Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:45 pm**

http://www.examiner.com/article/msnbc-s ... criticisms
It's a start

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:51 pm**

In other words....

Media tries to help Obama

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:57 pm**

I love when people chastise me for not watching the major two party debates but then don't know any of the third party candidates.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:09 pm**

Found the video

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:24 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:In other words....

Media tries to help Obama

I don't think so. Though I don't know what their motives are behind giving third party candidates token minutes of coverage.

First off, if we are to believe the more objective forecasting (not polling) firms, despite Romney's first debate "win" and the second debate "tie/Romney slight win" and subsequent poll bounce, Obama is very likely to win the election with a popular vote of 50 to 49. And that's after the bounce (before that it was closer to 51-47). It seemed over from the beginning.

What will third party candidates do to alter this? Well Johnson's voters are more likely to support Romney of course, but Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson will also steal votes from people who would pick Obama if forced to pick between the two.

I'd say that while Johnson is more well-known the other two will likely poll around the same as him combined. Just a hunch, really, but Johnson has gotten significantly more media coverage than the other two.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:30 pm**

GreecePwns wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:In other words....

Media tries to help Obama

I don't think so. Though I don't know what their motives are behind giving third party candidates token minutes of coverage.

First off, if we are to believe the more objective forecasting (not polling) firms, despite Romney's first debate "win" and the second debate "tie/Romney slight win" and subsequent poll bounce, Obama is very likely to win the election with a popular vote of 50 to 49. And that's after the bounce (before that it was closer to 51-47). It seemed over from the beginning.

What will third party candidates do to alter this? Well Johnson's voters are more likely to support Romney of course, but Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson will also steal votes from people who would pick Obama if forced to pick between the two.

I'd say that while Johnson is more well-known the other two will likely poll around the same as him combined. Just a hunch, really, but Johnson has gotten significantly more media coverage than the other two.

Yeah, I've noticed Johnson has gotten quite a bit of coverage compared to the others.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:39 pm**

The poll finds two especially disconcerting signs for the president. First, he's having trouble uniting Democrats around his candidacy for a second term. And second, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, actually appears to be playing more of a spoiler role for Democrats than for Johnson's former Republican Party.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-mexi ... z2AMghwdV3

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:53 pm**

Well, that blows my theory apart.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:56 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:In other words....

Media tries to help Obama

Are you chronically stupid, or intentionally dishonest? Did you read the article or did you, as usual, just spout bullshit about what you presume it said?

How does it feel being a bought-and-paid-for sellout shill?

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:57 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:In other words....

Media tries to help Obama

Are you chronically stupid, or intentionally dishonest? Did you read the article or did you, as usual, just spout bullshit about what you presume it said?

How does it feel being a bought-and-paid-for sellout shill?

Woodruff's un-Vulcanlike anger notwithstanding, who are you voting for PS?

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:04 pm**

GreecePwns wrote:Well, that blows my theory apart.

I don't think it blows your theory apart. Those numbers are just for New Mexico. (Though the election might come down to New Mexico.)

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:05 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Well, that blows my theory apart.

I don't think it blows your theory apart. Those numbers are just for New Mexico. (Though the election might come down to New Mexico.)

New Mexico seems like a cool place (politically) based on that article.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:08 pm**

I don't really know why mainstream Democrats would decide vote for Gary Johnson over Obama. It certainly ain't economic issues, and probably not social issues. I don't see any big left-wing uproar over foreign policy either.

Either way, he's polling near 5 percent in many states now, including one recent Ohio poll having him at 10 percent? I don't know if I believe that.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:10 pm**

GreecePwns wrote:I don't really know why mainstream Democrats would decide vote for Gary Johnson over Obama. It certainly ain't economic issues, and probably not social issues. I don't see any big left-wing uproar over foreign policy either.

Either way, he's polling near 5 percent in many states now, including one recent Ohio poll having him at 10 percent? I don't know if I believe that.

See, I would have guessed foreign policy issues as the reasons Democrats would vote Johnson and not Obama. Maybe they liked Johnson as a governor.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:15 pm**

GreecePwns wrote:I don't really know why mainstream Democrats would decide vote for Gary Johnson over Obama. It certainly ain't economic issues, and probably not social issues. I don't see any big left-wing uproar over foreign policy either.

I agree with you regarding the economic issues, but I could see some Democrats theoretically voting for Gary Johnson. While some of his economic thoughts do appeal to me (while others don't at all), it's really his social positions that grab me the most strongly. If a Democrat were to look at him the same way I do, they would see that at least with Johnson, they're getting the gain in social issues that they wouldn't from the two major candidates, and they're also getting the gain in notoriety from his brief Republican run and potential for real third-party opportunity.

