[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:
…
And O’Reilly himself following the interview referred to Obama as “very smart” and “highly intelligent.” Your partisanship blinds you.
O’Reilly has kissed the mans ass for quite some time now. That is how the game is played.[/quote]
So you think calling Obama a “socialist” and even “communist” kissing his ass?
Wow, you’re right. I was pretty sure that 2000 was the only time, but I looked it up and it turns out you’re right.
I stand corrected.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Damici wrote:
2000 was the only year where a candidate won the electoral college while losing the popular vote.
Except for Hayes, 1876, Harrison, 1888.[/quote]
[quote]debraD wrote:
Sure she’s not the brightest, and I’m definitely not a fan of her, but not understanding that Africa is a continent? That sounds really hard to believe. Seriously?? Everything else in that clip is believable though.[/quote]
I think it’s more likely she didn’t realize South Africa was a country, and thought that it just meant the southern part of Africa. Still pretty bad though.
REALLY bad, I’d say.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
debraD wrote:
Sure she’s not the brightest, and I’m definitely not a fan of her, but not understanding that Africa is a continent? That sounds really hard to believe. Seriously?? Everything else in that clip is believable though.
I think it’s more likely she didn’t realize South Africa was a country, and thought that it just meant the southern part of Africa. Still pretty bad though.[/quote]
[quote]Damici wrote:
Oh, speaking of all this “40 years of history” regarding Republicans’ (so-called) electoral successes (using fuzzy math), let’s all remember THIS:
The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.
Um . . . yeah, changes seem to be a-brewing.[/quote]
But this is the first election since I don’t know when that the democratic candidate actually won 50% of the vote.
You can play with numbers all you want. That’s like the losing team trying to find some sort of solace in the fact that they had more 1st downs than the winning team. The only thing that counts is who walks out a winner.
Nice try, but you aren’t dealing with a fucking idiot.
I don’t know where your “fucking” tone comes from. Are you not able to have a debate with someone without turning vitriolic?
First of all, the losing team this year was the Republicans. Not just “losing,” but “receiving of a stomping” is more like it.
And yes, this is the first year in a while where the Democrat received more than 50% of the popular vote . . . BECAUSE there was no significant third-party challenge this time around.
Nader took a bigger percentage of the votes in 2004 and 2000, whereas this time he was basically irrelevant. And in 1992 Ross Perot was a major factor (hurting Bush more, most likely). He was still a factor in 1996, although less so, but enough to keep Clinton from getting 50%.
The point is that, in presidential races, Democrats have been getting more and more people to vote for them than Republicans have. That is a bad trend for the Republicans any way you slice it. There’s nothing to argue here.
Yes, the electoral votes are what matter. (And Obama just cleaned up in that regard, BTW). But when the overall populace is trending more and more toward the D side and away from the R side, eventually that’s likely to affect the outcome of the electoral votes, as we just saw.
The reasons for that trend have to do with (a.) the major demographic changes taking place, which I mentioned earlier and (b.) coming off of 8 years of a Republican administration that essentially just ruined the world.
There’s nothing to argue about here. A trend is a trend. This is not 1980. The trend that was happening then is ancient history.
This is 2008.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
Oh, speaking of all this “40 years of history” regarding Republicans’ (so-called) electoral successes (using fuzzy math), let’s all remember THIS:
The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.
Um . . . yeah, changes seem to be a-brewing.
But this is the first election since I don’t know when that the democratic candidate actually won 50% of the vote.
You can play with numbers all you want. That’s like the losing team trying to find some sort of solace in the fact that they had more 1st downs than the winning team. The only thing that counts is who walks out a winner.
Nice try, but you aren’t dealing with a fucking idiot. [/quote]
[quote]Damici wrote:
Wow, you’re right. I was pretty sure that 2000 was the only time, but I looked it up and it turns out you’re right.
I stand corrected.
Gael wrote:
Damici wrote:
2000 was the only year where a candidate won the electoral college while losing the popular vote.
Except for Hayes, 1876, Harrison, 1888.
[/quote]
Still less than I would’ve thought. Interesting.
[quote]Damici wrote:
I don’t know where your “fucking” tone comes from. Are you not able to have a debate with someone without turning vitriolic?
First of all, the losing team this year was the Republicans. Not just “losing,” but “receiving of a stomping” is more like it.
And yes, this is the first year in a while where the Democrat received more than 50% of the popular vote . . . BECAUSE there was no significant third-party challenge this time around.
