View Full Version : Those who voted "third party"....
Bubblehead1980
11-07-12, 05:42 PM
Look at what the third party idiots caused, shame, shame.
50% Obama
47% Romney
3% Other third party candidates
Look at what the third party idiots caused, shame, shame.
50% Obama
47% Romney
3% Other third party candidates
We have several parties to chose from and that's a very good thing that's democracy and not duocracy
Markus
Tchocky
11-07-12, 05:53 PM
http://i.imgur.com/3KKNW.gif
We have several parties to chose from and that's a very good thing that's democracy and not duocracy
Markus
As do we. Rather have it this way than the two party system. :yep:
Oh right, cause democracy is supposed to be A/B choice and not an expression of individual free will.
Idiot.
Everyone have his right to have an opinion and You have the right not to support it, but call a person "idiot" because of what he may believe, is not correct
Markus
Because obviously, those of us who voted for a third party would have voted for Romney otherwise?
:har:
I also honestly don't understand the math. At all. Obama got over 50% (50.42 by what I'm seeing). Of the remaining votes, Johnson got about 1% and Stein got 0.3%.
To suggest that even half of the Libertarians and ANY of the Green voters would go for Romney in any scenario is, at best, wishful thinking. Even assuming it was a (stupid, undemocratic, unfair) forced A/B choice, the election would probably end up 49/51 at best on the popular vote.
Sorry, but little gets me riled up more than people banging their drums on how great America is for being democratic, and then when that democracy happens not in their favour, they invent undemocratic ways of how things should really be. I'm just glad that you guys have a system that, fortunately, has mostly resisted that sort of abuse thanks to all the checks and balances in place.
Bubblehead1980
11-07-12, 06:01 PM
Oh right, cause democracy is supposed to be A/B choice and not an expression of individual free will.
Idiot.
Look I would love a serious third party candidate but it just is not reality currently and this election was extremely important, it was about obama feeling he had a mandate and free reign come January.Gary Johnson or any of the other morons had no chance of winning but 3% voted for them and left us stuck with Obama.I agree with most libertarian views(apparently Johnson got most of that 3%) but they did nothing but their vote might as well been cast for obama.:/\\!!
CaptainHaplo
11-07-12, 06:01 PM
Yes - look at what they caused - they kept Romney from losing by 6% instead of 3%.
That isn't what you meant, was it? At best, it would have been a "split" - no way that all of that 3% went with Romney. Your also not dealing with the realities of the Electoral College - so the percentages you throw out have nothing to do with the reality of the election.
Bubblehead1980
11-07-12, 06:01 PM
Because obviously, those of us who voted for a third party would have voted for Romney otherwise?
:har:
Should have, Romney was not my first choice but much better than obama and was only one who had a chance of beating him.
Tchocky
11-07-12, 06:07 PM
Still amazes me that Romney was the best GOP candidate. I wonder what's next for the party.
em2nought
11-07-12, 06:19 PM
Still amazes me that Romney was the best GOP candidate. I wonder what's next for the party.
FYI to the GOP four years from now I will NOT vote for a scientologist :D
Herr-Berbunch
11-07-12, 06:22 PM
Those who voted "third party"....
The world thanks you. :yeah:
Tribesman
11-07-12, 06:26 PM
Oh right, cause democracy is supposed to be A/B choice and not an expression of individual free will.
Idiot.
:up:
The 3rd parties are not to "blame" for anything the GOP did to itself. A number of weeks back, Rick Perry gave a speech to a group of evangelicals where he expressed surprise that libertarians and others of their like didn't rush to the arms of the GOP and their Christain conservatives. I had to laugh when I read the report; people advocating personal liberty and self-responsibility wanting to join with a faction that seems bent on controlling and dictating every aspect of personal life and choice under the banner of "Christian values". It is rather like the Taliban wondering why secular Muslim Turks are not rushing to their banner. If the GOP had given the American voters any better reasons and/or a better candidate, they would have taken the votes away from Obama. There is always going to be about a 5% or less of the electorate who is going to be part of the 3rd party vote. This should be, and is, by those who are realists about elections, factored into the expectations of any party in the presidential elections. They are not out to get a majority of 100% of the voter pool - they have to get a majority of the +/-95% remaining pool. The only real break in this pattern is when there is a populist surge resulant in a3rd party candidacy appealing to some of the more aminstream voters such as Wallace and Perot. Otherwise, both parties should face reality there is no chance they are going to get that +/- 5% chunk...
<O>
Should have, Romney was not my first choice but much better than obama and was only one who had a chance of beating him.
Sorry, I'll make sure I check with you in four years to make sure I know who the approved candidate is. I mean, I'm just a rather non-descript American voter. There's no possible way I could have considered my options and made an informed decision.
I did some independent research this morning, in fact. It turns out that the sun did rise. And will continue to do so until January 20th, 2017. Your guy lost. Get on with your life, and better luck November 8th, 2016.
Look I would love a serious third party candidate but it just is not reality currently and this election was extremely important, it was about obama feeling he had a mandate and free reign come January.Gary Johnson or any of the other morons had no chance of winning but 3% voted for them and left us stuck with Obama.I agree with most libertarian views(apparently Johnson got most of that 3%) but they did nothing but their vote might as well been cast for obama.:/\\!!
Wrong, because totally victory/majority is not always what democracy is about, most of 3% might be enough to make Team D and R realise that they will need to better accomadate some libetarian views in order to win back those voters, especially if that 3% increases in future elections.
Yes you are stuck with Obama for another 4 years, but its not forever and you'll live.
Good on those three percent, and shame on you for calling them idiots for standing up for what they believe, thats just sour grapes on your part because team R lost. That 3% is actually thinking in long term and is taking full advantage of your democratic system rather than just casting a sheepishly reluctant vote for the same old two party dictatorship you have ping ponged between since way back.
Real change only comes from the bottom-up, NEVER from the top-down. If there one thing that bugs the hell out of me, its people who vote for 'lesser of two evils' because the little guy cant win, well obviously when people have that kind of defeatist mentality -of course the little guy will never win.
Sailor Steve
11-07-12, 07:13 PM
I could just as easily say that if you and everyone else had voted for Johnson there would have been a real choice. If there had been no third party candidates I would have written in someone else. The lesser of two evils is a game I've never played. Your joke of a candidate happens to be no better than the other guy's joke of a candidate.
I might have let it go this time, but you blaming everyone else for your loss is pathetic. Mookie is right - you are an idiot.
Cybermat47
11-07-12, 07:16 PM
You Americans have only 2 parties with a decent chance of winning.
Australia has about 6.
Can't decide who's luckier.:-?
Bubblehead1980
11-07-12, 07:22 PM
Sorry, I'll make sure I check with you in four years to make sure I know who the approved candidate is. I mean, I'm just a rather non-descript American voter. There's no possible way I could have considered my options and made an informed decision.
I did some independent research this morning, in fact. It turns out that the sun did rise. And will continue to do so until January 20th, 2017. Your guy lost. Get on with your life, and better luck November 8th, 2016.
That's ignorant to assume everything will be okay we no longer have that luxury, things are different with this "man".Obviously, like a lot of people you don't know this guy's background, how he really feels and thinks, just buy into what he says.This man will wreck the economy even more and a lot of human suffering will come out of it, but hey he did it with the god awful fake smile of his so it makes some people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Oh yea, not to mention the dangerous fools he will likely to appoint to the supreme court, the gun control he will pursue, the ridiculous immigration reform, the "flexible" position of missile defense he will take with Russian(like he told putin), his continued hostility towards Israel.Lets not forget his subversion of the consitution etc.Our only hope is to keep the house GOP in next four years to block every stupid thing he tries to do.
The enemy has made it through the gates, those of us with our eyes open have what the French felt like in 1940, we are an occupied nation.
AVGWarhawk
11-07-12, 07:24 PM
Because obviously, those of us who voted for a third party would have voted for Romney otherwise?
:har:
Exactly. They would use the write in vote if the two candidates are not appealing. Some just do note vote if the candidates are not to their liking.
Look at what the third party idiots caused, shame, shame.
50% Obama
47% Romney
3% Other third party candidates
http://i.qkme.me/3qchj5.jpg
The enemy has made it through the gates, those of us with our eyes open have what the French felt like in 1940, we are an occupied nation.