In addition, if they're chickenshits like PLAYER (and Phatscotty) who decide to play the vote-numbers game, they may see it as an opportunity to "show great numbers" for him in the hopes that it will drag votes away from Romney (thus helping Obama).

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:18 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I don't really know why mainstream Democrats would decide vote for Gary Johnson over Obama. It certainly ain't economic issues, and probably not social issues. I don't see any big left-wing uproar over foreign policy either.

Either way, he's polling near 5 percent in many states now, including one recent Ohio poll having him at 10 percent? I don't know if I believe that.

See, I would have guessed foreign policy issues as the reasons Democrats would vote Johnson and not Obama. Maybe they liked Johnson as a governor.

I have a friend in the military in Albuquerque and she says that Johnson is hugely popular in New Mexico, including among Democrats. So obviously, he can appeal to them.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:20 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I don't really know why mainstream Democrats would decide vote for Gary Johnson over Obama. It certainly ain't economic issues, and probably not social issues. I don't see any big left-wing uproar over foreign policy either.

Either way, he's polling near 5 percent in many states now, including one recent Ohio poll having him at 10 percent? I don't know if I believe that.

See, I would have guessed foreign policy issues as the reasons Democrats would vote Johnson and not Obama. Maybe they liked Johnson as a governor.

I have a friend in the military in Albuquerque and she says that Johnson is hugely popular in New Mexico, including among Democrats. So obviously, he can appeal to them.

I am actually a good example of liking someone despite their party affiliation. Ed Rendell was an awesome Philadelphia mayor. I voted for him for governor even though he is a Democrat. I would have voted for him for president too probably. I love the guy.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:25 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:In other words....

Media tries to help Obama

Are you chronically stupid, or intentionally dishonest? Did you read the article or did you, as usual, just spout bullshit about what you presume it said?

How does it feel being a bought-and-paid-for sellout shill?

Woodruff's un-Vulcanlike anger notwithstanding, who are you voting for PS?

Not Obama, not a third party candidate either. Beyond that, I am undecided..

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:29 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:In other words....

Media tries to help Obama

Are you chronically stupid, or intentionally dishonest? Did you read the article or did you, as usual, just spout bullshit about what you presume it said?

How does it feel being a bought-and-paid-for sellout shill?

Woodruff's un-Vulcanlike anger notwithstanding, who are you voting for PS?

Not Obama, not a third party candidate either. Beyond that, I am undecided..

So you're voting for Romney and Woodruff's characterization of you as a bought-and-paid-for sellout shill is correct.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:33 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:In other words....

Media tries to help Obama

Are you chronically stupid, or intentionally dishonest? Did you read the article or did you, as usual, just spout bullshit about what you presume it said?

How does it feel being a bought-and-paid-for sellout shill?

Woodruff's un-Vulcanlike anger notwithstanding, who are you voting for PS?

Not Obama, not a third party candidate either. Beyond that, I am undecided..

So you're voting for Romney and Woodruff's characterization of you as a bought-and-paid-for sellout shill is correct.

who's paying me again? :lol:

No wonder nobody wants to tell people who they are voting for, because they get accused ofthings and called names if they don't think liek you do?

At least I am not a Facsist

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:38 pm**

This is even worse than Democrat's who eat their own when they step out of line on a single issue from the party line....

GreekDog, Why do you want Obama for 4 more years?

You want the truth, but you can't handle the truth. but seeing that you go into a tizzy if someone doesn't vote the way you think they should......

f*ck YES I AM VOTING FOR MITT ROMNEY! anyone who doesn't is giving Obama 4 more years.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:40 pm**

Phatscotty, why did the term RINO gain popularity?

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:41 pm**

GreecePwns wrote:Phatscotty, why did the term RINO gain popularity?

whatever do you mean???

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:43 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:In other words....

Media tries to help Obama

Are you chronically stupid, or intentionally dishonest? Did you read the article or did you, as usual, just spout bullshit about what you presume it said?

How does it feel being a bought-and-paid-for sellout shill?

Woodruff's un-Vulcanlike anger notwithstanding, who are you voting for PS?

Not Obama, not a third party candidate either. Beyond that, I am undecided..

So you're voting for Romney and Woodruff's characterization of you as a bought-and-paid-for sellout shill is correct.

Yes, that is correct.

FTFY

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:44 pm**

listen people, it's very simple, so I will explain it like I am talking to 4 year olds.

The next president is either going to be mitt Romney, or Barak Obama. end of story. Make your choice. One thing I can promise you is that you will NEVER catch me calling someone names or trying to bully someones vote for the decisions they make. I am not a dousche.

Ever heard "to each their own" why don't you try practicing it Greekdog

Conquer Club

Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates

Re: Media acknowledges the third party candidates