Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

If they don’t adapt their message they look like being reduced to the role of spoilers rather than the originators of policy for quite a while to come.
[/quote]

Somebody has to keep the lights until everyone comes back home.[/quote]

Fair enough.

But even if the ship that’s sailed never returns?[/quote]

We’re talking about human beings. It’ll return.
[/quote]

While I don’t share your belief that it will, I admire your conviction.[/quote]

I’ve never been convicted of anything in my life. Clean record.

242

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

If they don’t adapt their message they look like being reduced to the role of spoilers rather than the originators of policy for quite a while to come.
[/quote]

Somebody has to keep the lights until everyone comes back home.[/quote]

Fair enough.

But even if the ship that’s sailed never returns?[/quote]

We’re talking about human beings. It’ll return.
[/quote]

While I don’t share your belief that it will, I admire your conviction.[/quote]

I’ve never been convicted of anything in my life. Clean record.
[/quote]

HA lol…as soon as your sit ins start, your clean record is toast! hehe

243

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< If the electorate changes, you have to adapt, >>>[/quote]Absolutely correct if you want to win elections in a post Christian whorehouse. We are officially a country of whores in which only whores can win. The foundation is gone. We are now washing into a sea of moral degeneration. Oh I know. This once vast majority view is today laughed and sneered at. That’s the point. Ya’ll can tell me whatever ya want. The morality that Adams told us our Constitution would be useless without is far behind us. Along with the constitutional principles it contains. This rotting corpse is similar only in the fact it occupies the same land as what was once the United States. To be clear, this has been the case for decades. This election is only the latest symptom.
[/quote] Times change, societies change…that’s just the way of things. And each and every age has its fair number of prophets of doom, and eventually they will always be right. Because nothing lasts forever, no empire, however powerful. So saying ‘It will all end’ is a no brainer. Like the decline of Rome…which took about 400 years. So the real trick is saying the ‘when’. >>>[/quote]And why. Agreed. This is actually what the bible predicts anyway. I’m not down and depressed. I’m simply reporting the historic Christian view of events. Not the modern American neo christian view btw which is responsible for this mess.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote: The US isn’t going to give up its spot of leading world power anytime soon, >>>[/quote]Our definitions must be different. We are descending as I type this.[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< even if the Leftypocalypse you say is happening is ACTUALLY happening. Which is debatable…[/quote]No. It’s not debatable. It’s preposterous. That is to the modern westerner and most importantly to those who say they’re Christians even though they don’t believe anything of substance that Christianity has historically taught.

244

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

If they don’t adapt their message they look like being reduced to the role of spoilers rather than the originators of policy for quite a while to come.
[/quote]

Somebody has to keep the lights until everyone comes back home.[/quote]

Fair enough.

But even if the ship that’s sailed never returns?[/quote]

We’re talking about human beings. It’ll return.
[/quote]

While I don’t share your belief that it will, I admire your conviction.[/quote]

I’ve never been convicted of anything in my life. Clean record.
[/quote]

HA lol…as soon as your sit ins start, your clean record is toast! hehe
[/quote]

Heh. Some things are worth it.

245

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I think you have to remember that “currently” we a center or even left leaning nation so if you lean right at all you have to push your principles.
[/quote]

The USA is a very right leaning nation. Obama would be a center-right candidate in most western countries.

246

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I said so right off the bat Smh.
[/quote]

Fair enough, not my intention to badger.

247

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I said so right off the bat Smh.
[/quote]

Fair enough, not my intention to badger.[/quote]

It’s fine, I don’t feel badgered. I understand why someone might ask. But because of the fight we’re now in with the Administration, I won’t explain it anywhere near a political forum. Too often the question is asked as if to seek some avenue to compromise with us on the issue. There is none. This is our decision.

Anyways there’s options for us. In some cases we’ll drop insurance coverage. Other cases we’ll simply hire men. In other cases we’ll simply ignore it. But I’d like to see us try to hire women, sound of mind, age of consent, who sign away access to contraceptive coverage for their position. The employment contract would read, right below her signature to forgo contraceptive coverage, “I do so as a free woman, of free mind. My body, my choice.” Oh my, now that would lead to an interesting confrontation with the feds.

248

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I said so right off the bat Smh.
[/quote]

Fair enough, not my intention to badger.[/quote]

It’s fine, I don’t feel badgered. I understand why someone might ask. But because of the fight we’re now in with the Administration, I won’t explain it anywhere near a political forum. Too often the question is asked as if to seek some avenue to compromise with us on the issue. There is none. This is our decision.