Why arent you a funny one :rotfl2:
Why cant cant you just deal with the fact that the majority of your nation holds a different opinion than you ? and that they won.
That's ignorant to assume everything will be okay we no longer have that luxury, things are different with this "man".Obviously, like a lot of people you don't know this guy's background, how he really feels and thinks, just buy into what he says.This man will wreck the economy even more and a lot of human suffering will come out of it, but hey he did it with the god awful fake smile of his so it makes some people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Oh yea, not to mention the dangerous fools he will likely to appoint to the supreme court, the gun control he will pursue, the ridiculous immigration reform, the "flexible" position of missile defense he will take with Russian(like he told putin), his continued hostility towards Israel.Lets not forget his subversion of the consitution etc.Our only hope is to keep the house GOP in next four years to block every stupid thing he tries to do.
The enemy has made it through the gates, those of us with our eyes open have what the French felt like in 1940, we are an occupied nation.
You sound like you've been watching too much Alex Jones or something.
The wrecked economy you speak of cannot be blamed on Obama or any president before him. It is caused by a 30 year debt binge which is a combination of mass irresponsibily by financial institutions, politicians and shock horror - ordinary citizens and consumers.
Virtually everything you said above could easily be reworded by a die hard democrat to describe Bush or Romney to the same degree of accuracy (or in accuracy).
Your eyes are open, but only to one set of views which can only seem to determine one possible outcome, what will you say if we hit 2016 and nothing much has changed?
Tchocky
11-07-12, 07:42 PM
That's ignorant to assume everything will be okay we no longer have that luxury, things are different with this "man".
I'd love to be proved wrong about why you've put that in quotes.
Enlighten us.
That's ignorant to assume everything will be okay we no longer have that luxury, things are different with this "man".
He's had four years. If he wanted to totally destroy America, why would he wait for a second term he might not have gotten, when he could have done it in his first term. Are you that damn stupid?
Obviously, like a lot of people you ... just buy into what he says.
Remember that part up there where I admitted to not voting for him? Again, how dense are you?
This man will wreck the economy even more and a lot of human suffering will come out of it...
Yup. Obama is the one single person in control of the United States economy. Congress has nothing to do with the budget, do they?
Our only hope is to keep the house GOP in next four years to block every stupid thing he tries to do.
Make sure that after he fails to accomplish anything, you place the blame solely on Obama for not getting anything done. Toe that party line, man!
BTW-
I live in Texas.
President - Harris County:
Barack Obama (D) 579,070
Mitt Romney (R) 579,068Damn. If I had voted for Romney instead of "Other", Romney would have won by -1 votes. Don't I feel silly now? (Of course, that's just my county. It doesn't matter towards the state's electoral votes.)
President - Texas:
Mitt Romney (R) 4,555,799
Barack Obama (D) 3,294,440You see my point? It doesn't matter if I vote for Obama, Romney, or "Other". My vote wasn't going to matter in the totals. I knew that going in. I chose to use my vote to send a message that I hope might register with someone. I knew the guy I was voting for didn't have a chance. Even if he had won all the states he was on the ballot in, he couldn't have gotten the 270 to win. But it's my vote, my right, and my choice.
So go and stick your doom and gloom BS somewhere else. Don't blame me for choosing to vote for neither of the big two. Your guy screwed up, America made its choice, and it wasn't your guy. You can do three things: man up and work harder for your guy next time, pack up and leave the country, or whine on the internet about it.
The enemy has made it through the gates, those of us with our eyes open have what the French felt like in 1940, we are an occupied nation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Flemish_Bond.jpg/220px-Flemish_Bond.jpg
Uh huh... do tell.
Maybe Bubblehead is looking at it the wrong way: it isn't a case of 3% costing Romney the election; it's just a case of 53% of Americans saying "anyone but Romney"... :)
<O>
Sailor Steve
11-07-12, 07:56 PM
Obviously, like a lot of people you don't know this guy's background, how he really feels and thinks, just buy into what he says.
And you don't just buy into what the right-wing shills say? You are so transparent, you're the only one who can't see it.
The enemy has made it through the gates, those of us with our eyes open have what the French felt like in 1940, we are an occupied nation.
:rotfl2:
You? Eyes open? You still don't get it.
Oh and just for you Bubbles
http://i.imgur.com/qN8YC.jpg
Maybe Bubblehead is looking at it the wrong way: it isn't a case of 3% costing Romney the election; it's just a case of 53% of Americans saying "anyone but Romney"... :)
<O>
53% of America and 95% of the world, in fact in a poll done by the BBC of about, 27 countries IIRC, only the people of Pakistan wanted Romney to win.
mookiemookie
11-07-12, 08:16 PM
I was wondering where this loony toon was. I figured he was on suicide watch.
It must pain you to see that "your country" isn't really "yours" at all. YOU are the one in the minority. YOU are the one with the extremist views. Your nation isn't occupied. You're the occupier. You're the cancer that's slowly being excised from the country. You're the extremist that's being marginalized. The people have spoken. You and your views have been thrown out on their ear. There's no place for your twisted vision of America. You can try and "take back" your country, but how are you going to take back something that exists only in your head? You can try grabbing onto your dream but you'll only find it's an illusion and something you've made up in your head. A fantasy land with no relation to reality.
Deal with it.
Buddahaid
11-07-12, 08:34 PM
Hey look over here.
I'm reminded of this some how?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEj31njaeX0
Hey look over here.
I'm reminded of this some how?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEj31njaeX0
SQUIRREL !!!!! where is your Ron Paul now.. thanks for making me yak up fingernails, knuckles and elbows,, third party :/\\!! Well,, come the first of the year everbody will have a nice surprise in their paycheck except me,, I don't get one.. a paycheck I mean...
Hottentot
11-08-12, 12:59 AM
Have some faith, people. I have it on good authority that Obama won't win the next presidential election.
CaptainMattJ.
11-08-12, 01:08 AM
You Americans have only 2 parties with a decent chance of winning.
Australia has about 6.
Can't decide who's luckier.:-?
And.....how is this better? If two candidates were ever THAT terrible, in this era of information, a third party candidate could easily rise up. The people have spoken. Only 3 percent of people voted independents. 97% of American voters have spoken: They want the two party system, and if it serves the people then the two party system is just as effective at serving the people as 6 parties, in some ways more so.
So a third party candidate was not needed. If the people of the United States wanted a 6 major party system, they would've said so already. our two-party system is just as representative as your 6 party system because we aren't the same country. The citizens of the U.S desire 2 major parties, the people of Australia desire 6. And both are equally ok. So neither country is "lucky" to have more/less parties because ultimately parties don't mean anything. It's what the people want. And that's what this country was founded on. Of the people, by the people, for the people. And the people have spoken.
Hottentot
11-08-12, 01:29 AM
So a third party candidate was not needed. If the people of the United States wanted a 6 major party system, they would've said so already..
Changing a system that has been in place for a long time is a little more complicated than that, I think. One tends to favor the system one has grown up in, or at the very least need lots of time to get used to the new system.
I know that the USA effectively has a two party system. I don't know what it is like to live in one. And likewise I don't expect many Americans to really know what it is like to live in a different system. If asked now, I wouldn't want a two party system in Finland. Why? Because the current one works just fine. Why change it? But that doesn't make my opinion well informed or valid for comparing the systems. It simply means I prefer the system I'm used to and have no real complaints about.
Actually dovish and hawkish foreign policy is something that pays little regard to party lines. There are conservatives who are "dovish" (though it has more to do with them not liking the idea of giving aid to foreign countries) and liberals who are relative hawks, in fact, we have one in the Oval Office right now. I mean, for a lot of Pakistanis, the escalation of UAV operations in their country may as well be as good as a full-scale occupation with ground troops
CaptainHaplo
11-08-12, 08:43 AM
One tends to favor the system one has grown up in, or at the very least need lots of time to get used to the new system.
On average your probably right. Still - we don't need more "parties" - we need less. We have a 2 party system. We need a 0 party system. As a country, we need to stop playing "partisan" (on both sides) and make ballot access open. Doing this - simply removing party affiliation from the process - would go a long way toward making the candidates more responsive and open to the public.