Nader took a bigger percentage of the votes in 2004 and 2000, whereas this time he was basically irrelevant. And in 1992 Ross Perot was a major factor (hurting Bush more, most likely). He was still a factor in 1996, although less so, but enough to keep Clinton from getting 50%.
The point is that, in presidential races, Democrats have been getting more and more people to vote for them than Republicans have. That is a bad trend for the Republicans any way you slice it. There’s nothing to argue here.
Yes, the electoral votes are what matter. (And Obama just cleaned up in that regard, BTW). But when the overall populace is trending more and more toward the D side and away from the R side, eventually that’s likely to affect the outcome of the electoral votes, as we just saw.
The reasons for that trend have to do with (a.) the major demographic changes taking place, which I mentioned earlier and (b.) coming off of 8 years of a Republican administration that essentially just ruined the world.
There’s nothing to argue about here. A trend is a trend. This is not 1980. The trend that was happening then is ancient history.
This is 2008.
[/quote]
Like I said earlier - you need to change the wording of your original post if you don’t want to hear about the past. Only 4 times since 1968 have the democrats had a better candidate than the republicans. Get upset all you want about going back in history - the facts are the facts.
Since when is dropping the f-bomb vitriolic? My God, son - it’s just conversation. If you don’t like the way I talk I suggest you stop trying to engage me. I wonder if you get this upset every time you see the word “fuck”.
Let’s see - you want to cherry pick the last few elections out and make some sort of statement about the failures of the Republican party, but you start getting upset if we go to any election that was held prior to 1992?
Sorry kiddo. Regardless of what you want to think, history is relevant. The world really did revolve around the sun before you registered to vote.
Republicans have been losing favor with the American public since the 2004 elections. Why? They stopped being conservative. Republicans made substantial gains in the 2002 mid-term elections, and promplty became shopaholic democrat-lites. You don’t have to go back to the 80’s or 90’s to see this.
You’re completely ignoring everything I’ve said, nevermind the evidence that’s right in front of you.
Losing the popular vote in 4 out of 5 of the last presidential elections spells a problem looming. Actually, the “looming” has ended and the problem for the Republican party has materialized. You are ignoring aaaaall the points I made about demographic shifts, as if they’re not happening. And they will only get worse for the Republican party.
Now, most importantly . . . If you ask 99% of the people who voted for Obama – or hell – let’s just focus on the swing voters, because longtime Democrats aren’t the question here – why they voted for Obama and wanted the Bush administration and the Republicans out, the answer would NOT be, from the mouths of ANY * SINGLE * ONE * OF * THEM, “They spent too much! Those damn Republicans spent too much! Spending was too high! I HATE it when spending is to high!!!”
That’s not the reason, tough guy. The reasons were:
(A.) The economy is royally fucked. This is not entirely Bush’s fault, as the problems go back several administrations and members of both parties deserve plenty of blame, but they blame him in large part. He did keep taxes low, but that didn’t seem to be enough to help, so they’re no longer too smitten with that idea, rightly or wrongly.
(B.) He started an unpopular and unnecessary war, in the process (1.) Destroying our image and reputation around the globe, maybe forever, (2.) Killing thousands of our men and women, not to mention Iraq civilians, and maiming tens of thousands more (3.) Costing trillions upon trillions of dollars (which contributes to our present economic problems), (4.) Putting us in a situation where there is no good ending and we will thus be stuck having a large presence there, to some degree, for a loooong time to come, stretching our military, our finances, etc. very thin.
(C.) He displayed general incompetence in several instances, most poignantly his bungling of the Hurricane Katrina situation. Rightly or wrongly, this made him even less popular among minorities, as well as the population at large.
(D.) Generally speaking, he’s a fucking moron and an embarrassment, at home and on the world stage, and people are sick of having their entire nation represented by a guy who can never “wordify” well enough to explain a single point with depth and clarity. Ever.
Now, you want to tell me that THE problem is that he did not govern far enough to the right??? That he let spending get out of control? You think the main reason he and his party got booted out is because SPENDING got out of control!!! Yeah, it did get out of control, but on the list of beefs that people have with W., and with the whole party by association, that’s about number 6,789 on their list, “Kiddo.”
Whether we like it or not, Bill Clinton not only got elected, but RE-elected despite the fact that he’d raised taxes, cut the military, and appointed lots of lefty judges. Yes, he acted more “centrist” than some Democrats would have, but he was nowhere near a conservative. And the populace re-elected him hands-down. Only when he started lying about getting BJ’s in the oval office did people start disliking him.
