Why Obama Won

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Do you have a problem with pork?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you have a problem with pork?
[/quote]

If by pork you mean meat from a pig, I’m not the biggest fan.

I don’t understand your hesitance to answer this simple question?

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[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 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.
[/quote]

We’re talking about the government telling the institutions the MUST provide coverage. It’s impossible. Stop, do not pass go. What are you going to do, take away our tax exempt? Go for it. We’ve been here to watch nations rise and fall. We’ll be here when this one is gone. We will be fine without your blackmail tax exempt status. Maybe have to reduce some of our activities. So, what else? Start jailing our leaders and clergy heading these institutions? I’ll be at the front of line, in a sit-in, waiting for the police to cart me off first before they could even get to our clergy.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
As I told my wife last night, it is not a single election that worries me about this country - but the fact that the society showed its’ brokenness by sending this candidate back in for 4 more years.
[/quote]

As in logic demands that a thinking engaged populace does not reward failure or accept excuses, “it’s Bush’s fault”. Yet, that’s exactly what we did last night. Which speaks directly to the point of my thread.

It seems that most of the people who don’t want anything from government lost.

Those who are trying mightily to contribute to society lost.

When the question is asked, "why did you vote for Obama the answer is either shallow and simplistic, or “I want something from the government.”

When the question is asked “why did you vote for Romney” the answer is either “I want to be left along by government, or I want a smaller government”.

One of the last great democrats who wanted to raise defense spending and cut taxes, John F. Kennedy (who would not be a democrat if he were alive today)

Said this:

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Obama has turned that around, “Ask not what you can do on your own but what the government taking tax dollars from others can give to you.”

Obama’s failure has been rewarded by those whose failures have been rewarded by Obama!

From solyndra and Unions to Long-term recipients of government aid, to majority of the mindless 18-24 year olds…all takers. They won last night!

In the short term that is.

In the long-term we will all lose. It is now just a matter of time.

[/quote]

As a non-American, it seems to me that attitudes like yours are precisely what is wrong with your country. The idea that just because someone has different beliefs means they aren’t “trying mightily to contribute to society” is what is wrecking your country. This applies to both republicans and democrats.

Newsflash: the majority of people who voted for Obama don’t get handouts. Quite the opposite, they pay taxes and voted for a government who will likely make them pay more. That is a contribution to society. It may not be the way you think they should contribute but that doesn’t mean it isn’t legit.

[quote]OBoile wrote:

Newsflash: the majority of people who voted for Obama don’t get handouts. Quite the opposite, they pay taxes and voted for a government who will likely make them pay more. That is a contribution to society. It may not be the way you think they should contribute but that doesn’t mean it isn’t legit.[/quote]

got a source for that information?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We’re talking about the government telling the institutions the MUST provide coverage. It’s impossible. Stop, do not pass go.
[/quote]

Actually i was addressing the OP’s statement about “asking them to pay for it” here:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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.

[/quote]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you have a problem with pork?
[/quote]

If by pork you mean meat from a pig, I’m not the biggest fan.

I don’t understand your hesitance to answer this simple question?[/quote]

Now imagine saying that a Mosque must provide pork in whatever it does to feed the hungry. Don’t bother trying to say it isn’t the same. To us it is. It is impossible for us to comply. I-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e.

My hesitance is principled. On this topic I won’t answer. And you know it’s not because I’m ashamed. See, we are not on trial by the public at large. We don’t need to clarify ourselves. On this there is no public or jurisdiction that can force our cooperation. If we believe or don’t believe there are legitimate medical reasons for these drugs isn’t the issue. The issue is a President who has decided to trample on long recognized religious liberties, on religious teachings central to us. There is no compromise, there will be no compliance. Once or twice a month our Priest(s) will read the letter of our defiant Bishop on this topic. Compliance isn’t happening. Exempt us, or be prepared to drag us and our clergy to jail.

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
As I told my wife last night, it is not a single election that worries me about this country - but the fact that the society showed its’ brokenness by sending this candidate back in for 4 more years.
[/quote]

As in logic demands that a thinking engaged populace does not reward failure or accept excuses, “it’s Bush’s fault”. Yet, that’s exactly what we did last night. Which speaks directly to the point of my thread.

It seems that most of the people who don’t want anything from government lost.

Those who are trying mightily to contribute to society lost.

When the question is asked, "why did you vote for Obama the answer is either shallow and simplistic, or “I want something from the government.”

When the question is asked “why did you vote for Romney” the answer is either “I want to be left along by government, or I want a smaller government”.

One of the last great democrats who wanted to raise defense spending and cut taxes, John F. Kennedy (who would not be a democrat if he were alive today)

Said this:

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Obama has turned that around, “Ask not what you can do on your own but what the government taking tax dollars from others can give to you.”

Obama’s failure has been rewarded by those whose failures have been rewarded by Obama!

From solyndra and Unions to Long-term recipients of government aid, to majority of the mindless 18-24 year olds…all takers. They won last night!

In the short term that is.

In the long-term we will all lose. It is now just a matter of time.

[/quote]

As a non-American, it seems to me that attitudes like yours are precisely what is wrong with your country. The idea that just because someone has different beliefs means they aren’t “trying mightily to contribute to society” is what is wrecking your country. This applies to both republicans and democrats.