Sailor Steve
11-08-12, 08:58 AM
So a third party candidate was not needed.
A third (and fourth and fifth) party candidate is most definitely needed. The more choices the better, especially when the two major candidates are more alike than any of their supporters want to admit.
The citizens of the U.S desire 2 major parties
Not really. The citizens of any country by and large vote for the choices they are given. They see the ads, they (like you) think the major candidates are the only viable choices, and they ignore the rest.
We don't have a "two party" system. We have an open system that is dominated by two parties, mainly because they are the only ones who can raise the money. A real "two party" system would have the number of candidates limited by law. Is that what you want?
On average your probably right. Still - we don't need more "parties" - we need less. We have a 2 party system. We need a 0 party system. As a country, we need to stop playing "partisan" (on both sides) and make ballot access open. Doing this - simply removing party affiliation from the process - would go a long way toward making the candidates more responsive and open to the public.
Hear! Hear! :rock:
The Founding Fathers decried the idea of parties, yet one of my favorites, Thomas Jefferson, found himself creating the first US party in spite of himself. After that it was all downhill.
CaptainHaplo
11-08-12, 09:12 AM
We don't have a "two party" system. We have an open system that is dominated by two parties, mainly because they are the only ones who can raise the money. A real "two party" system would have the number of candidates limited by law.
I have to disagree here Steve. In many areas - like NC where I live - the rules are so restrictive if your not blessed and sanctioned by one of the 2 parties, you have very little ability to compete. Not just in fund raising - but in every aspect. Even getting on the ballot is a challenge - you have to have a huge number of signatures (which takes organizing and resources). The 2 parties have made it a "semi-closed" system. They don't want competition (something I find ironic regarding team R - since they are all for it as long as it can't hurt them!).
We are supposed to have an open system. We SHOULD have an open system. Yet in many parts of the country, the 2 parties have collaborated to make it a head to head contest while effectively shutting everyone else out wherever possible. They want a head to head, controllable matchup with a referee and judges (the voters) that can be bought. They don't want a wide open cage match where they can't try to rig the outcome with massive spending. That is one reason why neither party is really interested in getting rid of partisan elections. Their power is more important that what is best for the citizenry and the country.
mookiemookie
11-08-12, 09:16 AM
I have to disagree here Steve. In many areas - like NC where I live - the rules are so restrictive if your not blessed and sanctioned by one of the 2 parties, you have very little ability to compete. Not just in fund raising - but in every aspect. Even getting on the ballot is a challenge - you have to have a huge number of signatures (which takes organizing and resources). The 2 parties have made it a "semi-closed" system. They don't want competition (something I find ironic regarding team R - since they are all for it as long as it can't hurt them!).
We are supposed to have an open system. We SHOULD have an open system. Yet in many parts of the country, the 2 parties have collaborated to make it a head to head contest while effectively shutting everyone else out wherever possible. They want a head to head, controllable matchup with a referee and judges (the voters) that can be bought. They don't want a wide open cage match where they can't try to rig the outcome with massive spending. That is one reason why neither party is really interested in getting rid of partisan elections. Their power is more important that what is best for the citizenry and the country.
Spot on. I think this is one discussion where the two parties are in perfect agreement.
So, you think you might have a problem explaining to your boss an expense that had a poor to zero rate of return? Spare a tear for poor, little Karl Rove:
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-strategist-karl-roves-very-bad-night-002109469.html
The GOP famously hammers away at the notion the Dems try to solve problems by throwing money at them; seems they don't quite fully understand the notion themselves... :)
<O>
Bilge_Rat
11-08-12, 03:39 PM
Still amazes me that Romney was the best GOP candidate. I wonder what's next for the party.
exacly...I am sure they would have had a much better chance with...
...Cain...:hmmm:
or...
..Perry..:haha:
or...
.. Santorum...:o
The only good thing about this is that I am sure the GOP will come to the conclusion that they have to nominate someone even MORE conservative in 2016.
We all know how well that worked out in Indiana, losing a Senate seat which had been in the GOP since 1976.
Cybermat47
11-08-12, 04:42 PM
The citizens of the U.S desire 2 major parties, the people of Australia desire 6.
You make a good point, but we actually have LOADS of parties:
About 100 or more independents
The hunting party
The sex party (Yes, really)
The green party
The Liberal/National coalition
The labour party
And we used to have the Australia First Party (To get what this party is, replace First with Socialist, and the Australia with National :nope:)!
geetrue
11-08-12, 06:39 PM
Still amazes me that Romney was the best GOP candidate. I wonder what's next for the party.
I wonder about the popularity of Christi ...
perhaps with a latino running beside him he could
take it all the way to the white house in 2016 :hmm2:
This could be considered "The Fat Lady":
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/266927-romney-adviser-concedes-florida-vote-an-obama-win
<O>
CaptainMattJ.
11-08-12, 07:00 PM
A third (and fourth and fifth) party candidate is most definitely needed. The more choices the better, especially when the two major candidates are more alike than any of their supporters want to admit.
Not really. The citizens of any country by and large vote for the choices they are given. They see the ads, they (like you) think the major candidates are the only viable choices, and they ignore the rest.
We don't have a "two party" system. We have an open system that is dominated by two parties, mainly because they are the only ones who can raise the money. A real "two party" system would have the number of candidates limited by law. Is that what you want?
Hear! Hear! :rock:
The Founding Fathers decried the idea of parties, yet one of my favorites, Thomas Jefferson, found himself creating the first US party in spite of himself. After that it was all downhill.
Steve, i am quite obviously aware of many of the other independent parties. I am quite aware that it isn't a true "2 party system". But the other parties make up a very small number of voters, 3 percent of voters. This means that 2 parties make up the overwhelming majority of representation in this country, making it a de-facto 2 party system. This doesn't mean that one election year could show an unprecedented rise in voters going independent, of course not. That doesn't mean that in the future an independent party could rise to victory. No, it only means that that is unlikely this will happen.
I may think the general public is, as a whole, ignorant and misinformed about how their country works, i recognize their votes. If they want to be represented in the overwhelming majority by democrats or republicans, so it shall be. With this era of information, nothing is stopping anyone from getting the information they need about independents nor is there anything preventing them from voting for independents. I wholeheartedly understand that a fundamental reason the two parties dominate is because their funding is exponentially greater than independents. I am also usually the person to first point out how easily manipulated people are by advertisements, falsified information, and the like. But the people have voted. the people still vote in large majorities for either Democrats or republicans. The people still want 2 parties to represent nearly the entire united states (im glad to know that a few independents have made their way into the house and senate). And that is their choice to make.
Unfortunately that choice is often skewed, manipulated, misinformed, or not informed at all. But that doesn't mean their vote is invalid. Our founding fathers (most of them) wanted everyone to get a say in how they're governed. And their vote, however poor of a choice it may be, is still a vote. and 97% of American voters have said they still want democrats and republicans to represent them. therefore the de-facto two party system is still just as effective as a de-facto 50 party system because our two parties are, according to the people, representing them.
That doesn't mean you put up a very valid point, and i do agree that having 2 choices that actually have a chance is ridiculous given the amount of corruption and similar traits between democrats and republicans. I also agree that psychology plays a HUGE part in people's choices, mob mentality and the fact that the two parties get the most publicity and ad time while not necessarily being the best choices. The whole party system is kind of ridiculous to me too, people sometimes abandon logic because of what party they affiliate with. But i was trying to say that it doesn't matter how many parties (including having no parties, always a good option) you have as long as the people are represented according to their own choices.
Takeda Shingen
11-08-12, 07:00 PM
The Fat Lady in more ways than one.
After their defeat in 2008, the Republican Party decided that the path to the return to power was to eliminate the moderates. So, the party and it's faithful went after anyone not deemed conservative enough; branding them RINOs and whatnot. And here we see the end result. Despite all the energy, the poor economy and the good debate performance, Barack Obama was reelected. He won almost every battleground state. He won the popular vote. And all this despite the fact that no incumbent has ever won re-election with an unemployment rate higher than 7.5%. What should have been a slam dunk was a defeat.
