Before the Caucus:
- Who won the Iowa Caucus?
- Who do you think will win?
- Who will be the biggest surprise?
- Who is closest to dropping out?
- Rank who finishes where.
After the Caucus:
- Who won the Iowa Caucus?
- Will the winner of the Iowa Caucus win the New Hampshire primary?
- Will the winner go on to be the GOP nominee?
- Can the winner beat Obama?
- Who drops out?
Other questions, thoughts, etc. Give your opinions below. Thank you.
- Who do you think will win?
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney
- Who will be the biggest surprise?
Newt in how little support he gets
- Who is closest to dropping out?
Bachmann, she should have seen the writing on the wall a LONG time ago
- Rank who finishes where.
Romney
Paul
Perry
Santorum
Newt
Cain
Bachmann
Huntsman (is this guy even in it?)
Will come back for post game.
Sorry Plotkin but
ReplyDelete- Who do you think will win? Not Romney. Ron Paul will win (before you go off on me, I AM NOT A RON PAUL SUPPORTER). I actually think he is a senile old bat. He just has a huge cult following of college dropout, pothead losers and they will push him to the top.
- Who will be the biggest surprise? Ron Paul's cult following. Maybe Bachmann... for some reason she does well in this state
- Who is closest to dropping out? No one. Exodus begins in New Hampshire
- Rank who finishes where. Paul, Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum (sorry, he is just the flavor of the week, his surge is empty) Perry Cain Huntsman
- Who do you think will win? Santorum (he is rising at the right time)
ReplyDelete- Who will be the biggest surprise? Romney (he is just too lukewarm)
- Who is closest to dropping out? Bachmann
- Rank who finishes where. Santorum Paul Newt Romney Perry Cain Huntsman Bachmann
I think Santorum will win, but that will be it. He will win solely because of the recent press and local campaigning. He doesn’t do jack in NH and Romney gets the nomination after the primaries.
BHO Must GO!
Romney would by far be the best man for the job. He is a man of great moral character and wisdom. His steadiness speaks volumes. It says consistant! You can say all the flip flop you want... Truth is unlike his up one day down the next component, tossed about by media winds.... Romney alone is consistant. No fair weathered friend.
ReplyDeleteCrew - Can Romney turn us back TO the Constitution or will he continue to pull away from it. Only RP will bring us back to where we should be.
ReplyDeleteRomney wins. he is the most moderate. We need to get away from this extreme left/right crap
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is a shaky old joke. Do you seriously think he can lead this country?
ReplyDeleteIran: We will nuke Israel. Death to the U.S.
ReplyDeletePaul: Eh, the hell with Israel.
US Citizens: Um, yah, nuke fallout spreads all over the world. Our "trade" interests would be affected.
Iran: We will nuke non-muslim countries
Paul: That's fine. Hey, Iran, take a seat. Let's talk.
The guy is dangerous. Mitt is the only centrist candidate.
The only ppl that want Paul are college dropout losers that want marijuana legalized. That's it.
ReplyDeleteForget it. Not gonna happen. Get a job.
Can Ron Paul actually make one coherent statement without rambling about 17 different subjects in one sentence?
ReplyDeleteGlad to see Santorum not backing down. He is the only guy with a backbone. It doesn't matter how the media portrays him, he sticks up for morality.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul will win.
ReplyDeleteYou all hate him because it's what your masters tell you to do.
Bow down and suck it retards. PR is winning because he is the only one with a plan to ACTUALL FIX the problems.
Everyone else spits redoric and bullshit.
Oh ...... I have a brilliant idea (pause to control laughter) "Write in Herman Cain" LoooooooooooooL
Seriously, dude?
ReplyDelete"PR" is winning because... ACTUALL? REDORIC? I don't want that lunatic winning anything so uneducated people like you can smoke more weed. You can't even get the initials correct of the man you say you love. You can't even spell rhetoric. Put down the bong; vote for a real candidate.
Rick Santorum is top tier? HAHA the GOP is toast.
ReplyDeleteObama 2012
no kiddding.
ReplyDeleteI've always liked Rick Santorum and support most of his positions on the issues. He has my vote. Although he lost by 7 votes, great job Iowa!
ReplyDeleteHe did do well, but I think it's because he is the flavor of the week. Ideally, he is a good candidate, but got what 12% of those that think he can actually beat Obama? Romney is the only one who got a high mark in that category, and that's the most important one.
ReplyDeletePersonal opinion so keep the slaming to yourselves. I don't think the Santorum win is such a surprise, all other real conservatives shot themselves in the foot and he's the only one left standing.
ReplyDeleteHis win, to me, is a good sign. It means that the American people really are starting to get it. This is not a left vs. right, it's the establishment vs. the people.
