TexasCHLforum.com

The best part of that map is the swing state disapproval numbers.

Places like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Colorado being unhappy with his performance are very very good signs.

Now we just have to hope the Republicans don't stick to their usual tactics and start compromising with everyone they see once they're in power so the media will say nice things about them.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Interesting poll results: http://www.gallup.com/poll/152372/Obama ... 20Approval.........

........with analysis: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... oss/352881

This is great news.

Hoosier Daddy wrote: I think a flat tax with no progressive/socialist trickery is the only way to get everyone to pay their fair share.

There's a lot to be said for a flat tax. Simplifies the tax code, makes everybody put some skin into the game...

I could support someone who advocated a well thought out tax reform plan.

Remember the second plank of Marx's communism manifesto....a heavy progressive tax.

Rockingrook, sent you a PM so as to not further derail this thread.

Don't make this a generational thing.

There are producers and moochers. Age doesn't matter.

Plenty of senior citizens who will fall all over themselves to vote for Obama if he tells them the Republicans want to take away their social security and medicare.

There are also a lot of people in the younger generation who have done their time in Afghanistan or Iraq, or work very hard to NOT depend on anyone. I have friends that have died over there. Yes, the WW2 generation made some truly humbling sacrifices. But don't discount what the under 30 crowd has done since the War on Terror began.

Laying the "gimme" mentality at the feet of us youngsters is just flat out wrong and frankly, insulting.

The entitlement society was first established by FDR. Then our parents generation voted in LBJ who declared war on poverty and created even more entitlements. So don't act like ours is the first generation to have lousy parasites. Far from it.

smoothoperator wrote:The sins of the father shall be visited on the son?

I understand what you're saying....but do you honestly see Ron Paul going 3rd party and Rand not supporting his father in his presidential bid?

Its a no win for Rand. Support your dad, earn the ire of the party. Shun your dad for future prospects, look like a scummy son.

I believe he would back his fathers run, and it would rightly sink his future Republican prospects.

Just my .02 on it.

Not sure how "mafia" like that is.

If I ran a company that had a father and son, and the father was talking about leaving after 30 years and taking a lot of my clients (a poor analogy I know, bear with me) I certainly wouldn't be guaranteeing that his son has a bright future with my company in the years to come.

Not rewarding disloyal behavior is a simple fact of sound business or party politics.

Mafia like to me alludes to GOP leaders threatening harm to his family.

74novaman wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:Ron might care because word is the GOP is playing the mafia card and threating his family for what he does.

If you can find a source for that other than world net daily, I'd be interested.

Because it frankly sounds like a total fabrication.

Still interested in a source for this or if its just made up Paulistinian delusion.

bayouhazard wrote:Ron might care because word is the GOP is playing the mafia card and threating his family for what he does.

If you can find a source for that other than world net daily, I'd be interested.

Because it frankly sounds like a total fabrication.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've come to the conclusion that, unless something startling happens, Gingrich is going to fade, and the nomination is Romney's to lose. This is not a satisfying primary for me. I wish I could get 100% behind one of the primary candidates, but I just can't get there yet.

It's the first primary. It's not over for any of the candidates unless they quit.

Oh, I realize that, and I am referring to the entire primary campaign, not just the Iowa Caucuses.

I'd love if the GOP declared ALL state primaries were to be held on the same day (Say, Feb 15th). To me, there are multiple advantages.

A few states won't get to pick the nominee before people in, for example...TEXAS, have any say in the matter.

Candidates will then stop spending money and effort beating each other up so they can concentrate on beating the democrat they will be up against. (I know this is probably a pipe dream...they'll just spend the money earlier in the year...but, with the short term attention span of the American people....if they stopped sniping at each other by Feb and went to work on attacking their dem opponent...at least people are less likely to remember the repubs attacks on each other)

One quick, nationwide primary...any thoughts?

wharvey wrote:
It is very true that most don't bother to research and you can't fix stupid but unfortunately, stupid votes and carries elections. Specially true when the rest are divided. I'm very tired of voting for the lesser of two, or more, evils but I can't remember it being otherwise.

So I guess the real question is..how do we win over the stupid people?

Candy?

wharvey wrote: I think all seem to be underestimating the power the media has at character assassination. Weak minded sheeple eat it up and make their decisions based on it. Years ago I even heard complaints from some, about Gingrich because he wrote a book while in office. Why he shouldn't when others have and do is beyond me but he was disliked so much that anything he did was bad.

I don't care who the repubs nominate, the MSM WILL attack them...try to dig up dirt...do whatever they have to do. Remember McCain in 08? He was supposed to have a "good relationship" with the media...how much did that help him out? They talked about his service...then in the next breath speculated that the torture he endured may have made him mentally unfit for the job of CinC.

Thankfully, with alternative media now someone who articulates his ideas clearly at least has a chance to be heard by anyone willing to do some digging.

As for those who don't bother to research...well, you can't help idiots anyway.

Oldgringo wrote:

74novaman wrote: Gingrich isn't perfect (bad personal history/that lovely commercial he did with Pelosi) but he'd get my vote. Though I like the idea of Gingrich/Rubio over Rice. Or even Gingrich/Cain .

Obama got elected with NO personal history OR credentials. Maybe those silly things don't matter anymore?

He also had the support of the MSM. Gingrich won't get the gloss over, don't look too close "investigation" into his life like obama did.

But, I think he would absolutely DESTROY the teleprompter in chief in a debate. And that should more than make up for any media smears. (I hope).

tbrown wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Gingrich/Rice Gingrich/Santorum----works for me. Let me know where to get the bumper sticker at.

Either of those tickets would guarantee Obama a second term. I, and I expect many other independents, would sit out the election rather than vote for either of those.

You would rather see another Obama term than vote for the one candidate that has even a chance of beating him? Wow.

I understand that reaction to Romney, because he and Obama are both socialists, and Obama signed more pro gun bills. I don't understand that reaction to Gingrich except from false flag RINOs who want more socialism. Personally, I think Newt would make a better vp than potus but I like him a lot better than Mitt or Herman. I'm not thrilled with Santorum either for personal reasons but I would hold my nose and vote for Newt despite that choice of vp.

Yep.

Gingrich isn't perfect (bad personal history/that lovely commercial he did with Pelosi) but he'd get my vote. Though I like the idea of Gingrich/Rubio over Rice. Or even Gingrich/Cain .