The exit polls still showed the economy as the most important issue to most Americans. That should have ensured a Romney victory. However, American voters didn't cast for Romney because of all the other baggage that comes with the Republican party. It's stance on immigration, abortion, gay marriage and reproductive rights are just out of step with the majority of the American populace. These are things that are effectively reducing the Republicans to a regional party, rather than a nationally viable party. If they want a chance to win a presidential election, they have got to get back in touch with the American people on these issues. Simple as that.
CaptainMattJ.
11-08-12, 07:07 PM
The Fat Lady in more ways than one.
After their defeat in 2008, the Republican Party decided that the path to the return to power was to eliminate the moderates. So, the party and it's faithful went after anyone not deemed conservative enough; branding them RINOs and whatnot. And here we see the end result. Despite all the energy, the poor economy and the good debate performance, Barack Obama was reelected. He won almost every battleground state. He won the popular vote. And all this despite the fact that no incumbent has ever won re-election with an unemployment rate higher than 7.5%. What should have been a slam dunk was a defeat.
The exit polls still showed the economy as the most important issue to most Americans. That should have ensured a Romney victory. However, American voters didn't cast for Romney because of all the other baggage that comes with the Republican party. It's stance on immigration, abortion, gay marriage and reproductive rights are just out of step with the majority of the American populace. These are things that are effectively reducing the Republicans to a regional party, rather than a nationally viable party. If they want a chance to win a presidential election, they have got to get back in touch with the American people on these issues. Simple as that.
Romney's plan was like a ghost story. there were rumors about it but few people actually saw it in it's entirety. Ryan's budget plan was completely destroyed by MANY economists. meanwhile the fact that obama had made rather significant progress all things considered (including the 2 years of stone wall) helped make obama a better candidate even in the economic category. The completely out-of-touch, extremist ideals that tagged along were the icing on the cake of defeat for the republicans.
Bubblehead1980
11-09-12, 10:22 PM
I was wondering where this loony toon was. I figured he was on suicide watch.
It must pain you to see that "your country" isn't really "yours" at all. YOU are the one in the minority. YOU are the one with the extremist views. Your nation isn't occupied. You're the occupier. You're the cancer that's slowly being excised from the country. You're the extremist that's being marginalized. The people have spoken. You and your views have been thrown out on their ear. There's no place for your twisted vision of America. You can try and "take back" your country, but how are you going to take back something that exists only in your head? You can try grabbing onto your dream but you'll only find it's an illusion and something you've made up in your head. A fantasy land with no relation to reality.
Deal with it.
My views are not extreme.I simply want a government that abides by the constitution and allows for the liberties we are entitled to.Not a government that tries to control the lives of citizens, overtax us in the name of supporting those who just can not make it because they too stupid, etc to do so.
The country I grew up in celebrated success and did not believe anyone owed others anything.My country did not elect a "man" like Barack Hussein Obama, who has a foreign way of thinking.This country was about the individual's rights, not those of the collective.Guaranteed equal opportunity not equal outcomes.
I should just quit law school and live on the dole the rest of my life, why study? why work hard? why have my parents spend the money? I should just be a bum, get what I pay for via taxes so some illegal immigrant or welfare queen can sponge off the system.Why not join them?
This is the problem with this country, our tolerance got out of hand and will be our undoing.Watch the South Park episode "The Death Camp of Tolerance" , it was a biting piece of satire that really tells how American's ridiculous tolerance has pushed logic and rationality aside for emotion based decision making.We are at a tipping point, like I said, the enemy has made it through the gates, maybe we will survive it, maybe we wont.Scary that saving this country rests in the hands of the house and maybe the supreme court(but after their upholding obamacare perhaps they are gone as well) to block obama's agenda as it's not fully controlled by the enemy as of yet.
Bubblehead1980
11-09-12, 10:27 PM
The Fat Lady in more ways than one.
After their defeat in 2008, the Republican Party decided that the path to the return to power was to eliminate the moderates. So, the party and it's faithful went after anyone not deemed conservative enough; branding them RINOs and whatnot. And here we see the end result. Despite all the energy, the poor economy and the good debate performance, Barack Obama was reelected. He won almost every battleground state. He won the popular vote. And all this despite the fact that no incumbent has ever won re-election with an unemployment rate higher than 7.5%. What should have been a slam dunk was a defeat.
The exit polls still showed the economy as the most important issue to most Americans. That should have ensured a Romney victory. However, American voters didn't cast for Romney because of all the other baggage that comes with the Republican party. It's stance on immigration, abortion, gay marriage and reproductive rights are just out of step with the majority of the American populace. These are things that are effectively reducing the Republicans to a regional party, rather than a nationally viable party. If they want a chance to win a presidential election, they have got to get back in touch with the American people on these issues. Simple as that.
I agree, we have to find a way to temper the religious idiots are they hurt our cause.There is a way without sacrificing principle to do this, hopefully those that control the GOP will learn by next election, although with the reelection of Primier Obama, it may be too late.
My country did not elect a "man" like Barack Hussein Obama, who has a foreign way of thinking
Yes it did, sorry.
The majority of your country disagrees with you.
Platapus
11-09-12, 10:40 PM
It is my honest belief that if the Republican party were to become a moderate party, it would dominate politics.
It would certainly bring me back to the party. :yep:
Platapus
11-09-12, 10:44 PM
Not a government that tries to control the lives of citizens, ....
Have we ever had a government that did not try to control the lives of citizens in some way? I don't think so. Government always try to control some aspect of the lives of its citizens. Now you may disagree with how a specific government is trying to control the lives of citizens, but all governments try (and succeed) in controlling the lives of its citizens to some extent.
That's just what governments do. :yep:
So if you are dreaming of some government that does not try to control the lives of citizens, you are not dreaming of any government that the US has ever had. :yep:
That simply has never existed in the US. :nope:
My country did not elect a "man" like Barack Hussein Obama, who has a foreign way of thinking.
Well, if you haven't seen the news, the United States of America did elect Obama. Twice.
Logically, the USA is not your country.
You will be self-deporting, then?
...Primier Obama...
You misspelled "Glorious President", comrade. The Party will be by shortly to discuss your oversight.
Bubblehead1980
11-09-12, 11:02 PM
[QUOTE=Platapus;1959014]It is my honest belief that if the Republican party were to become a moderate party, it would dominate politics.
It would certainly bring me back to the party. :yep:[/QUOT
Moderate on the social wedge issues, Republican on economics, would dominate.The religious nuts just have too much power, it hurts us.
Sailor Steve
11-09-12, 11:25 PM
My views are not extreme.
How can you tell? That's what extremists always say.
the enemy has made it through the gates, maybe we will survive it, maybe we wont.Scary that saving this country rests in the hands of the house and maybe the supreme court(but after their upholding obamacare perhaps they are gone as well) to block obama's agenda as it's not fully controlled by the enemy as of yet.
Talking of "the enemy" may seem to you like the truth, but you don't seem able to consider any side but the one. There is no room in your philosophy for the idea that you might be wrong, so you have to take the one side to the exclusion of all else. That is very much an extremist view.
Hottentot
11-10-12, 01:52 AM
This country was about the individual's rights, not those of the collective.Guaranteed equal opportunity not equal outcomes.
I should just quit law school and live on the dole the rest of my life, why study? why work hard? why have my parents spend the money?
Does not compute.
Buddahaid
11-10-12, 02:40 AM
My views are not extreme.I simply want a government that abides by the constitution and allows for the liberties we are entitled to.Not a government that tries to control the lives of citizens, overtax us in the name of supporting those who just can not make it because they too stupid, etc to do so.
The country I grew up in celebrated success and did not believe anyone owed others anything.My country did not elect a "man" like Barack Hussein Obama, who has a foreign way of thinking.This country was about the individual's rights, not those of the collective.Guaranteed equal opportunity not equal outcomes.
I should just quit law school and live on the dole the rest of my life, why study? why work hard? why have my parents spend the money? I should just be a bum, get what I pay for via taxes so some illegal immigrant or welfare queen can sponge off the system.Why not join them?
This is the problem with this country, our tolerance got out of hand and will be our undoing.Watch the South Park episode "The Death Camp of Tolerance" , it was a biting piece of satire that really tells how American's ridiculous tolerance has pushed logic and rationality aside for emotion based decision making.We are at a tipping point, like I said, the enemy has made it through the gates, maybe we will survive it, maybe we wont.Scary that saving this country rests in the hands of the house and maybe the supreme court(but after their upholding obamacare perhaps they are gone as well) to block obama's agenda as it's not fully controlled by the enemy as of yet.
