Political trends

[AZMike]

It could still go either way, although Romney has pulled ahead in the swing states poll at once.

 

If Obama wins, it will be because of voters like these:

[AZMike]

I still find "Binders of Women" less bizarre than Obama repeatedly referring to Navy "Corpse-Men." Or telling Jon Stewart tonight that 'If four Americans get killed, its not optimal.'"

 

(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[moosetracker]

AZMike,

#1 Most people will not be voting on foreign affairs

 

#2 Those liberals who were interested in foreign affairs got the information that it was "most probably" linked to terrorist attacks. It just was not definite for 2 weeks, and what (if anything) the protest over the film played was confusing..

 

#3 I have seen video of some very unintelligent Repubs also, not on this issue, but others.. Such as a group of uninformed gun owners out on a Roadside stating "Save our guns.. Vote so & so" When asked about what the other candidate did to threaten their gun rights, not a single one in that group knew.. In fact, he had done nothing.. Just someone told these clowns he did, gave them signs and sent them to look like fools on the side of the road.

 

Obviously you missed the other thread, that showed while the liberal media was up on the facts that it was a terrorist attack in Libya 24 hours after the fact. The Conservative media bubble was clueless, and still are, putting all those watching only conservative news, as also clueless..

 

This is 24 hours after, (Sept 12th) it talks about the attack most likely being a terrorist attack.. AND talks about Pres. Obama, and VP. Biden preparing America for this reality in their speeches..

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/49012565#49012565

 

This has the video detailing the video of step by step of the terrorist attack, this was aired on Sept. 13th.. Two nights after the attack.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/49027233#49027233

 

Here is also a news article from the Washington Post put out 24 hours after the attack that stated U.S. officials and Middle East analysts said Wednesday that an attack that killed four Americans at a U.S. Consulate in eastern Libya may have been planned by extremists and inspired by al-Qaeda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/news-agencies-us-ambassador-to-libya-killed-in-attack-outside-consulate/2012/09/12/665de5fc-fcc4-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_story.html

 

Was there confusion over what the protesters of the film played (decoy?, reason behind the terroist strike?) ? Sure.. Were some people confusing discussions about the protests in the middle East, where some removed the Libya terrorist attack as a seprate issue, and others thought of it as part of the bundle package, so answers had different meanings to different people.. Sure..

Was everyone reading from the same playbook all the time? Obviously not.. But, Washington was not in some big cover up scheme.. Given time the facts will come out, if done right. But, it will not be done in the Kangaroo court the Republicans set up for political purposes.

 

That conservatives blame the President because their conservative news bubble was oblivious to the actual news, I suppose is something a conservative would do.. But the President, is not able to fix stupid.. Especially tea-party stupid.

[packsaddle]

FWIW, I've finally become disgusted with both of the major parties and their campaigns, disgusted enough to decide to support the Libertarian ticket. I've decided to support Gary Johnson.

[TAHAWK]

"#3 I have seen video of some very unintelligent Repubs also, not on this issue, but others.. Such as a group of uninformed gun owners out on a Roadside stating "Save our guns.. Vote so & so" When asked about what the other candidate did to threaten their gun rights, not a single one in that group knew.. In fact, he had done nothing.. Just someone told these clowns he did, gave them signs and sent them to look like fools on the side of the road."

 

Moose, the world is full of the uninformed. Hard to find facts amongst the special-pleaders. As for "unintelligent," there is the "curve." Some are at one end and some at the other. For whatever combination of lack of information or lack of intellect, I get emails every day from my friends on each side with attachments that flunk the Snopes test every time. Try being a tree-hugging, labor-unionite, fiscal conservative, pro-defense type and see what it gets ya'.

 

But gun-ownership/ammunition-ownership rights is perhaps not the best topic around which to suggest that voters are confused about who is for 'em and agin' em. And it is not about parties except at the national level.

 

"Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between" James Carville

[moosetracker]

To me :

 

uninformed is not knowing if a canidate supports your views or not, and perhaps not even caring to take the time to find out.