And in hindsight, had he not done that (or gotten caught), they’d still like him – sans BJ’s, he would’ve easily won again in 2000 if he were allowed to run for a third term, no question. And if he were allowed to run again in either 2004 or 2008 he would’ve cleaned up. Why? Because the country realized in hindsight that getting your knob polished is not nearly as big a crime as ruining the world, which W. did.
It’s really tough for ANYONE to make the argument that getting your knob polished is a bigger crime than ruining the fucking world. Which is why the populace is willing to think a little more pragmatically now, and care less about someone who proclaims that their foreign policy is guided by their relationship with the baby Jesus (thank God), despite having zero brain cells to rub together, and is fed up enough to take a flyer on someone whose resume is pretty thin but who seems intelligent enough to possibly, hopefully make some good, pragmatic decisions and not be blindly driven by stupid ideology. We shall see if that pans out.
BUT, your boy W. set the Republican party back probably for decades, and it WASN’T because he let spending get out of control. The trend that was looming for 4 out of 5 of the last elections, COMBINED with the calamitous reign of W., has caused a paradigm shift. Not a “blip on the radar screen”, but, unless Obama turns out to be a REAL fuck-up of epic proportions, a PARADIGM SHIFT. I could talk about the trends that were going on back in the 1920’s but at some point those become irrelevant to the CURRENT situation. The Republican party is presently fucked.
Now go ahead, next time around you nominated your favorite reverend-turned-politician with an IQ of fucking dog meat who believes literally in talking snakes. See where it gets you.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
I don’t know where your “fucking” tone comes from. Are you not able to have a debate with someone without turning vitriolic?
First of all, the losing team this year was the Republicans. Not just “losing,” but “receiving of a stomping” is more like it.
And yes, this is the first year in a while where the Democrat received more than 50% of the popular vote . . . BECAUSE there was no significant third-party challenge this time around.
Nader took a bigger percentage of the votes in 2004 and 2000, whereas this time he was basically irrelevant. And in 1992 Ross Perot was a major factor (hurting Bush more, most likely). He was still a factor in 1996, although less so, but enough to keep Clinton from getting 50%.
The point is that, in presidential races, Democrats have been getting more and more people to vote for them than Republicans have. That is a bad trend for the Republicans any way you slice it. There’s nothing to argue here.
Yes, the electoral votes are what matter. (And Obama just cleaned up in that regard, BTW). But when the overall populace is trending more and more toward the D side and away from the R side, eventually that’s likely to affect the outcome of the electoral votes, as we just saw.
The reasons for that trend have to do with (a.) the major demographic changes taking place, which I mentioned earlier and (b.) coming off of 8 years of a Republican administration that essentially just ruined the world.
There’s nothing to argue about here. A trend is a trend. This is not 1980. The trend that was happening then is ancient history.
This is 2008.
Like I said earlier - you need to change the wording of your original post if you don’t want to hear about the past. Only 4 times since 1968 have the democrats had a better candidate than the republicans. Get upset all you want about going back in history - the facts are the facts.
Since when is dropping the f-bomb vitriolic? My God, son - it’s just conversation. If you don’t like the way I talk I suggest you stop trying to engage me. I wonder if you get this upset every time you see the word “fuck”.
Let’s see - you want to cherry pick the last few elections out and make some sort of statement about the failures of the Republican party, but you start getting upset if we go to any election that was held prior to 1992?
Sorry kiddo. Regardless of what you want to think, history is relevant. The world really did revolve around the sun before you registered to vote.
Republicans have been losing favor with the American public since the 2004 elections. Why? They stopped being conservative. Republicans made substantial gains in the 2002 mid-term elections, and promplty became shopaholic democrat-lites. You don’t have to go back to the 80’s or 90’s to see this.
[/quote]
Our country started as a capitolist country and grew as such, it has been the “socialist” leaning interjected everytime these leftist politicians get involved that have buried teh great nation.
You can’t place socialist boundaries on a capitolist economy and expect it to thrive as it once did.
And just because some people follow a creationist view of origin and some something else doesn’t differentiate intelligence. There is no concrete support for the evolutionists theory of origin either, take just as much faith.
But we can put the religion part behind us issue is most of us would still rather live in a capitolist climate not a socialist.
I think most people just didn’t take the time to look behind the campaign promises and see what was really done in chicago and who this man’s ideological teachers were.