Mind if I call you Bubbles since your so upbeat and joyful?
First you won't quit law school and be a welfare queen because you have the means and ample pride to make your own way. You want to contribute and that's laudable although I'd likely be opposed to your leanings.
And yes, I'd love to see fewer people on the doll and despise welfare queens, and their future welfare queens as well. However, what would you have done? Cut them of in six months? A year? Want to see what high crime really looks like, with more prisons needed? Or would you come up with a more final solution? Maybe mandatory conscription(debt slavery) to fight the eternal wars? Why don't you offer some plausible solutions instead of rants of bile?
I'm 56 and I don't recognize your country. It's not the country I've experienced. :yep:
CaptainMattJ.
11-10-12, 03:14 AM
My views are not extreme.I simply want a government that abides by the constitution and allows for the liberties we are entitled to.Not a government that tries to control the lives of citizens, overtax us in the name of supporting those who just can not make it because they too stupid, etc to do so.
The country I grew up in celebrated success and did not believe anyone owed others anything.My country did not elect a "man" like Barack Hussein Obama, who has a foreign way of thinking.This country was about the individual's rights, not those of the collective.Guaranteed equal opportunity not equal outcomes.
I should just quit law school and live on the dole the rest of my life, why study? why work hard? why have my parents spend the money? I should just be a bum, get what I pay for via taxes so some illegal immigrant or welfare queen can sponge off the system.Why not join them?
This is the problem with this country, our tolerance got out of hand and will be our undoing.Watch the South Park episode "The Death Camp of Tolerance" , it was a biting piece of satire that really tells how American's ridiculous tolerance has pushed logic and rationality aside for emotion based decision making.We are at a tipping point, like I said, the enemy has made it through the gates, maybe we will survive it, maybe we wont.Scary that saving this country rests in the hands of the house and maybe the supreme court(but after their upholding obamacare perhaps they are gone as well) to block obama's agenda as it's not fully controlled by the enemy as of yet.
Like many things in life, everything in moderation.
Let's see how long your utopian country lasts. The government has completely stopped regulating business and only enforces laws protecting your basic rights. Watch how fast we revert back to the days of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Watch how fast those monopolies roll right back in. watch how fast the people become ever more strangled in the vice of corporate greed. Government has a duty to regulate. Regulate the lives of certain people. Rockefeller was a U.S citizen. Was it not necessary to force him not to exploit people the way he did?
There is most certainly a fine line between true forms of socialism and assistance. Through taxes people should find comfort that the money they pay to the government will be there to catch them when they fall so they don't die of starvation because they lost their job and can't find another just yet., to build a better community, to do things that wouldn't otherwise be done or would be corrupted by privatized industries. That system is there for you, and i, and any citizen should they fall flat on their arse and need help getting back up. Uncle sam is there to lend you that hand so long as you pay into him. It makes sure that the hard working american citizen who gets laid off because of private industries shipping his job to china, doesn't have to watch him and his family starve in the gutter.
Not to say that there aren't exploiters of the system. I also believe this system should be regulated. You must actively search for a job. You can't just coast on government checks your entire life and expect to not lift a finger again.
but the so called "foundations" Of America that you describe sound an awful lot like 1800s America to me. And believe me, those were not good times to be living in as the average joe, i can assure you. There's a reason things like social security and welfare exist. It's because people just like you and me had to endure the grueling misery of deregulation and the insurmountable hardships it brought. And there are still problems today. Obamacare ensures that people like my sister can't be turned down by insurance companies solely based on pre-existing conditions. That people don't have to bankrupt themselves to get care for their family because no insurance company will take them. While there are parts of the bill that should be repealed the bill is otherwise much, much needed progress.
None of this wouldve happened without government. The way we live today is because of the regulation put forth by the government. While the boundaries for where government should stop regulating are being fueded over (legalization of marijuana and immigration reform, ect), id say government has taken necessary intervention so far with a few exceptions.
Buddahaid
11-10-12, 03:27 AM
Like many things in life, everything in moderation.
Let's see how long your utopian country lasts. The government has completely stopped regulating business and only enforces laws protecting your basic rights. Watch how fast we revert back to the days of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Watch how fast those monopolies roll right back in. watch how fast the people become ever more strangled in the vice of corporate greed. Government has a duty to regulate. Regulate the lives of certain people. Rockefeller was a U.S citizen. Was it not necessary to force him not to exploit people the way he did?
There is most certainly a fine line between true forms of socialism and assistance. Through taxes people should find comfort that the money they pay to the government will be there to catch them when they fall so they don't die of starvation because they lost their job and can't find another just yet., to build a better community, to do things that wouldn't otherwise be done or would be corrupted by privatized industries. That system is there for you, and i, and any citizen should they fall flat on their arse and need help getting back up. Uncle sam is there to lend you that hand so long as you pay into him. It makes sure that the hard working american citizen who gets laid off because of private industries shipping his job to china, doesn't have to watch him and his family starve in the gutter.
Not to say that there aren't exploiters of the system. I also believe this system should be regulated. You must actively search for a job. You can't just coast on government checks your entire life and expect to not lift a finger again.
but the so called "foundations" Of America that you describe sound an awful lot like 1800s America to me. And believe me, those were not good times to be living in as the average joe, i can assure you. There's a reason things like social security and welfare exist. It's because people just like you and me had to endure the grueling misery of deregulation and the insurmountable hardships it brought. And there are still problems today. Obamacare ensures that people like my sister can't be turned down by insurance companies solely based on pre-existing conditions. That people don't have to bankrupt themselves to get care for their family because no insurance company will take them. While there are parts of the bill that should be repealed the bill is otherwise much, much needed progress.
None of this wouldve happened without government. The way we live today is because of the regulation put forth by the government. While the boundaries for where government should stop regulating are being fueded over (legalization of marijuana and immigration reform, ect), id say government has taken necessary intervention so far with a few exceptions.
Wish I could have said that. :salute:
Tribesman
11-10-12, 04:05 AM
My views are not extreme.
:har::har::har::har::har:
I should just quit law school and live on the dole the rest of my life, why study?
Since all the students at your school are dumb or dumb smelly and ethnic and all your teachers of law know nothing about law and only indoctrinate people into foriegn ways of thinking why are you still attending?
In fact given the opening post would you not be better going to a school to learn some basic maths?
CaptainHaplo
11-10-12, 10:17 AM
The Fat Lady in more ways than one.
After their defeat in 2008, the Republican Party decided that the path to the return to power was to eliminate the moderates. So, the party and it's faithful went after anyone not deemed conservative enough; branding them RINOs and whatnot. And here we see the end result. Despite all the energy, the poor economy and the good debate performance, Barack Obama was reelected. He won almost every battleground state. He won the popular vote. And all this despite the fact that no incumbent has ever won re-election with an unemployment rate higher than 7.5%. What should have been a slam dunk was a defeat.
The exit polls still showed the economy as the most important issue to most Americans. That should have ensured a Romney victory. However, American voters didn't cast for Romney because of all the other baggage that comes with the Republican party. It's stance on immigration, abortion, gay marriage and reproductive rights are just out of step with the majority of the American populace. These are things that are effectively reducing the Republicans to a regional party, rather than a nationally viable party. If they want a chance to win a presidential election, they have got to get back in touch with the American people on these issues. Simple as that.
I have to partially disagree with you Takeda. Note I said "partially".
Yes - the Team R stance on things like gay marriage are out of step. The problem is that going one way makes half the country unhappy, going the other makes the other half unhappy. What they need to do - much to the chagrin of the "establishment" - is get back to the constitution on such issues. That is - leave such matters to the individual states.