I am in VA, in the last cycle, Romney was set to win the state and mysteriously dropped out just a couple days before our Primary. That left McCain for us.
This cycle, VA pulled a fast one. First the VA GOP endorsed Romney early, even before the field was set. Then they changed how they count ballots and deemed Romney as having met the requirements without ever checking his signatures.
There's a current court case from last cycle over this very same issue - seems that, in the past, if you got 10k votes, no one checked the signatures, you just got added. Now suddenly not ony are they checking signatures, but deeming Romney... interesting. I had to laugh, in a statement the chairman of the VA GOP said that deeming Romney was a sound decision since in the history of the process, no one has ever had 33% fraudulent signatures... ummm, cause they weren't checked? We'll never know either... but golly gee Is so stupid Is can't even think through that statement, yes master, I hears ya, just pull the lever for Romney...
To that I say not only no, but hell no! I will do EVERYTHING I can to fight the establishment - I know, who am I, just an average citizen. Well, it's high time we "average nobodys" pull it together. We had Obama shoved down our throats, I have no intention of allowing the establishment to shove Romney. We just don't need any further demise of this great country, no matter how masked it is under a kinder, gentler means.
Ron Ayn L Rand Paul belongs in a white padded room wearing Depends and a wraparound jacket. As loony as Daffy Duck but without his charm.
ReplyDeleteSantorum is Christian American Taliban. What a loon. He wants to force women to carry unwanted children. He wants to outlaw birth control.
ReplyDeleteHe is no better than the Islamic fanatics you hate so much.
Unknown - What the hell are you talking about? If you don't like these candidates (Ron Paul is the only true promoter of freedom), put your money where your mouth is. Who do you support?
ReplyDeleteObama.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is looney tunes..
I will personally pay for his ticket to Somalia the liebertarina wetdream.
Anyone who follows Ayn L Rand is deluded and worse..
http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers
You support Obama?
ReplyDeleteSo, which one of his accomplishments do you admire the most? His failure to bring down unemployment (isn't it sad when so many Americans just give up and leave the work force)? The fact that he extended the liberal-hated (I love 'em) Bush-era tax cuts? The fact that Gitmo is still open? Bailing out Wall Street with secret loans? Which is it? You better hope Hilary gets in the race. You dems don't have a chance. If you are that blind that you follow someone no matter how badly they fail or how ineffective they are, you have problems. Go ahead, get your liberal buddies in here. I'd love to see what they have to say.
Waiting to see how the first couple of primaries shake out. I am only certain of two things:
ReplyDelete1. Anyone is better than BO Plenty
2. Ron Paul is the possible exception to rule #1.
He scares the crap out of me.
Unknown - Thank you for your opinions. They are strong, and though I respectfully disagree with them, you do make decent points.
ReplyDeleteSahib - thank you for your opinion. You definitely make a good case that we should wait and see what happens after some actual primaries. I'm looking forward to it.
Hope to hear back from both of you. Thanks again!
LOL at your post on Obama. When you can deal in fact and truth come back and talk with the adults.
ReplyDelete1 Gitmo wasnt closed because Congress wouldnt allow it. Do some research.
2. Unemployment is better but any rational person knows this economy was not caused by Obama. Do some research.
3.The 16 trillion given to Wall street and banks worldwide were done during the BUSH YEARS.Do some research.
4.Im open to Facts. But you posted lies.Do some research.
If you had taken me aside in 2008 and sketched out the first three years of Obama’s presidency, I would have thought you were being overoptimistic: an $800 billion stimulus package — recall that people were only talking in the $200-$300 billion range back then — followed by near-universal health-care reform, followed by financial regulation, followed by another stimulus (in the 2010 tax deal), followed by the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” followed by the killing of Osama bin Laden and the apparent ousting of Moammar Gaddafi? There was no way. And yet all that did get done."
Add in the auto industry rescue, overhauling the Student Loan program, New START treaty, credit card reform, ending the ban on stem cell research, ending the defense of DOMA, the largest investments in clean energy and education in history, the largest investment in infrastructure since the 50s, the largest middle class tax break in history, cancellation of the F-22 weapons program, immediate response to Midwest tornadoes and floods, signing of SCHIP legislation providing health care for millions of children, signing of the Matthew Shepard Act and Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Act, kept the country safe from another 9/11 type attack, etc.
