Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Feb '12 22:26
    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-serious-is-the-democratic-crossover-vote-threat-in-michigan.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

    Boy! Aside from the ethical questions, this is playing with fire. As much as I dislike Romney, I really don't want to see Santorum in office. Yeah, maybe Obama will blow him out of the water. But there's always the chance that Obama has a nervous breakdown and gets caught in bed with a 14 year old girl with a pound of cocaine in the room. That would improve Santorum's chances considerably.
  2. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    25 Feb '12 22:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-serious-is-the-democratic-crossover-vote-threat-in-michigan.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

    Boy! Aside from the ethical questions, this is playing with fire. As much as I dislike Romney, I really don't want to see Santorum in office. Yeah, maybe Obama will blow him out of the water. But there's always the chance ...[text shortened]... irl with a pound of cocaine in the room. That would improve Santorum's chances considerably.
    Well knowing how it goes for those who run on morals campaign's, it could just as well be Santorum's career that implodes if he ever happens to be caught with a 14 yr old boy and a pound of crack in a similar hotel room scenario....
  3. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    25 Feb '12 22:50
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-serious-is-the-democratic-crossover-vote-threat-in-michigan.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

    Boy! Aside from the ethical questions, this is playing with fire. As much as I dislike Romney, I really don't want to see Santorum in office. Yeah, maybe Obama will blow him out of the water. But there's always the chance ...[text shortened]... irl with a pound of cocaine in the room. That would improve Santorum's chances considerably.
    Don't worry, I have no intention of voting in the Republican primary. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Santorum under any circumstances.
  4. 25 Feb '12 23:34
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Well knowing how it goes for those who run on morals campaign's, it could just as well be Santorum's career that implodes if he ever happens to be caught with a 14 yr old boy and a pound of crack in a similar hotel room scenario....
    Well, for Republicans sexual controversies are a deal breaker - if you're a Democrat.

    Just ask Larry Craig.
  5. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    26 Feb '12 02:48
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-serious-is-the-democratic-crossover-vote-threat-in-michigan.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

    Boy! Aside from the ethical questions, this is playing with fire. As much as I dislike Romney, I really don't want to see Santorum in office. Yeah, maybe Obama will blow him out of the water. But there's always the chance ...[text shortened]... irl with a pound of cocaine in the room. That would improve Santorum's chances considerably.
    It's more likely the skeletons are in Santorum's closet. Some "man on dog" action, I'd wager. The satin sheets of his waterbed may be witness to an endless procession of barnyard animals great and small, along with cameos by exotica ranging from penguins to toucans to sea cucumbers.
  6. 26 Feb '12 16:35
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-serious-is-the-democratic-crossover-vote-threat-in-michigan.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

    Boy! Aside from the ethical questions, this is playing with fire. As much as I dislike Romney, I really don't want to see Santorum in office. Yeah, maybe Obama will blow him out of the water. But there's always the chance ...[text shortened]... irl with a pound of cocaine in the room. That would improve Santorum's chances considerably.
    I know it's scary but it's worth the risk. I just think in a general election the more Santorumis is vetted, the more independents and swing voters will go Obama.
  7. 28 Feb '12 05:00
    Originally posted by moon1969
    I know it's scary but it's worth the risk. I just think in a general election the more Santorumis is vetted, the more independents and swing voters will go Obama.
    Vote Saint Santorum! (And sibilant shall be his name!) He who says "BLAHHHHH" and mocks the educated! Wash the evil from your hands (he knows what you've been doing) and march down to the polls at the first opportunity and cast your ballot for little Ricky! You should be ashamed (I know what you've been doing) and your only hope America is the sweet relief that comes from lying in the weeds with the dumbest animal you can find. Let that animal be you! Vote for Rick!
  8. 28 Feb '12 05:20
    In addition to the famous "man on dog" quote, here are some additional quotes by Santorum.

    Contraception
    "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

    Crusades
    "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values."

    No Palestinian
    "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.' This is Israeli land."

