RE: What would it take for you to change?

RE: What would it take for you to change? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 7:44:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir FR For me to vote for Obama he would have to become pro-life and stop attempting to trample on the Constitution. Being "pro-life" is to trample on the Constitution.

Moonhead -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 7:54:01 AM)
FR: I fear that Steven might have misnamed this thread. "Demand the moon on a stick" is starting to look like a more accurate title for it...

kalikshama -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 8:10:32 AM)
quote: Nobody has mentioned Ron Paul yet--Who is winning in the Republican race Neither of your links say Ron Paul is ahead. They purport that delegates are not bound until various dates. The map hasn't updated what happened June 5 and 9. The other two dates are June 23 and the convention in August. Meanwhile, on wikipedia: - Delegate Hard Count: This only includes bound delegates that have to vote for a candidate even if they support another candidate.[2] - Delegate Soft Count: This only includes delegates allocated at the primaries and unallocated delegates that are (s)elected at their local conventions or committees. It does not included any projections on future local conventions or the 117 unbound RNC delegates that are not a part of the primary election process. A breakdown of this count and its sources can be found in the Primary Schedule below. - Plurality: A candidate secures a delegation when he has the highest number of delegates that can vote for him on the first ballot in the nomination at the National Convention. According to the current RNC rules it takes plurality in five delegations to be on the first ballot at the National Convention, and it takes 1,144 delegates at the roll call of the ballots to become the Republican nominee.[3] [image]local://upfiles/1052865/1FDE5E4A336A47079F70D0FECE8751A0.jpg[/image]

Musicmystery -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 8:13:57 AM)
Become half of Ron Paul -- keep the interesting ideas, lose the looney ones.

hot4bondage -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 8:33:30 AM)
~FR~ Most of Bush's statist policies are intact under Obama, even though his campaign promised just the opposite. Flip-flop Romney is even less convincing. I don't know how anyone can still believe anything those posers have to say. If either of them says something that suddenly wins your vote at this point, you might be a dumbass.

subrob1967 -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 9:16:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The US can't afford SCOTUS jstices that honor precedent and consistently appy the law? Since when? Since your idea of consistently applying the law, and reality are nowhere near each other.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 9:50:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl I used to respect Romney because he set up Mass Health (Romneycare). I lost all respect for him when he shot down the Affordable Care Act, despite its similarity to his plan and when he said he thought health insurance companies should be able to deny pre-existing conditions. Romney has zero chance of getting my vote. I'm not too happy with President Obama for giving work permits to the children of illegal aliens during a time of job shortage. Everyone knows there's a shortage of jobs right now so him adding even more competition is going to piss a lot of people off. For the US to have any chance of improvement to the health care system, President Obama needs to be re-elected. He should be working on making sure that happens, not committing political suicide. Obama will have my vote in November because he's better than pre-existing condition Romney, but I sure wish he'd realize that American citizens come first and we can't afford to help others until our economy and job market strengthens. Um, DBG, I had you pegged as a solid vote for Obama. As such, my question to you is, what would need to happen for you to vote for Romney? I am a solid vote for Obama because he's the only one who wants everyone to have health care. There's no way Romney could get my vote. I see him as a hypocrite since Romneycare and the Affordable Care Act are so similar and I absolutely loathe him for his attitude about pre-existing conditions. I forgot to mention Ron Paul. I love the fact that he's against outsourcing, but there's no way he'd get my vote because he's also against health care reform. IMO, what the US really needs is a president who is against outsourcing and for single-payer health care. Someone like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 10:08:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I'm looking at the upcoming Presidential election as a referendum on Obama. I doubt that anyone likes Romney at all, and don't think that many people dislike him substantially. So there are those that like Obama and those that dislike him. I'm under the impression that people's minds are made up. If that's so, then there will be a huge media blitz to try to convince the razor thin Independents and swing voters to change their votes. I'm not sure anyone's persuadable at this point. How about you? If you favor Obama, what would it take for you to vote against him? If you're anti-Obama, what would it take for you to vote for him? Well, since you've only framed as a for/against Obama thing, I'll answer it after I tell you why I'm likely to vote Romney. It is purely "lesser of two evils" strategy, which is why I voted McCain 3-1/2 years ago. Obama is a liar. He is supported by Big Money as much as Romney. He will say anything to get re-elected. He is divisive while decrying division. Obama needs to stop lying. And, his beliefs need to align with mine below. I just wish Mitt would align more with my beliefs, too. I could actually support him and vote "for" somebody instead of voting "against" somebody.

DomKen -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 11:30:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The US can't afford SCOTUS jstices that honor precedent and consistently appy the law? Since when? Since your idea of consistently applying the law, and reality are nowhere near each other. Do you not know that Scalia and Thomas are both on record saying precedent is unimportant to them if it conflicts with their politics? How exactly is that consistently applying the law?

subrob1967 -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 12:01:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Do you not know that Scalia and Thomas are both on record saying precedent is unimportant to them if it conflicts with their politics? How exactly is that consistently applying the law? Were is it written that precedence is the law of the land? Just because the Justices use cases that have been tried before for guidance, where is it written that the decisions must be upheld? If their politics are Constitutional Law, why is this an issue, I'd think you'd want your Justices to subscribe to the politics of Constitutional Law... Oh that's right, following the Constitution is considered conservative politics... There's no room in the progressive movement for a document written over two hundred years ago... Times, they are a changing. Just because YOU don't like their decision process doesn't make them wrong... Nothing is stopping you from getting appointed to the Supreme Court, hell you don't even have to be a lawyer to be appointed.

