: I believe the answer you are looking for is: you're calling heads on a two-headed coin. So don't be pissed when after the election you've "won" that the end result is the same. Sure, but it'll be the same regardless. None of the candidates will be willing or able to change anything of significance. At this point, I'm really only voting to try and not make things worse. Or less worse. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
Arathain: It's not narcissism to expect participants in a conversation to pay attention; it is, however, apparently well beyond your expectations. |
|
| Author: | Taskiss [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Khross, the only opinion I'm sure of is my own. If I ascribed a position for you, the best I could do is project one based on memory, from what I read from your posts. Allowing for windage, it may not be your position at all. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
Khross doesn't think there's a meaningful difference between the candidates; essentially that the differences are trivial. This makes sense from his perspective, much like if you were standing on Pluto the difference between a person being in Florida versus one being in Montana would appear trivial as well. The problem is that while people live in Montana and Florida, they don't live on Pluto, and Khross's perspective has very similar problems. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
Khross wrote: Arathain: It's not narcissism to expect participants in a conversation to pay attention; it is, however, apparently well beyond your expectations. 1) "Heh ... So much funny." The preceding post by you does not in any way reference or imply a previously stated opinion. 2) You were asked twice and could not come up with a more coherent response. You still haven't, as a matter of fact. 3) Your lack of willingness to restate an opinion to explain your statement is simply laziness. 4) Instead of explaining your statement, you reply that your unreferenced and unimplied previously stated opinion is well established and I must be vapid for not remembering. This is unnecessarily insulting and highly obnoxious. 5) Despite the fact that the opinion was not even referenced, had it been, it is absolutely the height of narcissism to assume that all must a) read all your posts, and b) remember the full content without error. 6) Expecting others to remember your posts to such a degree that you no longer have to state or reference your opinion is poor-quality participation at best, and intellectual laziness at worst. 7) It would be presumptuous of me to assume your opinion. That's disrespectful, and I'm not going to intentionally do this. So, we have a vague statement, unwillingness to clarify, insulting and obnoxious behavior, and narcissism. Either your simply acting like a child, or you're doing this just for shits and giggles and therefore a troll. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: So, Iowa Caucus... |
Diamondeye wrote: Khross doesn't think there's a meaningful difference between the candidates; essentially that the differences are trivial. This makes sense from his perspective, much like if you were standing on Pluto the difference between a person being in Florida versus one being in Montana would appear trivial as well. The problem is that while people live in Montana and Florida, they don't live on Pluto, and Khross's perspective has very similar problems. For the most part, though, I agree as stated above. Still, I think Santorum will make things worse. At least I know what Obama will do. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|