Clinton was a complete and total moron. He helped push this economy in the drain. Teh only reason the budget was balanced was because he cut spending in areas that actually needed it.
[quote]Damici wrote:
You’re completely ignoring everything I’ve said, nevermind the evidence that’s right in front of you.[/quote]
I am not ignoring anything. Your points are arbitrary, and subjective. You pick dates and figures out of the air to support your position. I do’t have a problem with that, but don’t make the mistake of thinking you are right just because you are able to fool yourself.
Your evidence is not evidence.
Your subjectivity is glaring when you want to discount the fact that in 2 of the 4 elections you are so proudly championing as the sign of doom for the right - there was a third party candidate running to the right of the Democratic candidate.
Yeah - cherry pick the numbers. Some of us actually understand the numbers you are trying to massage.
[quote]Now, most importantly . . . If you ask 99% of the people who voted for Obama – or hell – let’s just focus on the swing voters, because longtime Democrats aren’t the question here – why they voted for Obama and wanted the Bush administration and the Republicans out,
The answer would NOT be, from the mouths of ANY * SINGLE * ONE * OF * THEM, “They spent too much! Those damn Republicans spent too much! Spending was too high! I HATE it when spending is to high!!!”[/quote]
Gonna need a shitload more proof than just your opinion, sparky. As has been pointed out previously - you are fully capable of fooling yourself, but that does not mean that others with are nearly as gullible. You speak in absolute terms. That is the first sign of someone who doesn’t have a clue.
Tough guy? Because I call you out on your bogus logic, I am a tough guy?
Won’t disagree with this - but I believe the economy would be much improved if taxes were lowered, and government got out of the way. Please see the CRA/Fannie-Freddie/Finance crisis if you are confused.
quote He started an unpopular and unnecessary war, in the process
(1.) Destroying our image and reputation around the globe, maybe forever, (2.) Killing thousands of our men and women, not to mention Iraq civilians, and maiming tens of thousands more (3.) Costing trillions upon trillions of dollars (which contributes to our present economic problems), (4.) Putting us in a situation where there is no good ending and we will thus be stuck having a large presence there, to some degree, for a loooong time to come, stretching our military, our finances, etc. very thin.[/quote]
First, you say no one is going to say that it is about government spending, then you tell me that people are upset about the cost of the war. I’ll let you figure that one out on your own.
I have said for a long, long time that the war has lasted too long, and was not fought to win. But seeing as how Iraq has turned around and is winding down - it was not that much of an issue in the current election.
FEMA worked precisely as it was designed to work in countless previous disasters. NOLA was a goat screw on every level possible. THis is a very tired debate that has been discussed countless times on here.
But Katrina was more of an issue in this election than government spending? Really?
Maybe you misspoke, and would like to list another example of incompetence - perhaps one that actually relevant.
Yale grad with a Harvard MBA is a moron? I have asked at least one previous time to give me your definition of “moron”. You seem to be ignorant of its meaning.
But none the less - people grow tired of the same guy for 8 years. Bush stopped being a conservative, as did the congress in 2005. Congress was shown the door in 2006, and nothing has changed since other than the conservatives being sick and tired of what we have representing us.
[quote]Now, you want to tell me that THE problem is that he did not govern far enough to the right??? That he let spending get out of control? You think the main reason he and his party got booted out is because SPENDING got out of control!!!
Yeah, it did get out of control, but on the list of beefs that people have with W., and with the whole party by association, that’s about number 6,789 on their list, “Kiddo.”[/quote]
It is the economy, stupid - to quote Clinton. Government spending is the lynch pin to a healthy economy. One need look no further than Clinton for this to ring true. Clinton inherited a recovering economy.
He and the liberal congress did all they could to wreck it. In 1994, the republicans took over and at the end of the Clinton’s first term, we had a budget surplus, and and exploding economy. How? Controlled spending.
It’s really not rocket science.
I didn’t read the rest of your post. I got tired of correcting your blatant errors.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me.
I am done with you.
We could debate those issues until the end of time, but that’s not the point. I’m not arguing about whether Obama’s proposed economic policies are good, nor that that his resume is good. I didn’t think he was experienced enough for the job, and I didn’t vote for him (OR McCain).
I think voting for him was taking a huge flyer. But he’s there now, so I certainly wish him the best and hope he does smart things and is limited in being able to do any dumb things.
My point is not about arguing the specifics of policy, it’s about arguing that nominating (or electing) fucking morons is a bad thing for the party AND the country.
