TexasCHLforum.com

stroguy wrote:I think that Perry still has a wonderful chance. History shows trailers in these debates made comebacks.

I hope so but staggering the primaries means some people's votes are worth more than others.

This post has changed so much over the months but I will play along. Does Perry have a chance of still getting the nomination? Yes. Does Newt and Romney have a better chance of getting more votes the Perry? Yes. The bottom line is moderates and independents are more likely to vote for Newt and Romney. They might only get 3% more votes but that could make all the difference!

At this point I personally will vote for any candidate, president or congress that is going to get this economy back on track. The economy is much worse then the news says IMO. They say 8-9% unemployment but what about all the people who were laid off and now make 8-10 bucks an hour. They are considered employed! There are a LOT of them! These are the underemployed at it is growing everyday! You can't raise a family let alone live off that! Real unemployment is closer to 20% especially when you consider the last 4 years of college grads who are still praying for jobs over 10 bucks an hour!

Either way anything is better then Obama. He is the do nothing President and I hope history recounts it this way!

CC Italian wrote:This post has changed so much over the months but I will play along. Does Perry have a chance of still getting the nomination? Yes. Does Newt and Romney have a better chance of getting more votes the Perry? Yes. The bottom line is moderates and independents are more likely to vote for Newt and Romney. They might only get 3% more votes but that could make all the difference!

It could be a huge difference if nominating Romney or another pale imitation Obama costs them 5% of the votes to a third party conservative candidate.

I hope the caucus and primary voters in January, February and March make good choices. Because here in Texas I know a lot of people who aren't pleased with waiting until April to have a vote, and won't back the party choice if the party eliminates the conservative choices before Texans even get a chance to vote.

It could be a huge difference if nominating Romney or another pale imitation Obama costs them 5% of the votes to a third party conservative candidate.

I agree within states like Texas but in Texas and other strongly conservative states voters want a more conservative republican on average and as important as Texas is with the economy, resources and population it will honestly have much more to do with how the people of the usual battle ground states vote. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Missouri etc.

These states will more then likely determine the election next year. States like Texas aren't going to have its electoral college points go for Obama and New York and Illinois isn't going republican. Most of the battle ground states want moderate republicans not hard line conservatives. It doesn't matter if Obama only gets 20% of the vote in Texas if he wins just a few key states like we saw last election. In 08 56% of the popular vote in Texas voted republican and it will likely increase to 60%-70% next year but it won't matter if he wins key states.

Hopefully all the swing states that went Obama in 08 will wise up and vote republican NO matter who is their nominee.

If just a few states like NM, CO, MN, WI etc vote republican it will change everything. I assume at least half of these states will go back to Rep. next year and these states aren't even the closest races.

...I haven't heard any teacups rattlin' lately...that's makin' me nervous...I hope they stand up strong and loud this time...though their best course of action will be to back someone who CAN win and use their support to keep him/her accountable...till they get a good representation in Congress, I can't see them winning a primary...surely not a writein...they won't do well with the American people if they cause this election to be so splintered that the incumbent wins... I think this is a pertinent link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hoosier Daddy wrote:

stroguy wrote:In the early 1800's when the Berber Muslims were pirating and killing and bushwhacking American citizens and belongings, an infant Navy and Marine Corps were sent to North Africa to squash this unlawful and murderous clan. It is our history to project our strength against tyranny like this. I know he likes to quip we are not the worlds policeman, well we are not.

We act like it sometimes but we shouldn't.

The USMC was sent to the shores of Tripoli because they were attacking Americans. If they stuck to attacking each other, we would not have gotten involved. America should go back to that policy.

Or this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_ ... _of_Marque" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hoosier Daddy wrote:

stroguy wrote:In the early 1800's when the Berber Muslims were pirating and killing and bushwhacking American citizens and belongings, an infant Navy and Marine Corps were sent to North Africa to squash this unlawful and murderous clan. It is our history to project our strength against tyranny like this. I know he likes to quip we are not the worlds policeman, well we are not.

We act like it sometimes but we shouldn't.

The USMC was sent to the shores of Tripoli because they were attacking Americans. If they stuck to attacking each other, we would not have gotten involved. America should go back to that policy.

We should also have a similar policy about bailing out foreign countries. Until we pay off our own debt, it's wrong to go deeper into debt while bailing out other countries' debt. It's bad public policy and it borders on treason.

Thanks for not copying my entire statement. That's fair.

TDDude wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:…I’m not sure how John Tower got elected in 1961 but I guess you could say that was the beginning of the end for democrats in Texas.

My mama told me that John Tower was elected because some purist liberal media types (specifically the Texas Observer) told their liberal readers to "go fishin'" instead of voting for the more conservative democratic senatorial nominee. There's a lesson there for purist conservatives.

It's looking promising for Paul in Iowa and NH

I'm thinking the latest revelation for Ron Paul probably will finish him. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... rs/250338/

couzin wrote:I'm thinking the latest revelation for Ron Paul probably will finish him.

Is there anything new or is it the same stuff the dinosaur media "discovers" every time Paul runs for POTUS?

I think the fair move would be for Rick Perry to appear on Conan and claim Ron Paul hates blacks and wants to go get em.



But that is below Mr. Perry.

tbrown wrote:Is there anything new or is it the same stuff the dinosaur media "discovers" every time Paul runs for POTUS?

Naw - same stuff - but I think it becomes a little more sensitive this round.

couzin wrote:

tbrown wrote:Is there anything new or is it the same stuff the dinosaur media "discovers" every time Paul runs for POTUS?

Naw - same stuff - but I think it becomes a little more sensitive this round.

Why is that?

Racism is racism and it knows no color nor ethnic boundaries. I recall some earlier statements of the current POTUS and FLOTUS that were taken to be racial in nature by many of us so-called honkies. Why didn't the media ponce on them?