Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
Because a nation of children votes for Santa Clause who brings them treats.[/quote]

Yes because the Republicans hand out no treats at all to bankers, defense contracts, etc. What did you do with your stimulus check President Bush sent you by the way? Surely you sent it back as an adult who didn’t want a treat. Both sides play Santa Claus, just in different ways. The best thing would be the abolishment of this cheerleader two party system where people don’t vote on issues, but vote on blind faith. How many people voted straight ticket in the entire nation yesterday? I would absolutely love to know this number. [/quote]

I didn’t get a “stimulous check.” I was in Afganistan or Iraq, depending.

Oh, and I voted for Gary Johnson, you useless turd.

182

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I would change deal with to “use” and I like the above statement more.

:), clearly a quickly written comment can be spun as sexist as I read in your post ;). I did not mean to imply that either side outright claimed a demographic and all its votes. Merely that certain demographics, single women(all income levels), minorities and young people. Tended to favor Obama by varying margins and that Romney(his campaign) thought being favored in his target demographics would make up for the difference.

I should no better by now that if one side does it so does the other… Yeah shot me I have only had the pleasure of partaking in 3 elections. And I was classified as an educated but naive voter for the first 2 :/. All the same the other side made it a point to attack this point, but perhaps it was a mute point falling only on decided(liberal) ears.

No I did not see Obama step into the ring for many\any to my recollection hard hitting interviews about an economic plan, I am sure at the advisement of his campaign. Probably in part because every time I saw Romney or Ryan go into one of these interviews even on Fox they tended to get beat up…

Mitts 5 part plan, there aren’t in any holes in that thing… the biggest claim is that he would cut spending to balance the budget. Brilliant! What specifically are you cutting? You would think he would have some big examples, not saving 100 million dollars but cutting PBS. That’s as flimsy and example as saying taxing the shit out of rich people will solve all our money problems. Maybe that’s just an example of the kind of excess we can do without. Maybe being too specific would kill his potential to gain moocher votes but it sure would have been nice to know… there are some good programs out there he may have had on the chopping block. And before people bitch that moochers will take advantage just remember that giving breaks to the top end has the same holes. Deregulate the rich too much and smart business men will find a way to screw everyone over and take more than they deserve, give too much welfare and lazy people will milk the system till they die. To be frank both ideas piss me off so why switch from one the other.

I hope your wrong, there were good reasons to think either approach proposed could screw us over completely down the road. Now that a choice has been made again we get see how the next 4 years roll out and see if the Democratic spending makes a more profitable job markets or gets us in even deeper. The democrats don’t have total control so if we drive off a cliff its a group effort…

183

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I have to disagree with you and X on this. How can you just abandon your principles?
[/quote]

Wrong question. How can you hold principals that differ so much from the majority of the country yet still think everyone else is wrong?[/quote]Because those are the ones the country was founded on and what made it what it was? In this nation in 2012, the more people believe something the more likely it is to be wrong.

184

[quote]StolyElit wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I would change deal with to “use” and I like the above statement more.

:), clearly a quickly written comment can be spun as sexist as I read in your post ;). I did not mean to imply that either side outright claimed a demographic and all its votes. Merely that certain demographics, single women(all income levels), minorities and young people. Tended to favor Obama by varying margins and that Romney(his campaign) thought being favored in his target demographics would make up for the difference.

I should no better by now that if one side does it so does the other… Yeah shot me I have only had the pleasure of partaking in 3 elections. And I was classified as an educated but naive voter for the first 2 :/. All the same the other side made it a point to attack this point, but perhaps it was a mute point falling only on decided(liberal) ears.

No I did not see Obama step into the ring for many\any to my recollection hard hitting interviews about an economic plan, I am sure at the advisement of his campaign. Probably in part because every time I saw Romney or Ryan go into one of these interviews even on Fox they tended to get beat up…

Mitts 5 part plan, there aren’t in any holes in that thing… the biggest claim is that he would cut spending to balance the budget. Brilliant! What specifically are you cutting? You would think he would have some big examples, not saving 100 million dollars but cutting PBS. That’s as flimsy and example as saying taxing the shit out of rich people will solve all our money problems. Maybe that’s just an example of the kind of excess we can do without. Maybe being too specific would kill his potential to gain moocher votes but it sure would have been nice to know… there are some good programs out there he may have had on the chopping block. And before people bitch that moochers will take advantage just remember that giving breaks to the top end has the same holes. Deregulate the rich too much and smart business men will find a way to screw everyone over and take more than they deserve, give too much welfare and lazy people will milk the system till they die. To be frank both ideas piss me off so why switch from one the other.