When you elect someone BECAUSE they agree with your view that the earth is only 5,000 years old and that people coexisted with dinosaurs and that Christ is going to have his second coming in Israel when the rapture will happen,
And that that will be soon, and that your view of abortion being dead wrong is correct and those who think otherwise should be forced to follow YOUR view on the subject (even though the majority of them disagree with you) . . .
When you elect someone SOLELY, or FIRST AND FOREMOST, because they agree with you on that silly religious/social shit but you IGNORE the fact that that person is not sufficiently qualified nor intelligent to hold the most important job in the WORLD, and they are not good at GOVERNING, period . . .
then you get a moron who bumbles a huge fucking hurricane relief effort that should’ve gone like clockwork, a person whose views of defending Israel at all costs no matter what (because the baby Jesus is gonna’ come back there soon and save you all!!)
causes him to make stupid, STUPID decisions regarding the Middle East (thus ruining the world, and our image in it), when that causes the same bozo to want to spend all of what would’ve been a very generous gift to anti-AIDS efforts in Africa on abstinence-only programs there,
completely IGNORING the fact that that is CONCRETELY PROVEN NOT TO WORK, thus causing thousands of people to DIE, instead of giving them comprehensive sex ed . . .
When you elect such a fucking moron because you both believe wholeheartedly and to the letter the stories about the guy living in a whale, and the talking snake in the garden, and the guy taking two of every species on EARTH, bringing them all together on a wooden boat and making them have sex . . .
WELLLL, then you end up with someone who RUINS THE FUCKING WORLD BECAUSE HE’S NOT CAPABLE OF GOVERNING or THINKING RATIONALLY.
Someone can HOLD those beliefs all they want, but if they’re going to govern (in this country) they need to be able to SEPARATE their policy-making decisions from these beliefs and not be LED by them. And therein lies the problem.
The litmus test for nomination or election needs to be on GOVERNING ABILITIES, INTELLIGENCE (including GLOBAL intelligence), correct POLICY stances, and the ability to ARTICULATE all of that. First and foremost. PERIOD.
It should NOT be on whether or not he believes in the Holy Trinity and the story of the talking snake in the garden.
(From apbt55):
"You can’t place socialist boundaries on a capitolist economy and expect it to thrive as it once did.
And just because some people follow a creationist view of origin and some something else doesn’t differentiate intelligence. There is no concrete support for the evolutionists theory of origin either, take just as much faith.
But we can put the religion part behind us issue is most of us would still rather live in a capitolist climate not a socialist.
I think most people just didn’t take the time to look behind the campaign promises and see what was really done in chicago and who this man’s ideological teachers were."[/quote]
That’s funny – this is the second time you’ve said you’re “done with me.” I’m SO tough to leave, aren’t I? 
My points about current trends are no more arbitrary or subjective then *yours." You still – STILL – haven’t responded at all to the specific demographic trends that I mentioned, largely because you seem to prefer to keep your head buried in the sand about them.
I won’t repeat them, because I’ve already repeated them several times and you refuse to acknowledge them. But they are not arguable.
Then you went on to cherry-pick (to use your term) information about the Clinton years to suit your argument. More on that in a minute. 
Worse still, you made some blatantly incorrect statements that I’m going to show you are WRONG with – wait for it – FACTS. I hope you can read a chart, because you’re going to need to. Pretty simple stuff.
First off, during the Reagan years we experienced the biggest (until that point, anyway) peacetime economic boom in history. Yet YOU said, quote, “Government spending is the lynch pin to a healthy economy,” claiming that keeping spending in control is what keeps economic times good.
Yet, Ronald Reagan ran the biggest deficits ever SEEN to that point, due to enormous defense spending, and YET he gave us the biggest economic boom we’d ever seen at the same time! Huh!!! (Hold on, here’s a graph that shows where your thinking is fucked in this and many other ways. Take a look):
http://archive.dailypicture.net/yearly_us_budget_deficit_or_surplus_1961_through_2004.htm
Then you went ON (this is where it gets precious!) to claim that “In 1994, the Republicans took over and at the end of Clinton’s first term, we had a budget surplus,” as if it were a one-party effort to drive down the deficit.
In FACT, that same chart shows that the deficit started STEEPLY declining (the line climbing up on the chart), heading toward a surplus, starting in 1991/1992, when all those evil Democrats still controlled everything, and continuing to steeply abate through the 90’s (including the early 90’s!)
