It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It may come down to two states:

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
It's looking more and more like this election will come down to two states: Wisconsin and Florida. If Mitt Romney steals both of these states from Obama. Game Over..

There is also talk of a Vice President Scott Walker, since he has been on the campaign trail with Romney a lot these days.

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.freep.com...




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Obama-Biden? Romney-Walker? God help us all. It really doesn't matter who is in power. They are all handpicked by TPTB to further an agenda. The Right vs. Left dichotomy is nothing but a tool for division.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by shaluach
 


If this is all you have to say about our political system there are conspiracy threads for that. I don't want that crap on my thread thank you. I want to discuss the election.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Don't forget about Ohio, with its 18 delegates. It's still a toss up state, as well. Here is a current election map by Real Clear Politics that lays out the definites and maybes:
2012 Election Map

/TOA



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Oh, it's going to be a tight race, all right. I'm not sure how well Romney's going to do in Fla, though... He's still not willing to state his position on so many issues, preferring to handle that after the election... I hope people aren't stupid enough to vote for him, thinking he's going to fix anything. If Romney gets elected, we'll be three times worse off than we are now.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by shaluach
 


If this is all you have to say about our political system there are conspiracy threads for that. I don't want that crap on my thread thank you. I want to discuss the election.


No, that's not "all" I have to say about it. But, news flash, this is a PUBLIC FORUM, so I'll say what I want where I want. What I said does NOT violate the T&C. So I'd appreciate you NOT attempting to be a fascist by telling me what I can and can't say on "your thread." Don't like what I have to say, then ignore it. It's really quite simple.

Now you can go back to your partisan bickering and brainwashed nonsense.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Please remember - threads are not "property." They are discussions.

If you intended to simply discuss notional popularity contests couched in empty ideology and shallow public relations fine-tuned into a game theory exercise for entertainment, many (and I do mean many) contributing members will offer dissent.

This event we call "elections" is the subject of much debate. Try not to be offended. It's not personal.

You all have a right to express yourselves (as agreed to in the terms and conditions) and this includes people who offer dissent to the paradigms to which one may or may not adhere.

Also, it is crucial that we offer each other respect; by not belittling the discussion initiated by an earnest ATS member... Some forget that simply decrying the fallacies they feel exist, constitutes only half of an argument. There are ways to get one's point across about rejecting the value of "the race" without insulting or demeaning those who embrace it.

Perhaps the point should be to 'honor' the discussion... not to verbally vandalize it.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by shaluach
 


Or you could actually stay on topic, if you have nothing to contribute don't contribute useless drivel. If you want to take an opinion you hold and bring it on topic and find a way to espouse your views while contributing by all means do it.

As to the topic, it's far too early to really decide. Some states are going to be a lock for one candidate or another, I think this election may bring some surprises though. Whatever people think today could be vastly different than what they think months from now.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I don't think the election is gonna be close at all. Romney is the bottom of the barrel and its hard for me to think he can inspire the Republican base into coming out to vote for him.

Voting just in spite of voting against the other guy didn't work well with Kerry vs Bush in 2004 and I don't think it will work this time either.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I don't think the election is gonna be close at all. Romney is the bottom of the barrel and its hard for me to think he can inspire the Republican base into coming out to vote for him.

Voting just in spite of voting against the other guy didn't work well with Kerry vs Bush in 2004 and I don't think it will work this time either.


Romney does not have to inspire them, Obama has inspired the Republicans and Independents to vote to get rid of Obama. Democrats are the ones that seem very uninspired if you ask me. How many Democrats recently have spoken out against Obama's campaign strategy?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


If there was evidence of this it would have showed up in the primaries, but the voter turnout from Republicans was not that strong. Every other week during the primaries we had another front runner. This is no longer the party of Reagan, Republicans are eating republicans so if you think they will suddenly stand together to beat anyone is hard for me to believe, 2016 however will be interesting.

I don't think evangelicals are fired up to vote for a Mormon, and voting to spite the other guy didn't work out so well for Kerry.

Its the PTB that want you to think the election will be close, like you have a choice in the matter

edit on 20-6-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


If there was evidence of this it would have showed up in the primaries, but the voter turnout from Republicans was not that strong. Every other week during the primaries we had another front runner. This is no longer the party of Reagan, Republicans are eating republicans so if you think they will suddenly stand together to beat anyone is hard for me to believe, 2016 however will be interesting.

I don't think evangelicals are fired up to vote for a Mormon, and voting to spite the other guy didn't work out so well for Kerry.

Its the PTB that want you to think the election will be close, like you have a choice in the matter

edit on 20-6-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)


I did not realize a Republican primary where Obama was not an opponent would inspire people to turn out to vote against Obama. Maybe you should look into the Democrat primaries and you will see what I am saying.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

Well the candidates the GOP had running in these primaries sure didn't inspire anyone to come out and vote!



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


As I stated, Obama will inspire them, moot point. Look at Democrat primaries.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oh, it's going to be a tight race, all right. I'm not sure how well Romney's going to do in Fla, though... He's still not willing to state his position on so many issues, preferring to handle that after the election... I hope people aren't stupid enough to vote for him, thinking he's going to fix anything. If Romney gets elected, we'll be three times worse off than we are now.


How exactly will romney makes things "three times worse" than they are now? How about a little substance?

Romney ran the commonwealth of massachusetts. He has already been an executive so his positions are pretty clear. He taxed the top earners and supported a lavish welfare program. He instituted his healthcare program by forcing citizens to buy insurance. He raised taxes and left with a deficit. He is for a big government nanny state. He even gave money to failed solar companies. His policies as governor mirror Obama's policies as president. So how exactly will he be three times worse. He is the same.
edit on 20-6-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oh, it's going to be a tight race, all right. I'm not sure how well Romney's going to do in Fla, though... He's still not willing to state his position on so many issues, preferring to handle that after the election... I hope people aren't stupid enough to vote for him, thinking he's going to fix anything. If Romney gets elected, we'll be three times worse off than we are now.


How exactly will romney makes things "three times worse" than they are now? How about a little substance?

Romney ran the commonwealth of massachusetts. He has already been an executive so his positions are pretty clear. He taxed the top earners and supported a lavish welfare program. He instituted his healthcare program by forcing citizens to buy insurance. He raised taxes and left with a deficit. He gave money to failed solar companies. His policies as governor mirror Obama's policies as president. So how exactly will he be three times worse. He is the same.


I can already tell you never lived in MA and are going off propaganda. I lived in MA while Romney was Governor, almost everything you states is so twisted it no longer rings with any truth. Obama is doing a great job dragging us down, Romney will be a great candidate to help get us back on track.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


What exactly did I say that was so twisted it doesn't ring true?

Both candidates policies are exactly the same, so how do you see one as a great candidate and the other as destroying the country?
edit on 20-6-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Comparing Romney giving a SMALL loan to a STARTING solar company to Obama giving a HUGE loan to a company that was already failing despite being told it was a bad idea. Want me to keep going?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I didn't compare the loans, did I? I compared the policies.



He even gave money to failed solar companies.


Which he did.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Wrong, one gave money to a startup company, one gave money to a failed company. The policy is not the same.

Let's say we both gamble on two different bets, and we both lose. You claim this is us having the same gambling policy.

Only you bet $100,000 with a 1% chance to win, and I bet $200 with a 95% chance to win. Circumstances behind our bets mean we have vastly different policies. I'm sorry if you can't grasp how the circumstances behind the loans as well as the amounts make these unrelated incidents.




top topics



 
1

log in

join