I hope your wrong, there were good reasons to think either approach proposed could screw us over completely down the road. Now that a choice has been made again we get see how the next 4 years roll out and see if the Democratic spending makes a more profitable job markets or gets us in even deeper. The democrats don’t have total control so if we drive off a cliff its a group effort…
[/quote]

Oh man go fix your quotes so I can respond.

Thanks,

Zeb

185

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote:

But as I understand he was quickly sidelined in the primaries as being a “lefty”? Instead you had an ignorant pizza tycoon as a serious candidate.

[/quote]

I liked Huntsman too. His chances were even worse than Ron Paul’s in that primary though.[/quote]

He never had a chance in the primaries because:

  1. Huntsman refused to sign any pledges.
  2. Huntsman came out (giggle) in support of civil-unions for same-sex couples.
  3. He accepted an appointment by the Obama administration to be ambassador to China (He speaks Chinese).

Huntsman may have had an actual shot at winning the general election. He comes across as thoughtful and reasonable.

Since Huntsman conceded early on, Mitt became the best shot out of the remaining to win in the general election.

186

[quote]loppar wrote:
One has to adapt to new social trends, and the people’s attitude towards them. You cannot Bible thump all you want, but you cannot win over the moderates and independents which were ripe for picking this year by claiming supreme moral authority or even tolerating all that birth certificate / Muslim nonsense.

If the electorate changes, you have to adapt, not insult the electorate. “We lost because the people were lazy, stupid or not good / smart enough to realize our brilliance”. Trust me, European history has taught us that this usually leads to slow and inevitable drift towards extremism where first you have to “protect” the people from themselves, then “take back” the “real” country. Shifting demographics and new social norms are the “real” America not some imaginary crap form political ads with picket fences in small towns that warms the hearts of increasingly old (and white) supporters.
[/quote]

Bingo. But it’s much easier to blame someone else for your failings than to figure out what you did wrong and get better because of it.

james

187

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote:

But as I understand he was quickly sidelined in the primaries as being a “lefty”? Instead you had an ignorant pizza tycoon as a serious candidate.

[/quote]

I liked Huntsman too. His chances were even worse than Ron Paul’s in that primary though.[/quote]

Huntsman was early choice of mine also.

Mufasa

188

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote:

But as I understand he was quickly sidelined in the primaries as being a “lefty”? Instead you had an ignorant pizza tycoon as a serious candidate.

[/quote]

I liked Huntsman too. His chances were even worse than Ron Paul’s in that primary though.[/quote]

He never had a chance in the primaries because:

  1. Huntsman refused to sign any pledges.
  2. Huntsman came out (giggle) in support of civil-unions for same-sex couples.
  3. He accepted an appointment by the Obama administration to be ambassador to China (He speaks Chinese).

Huntsman may have had an actual shot at winning the general election. He comes across as thoughtful and reasonable.

Since Huntsman conceded early on, Mitt became the best shot out of the remaining to win in the general election.

[/quote]

Funny how the ability to speak the language of our ascendant military and economic rival is something of a handicap in modern politics. Reminds me of the primary-season attack ad that showed Romney speaking French.

189

This was forever ago in this thread (about page 4-this place has blown up the past 24 hours), but I have some more information regarding non-contraceptive use of birth control. It is commonly used for a variety of non-contraceptive reasons. It’s worth noting that since it is 0% effective on its own at preventing any sexually linked condition other than pregnancy, many still use condoms for actual sex purposes (if they are indeed not in a stable relationship setting). Beyond this however, the link below goes into some of the reasons women take the pill for non-contraceptive reasons.

Summary article: Many American Women Use Birth Control Pills for Noncontraceptive Reasons | Guttmacher Institute

To put other uses here:
-As has been discussed, treatment of endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.
-Estrogen regulation to replace a depletion of the hormone due to stress, chemo, weight loss, etc.
-Period regulation for reasons beyond simple family planning (irregular/heavy/painful/migraine links/etc).

Unlike seemingly every other left leaning person in the world, I’m not checking this forum as often as usual in the post-electoral aftermath, since I hate gloating/moaning, so hopefully I’ll be back before this is buried but probably not. For the record, I drift on the issue of birth control and the church (per usual wishing there was some compromise that could be reached for those with medical needs beyond not wanting to get pregnant), so no major axe to grind either way.