Where I disagree with you is the "end result" comment. I see the last 6-8 years differently. 8 years ago (2004) the nation re-elected a "moderate" republican, a neo-con, who was anything BUT conservative on issues of fiscal sanity. In 2006, the backlash hit, with Team D making significant strides in the midterms. 2008 - Team R nominates another establishment candidate with a history of waffling on issues that were not pro-conflict. In other words - a Moderate neo-con. He lost. 2010 rolls around and the "tea party" - a group of active, concerned citizens with an intent to get back to constitutional government - not "left" or "right" - suddenly makes its appearance. The result is a major gain for Team R candidates who profess constitutional principles that happen to also be "conservative" ideals. 2012 presidenctial election - Team R throws up yet another Moderate candidate - and even against a guy with a failed record - Team R loses. WHY? Because 3 Million of its voters stayed home.
If Team R wants to win national elections - going with candidates who are even MORE moderate is NOT the way to do it. Many pundits are talking about changing demographics.... but Romney failed to turn out his base. The country is still center-right, but the results don't show it because of Team R's intent to be more like Team D. Caving in on principles is not the way to inspire confidence in your ability to lead, and Team R needs to figure that out.
To your point - I will agree that they also need to be consistent. Using the Fed for the things they want, but then saying you can't use the Fed for things they don't like - is hypocrisy. They need to take social issues and turn them back over to the states - as the Constitution intended. Sadly - that would mean that they would have "less" power when they win - so they won't do it any more than Team D would. Team R wins when they don't compromise their constitutional principles. Otherwise - they lose every time.
Takeda Shingen
11-10-12, 10:47 AM
Where I disagree with you is the "end result" comment. I see the last 6-8 years differently. 8 years ago (2004) the nation re-elected a "moderate" republican, a neo-con, who was anything BUT conservative on issues of fiscal sanity. In 2006, the backlash hit, with Team D making significant strides in the midterms. 2008 - Team R nominates another establishment candidate with a history of waffling on issues that were not pro-conflict. In other words - a Moderate neo-con. He lost. 2010 rolls around and the "tea party" - a group of active, concerned citizens with an intent to get back to constitutional government - not "left" or "right" - suddenly makes its appearance. The result is a major gain for Team R candidates who profess constitutional principles that happen to also be "conservative" ideals. 2012 presidenctial election - Team R throws up yet another Moderate candidate - and even against a guy with a failed record - Team R loses. WHY? Because 3 Million of its voters stayed home.
I think you're falling into the same trap that the Republicans fell into after 2008. That is, the belief that if only the candidates were more conservative then they could be elected. Romney, while a political chameleon, was as right as the party wanted him to be. He was all about repealing Obamacare,fiscal solvency, etc. He was also outspokenly pro-life and in favor of traditional marriage. He was as right as they get, and still managed to lose. Throw in either of the viable candidates in Gingrich and Santorum and they also lose, but by larger margins. Romney was the party's best bet for 2012. I think that the results are very clear in the diminishing returns for Republicans each election cycle. Being further right only reduces the party to a regional power, as it would appear that shifting demographics have brought into question just how center-right the American electorate is.
I also think it's rather debatable as to just how 'grassroots' the Tea Party movement actually is and was, but that takes us into a tangent that is well outside the scope of this thread's topic.
CaptainHaplo
11-10-12, 12:44 PM
I think you're falling into the same trap that the Republicans fell into after 2008. That is, the belief that if only the candidates were more conservative then they could be elected. Romney, while a political chameleon, was as right as the party wanted him to be. He was all about repealing Obamacare,fiscal solvency, etc. He was also outspokenly pro-life and in favor of traditional marriage. He was as right as they get, and still managed to lose.
The question becomes WHY did he lose? Was it that because he "lost" the independant vote? Did he lose because of extreme hard right views? No - he didn't. He won the undecided, independent vote. The reason he lost was because the conservative "base" stayed home. Why? Because he was the political chamelion - he was a moderate masquerading as a conservative.
He lost because 3 Million Conservative voters stayed home. He didn't energize them - because they saw him for what he was - a moderate in disguise. Had he been a true conservative - he would have had 3 Million more voters - many in the key areas that were critical to the contest.
Hamilton Country is the perfect example. Turnout was great - but it was not high on the Team R side. That is where he lost Ohio - for example. Look at the record - when Team R stands on principle - it wins. When it nominates moderates - whether they claim to have "seen the light" or not - it loses. It is not just nationally either..... Look at Scott Brown. He was elected as a "conservative" - he represented as a moderate. When he ran again - he lost - because he didn't represent the conservative ideals he ran on.
Occam's Razor tells us the answer is simple.
mookiemookie
11-10-12, 01:03 PM
:har: Keep telling yourself that and ensure Democrat dominance for a generation.
As several commentators have noted, perhaps the #1 problem for Team R and their social conservative supporters is their idea that somehow they are ultimately right while the other side is based on delusion and fantasy, and that contrary to what real demographic data shows, somewhere in the forgotten fringes of American culture there is is that lost tribe of "true American conservatives" hiding silently who will emerge to vote someday and win. The very thought that they might be mistaken or not representative is inadmissible for some reason.
Not a good way to build a strategy.
Look at Scott Brown. He was elected as a "conservative" - he represented as a moderate. When he ran again - he lost - because he didn't represent the conservative ideals he ran on.
Gotta disagree there Hap. Scott Brown would never have been elected as a conservative, with all that has come to mean, in this state. He ran successfully on a platform of fiscal conservatism sure but not on the social issues that have come to define the Republican party. His election was also about the electorate tweaking the nose of the Democrats for being overconfident.
This election he lost because the Dems were able to successfully tie him to the national GOP. As they said "Scott Browns biggest problem is the R after his name" .
It didn't matter how bipartisan he was. It didn't matter how well he did the job we sent him to do. All they had to say is a vote for Scott Brown would help put those guys in charge of Congress and that was enough to scare the electorate into abandoning what everyone agreed was a good bipartisan Senator for a chicken neck elitist party hack who, when asked in the debate, couldn't name a single serving republican she would be willing to work with.
mookiemookie
11-10-12, 01:57 PM
As several commentators have noted, perhaps the #1 problem for Team R and their social conservative supporters is their idea that somehow they are ultimately right while the other side is based on delusion and fantasy, and that contrary to what real demographic data shows, somewhere in the forgotten fringes of American culture there is is that lost tribe of "true American conservatives" hiding silently who will emerge to vote someday and win. The very thought that they might be mistaken or not representative is inadmissible for some reason.
Not a good way to build a strategy.
If Fox News and the Murdoch media empire, the Koch Brothers, the billion dollar super PACs and the threat of the most evilest communist, usurper Kenyan Muslim sleeper agent president in the history of ever can't motivate them to vote, I think perhaps you may be correct in assuming that the "Silent Majority" is probably not much of the former and definitely not the latter.
I'd also go so far as to say that if the GOP were to be disbanded, the Democrats would loose half their supporters because half of them are not voting blue so much as they're voting anti-red.
Takeda Shingen
11-10-12, 02:02 PM
I'd also go so far as to say that if the GOP were to be disbanded, the Democrats would loose half their supporters because half of them are not voting blue so much as they're voting anti-red.
That is also true. I am one of those people. If a nationally-viable party with a platform of conservative fiscal policy and liberal social policy were to emerge, I wouldn't be voting D.
Armistead
11-10-12, 02:41 PM
The GOP has a big problem, if they become become socially liberal, it could cost them too many congressional seats. Evangelicals play a strong role in the south and mid-west, anyone not in tune with their beliefs would be in trouble. Not saying they would vote Dem, but many would stay home before they voted for a GOP member that was for abortion and gay rights. The GOP may win the White House with a more liberal candidate or platform, but it would cost them many a seat. Not to mention, the GOP can no longer count on NC or Va. anyway. Really, I think the GOP is screwed with no real way to redefine themselves, except to go for the Hispanics.
HundertzehnGustav
11-10-12, 07:04 PM
I would like to offer sincere thanks and a heartfelt bucketfull of applause.
From the Americans present, i see moderate Views, no matter if they wear a blue-ish or a red-dish tag. Or the Gent' that distances himself from either side.
The bubble that is being used as a Pingpong ball, kicked about the place in a funny manner represents the dark Red (bordeaux) color that we europeans fear - rigid in his thinking, unaware of his country, and intolerant to anything but his own view.
He is much like the terrorist... Rigid in his thinking, intolerant to other ways of life, its either "for me" or "against me".
The difference is... the Terrorist has nothing to lose in here, and virgins promised after his act.