Anyways there’s options for us. In some cases we’ll drop insurance coverage. Other cases we’ll simply hire men. In other cases we’ll simply ignore it. But I’d like to see us try to hire women, sound of mind, age of consent, who sign away access to contraceptive coverage for their position. The employment contract would read, right below her signature to forgo contraceptive coverage, “I do so as a free woman, of free mind. My body, my choice.” Oh my, now that would lead to an interesting confrontation with the feds.
[/quote]

For the record, I’ve always come down on the side of religious institutions in this particular debate.

I was just curious about your position as it related to purely medicinal applications of BC. But it doesn’t really matter in the end.

250

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I think you have to remember that “currently” we a center or even left leaning nation so if you lean right at all you have to push your principles.
[/quote]

The USA is a very right leaning nation. Obama would be a center-right candidate in most western countries.[/quote]

Compared to the rest of the world, sure. Compared to 1990 America, this is liberal-land.

Obama would have been laughed off the national stage with “spread the wealth around” when I was a kid, and that was 4 years and 200 Gaffe’s ago.

251

Not a bad read. Not sure I agree with the end, but he’s been right before. (And wrong)

252

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

Telling others how to live their lives is a principal? You can have your beliefs, just don’t push them on me and I won’t push mine on you.
[/quote]

THIS. I don’t know how much clearer to make this. People do not like having other people’s morals pushed on them. Have your beliefs and hold them dear, but quit trying to push them on other people. The government should not be legislating morality anyway. You believe in heterosexual marriage? Great! I do to, which is why I am marrying a great woman in 3 weeks. That does not mean that we should make it illegal for gay people to get married. Don’t like birth control? Great, I respect that view, but do not interfere with someone else’s access to birth control. Don’t like minorities? Okay, but don’t try to deny them rights based on your beliefs about them. It is that simple, and it is a very American way of thinking.
[/quote]
Unfortunately it’s not a very Republican way of thinking. Republicans also haven’t been the party of fiscal conservativity, or small government in recent memory. Can we at least admit that Romney’s tax plan, while keeping revenue neutral, and spending more on the military sounded like BS? Who here thinks he was going to stop spending and start paying off the debt with a tax cut and an increase to military spending? Another problem with Republicans/Conservatives is they bitch about entitlement programs, even though Americans pay for them with their taxes, and they go onto talk about how they won’t touch Medicare or Social Security to appeal to the senior vote. I’d argue that Republican party doesn’t really have any principles lately, besides their backwards social views.

When you have 2 candidates for big government with little to no changes, one socially progressive one socially conservative, one who wants to keep military spending the same after 10+ years of war and the other wants to increase military spending, who do you think is going to win?

253

I am not so sure Obama will push as hard as people think as in 2 years Congressional elections are back up. He will push but he is not as optimistic as before. I see him erring on the side of caution especially with a Republican House.

254

[quote]pat wrote:
The popular vote was separated by 500,000 votes nationally. The Republicans retained the House. They do not have a problem with the female vote. The females who want abortion and free birth control need to stay democrats. If you make the Republican party like the democratic party then whats the point?
This idea that the republicans have some sort of huge problem is a farce. The vote was very close. If it were a complete blow out, I could see some sort of stance adjustment needed. Now, I don’t agree with all republican stances, but a major paradigm shift is not needed at all, just a better messenger.
Romney out performed in my opinion. He’s not a very compelling guy, so to accomplish what he did is pretty amazing. If there was a more dynamic operator in place as the candidate, I think they could have won this thing.

Incumbents are typically hard to unseat as a general rule. I look back at 2004 for example, Bush was already an unpopular president, he had a low approval rating, but he whooped the living hell out Kerry. That was a landslide. An unpopular president, getting slammed in the media all the time, absolutely wiped the floor with Kerry.
This vote was way closer than it should have been. Obama is a better orator, he had the incumbency factor, and he won by a few thousand votes over all, that’s actually not good for obama, he should have cleaned house and he didn’t. He damn near got beat. [/quote]
It’s funny you say Bush won in a landslide against Kerry. However, if you look at the popular vote Bush won by about 3 million votes. The electoral votes are much closer. But it also looks like Obama won by about 3 million votes in the popular vote, and had more electoral votes. Are you sure the Republican party doesn’t need to make a shift, even though by your own definition, Obama won in a landslide?

255

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think Stewart gets a free pass, a lot of the time, because he’s funny. He has called Bush names in the past, what’s the difference?

For me, I’m all about free speech, so let them say whatever they want. I’ll voice my opinion by viewing or not viewing their programs. I won’t watch Rush or Stewart. I just wish people would wake up and realize they are not what the rest of us are, politically. [/quote]

Well, calling a sitting President a name on a comedy show and calling a young woman not seeking public office a “slut” as part of political commentary meant to be taken seriously are two different things.