 

misinformed is a person who belives lies from ads, emails or other people as to where a canidate stood on an issue. Even if they acted upon this misinformation without thinking to double check the information.. (Well maybe that would be a mix of misinformed & uninformed)

 

Unintelligent is spending your time campaigning for -or- against a person, about a particular issue, when you don't know what their stance is on the issue. Be your information correct or incorrect.. Activating yourself to do something about a subject you know nothing about..

 

It has nothing to do with if you are for or against gun control. That was just the subject of this video.. This could easily be an example of being against someone due to their views on the Easter Bunny, when you don't have a clue what the person thinks about the Easter Bunny.

 

If that group of people (there were at least 10 or more) standing on the roadside, when asked said the guy voted for a bill that outlawed a certain type of gun, or made it harder to buy a gun, and the canidate did no such thing.. That would be misinformed.. But with 10 or more people standing there with signs condemning someone for being against gun control, and the best answer from all of them as to what this guy did to get them angry is "I don't know".. Well that is simply unintelligent..

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[WAKWIB]

I have thought for months that this would end up being a very close race. It seems that the momentum has greatly shifted in just the last few weeks. Clearly,this rare endorsement of a Republican is pretty significant.

 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121027/OPINION03/121026026/The-Register-endorsement-Mitt-Romney-offers-a-fresh-economic-vision?Frontpage&nclick_check=1

 

Question: Do you feel that the debates were instrumental in turning the tide toward Romney?

[packsaddle]

Well, as numerous women have responded when I or some other male family member did something really stupid, Moosetracker, "I hope you're satisfied!"

 

And I have to admit that I was wrong to express with such confidence in another thread way back at the beginning of the campaign, that Romney would be the next President. In the end, I voted for Johnson but fully expected Romney to win it. My state DID go for Romney so my vote was more of a token for reason. But wow, I never expected Obama to pull it out.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Something that might be a bit more pertinent to the BSA, all three referenda (assuming the mail-in ballots don't change the outcome in Washington state) that were up to a popular vote were in favor of same-sex marriage, plus MN didn't change its constitution to only recognize opposite sex marriage. Also, first out gay senator elected.

[Papadaddy]

Well, Barney Frank was about as "out" as they come, and he managed to get re-elected over and over. I don't think the BSA will give a rat's patoot what the states allow...until Utah allows it.

[Trevorum]

Papa, Barney Frank may be gay but he's not a Senator. Merlyn is correct. Tammy Baldwin is the first openly gay person to be elected to the Senate. (Not counting Larry "wide stance" Craig.)

[scoutingagain]

On other ballot questions that might have small effect on BSA policies, I understand Colorado and Washington have essentially legalized recreational use of marijuana. Will the GSS be modified to continue to absolutely forbid it's use in these states or will there be wishy washy language ala use of tobacco indicating units "may" forbid or restrict it's use on unit outings or BSA properties. How will units, councils etc. view it's use outside of scouting by adult leadership?

 

The most entertaining piece of election coverage I saw while clicking through the channels was watching Carl Rove in denial about Ohio after every network, including FOX had projected the state for Obama. About the only thing I saw during the election campaign and coverage that came close to being worth the some $2.5 billion spent on it.

 

SA

 

 

[Sentinel947]

I hope the beat down the Republican party ends the tea party, allowing more moderate Conservatives like myself to reenter the party.

[perdidochas]

Scouting again,

 

I would imagine for use at Scout events, marijuana would be treated like tobacco/alcohol. IMHO, there are a lot of things that are legal that aren't exactly morally straight. I view marijuana that way. I think the use of it outside of Scouting by Scouters would be up to the COs.

[perdidochas]

Scouting again,

 

I would imagine for use at Scout events, marijuana would be treated like tobacco/alcohol. IMHO, there are a lot of things that are legal that aren't exactly morally straight. I view marijuana that way. I think the use of it outside of Scouting by Scouters would be up to the COs.