...and bubbles calls the Blue boy "the enemy invader".
Yea. Raight.
People like him wake me at night and make me stand up at 4 o'clock, log on to the net and see the counts rise... Hoping and praying that the Blue guy reaches the magic 270 before the red guy can.
Not because of love for the Blue guy.
But because "the afro hawaiian" spoke less **** during the last four years than the dude i call "whiteboy" despite his age.
Thank you too, Bubbles - your words and positions make me aware how goddamn close the world was to live a horror scenario.
How lucky the world is...
3%
Takeda Shingen
11-10-12, 07:23 PM
I would like to offer sincere thanks and a heartfelt bucketfull of applause.
From the Americans present, i see moderate Views, no matter if they wear a blue-ish or a red-dish tag. Or the Gent' that distances himself from either side.
The bubble that is being used as a Pingpong ball, kicked about the place in a funny manner represents the dark Red (bordeaux) color that we europeans fear - rigid in his thinking, unaware of his country, and intolerant to anything but his own view.
He is much like the terrorist... Rigid in his thinking, intolerant to other ways of life, its either "for me" or "against me".
The difference is... the Terrorist has nothing to lose in here, and virgins promised after his act.
...and bubbles calls the Blue boy "the enemy invader".
Yea. Raight.
People like him wake me at night and make me stand up at 4 o'clock, log on to the net and see the counts rise... Hoping and praying that the Blue guy reaches the magic 270 before the red guy can.
Not because of love for the Blue guy.
But because "the afro hawaiian" spoke less **** during the last four years than the dude i call "whiteboy" despite his age.
Thank you too, Bubbles - your words and positions make me aware how goddamn close the world was to live a horror scenario.
How lucky the world is...
3%
I think that you're engaging in a fair bit of hyperbole there. Romney wasn't going to destroy the world, nor was he going to bring about a horrific scenario. Fiscal conservatism is not an evil thing, although Bubblehead is a very poor spokesman for it.
HundertzehnGustav
11-10-12, 08:01 PM
Might be, might be.
after all, a US prez, is only one man, one voice.
Their position is not Darth Vader like or Godlike.
Yet, on an international level, seen as a key figurine of the states.
and in this position, The Mormone would not have excelled.
he woulda done even worse than the man with the delayed Birth cerificate. :D
But the wjhole discussion i spointless.
te world ends in 6 weeks... Obama is , even withoout the elections, the last US president.
Believe me.
:rotfl2:
Takeda Shingen
11-10-12, 08:16 PM
But the wjhole discussion i spointless.
te world ends in 6 weeks... Obama is , even withoout the elections, the last US president.
I'll take that wager. What are we betting?
I'll take that wager. What are we betting?
Pancakes. :yep:
HundertzehnGustav
11-10-12, 08:57 PM
my 3 SHIII DVDs...?:D
CaptainHaplo
11-10-12, 09:20 PM
The GOP has a big problem, if they become become socially liberal, it could cost them too many congressional seats. Evangelicals play a strong role in the south and mid-west, anyone not in tune with their beliefs would be in trouble. Not saying they would vote Dem, but many would stay home before they voted for a GOP member that was for abortion and gay rights. The GOP may win the White House with a more liberal candidate or platform, but it would cost them many a seat. Not to mention, the GOP can no longer count on NC or Va. anyway. Really, I think the GOP is screwed with no real way to redefine themselves, except to go for the Hispanics.
This is why the GOP needs to let social issues go back to the states. Doing so would not only be constitutional, it would enable them to focus their message much more clearly without being dragged into the mud over issues that divide the national electorate.
Bubblehead1980
11-12-12, 05:58 PM
Like many things in life, everything in moderation.
Let's see how long your utopian country lasts. The government has completely stopped regulating business and only enforces laws protecting your basic rights. Watch how fast we revert back to the days of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Watch how fast those monopolies roll right back in. watch how fast the people become ever more strangled in the vice of corporate greed. Government has a duty to regulate. Regulate the lives of certain people. Rockefeller was a U.S citizen. Was it not necessary to force him not to exploit people the way he did?
There is most certainly a fine line between true forms of socialism and assistance. Through taxes people should find comfort that the money they pay to the government will be there to catch them when they fall so they don't die of starvation because they lost their job and can't find another just yet., to build a better community, to do things that wouldn't otherwise be done or would be corrupted by privatized industries. That system is there for you, and i, and any citizen should they fall flat on their arse and need help getting back up. Uncle sam is there to lend you that hand so long as you pay into him. It makes sure that the hard working american citizen who gets laid off because of private industries shipping his job to china, doesn't have to watch him and his family starve in the gutter.
Not to say that there aren't exploiters of the system. I also believe this system should be regulated. You must actively search for a job. You can't just coast on government checks your entire life and expect to not lift a finger again.
but the so called "foundations" Of America that you describe sound an awful lot like 1800s America to me. And believe me, those were not good times to be living in as the average joe, i can assure you. There's a reason things like social security and welfare exist. It's because people just like you and me had to endure the grueling misery of deregulation and the insurmountable hardships it brought. And there are still problems today. Obamacare ensures that people like my sister can't be turned down by insurance companies solely based on pre-existing conditions. That people don't have to bankrupt themselves to get care for their family because no insurance company will take them. While there are parts of the bill that should be repealed the bill is otherwise much, much needed progress.
None of this wouldve happened without government. The way we live today is because of the regulation put forth by the government. While the boundaries for where government should stop regulating are being fueded over (legalization of marijuana and immigration reform, ect), id say government has taken necessary intervention so far with a few exceptions.
Matt, that was a very well written point and I agree with you for the most part.
People on this forum have a misconception on my views.I have stated before that I believe in a safety net and some reasonable regulation but the government is out of control and has been for a long time.Obamacare has a very few good points, such as the pre conditions but it does not warrant screwing up the healthcare system in the manner it will. How do I know this? Unlike 90% of those in congress and prob 98% of American people, I actually read that monstrosity of law after it was passed.
This law was advertised as lowering costs? Well it's 20 new taxes, esp on things such as medical equipment do not lower costs, they raise them.How? Well the costs gets passed down the chain and has ended up with high premiums, which will continue to go up.This law is not about helping people get insurance, it is about making insurance out of the reach of the majority of the population(as it is within reach now) and condition them for the idea of single payer system, which they couldn't get passed.The taxes and regulations are harmful, look at businesses already talking of layoffs.This just defies economic sense but they sold it as "helping people". Want to help people? They should have just made medicare an option for everyone who cant afford health insurance and fund it properly.Those who want their private healthcare, let them keep it.Simple, easy, but this law is about government control and ideology, not helping people get insurance.
kraznyi_oktjabr
11-12-12, 06:21 PM
I think that you're engaging in a fair bit of hyperbole there. Romney wasn't going to destroy the world, nor was he going to bring about a horrific scenario. Fiscal conservatism is not an evil thing, although Bubblehead is a very poor spokesman for it.Will the Best of SUBSIM committee have "Understatement of the Year" award? :D
soopaman2
11-12-12, 10:19 PM
Sour grapes because Obama won?
Maybe you can accept that a majority of Americans chose the man you hated?
Al Gore won majority vote against bush in 2000, yet Bush was "awarded" the office by a governing body, not meant to decide such things.
Were you complaining then, of course not, your "team" won that time.
Far righties make me giggle. Couldn't steal this one?
Can always move to the republic of Texas? Then you can work for a drug cartel and not have to worry about our inferior negro president anymore.
Sailor Steve
11-12-12, 10:41 PM
Al Gore won majority vote against bush in 2000, yet Bush was "awarded" the office by a governing body, not meant to decide such things.
Here I have to disagree. Nobody "stole" anything in 2000. Presidents have won the popular vote but lost the election more than once; it's the way the electoral system works sometimes. We can have a discussion on governing bodies and legalities if you like, but the far lefties have been crying "foul" for twelve years now, and the foul wasn't on the right-hand side that time.
Bubblehead1980
11-14-12, 05:00 PM
Sour grapes because Obama won?
Maybe you can accept that a majority of Americans chose the man you hated?
Al Gore won majority vote against bush in 2000, yet Bush was "awarded" the office by a governing body, not meant to decide such things.
Were you complaining then, of course not, your "team" won that time.