Until a surplus was finally reached in 1997. And you say I speak in absolutes?? It’s not as absolute as “Dems bad, Repubs good!!” Bill Clinton handed W. a surplus which he promptly pissed away.
That is bad (the pissing away), we agree, but the economy was humming along just fine until quite recently, so those deficits weren’t hurting it at the time. Trust me, I agree with you that W. not controlling spending was a huge fuck-up (one of his many) –
I’m just making the point that it’s not what did us the most harm, of all the things he’s done, nor is there a direct correlation between that and the economy’s health.
See? There’s no nice, neat correlation between keeping spending “in control” and having a healthy economy. Reagan proved that loud and clear, nevermind more recent happenings.
As for people being upset that we’re spending trillions in Iraq, YEAH!! They are! They’re pissed that we’re spending it IN IRAQ and not here at home!
You and I may not agree with the idea of spending it AT ALL, but if you ask the average man on the street, they’re pissed (rightly or not) that it’s not being spent on healthcare for all, roads, schools, bridges, etc. HERE in the U.S.!
Joe Citizen who votes doesn’t give a flying fuck about excess government spending and running deficits! He doesn’t even know what the fuck that means!! We’re talking about VOTERS’ THOUGHTS right now, not about what is or isn’t correct economic policy!
NOW, with regard to third-party candidates affecting the popular vote: First of all, third-party candidates COUNT. They existed at the time, and they’re probably going to exist in future elections, so get used to it.
Their impact IS relevant to the discussion. If a third-party candidate takes more votes from the Republican candidate, as I acknowledged that Ross Perot did from GHW Bush in '92, that’s not a sign of “unfairness” or some anomaly that we shouldn’t count, it’s a sign that people WEREN’T HAPPY WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!
That’s exactly my point!! Thus, the Democratic candidate got the biggest portion of the popular vote.
Furthermore, take a look at the table here under “Results” (scroll down a little more than halfway):
If you take ALL of Ross Perot’s vote percentage in 1996 and give it to Bob Dole, Dole STILL doesn’t beat Clinton in the popular vote. Now make it even more fair by giving all of Nader’s votes to Clinton and Clinton’s margin of victory is even bigger.
In 2000, despite Pat Buchanan running as a Reform party candidate (to the “right” of Bush), Al Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 votes: 2000 United States presidential election - Wikipedia . (See “National Results” table towards the bottom).
That same table shows that Buchanan got less than 500,000 votes; not enough to cover the difference between Gore and W.
And of course 2008 was a thorough stomping of McCain by Obama, with Obama winning both the popular and electoral votes handily. Oh, BTW, Sarah Palin is now widely considered to have taken significantly more votes from McCain than she brought him. Why? Because she’s a FUCKING MORON and people were PETRIFIED of the idea of possibly having her run things if McCain croaked.
NOW – if you want to tell me that he majority of the people who voted for Obama were pissed at Bush and the Republicans because they SPENT too much then you are living deeper in Alice’s Wonderland than I ever could possibly have imagined.
They’re pissed because the economy sucks – (which they DO NOT equate with excessive government spending because they don’t understand the equation –
And they wouldn’t choose to SOLVE that by voting for a guy who promises MASSIVE new government programs like national healthcare and a Manhattan project for new energy solutions, now would they?!?!? Especially over a guy (McCain) who kept shouting about how he’d institute an across-the-board spending freeze)!!
They’re pissed about Iraq because they feel lied to and manipulated, they’ve had thousands of their fellow citizens killed and maimed, it’s sullied our reputation in the world irreparably, and it showed that W. (and possibly McCain and other Republicans)
Might try to pull off another unnecessary “pre-emptive” shit-show again, and they don’t EVER want to let that happen again. It doesn’t matter that Iraq is more stabilized than it was now – people don’t want someone who will take us on another Iraq-like adventure IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If you, as a grown man with eyes and ears, are going to sit there and try to argue that W. is intelligent, that he is a capable guy because he went to Harvard and Yale (I already addressed the schooling issue and how the intelligence issue is SO not about that),
And make claims like the Katrina fuck-up wasn’t really a fuck-up, or that he’s not at all responsible for the fuck-up . . . if you’re going to make silly claims like THAT then I don’t even know what to think of you at this point.
[And by the way, if you don’t think Katrina still taints the population at large’s image of W., then you just plain DON’T watch the news, or listen to discussions, or read. Rightly or wrongly, people DO hold that against him. Rightly so, I would add.]