190

This was forever ago in this thread (about page 4-this place has blown up the past 24 hours), but I have some more information regarding non-contraceptive use of birth control. It is commonly used for a variety of non-contraceptive reasons. It’s worth noting that since it is 0% effective on its own at preventing any sexually linked condition other than pregnancy, many still use condoms for actual sex purposes (if they are indeed not in a stable relationship setting). Beyond this however, the link below goes into some of the reasons women take the pill for non-contraceptive reasons.

Summary article: Many American Women Use Birth Control Pills for Noncontraceptive Reasons | Guttmacher Institute

To put other uses here:
-As has been discussed, treatment of endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.
-Estrogen regulation to replace a depletion of the hormone due to stress, chemo, weight loss, etc.
-Period regulation for reasons beyond simple family planning (irregular/heavy/painful/migraine links/etc).

Unlike seemingly every other left leaning person in the world, I’m not checking this forum as often as usual in the post-electoral aftermath, since I hate gloating/moaning, so hopefully I’ll be back before this is buried but probably not. For the record, I drift on the issue of birth control and the church (per usual wishing there was some compromise that could be reached for those with medical needs beyond not wanting to get pregnant), so no major axe to grind either way.

191

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

-Period regulation for reasons beyond simple family planning (irregular/heavy/painful/migraine links/etc).
[/quote]

Anecdotal for sure, but both my girlfriend now and my most recent ex were originally prescribed birth control for this reason, long before their first sexual encounters. She tells me she used to miss entire weeks of high school because of the pain before the pill.

192

One more thought:

I think Paul Ryan was a bad choice for VP. Yes, the base loves him, but there are quite a few moderates who are uncomfortable with his ideological purity. Plus, Rubio really could’ve driven this thing in a different direction and would’ve almost certainly delivered Florida at least.

Hindsight sure is 20/20.

Edit: If Rubio could be convinced to accept, that is

193

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
For the record, I drift on the issue of birth control and the church (per usual wishing there was some compromise that could be reached for those with medical needs beyond not wanting to get pregnant), so no major axe to grind either way.[/quote]

There is no compromise. Exempt us, there’s other places to work.

Edit: It’s not like we’ll comply anyways.

194

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
For the record, I drift on the issue of birth control and the church (per usual wishing there was some compromise that could be reached for those with medical needs beyond not wanting to get pregnant), so no major axe to grind either way.[/quote]

There is no compromise.
[/quote]

You have a problem with birth control if it’s being used to treat a legitimate medical problem? At that point it’s in the same category as penicillin.

195

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
For the record, I drift on the issue of birth control and the church (per usual wishing there was some compromise that could be reached for those with medical needs beyond not wanting to get pregnant), so no major axe to grind either way.[/quote]

There is no compromise.
[/quote]

You have a problem with birth control if it’s being used to treat a legitimate medical problem? At that point it’s in the same category as penicillin.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if I have a problem with it our not. These are OUR institutions. Not yours. Not the public’s. Ours. Accepting employment within them is VOLUNTARY.

196

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
My biggest issue with BC is that it’s a want (talking medication here not condoms) more than a need. You can buy condoms whenever you want practically everywhere, but you can also pay for the pill yourself out of pocket. It’s a WANT not a need.

To ties this into the thread, Obama won because he’s convinced people, on this issue and others, that their wants are really needs. Remember the woman Rush called a slut because of BC, she has access to BC anytime she wants it. She just has to pay for it.

Is that so hard to ask? Is it unfair for me to ask for her to pay for her own stuff? I pay for mine and I’m square in the middle class.

I really think Romney would have been better at discerning between wants vs. needs. He’s done it his whole career. That’s not what the people WANT though, it’s what they NEED, and they aren’t going to get it with Obama.
[/quote]

Do you feel the same way about tax exempt status of churches? I mean, we dont NEED them to not pay taxes, but a lot of people WANT them to not pay taxes. Lost revenue through non-taxation is the same as expended revenue through disbursements.

197

I was actually a bit surprised that Obama won, but then again most of my info about the election and American
politics where picked up here.