Far righties make me giggle. Couldn't steal this one?
Can always move to the republic of Texas? Then you can work for a drug cartel and not have to worry about our inferior negro president anymore.
Really is a difficult thing to swallow that a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible , etc enough to vote for BHO again, just shows this country, which was once great is not somewhat controlled by the lowest among us.I can somewhat understand 2008, he was "fresh" or seen that way to the majority of people who just don't do their own research or read books etc , they wanted to feel like part of history etc and McCain was a terrible candidate in 2008.
That is a huge misconception that Bush stole the election but that is another discussion.
I would love for some states to secede until the US can get it's act together and would gladly go live in Texas if it cut ties with D.C. Nothing to do with the "inferior negro" president's race but how dangerous and ignorant he is, which reflects his policies.Very poor choice of words on your part by the way.
Sailor Steve
11-14-12, 06:13 PM
Really is a difficult thing to swallow that a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible , etc enough to vote for BHO again, just shows this country, which was once great is not somewhat controlled by the lowest among us.
Of course they're naive, stupid, ignorant and gullible. They have the audacity to disagree with you.
You made the comment earlier that people (which implies everyone) has a "misconception" on your views. I actually agree with some of your views, but you never quite believe us when we tell you that you make conservatives look bad. You claim a college education, yet you still can't construct a coherent sentence. I keep repeating the old saying "it's not what you say, it's how you say it", but you still keep coughing up the same tired cliches, repeating the hard right party line, and you still have yet to make any real arguments about anything.
You still think you know more than most of the people you deal with, and you still think you know more than most of the American population. That may be true, but to those of us who know how to use reason you are the one who looks naive and gullible.
And, despite your arrogance and overconfidence, you still don't get it.
Takeda Shingen
11-14-12, 06:15 PM
People on this forum have a misconception on my views.
And then, three posts later.
Really is a difficult thing to swallow that a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible
I don't think that there is any misconception "on your views". Your view is that anyone that disagrees with your ideology is worthy of contempt. It's hard to respect someone like that.
Tribesman
11-14-12, 06:23 PM
Really is a difficult thing to swallow that a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible , etc enough to vote for BHO
What is difficult to swallow is someone like you calling anyone naive stupid ignorant or gullible.
In fact it is so laughable it is by nature impossible to swallow:rotfl2:
Very poor choice of words on your part by the way.
Soopa said it very well.
Hows them "smelly ethnic" people you don't like eh?:woot:
Poor bubbles you really do hang yourself don't ya:yeah:
Tchocky
11-14-12, 06:24 PM
Really is a difficult thing to swallow that a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible , etc enough to vote for BHO again
I guess turnout was extraordinary this year, eh?
There is an old Japanese fable about an arrogant feudal lord who sought out the wisest living zen master in all Japan. He asked the master to teach him wisdom. The master started to speak, but the lord imaptiently and with great dismissivenes said "Yes, yes, I know all that! Move on to the widsom!" The master tried to speak again, but got the same dismissive response. This happened several times. The master then asked if the lord wanted some tea. The lord said yes and held out his cup. The master picked up the full tea kettle from the fire and poured tea into the lord's cup. Once the cup was full, the master still continued to pour, causing the very hot tea to overflow the cup and scald the lord's hand. The lord leaped up in anger and surprise and demanded "Why did you keep pouring the tea when the cup was alredy full?" The master smiled at him and said, "I have given you a bit of wisdom: you have now learned it is impoosible for me to fill a cup that is already full."...
I have learned in life to always leave a bit of space in my cup in the event there is wisdom to be poured in...
<O>
mookiemookie
11-14-12, 06:36 PM
a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible
"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
There is an old Japanese fable about an arrogant feudal lord who sought out the wisest living zen master in all Japan. He asked the master to teach him wisdom. The master started to speak, but the lord imaptiently and with great dismissivenes said "Yes, yes, I know all that! Move on to the widsom!" The master tried to speak again, but got the same dismissive response. This happened several times. The master then asked if the lord wanted some tea. The lord said yes and held out his cup. The master picked up the full tea kettle from the fire and poured tea into the lord's cup. Once the cup was full, the master still continued to pour, causing the very hot tea to overflow the cup and scald the lord's hand. The lord leaped up in anger and surprise and demanded "Why did you keep pouring the tea when the cup was alredy full?" The master smiled at him and said, "I have given you a bit of wisdom: you have now learned it is impoosible for me to fill a cup that is already full."...
I have learned in life to always leave a bit of space in my cup in the event there is wisdom to be poured in...
<O>
I like that post.
Platapus
11-14-12, 07:35 PM
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - some old dead Greek guy
Hottentot
11-15-12, 01:52 AM
The signature line starts feeling very relevant again reading that last stroke of genius, but instead of it I suppose another quote from Sinyavsky will do as well:
"The intellectual admitted the multiplicity of truths, subjected everything, himself included, to doubt and analysis, merited his reputation as the 'critical spirit'. This psychological type was out of place in the world of socialism, build on unambiguous, black-andwhite foundations. What complexity could there be if there was only one truth, objective and absolute in its scientific infallibility?"
I'm no big fan of the "learn from history" camp, but can't help thinking that in here it might have some relevance.
Penguin
11-16-12, 09:20 AM
Here is the wet dream of people who think that half of the population shouldn't vote:
What The 2012 Election Would Have Looked Like Without Universal Suffrage (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/what-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-like-with)
A language question to the native speakers: doesn't the term "Universal Suffrage" have the historical connotation of referring only to women's voting rights?
Here is the wet dream of people who think that half of the population shouldn't vote:
What The 2012 Election Would Have Looked Like Without Universal Suffrage (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/what-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-like-with)
A language question to the native speakers: doesn't the term "Universal Suffrage" have the historical connotation of referring only to women's voting rights?
Nope, that'd be "women's suffrage". Universal means non property holders, blacks, indians and every other group that weren't originally allowed to vote.
mookiemookie
11-16-12, 10:04 AM
A language question to the native speakers: doesn't the term "Universal Suffrage" have the historical connotation of referring only to women's voting rights?
"Suffrage" just means the right to vote. The fight for women's suffrage was a very high profile one...probably more so than the right for blacks to vote, since that was a result of the Civil War and there were a lot of other issues surrounding that event. Women's suffrage was it's own individual issue, so that's probably why the word "suffrage" is associated with women's voting rights.
Penguin
11-16-12, 10:13 AM
Nope, that'd be "women's suffrage". Universal means non property holders, blacks, indians and every other group that weren't originally allowed to vote.
Ah, thanks, got this somehow mixed up. I'm glad that your nation has overcome voting tests and stuff like this, which obviously some people would like to see reintroduced... :-?
Ah, thanks, got this somehow mixed up. I'm glad that your nation has overcome voting tests and stuff like this, which obviously some people would like to see reintroduced... :-?
Heck yeah. It was a big mistake to give transients the vote. :yep:
Penguin
11-16-12, 10:27 AM
Heck yeah. It was a big mistake to give transients the vote. :yep:
Hey, you misspelled Americans! :O:
Sorry, I'll make sure I check with you in four years to make sure I know who the approved candidate is.
Alright, so who is the Bubblehead1980 approved candidate for this year?
u crank
11-07-16, 06:59 PM
And from the first page of this thread....
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1958157&postcount=12
:D
Alright, so who is the Bubblehead1980 approved candidate for this year?
Alex Jones probably.
Gargamel
11-16-16, 12:18 AM
Still amazes me that Romney was the best GOP candidate. I wonder what's next for the party.
Somebody probably already noticed this.... but this is an amazing statement.
CaptainHaplo
11-16-16, 10:41 PM
So now we have a President Elect who ran on conservative topics:
Fix illegal immigration (starting with border control)
Remove governmental regulation
Repeal Obamacare
Lower taxes
Deal with Islamic Terror
Even with all his personal negatives - the conservative PLATFORM (note - not "republican") still won because it was articulated clearly (though in many ways, bombastically).
Like I said - conservatism wins when its not moderated.
And for the record - my vote for PUSA was a write in.....
Tchocky
11-25-16, 01:22 PM
Somebody probably already noticed this.... but this is an amazing statement.
I should have kept my big mouth shut.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.