One last reminder:
National Debt Increased by 75% under Bush:
2001 - $5.871 trillion
2008 - $10.640 trillion
National Debt Increased 25% Under Obama:
Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569-Trillion
Jan 31st 2011 = $14.131-Trillion
But of the $3.56-trillion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:
Bush: $910-billion = Interest on Debt 2009/2011
Bush: $360-billion = Iraq War Spending 2009/2011
Bush: $319-billion = TARP/Bailout Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
Bush: $419-billion = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
Bush: $190-billion = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011
Bush: $211-billion = Bush Meicare Part-D 2009/2011
Bush: $771-billion = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011
Bush's contributions:
2001 to 2008: $4.769-trillion
2009 to 2010: $3.181-trillion
Total: $7.950-trillion
Increase Since 2001 = $14.131 - $5.871 = $8.26-Trillion
Bush's contribution: $7.950-trillion / $8.26-Trillion = 96%
Obama only contribution: $580-billion = Stimulus Spending (as of Dec 2010).
Increase caused By Bush's Programs: 96%
Increase caused by Obama's Programs: 4%
Haha yes, I'm that anonymous poster, and I hope you are talking to me. You really can try some math trickery and promotion of lies, but you are as blind as it gets.
ReplyDelete1 Gitmo wasnt closed because Congress wouldnt allow it. Do some research. - SO! He made the promise, did he not? Was that just a campaign lie to get elected?
2. Unemployment is better but any rational person knows this economy was not caused by Obama. Do some research. - AGAIN he made a promise to bring it below 8.0% by the end of 2010... it was NOT. Lie??!?!?
3.The 16 trillion given to Wall street and banks worldwide were done during the BUSH YEARS.Do some research. HAHAHAHA OBAMA YEARS, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
4.Im open to Facts. But you posted lies.Do some research.
So who is really lying????
Learn math:
National Debt Increased by 75% under Bush:
2001 - $5.871 trillion
2008 - $10.640 trillion
4.8T in EIGHT YEARS
National Debt Increased 25% Under Obama:
Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569-Trillion
Jan 31st 2011 = $14.131-Trillion
3.18 in 2... WHICH RATE IS GREATER?? 4.8/8 or 3.18 in 2... learn math, OBAMA is sinking us WAY quicker. Learn quantitative analysis.
HAHAHAHAHA and this: Bush: $910-billion = Interest on Debt 2009/2011
Bush: $360-billion = Iraq War Spending 2009/2011
Bush: $319-billion = TARP/Bailout Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
Bush: $419-billion = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
Bush: $190-billion = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011
Bush: $211-billion = Bush Meicare Part-D 2009/2011
Bush: $771-billion = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011
1 how many times you going to count lost revenues in taxes??? Plus, cite your garbage sources...
You.Are.Flat.Wrong. Don't come on here with your blind-flowing self with absolute crap facts thinking you're going to tell me something. From your first paragraph, you had CRAP.
Yes moron.Cutting revenue counts. It is about 4 trillion and rising.
ReplyDeleteAnd you posted nothing to prove me wrong. Not one FACT did you post. Everything in my post can be verified by using a search engine. You do know how to use a search engine?
Wow idiot. I used YOUR information... can you read?
ReplyDeleteYOUR numbers showed bush added 4.8T in debt in 8 years... YOUR numbers
YOUR numbers showed obama added 3.18 in 2 year... YOUR NUMBERS!!!!
So, ask my question, who is adding more debt per year? What is a greater rate? 4.8/8 and 3.18/2????
FACT - try to get around the math. You really have no clue what you're talking about.
LOL idiot it is you that cannot read..
ReplyDeleteBush's contributions:
2001 to 2008: $4.769-trillion
2009 to 2010: $3.181-trillion
Total: $7.950-trillion
And that doesnt include the 16 trillion the fed gave out secretly..
You are CLEARLY someone who has no clue what they're talking about.
ReplyDeleteNO! Bush' contribution is not $3.181 up to 2010. Let's get really simple. In fact, you can probably find this information in this blog.
When Bush took office: ~$5.5T
At the END OF HIS FINAL BUDGET: ~$9.9T
Debt when Obama took office: $9.9T
Now: $15.1T
How do you explain this?
And here is where you're about to get owned...
You allude to these 16T loans... You are just reading headlines and you are really clueless.
Are you referring to these (I found this on a previous post in this blog): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html
or these: http://www.nationofchange.org/first-federal-reserve-audit-reveals-trillions-secret-bailouts-1314633089
1.6T, 16T, can you morons get something right? Which is it? AND........ the final one about the 16T in loans said: "The report notes that all the short-term, emergency loans were repaid, or are expected to be repaid." BOOM! You are an idiot if you are trying to include that in debt.
IF THIS HAPPENED (though you quote it many times, you can't give ONE source... keep talkin out your @$$)
1. If it was 16T added to the debt, how would the debt only be 15.1T
2. IT WAS A LOAN AND IT WAS REPAID. Net effect: ZERO!