Owner59 -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 12:22:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aim2Plea Surprised. Nobody has mentioned Ron Paul yet--Who is winning in the Republican race despite what the MSM has been telling you. Oh, and he hasn't canceled his campaign, like the MSM has been telling you. Bush Sr. = Clinton = Bush Jr. = Obama = Romney ≠ Paul The First five of this list all praised Reagan in order to get your votes. The last man on this list called Reagan out when he defied his own word and increased government spending. You decide. Edit: IT isn't over. http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/gop-delegates-sue-to-be-free-from-romney/ http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/TheACTUALRepublicanDelegateCount-2012/DelegateDashboardBlog?:embed=y Huge "unknown" delegate count to go with it. Just because the mainstream media tells you its over, does not mean it is over. They lie. (Fox News cant broadcast in Canada because canadian law prohibits news agencies from lying---just an example for you. He just picked up the majority of Iowa`s delegates....

tazzygirl -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 12:29:45 PM)
quote: I'm looking at the upcoming Presidential election as a referendum on Obama. I doubt that anyone likes Romney at all, and don't think that many people dislike him substantially. So there are those that like Obama and those that dislike him. I find this sorta comical, DS. Isn't this the reason they decried Obama? That he was chosen as a reflection of the dissatisfaction of the previous administration and their policies? Im not "thrilled" with either. But Romney doesn't have the answers, and his history proves that.

vincentML -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 1:00:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I'm looking at the upcoming Presidential election as a referendum on Obama. I doubt that anyone likes Romney at all, and don't think that many people dislike him substantially. So there are those that like Obama and those that dislike him. I find this sorta comical, DS. Isn't this the reason they decried Obama? That he was chosen as a reflection of the dissatisfaction of the previous administration and their policies? Im not "thrilled" with either. But Romney doesn't have the answers, and his history proves that. Nobody much likes anybody anymore. Why can't we all get along? Oh wait! He is on the bottom of his swimming pool, poor chap. :(

erieangel -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 1:45:33 PM)
I've been disappointed in Obama. He's been too soft in dealing with the Republicans on the Hill. Hell, he's too soft at times in dealing with people in his own party with whom he disagrees--I'm thinking the blue dog democrats here. Obama tries far too hard to be liked and has ended up with some poor policy decisions; also the Republicans have walked all over him because of that. I didn't like the way health care debated ended up. I didn't even like the way it started, with the president "giving away the store" so to speak by taking a public option off the table before work had even begun. I had thought was goal!!! I didn't like how easily he caved on Gitmo. He said he was close the place and with no more than some temper tantrums from the right, he kept it open. But all in all, I can't imagine voting for any Republican in any office anytime in the foreseeable future. PA seems to have a few reasonable Republicans in the state house, but for the most part, the Republicans have gone off the deep end, from my perspective. For the first time in my life, the letter after the name is what I am going to be looking at this Nov.

DomKen -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 2:29:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Do you not know that Scalia and Thomas are both on record saying precedent is unimportant to them if it conflicts with their politics? How exactly is that consistently applying the law? Were is it written that precedence is the law of the land? Just because the Justices use cases that have been tried before for guidance, where is it written that the decisions must be upheld? If their politics are Constitutional Law, why is this an issue, I'd think you'd want your Justices to subscribe to the politics of Constitutional Law... Oh that's right, following the Constitution is considered conservative politics... There's no room in the progressive movement for a document written over two hundred years ago... Times, they are a changing. Just because YOU don't like their decision process doesn't make them wrong... Nothing is stopping you from getting appointed to the Supreme Court, hell you don't even have to be a lawyer to be appointed. Actually precedent is the unwritten law known as common law. Specifically stare decisis is the principle that judges must follow precedent so that the law is consistently applied. It is the very bedrock upon which all of American law is built.

subrob1967 -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 8:09:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually precedent is the unwritten law known as common law. Specifically stare decisis is the principle that judges must follow precedent so that the law is consistently applied. It is the very bedrock upon which all of American law is built. Then why does the Supreme Court overturn rulings from the lower courts on a regular basis? Especially the 6th & 9th Circuit Court

Owner59 -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 8:14:08 PM)
"What would it take for you to change?" A compete head transplant.......bewteen them. Sort of that.....nothing.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/17/2012 11:40:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven If you're anti-Obama, what would it take for you to vote for him? Same thing it would "take" for ANYONE to become as dumb-as-a-Democrat -- a lobotomy!!! [;)][8D][:D]

DomKen -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 2:47:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually precedent is the unwritten law known as common law. Specifically stare decisis is the principle that judges must follow precedent so that the law is consistently applied. It is the very bedrock upon which all of American law is built. Then why does the Supreme Court overturn rulings from the lower courts on a regular basis? Especially the 6th & 9th Circuit Court Actually SCOTUS very rarely overturns a lower court decision. The federal appelate courts rule on thousands of cases per year and SCOTUS takes maybe 20. And in most of those cases where SCOTUS does take the case precedent is either lacking or contradictory.

truckinslave -> RE: What would it take for you to change? (6/18/2012 8:15:49 AM)
quote: I doubt that anyone likes Romney at all, Well, fewer like Obama according to both Rasmussen (47/44) and Gallup (46/45) Rasmussen Gallup For me ever to consider voting Democrat would require a huge shift in the party positions on guns and abortion. 0bama0 still wouldn't get there, simply because of budget/fiscal issues...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625