    Mormon Cult
    "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?" [Editor Note: What about the Catholic cult?]

    Gay Marriage (like mother-in-law)
    "Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?"

    Fetuses, Blacks under Constitution
    "The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'" [Editor Note: Yet, blacks can legitimately and morally believe that viable life does not begin at the instant of conception.]
  9. 28 Feb '12 05:22
    I didn't grab a link, but I guess Santorum sent out a robo-call encouraging Democrats to cross over and vote for him!
  10. 29 Feb '12 02:21
    As one who lives in an open primary state, I would urge Democrats—who, as a group, might seem to have been less than bold by half in the last couple of years—not to try to be cleverer by half now. The “culture war” stakes, particularly against women, are simply too high. The same plea is addressed to those who might be (validly, I admit) tempted to cast “votes of conscience” in protest against less than progressive aspects of President Obama’s agenda—again, as we attempt to lift gays out of the marginalized regions and keep women from being pushed back into those regions, the stakes are just too high.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Feb '12 02:45
    Originally posted by vistesd
    As one who lives in an open primary state, I would urge Democrats—who, as a group, might seem to have been less than bold by half in the last couple of years—not to try to be cleverer by half now. The “culture war” stakes, particularly against women, are simply too high. The same plea is addressed to those who might be (validly, I admit) tempted to cast “v ...[text shortened]... regions and keep women from being pushed back into those regions, the stakes are just too high.
    Wouldn't such an argument regarding Obama be more convincing if he didn't actually oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage?
  12. 29 Feb '12 03:06 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Wouldn't such an argument regarding Obama be more convincing if he didn't actually oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage?
    Ideally, yes. The question for me is who is more likely to endanger that legalization (and how potent is that threat). Of course, that is not just about the Presidency, but the congress, and state elections as well--and i don't think that they can be so easily separated. And it's not just about blocking progress; the voices for regression seem to be sufficiently loud and potentially powerful right now that I find it frightening. I have cast "votes of conscience" in the past; this time--and likely for some time--I will cast my vote against those whom I believe present the gravest danger to the grounds that have been gained, against those who explicitly or implicitly denigrate women, gays and other groups who are, or might be, or have in the past been marginalized.

    I doubt that that will enable me to vote as idealistically as I would like to, or vote for the purpose of sending a message (akin to one launched in a bottle) into the near or far social and political future. We are talking (in part) about serious proposals to insert apparti into the vaginas of women who are considering an abortion, for God's sake! And the ("Oh. geewhiz, we didn't realize that would be sooo controversial--so we'll just mandate an abdominal ultrsound for those women) backup that will likely be touted as "more sensitive" to women's concerns.

    I can't criticise harshly those that cast votes of conscience in the face of Obama's failure to be progressive enough on issues that we might well have expected him to be (or even, in some cases, to have been led to believe him to be). But I cannot, in my own good conscience, take that risk. Just as I cannot take the risk, however slight, that a Rick Santorum could succeed--or even that, if he cannot, I have somehow lent one vote of creedance to his views that might come back to haunt in the (perhaps relatively near) future.
  13. 29 Feb '12 04:58
    A last, oblique, point: I am afraid that some are starting to think that, vis-à-vis his Republican opponents, Mitt Romney has somehow become a “moderate”, indeed “acceptable”, option for a worst case scenario (in a not particularly uplifting political environment); I am not convinced. This is not someone whom I think would have been considered “moderate” say, even twenty years ago. It is amazing (and appalling) to me how much momentum the anti-woman brigades (some of whom, inexplicably to me, are—women) have gained. Not that the rhetoric hasn’t been there, but that the situation has become such that prominent state and national figures think that they can engage in it loudly to their political gain—and seriously propose (and pass!) the kind of legislation that is out there. That situation, that momentum, is as dangerous as I can remember. The situation seems no longer marginal. The next couple of election cycles could be decisive for a long time. It’s not so much a matter of “who” wins—but of which ideas gain greater currency. I must vote against the threat, rather than for the hope.