But yes, he says a lot of silly shit in the first two thirds of his show, when he is basically doing topical stand-up comedy. But when he’s speaking extemporaneously during the interview portion or outside of the Daily Show, I think you’d find it really, REALLY hard to argue that he’s anything like the dick that Rush Limbaugh is.

Other than that, I agree, Limbaugh doesn’t speak for conservatism and to conflate the two is a mistake.[/quote]

It’s poor taste and I’m in no way siding with Rush, but come on man. It’s not like he called for her to be killed or worse raped. He called her a name, sticks and stones and all that right?

She was making a political statement to get people to side with her position. Otherwise Rush wouldn’t have mentioned her. She was in the lime light by her own choice.

He’s an ass, so is Stewart, just a funny ass. [/quote]

I see your point. I’m not saying I’m terribly offended by the “slut” thing or anyone else. But I wouldn’t want an influential member of my party–and he does have some real influence–conducting himself like that in public.

As for the liberals, Stewart’s conduct, as I’ve said, doesn’t strike me as repulsive in the same manner. Though Maher’s does.

In the end, it’s a matter of opinion.[/quote]

That’s basically my point, he shouldn’t be (at least I wish) seen as an influencial part of the party any more than Stewart is. They are capitalists not politicians. They don’t speak for the true conservative or progressive. They want their show to succeed. I just don’t like that minds are made up based on their words, that’s all.

[/quote]No it’s not the same. Stewart usually criticizes the media (both sides) for stupidity and hypocrisy. He’ll also criticize Republican politicians for the same kind of stuff and sometimes Democrats. He still often gets Republican politicians on his show to interview. More so than Democrats I think.

It’s not that he called that woman a name. It’s that he reasoned because she was on birth control she must be a slut. Basically insinuating that any woman who is on birth control is a slut. This is the kind of attitude that Republicans have towards women that alienates (turns them off :P) them. It’s definitely not the same thing.

256

Why Obama won ?

Because Romney was the best pick among a crop of fucking crazies !

Come on, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, Santorum, Rick Perry, and Mitty was probably the only reasonable looking guy who didn’t look like he needed a straight-jacket.

Goddam Republicans better start to come out of the religious zealotry and land their feet safely on planet Earth.

Dumb shits talking about “rape is God’s will” and all that is not going to win over anyone. Neither is the birther bullshit.

Stupid ass crotchety old men better wise up.

257

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Funny, Bush is demonized by the press and Obama. Yet, Obama continues the Bush tax cuts. If Bush was so bad why not get rid of those nasty ole’ 5% across the board tax cuts for every American?

[/quote]

LOL you must have been high when they were having that fight because he tried to end the Bush tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, but was hamstrung by Congress and eventually had no choice but to continue them lest they expire for everyone.

258

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Why Obama won ?

Because Romney was the best pick among a crop of fucking crazies !

Come on, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, Santorum, Rick Perry, and Mitty was probably the only reasonable looking guy who didn’t look like he needed a straight-jacket.

Goddam Republicans better start to come out of the religious zealotry and land their feet safely on planet Earth.

Dumb shits talking about “rape is God’s will” and all that is not going to win over anyone. Neither is the birther bullshit.

Stupid ass crotchety old men better wise up.[/quote]

This post.

259

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Funny, Bush is demonized by the press and Obama. Yet, Obama continues the Bush tax cuts. If Bush was so bad why not get rid of those nasty ole’ 5% across the board tax cuts for every American?

[/quote]

LOL you must have been high when they were having that fight because he tried to end the Bush tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, but was hamstrung by Congress and eventually had no choice but to continue them lest they expire for everyone.

[/quote]
Another thing is the economy may be too weak to let them expire. It appears to be slowly recovering. Increasing taxes to pay off the debt, possibly even reducing “entitlement” spending to pay for the debt would probably cause the economy to take a hit. Unfortunately, I don’t see them paying off the debt until the economy is strong. Once the economy is strong that’s when you look into cutting entitlements and possibly raising taxes to deal with the debt. I don’t see how you can cut entitlements without taking money that is being spent out of the economy which would have a similar effect to increasing taxes.

260

Coming from Canada some may think that my opinion has limited value but I would argue that our cultures are now practically homogenous…

I’m 22 and in University. I think that a good number my age are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But, for some reason, unlike myself, they place greater importance on the social issues ( perhaps they are more tangible to people my age).

This is why Ron Paul had such a strong youth following.

To reiterate what other posters have said - the GOP needs to ease up on the social issues ( drugs and gay marriage primarily ) if it is to have any resonance with future generation.

P.S - many my age want free shit. By “good number” I mean 20-40%, and this is anecdotal…