Newsflash: the majority of people who voted for Obama don’t get handouts. Quite the opposite, they pay taxes and voted for a government who will likely make them pay more. That is a contribution to society. It may not be the way you think they should contribute but that doesn’t mean it isn’t legit.[/quote]

First of all you are defining “different beliefs” as those who want to work as opposed to those who contribute regularly to society. Yeah…I’m funny like that I side with those who want to pull the wagon over those who want to simply ride in it.

Furthermore, I never said that everyone who voted for Obama was not contributing, obviously that’s not the case. But the ones NOT contributing put him well over the top. College students, hose receiving some sort of government check, and union members with their hands out, are very much into the obama Presidency.

Once again, those who wanted to be left alone by government mostly voted for Romney. Those who wanted something from government voted for Obama.

We are headed in the wrong direction…still.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you have a problem with pork?
[/quote]

If by pork you mean meat from a pig, I’m not the biggest fan.

I don’t understand your hesitance to answer this simple question?[/quote]

Maybe because it’s irrelevant.

I, for one, have no problem at all with birth control.
I’m an atheist and a socialist (a real, european, one), and even i do not think the State should force the private sector or the non-profit sector to provide birth control.
or anything, for that matter.

It’s not a birth control issue, nor a religious issue, it’s a freedom issue.

If you really want to make something nationally available, at least be consistent and do it through national institutions.
If they do not exist, build them.
If your citizens do not want you to build them, then try and convince them.
If you fail to convince them, then give up.
But do not punish your own citizens for your own failure.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

You may disagree with the socially liberal on pretty much everything, but, as I said, demographic trends predict that you will almost certainly continue to be disappointed.[/quote]

In the short term yes. But economic, social and societal collapse will bring about rapid and radical change. And not the kind Obama is hoping for. That’s the long view.[/quote]

The aftermath of a true collapse will be pretty damn unpredictable.[/quote]

In the urban areas yeah… Suburbs will be okay.

Also, cue Jessie Ventura FEMA camp conspiracy theory :wink:

[quote]loppar wrote:
Just a few observations from an European outsider:

GOP lost this election catastrophically.

If the incumbent needs a former president to feature prominently on his campaign trail (and subconsciously refer to the good old days of the 90ies) then something is obviously wrong.

Add to that the poor economic trends and Obama’s lackluster showings in the debates (which were present even in 2008, but then nobody noticed), the GOP candidate should have easily won. Of course, if the republican primary process didn’t rule this out by catering to their core constituency which is becoming increasingly separated from the majority of the population.

Your “moderate” candidate failed to bring out Obama’s lack of substance, instead focusing on his only strength - foreign policy, claiming that he failed there miserably. Compared to GWB, he’s a brilliant commander in chief.

How can you guys allow clowns like Donald Trump to even be associated with your party? Verbal idiocies from moronic congressmen about rape being “God’s will” also should have been dealt with swiftly and publicly.

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.

Both these narratives, as far I have seen, were worryingly present in the early republican discourse.

Just one final question: What was wrong with that Jon Huntsman guy? Anything I’ve seen, read or heard from him told me that he could have easily beat Obama if given the chance.

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.

Why is it hard for republicans to realize that Reagan’s success was an aberration, a result of unique economic, social and political factors and focus on an actually centric candidate - not someone that shifts his opinions and is rebuilt from scratch after the primaries.
[/quote]

This is an excellent post, loppar; and this point needs to be emphasized:

“…We lost because the people were lazy, stupid or not good / smart enough to realize our brilliance…”

(and one could add Muslim-Loving Communist Whore-Mongers who will burn for eternity in Hell, taking America with them…)

I realize that when people spit out this kind of vitriol they feel that they are just “telling people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear” in what for many people is the absolute height of arrogance and hubris.

Those that feel this way need to not do some party soul-searching…but look within.

Mufasa

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you have a problem with pork?
[/quote]

If by pork you mean meat from a pig…[/quote]

Well, yeah. What else did you think I mea…

Maybe I shouldn’t ask…

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you have a problem with pork?
[/quote]

If by pork you mean meat from a pig, I’m not the biggest fan.

I don’t understand your hesitance to answer this simple question?[/quote]

Maybe because it’s irrelevant.
[/quote]

It’s not irrelevant. I asked the guy’s opinion of a political issue on a politics board.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you have a problem with pork?
[/quote]

If by pork you mean meat from a pig…[/quote]

Well, yeah. What else did you think I mea…

Maybe I shouldn’t ask…

[/quote]

lol, wasteful spending.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you have a problem with pork?
[/quote]

If by pork you mean meat from a pig, I’m not the biggest fan.

I don’t understand your hesitance to answer this simple question?[/quote]

Maybe because it’s irrelevant.
[/quote]

It’s not irrelevant. I asked the guy’s opinion of a political issue on a politics board.[/quote]

It’s not a political issue, just to be clear.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you have a problem with pork?
[/quote]

If by pork you mean meat from a pig…[/quote]

Well, yeah. What else did you think I mea…

Maybe I shouldn’t ask…

[/quote]

lol, wasteful spending.[/quote]

Phew…

[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]

What you are saying is the very reason our country was formed as a republic and not a democracy.

Just because the majority thinks something, doesn’t make it right. Lets look back through history at the treatment of African Americans as a perfect example. Thank God someone had the stones to have principles that differ so much from the majority. Women’s suffrage?

this election wasnt even about politics. just blacks, latino and women ganging up to get obama for racial reasons.