Perhaps we should stick to not arguing the point of W.'s intelligence specifically, because we will NOT agree there. EVER.
I’ve been summing it up in post after post now: People want someone who is INTELLIGENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE and CAPABLE OF GOOD GOVERNING, policy positions aside for a sec, rather than someone who was nominated JUST because he/she believes in the talking snake in the garden.
THE REPUBLICANS MUST STOP NOMINATING BIBLE-THUMPING MORONS and start NOMINATING SOME RESPECTABLE CANDIDATES. Palin proved this in spades.
ASK FOR MORE FROM YOUR OWN PARTY.
Sheesh.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
You’re completely ignoring everything I’ve said, nevermind the evidence that’s right in front of you.
I am not ignoring anything. Your points are arbitrary, and subjective. You pick dates and figures out of the air to support your position. I do’t have a problem with that, but don’t make the mistake of thinking you are right just because you are able to fool yourself.
Your evidence is not evidence.
Losing the popular vote in 4 out of 5 of the last presidential elections spells a problem looming. Actually, the “looming” has ended and the problem for the Republican party has materialized.
You are ignoring aaaaall the points I made about demographic shifts, as if they’re not happening. And they will only get worse for the Republican party.
Your subjectivity is glaring when you want to discount the fact that in 2 of the 4 elections you are so proudly championing as the sign of doom for the right - there was a third party candidate running to the right of the Democratic candidate.
Yeah - cherry pick the numbers. Some of us actually understand the numbers you are trying to massage.
Now, most importantly . . . If you ask 99% of the people who voted for Obama – or hell – let’s just focus on the swing voters, because longtime Democrats aren’t the question here –
why they voted for Obama and wanted the Bush administration and the Republicans out, the answer would NOT be, from the mouths of ANY * SINGLE * ONE * OF * THEM, “They spent too much! Those damn Republicans spent too much! Spending was too high! I HATE it when spending is to high!!!”
Gonna need a shitload more proof than just your opinion, sparky. As has been pointed out previously - you are fully capable of fooling yourself, but that does not mean that others with are nearly as gullible. You speak in absolute terms. That is the first sign of someone who doesn’t have a clue.
That’s not the reason, tough guy. The reasons were:
Tough guy? Because I call you out on your bogus logic, I am a tough guy?
(A.) The economy is royally fucked. This is not entirely Bush’s fault, as the problems go back several administrations and members of both parties deserve plenty of blame, but they blame him in large part.
He did keep taxes low, but that didn’t seem to be enough to help, so they’re no longer too smitten with that idea, rightly or wrongly.
Won’t disagree with this - but I believe the economy would be much improved if taxes were lowered, and government got out of the way. Please see the CRA/Fannie-Freddie/Finance crisis if you are confused.
(B.) He started an unpopular and unnecessary war, in the process
(1.) Destroying our image and reputation around the globe, maybe forever,
(2.) Killing thousands of our men and women, not to mention Iraq civilians, and maiming tens of thousands more
(3.) Costing trillions upon trillions of dollars (which contributes to our present economic problems),
(4.) Putting us in a situation where there is no good ending and we will thus be stuck having a large presence there, to some degree, for a loooong time to come, stretching our military, our finances, etc. very thin.
First, you say no one is going to say that it is about government spending, then you tell me that people are upset about the cost of the war. I’ll let you figure that one out on your own.
I have said for a long, long time that the war has lasted too long, and was not fought to win. But seeing as how Iraq has turned around and is winding down - it was not that much of an issue in the current election.
(C.) He displayed general incompetence in several instances, most poignantly his bungling of the Hurricane Katrina situation. Rightly or wrongly, this made him even less popular among minorities, as well as the population at large.
FEMA worked precisely as it was designed to work in countless previous disasters. NOLA was a goat screw on every level possible. THis is a very tired debate that has been discussed countless times on here.
But Katrina was more of an issue in this election than government spending? Really?
Maybe you misspoke, and would like to list another example of incompetence - perhaps one that actually relevant.
(D.) Generally speaking, he’s a fucking moron and an embarrassment, at home and on the world stage, and people are sick of having their entire nation represented by a guy who can never “wordify” well enough to explain a single point with depth and clarity. Ever.
Yale grad with a Harvard MBA is a moron? I have asked at least one previous time to give me your definition of “moron”. You seem to be ignorant of its meaning.