Regarding the Republican party must change their stance on social issues sentiment I see here:

I think that it is up to the Republican party what their political platform should be and where they
should stand on social issues. If you dont like the GOP`s stance on social issues then you are free to
either try to change the party from within or join another party that are closer to your positions. I also believe that besides perhaps the most over-the-top religion based positions, the problem for the republicans are probably that a large portion of the US population have no problem with government run welfare programs and economic regulations and government interference. Meaning retorics about the problem of a growing nanny state doesnt resonate with a large chunk of the populace IMO

Regarding why Obama won:

To be honest I dont know, but one of the reasons could be as I said above that more people want a bigger welfare state. There are probably more reasons for he`s win and when one think about it, almost half of the people who voted, voted for Romney. So there is also obiously a large portion of the populace who are fine with the GOP message. So perhaps the Repubs dont need to change a thing with their platform, but rather work on their strategy. I think Mufasa mentioned that the Obama campaign had more boots on the ground, perhaps its stuff like that that can turn things around for them next election.

198

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
My biggest issue with BC is that it’s a want (talking medication here not condoms) more than a need. You can buy condoms whenever you want practically everywhere, but you can also pay for the pill yourself out of pocket. It’s a WANT not a need.

To ties this into the thread, Obama won because he’s convinced people, on this issue and others, that their wants are really needs. Remember the woman Rush called a slut because of BC, she has access to BC anytime she wants it. She just has to pay for it.

Is that so hard to ask? Is it unfair for me to ask for her to pay for her own stuff? I pay for mine and I’m square in the middle class.

I really think Romney would have been better at discerning between wants vs. needs. He’s done it his whole career. That’s not what the people WANT though, it’s what they NEED, and they aren’t going to get it with Obama.
[/quote]

Do you feel the same way about tax exempt status of churches? I mean, we dont NEED them to not pay taxes, but a lot of people WANT them to not pay taxes. Lost revenue through non-taxation is the same as expended revenue through disbursements.
[/quote]

We operate a location that takes in and gives out food, clothes, and such. Nearly every week there’s a lunch or breakfast for the needy, or to raise funds for the needy. Right now we’re accepting turkeys so we can prepare them and bring them to poor families for Thanksgiving. Nearly every Sunday the virtue of charity is cultivated through the homily. To care for the sick, the poor, and the forgotten. Remove our status though. Then, come on down and roll up your sleeves. And hey, at least Clergy through out the nation will fee; freed up to directly endorse a candidate for every election.

199

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
For the record, I drift on the issue of birth control and the church (per usual wishing there was some compromise that could be reached for those with medical needs beyond not wanting to get pregnant), so no major axe to grind either way.[/quote]

There is no compromise.
[/quote]

You have a problem with birth control if it’s being used to treat a legitimate medical problem? At that point it’s in the same category as penicillin.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if I have a problem with it our not. These are OUR institutions. Not yours. Not the public’s. Ours. Accepting employment within them is VOLUNTARY.
[/quote]

Right, but I’m asking if YOU personally have a problem with it.

200

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
My biggest issue with BC is that it’s a want (talking medication here not condoms) more than a need. You can buy condoms whenever you want practically everywhere, but you can also pay for the pill yourself out of pocket. It’s a WANT not a need.

To ties this into the thread, Obama won because he’s convinced people, on this issue and others, that their wants are really needs. Remember the woman Rush called a slut because of BC, she has access to BC anytime she wants it. She just has to pay for it.

Is that so hard to ask? Is it unfair for me to ask for her to pay for her own stuff? I pay for mine and I’m square in the middle class.

I really think Romney would have been better at discerning between wants vs. needs. He’s done it his whole career. That’s not what the people WANT though, it’s what they NEED, and they aren’t going to get it with Obama.
[/quote]

Do you feel the same way about tax exempt status of churches? I mean, we dont NEED them to not pay taxes, but a lot of people WANT them to not pay taxes. Lost revenue through non-taxation is the same as expended revenue through disbursements.
[/quote]

We operate a location that takes in and gives out food, clothes, and such. Nearly every week there’s a lunch or breakfast for the needy, or to raise funds for the needy. Right now we’re accepting turkeys so we can prepare them and bring them to poor families for Thanksgiving. Nearly every Sunday the virtue of charity is cultivated through the homily. To care for the sick, the poor, and the forgotten. Remove our status though. Then, come on down and roll up your sleeves. And hey, at least Clergy through out the nation will fee; freed up to directly endorse a candidate for every election.
[/quote]

OK and I can make the argument that free access to birth control has been shown to reduce unwanted pregnancies (duh) which not only reduces abortions (good thing for you guys) but keeps children born to young, single, minorities off the government dime (since they don’t exist). Providing free birth control is an investment as well.

Personally I think it is great that churches are tax exempt, they do great things when they are not hate mongering. But to also exclude birth control from the discussion is a bit odd.