But none the less - people grow tired of the same guy for 8 years. Bush stopped being a conservative, as did the congress in 2005. Congress was shown the door in 2006, and nothing has changed since other than the conservatives being sick and tired of what we have representing us.
Now, you want to tell me that THE problem is that he did not govern far enough to the right??? That he let spending get out of control? You think the main reason he and his party got booted out is because SPENDING got out of control!!!
Yeah, it did get out of control, but on the list of beefs that people have with W., and with the whole party by association, that’s about number 6,789 on their list, “Kiddo.”
It is the economy, stupid - to quote Clinton. Government spending is the lynch pin to a healthy economy. One need look no further than Clinton for this to ring true. Clinton inherited a recovering economy.
He and the liberal congress did all they could to wreck it. In 1994, the republicans took over and at the end of the Clinton’s first term, we had a budget surplus, and and exploding economy. How? Controlled spending.
It’s really not rocket science.
I didn’t read the rest of your post. I got tired of correcting your blatant errors.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me.
I am done with you.
[/quote]
[quote]Damici wrote:
That’s funny – this is the second time you’ve said you’re “done with me.” I’m SO tough to leave, aren’t I? :-)[/quote]
I say that a lot. Most of the time I mean it. But we are essentially both in the same broken down pick-up truck. Our fight is primarily over what it is that is broke, and secondarily - how to fix it.
You say it’s been making a funny noise since 1992. I say it’s been making that same noise you hear since at least 1968, and that the real problem is the smoke coming out of the exhaust pipe since 2005.
I did. They gave me McCain, and I voted for Barr. They re not my party anymore. For God’s sake - they had Lieberman on the stage at the Convention.
LIEBERMAN!!!
yeah, fuck the base. I’m sick of pandering to the creationist far right that want to set the course of history back to something that makes them more comfortable in their own skins.
Well we’re both upset with the party, and that’s good. We agree on one of the reasons: Fiscal frivolity versus true fiscal conservatism.
We disagree on the other: I’m against nominating unintelligent, non-wordly Bible-thumping idiots above all else. You seem to disagree.
That’s fine for now. It will be interesting to see where the next 4-8 years takes us.
Give me an intelligent, fiscally conservative, strong (yet intelligent, not ideological) on national defense, socially libertarian Republican candidate and I’ll vote for him/her in a heartbeat. But I have a feeling they’ll never field one.
So I have to hope for a credible third party to materialize.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
That’s funny – this is the second time you’ve said you’re “done with me.” I’m SO tough to leave, aren’t I?
I say that a lot. Most of the time I mean it. But we are essentially both in the same broken down pick-up truck. Our fight is primarily over what it is that is broke, and secondarily - how to fix it.
You say it’s been making a funny noise since 1992. I say it’s been making that same noise you hear since at least 1968, and that the real problem is the smoke coming out of the exhaust pipe since 2005.
ASK FOR MORE FROM YOUR OWN PARTY.
I did. They gave me McCain, and I voted for Barr. They re not my party anymore. For God’s sake - they had Lieberman on the stage at the Convention.
LIEBERMAN!!! [/quote]
No Romney in 2012. There needs to be a purging of the current crop of spineless Republicrats and some new blood to replace them.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
yeah, fuck the base. I’m sick of pandering to the creationist far right that want to set the course of history back to something that makes them more comfortable in their own skins. [/quote]
Why the fear? Or is it just your fucking ignorance talking?
[quote]Damici wrote:
We disagree on the other: I’m against nominating unintelligent, non-wordly Bible-thumping idiots above all else. You seem to disagree.[/quote]
Unintelligent is a pretty subjective term. An entire Congress full of supposedly “intelligent” elected officials, and they pass an $850 billion bailout for a financial crisis cause by the same people who are telling them that a bailout will fix it.
You seem to think that anyone who isn’t ashamed to mention their faith is an abomination to the party, or that anyone who is religios should shut the fuck up and sit in the corner.
Yeah - we disagree.
[quote]Give me an intelligent, fiscally conservative, strong (yet intelligent, not ideological) on national defense, socially libertarian Republican candidate and I’ll vote for him/her in a heartbeat. But I have a feeling they’ll never field one.
[/quote]
Give me a party full of men that are willing to fight for what is right instead of thinking that reaching across the aisle will make them popular.
I can take or leave the religion. I am not so closed minded as to think that nothing good can come from the religious right, nor am I so naive to think that a conservative movement will go very far without their support. Like it or not, Middle American values are not going anywhere soon.