Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[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]

Obama won because he had a meticulously orchestrated campaign designed to divide, pander to and scare minorities and women and demonise his opponent. He also had the advantage of the votes of welfare dependents, federal government employees, illegal aliens and the overwhelming majority of blacks and more than two thirds of Hispanics.

Santorum said that a life “horribly created” by rape is still a human life. Granted Todd Akin, Roger Rivard and others said some dumb shit but I don’t think that had any influence on the Romney campaign. What percentage of the population would’ve even heard about it?

Also, none of the candidates ever endorsed birther conspiracies. Additionally, Romney’s campaign strategy was weak and guarded. Unlike in the primaries when he went after every conservative opponent like a mad dog with misrepresentations and outright lies, in the general election he wasn’t even willing to call Obama out on anything other than the economy. And he didn’t do a very good job at that notwithstanding the first debate.

263

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Granted Todd Akin, Roger Rivard and others said some dumb shit but I don’t think that had any influence on the Romney campaign. What percentage of the population would’ve even heard about it?[/quote]

LOL

Seriously? With the liberal arm of the media on the job, who didn’t hear about it?

264

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
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).[/quote]

The ones who understand the implications of fiscal conservatism are more numerous than you know. No, many people in your (and my) age range are not fiscally conservative. They want free shit.

You are looking from the perspective of a university student, where the majority have not actually experienced life to any significant degree. Many of the people around you will change their tune within a few years of leaving tertiary education.

265

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Granted Todd Akin, Roger Rivard and others said some dumb shit but I don’t think that had any influence on the Romney campaign. What percentage of the population would’ve even heard about it?[/quote]

LOL

Seriously? With the liberal arm of the media on the job, who didn’t hear about it?[/quote]

Dude do you even know what percentage of Americans even bother to vote? They don’t have compulsory voting like us. Most the population has never even heard of Todd Akin and it’s only the hardcore leftists who seek out these comments and publish them in hard left publications where the readership would vote for Obama no matter what.

266

The death of the Roman Republic:

‘Gaius Gracchus proposed a grain law. The people were delighted with it because it provided an abundance of food without work. The good men, however, fought against it because they thought the masses would be attracted away from hard work and toward idleness, and they saw the state treasury would be exhausted.’ - Cicero

267

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote: 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]

I thought this apocalypse occurred 200 or so years ago?

“With Jefferson as president, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”

“Jefferson is an infidel who writes aghast the truths of God’s words; who makes not even a profession of Christianity; who is without Sabbaths; without the sanctuary, and without so much as a decent external respect for the faith and worship of Christians.”

At least this time no one accused the other candidate of being a hermaphrodite.

268

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote: 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]

I thought this apocalypse occurred 200 or so years ago?

“With Jefferson as president, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”

“Jefferson is an infidel who writes aghast the truths of God’s words; who makes not even a profession of Christianity; who is without Sabbaths; without the sanctuary, and without so much as a decent external respect for the faith and worship of Christians.”

At least this time no one accused the other candidate of being a hermaphrodite. [/quote]

LOL, it is always the apocalypse when something doesn’t go their way.

269

Better, smarter, stronger, morally superior man won. You should all be happy.

270

[quote]Grimlorn wrote:

[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.[/quote]

No, he called her a slut because she’s not married, on birth control, and she wants it for free. You are the one insinuating. My wife has used birth control, is a Republican, and doesn’t agree.

For the record I hate Rush

271

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote: 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]

I thought this apocalypse occurred 200 or so years ago?

“With Jefferson as president, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”

“Jefferson is an infidel who writes aghast the truths of God’s words; who makes not even a profession of Christianity; who is without Sabbaths; without the sanctuary, and without so much as a decent external respect for the faith and worship of Christians.”

At least this time no one accused the other candidate of being a hermaphrodite. [/quote]

LOL, it is always the apocalypse when something doesn’t go their way. [/quote]

Exactly. In every era there’s always someone or some group ringing the doomsday bell…and they always reckon they have it all worked out and know just what’s coming. And why.

272

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Better, smarter, stronger, morally superior man won. You should all be happy. [/quote]

What do you base this garbage on.

273

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< Exactly. In every era there’s always someone or some group ringing the doomsday bell…and they always reckon they have it all worked out and know just what’s coming. And why. [/quote]Here’s a tip. Going back to Roosevelt’s days there were wise people predicting EXACTLY the meltdown we are in now though the reasons they gave were primarily economical. You can snicker and scoff all you want. The founders, hypocritically including Jefferson, told us a couple centuries ago what would be necessary for the long term survival of the nation they designed. The yalso told us what would happen if we ignored them.

Being that the society then was overtly and overwhelmingly Christian, it also happened to be quite biblical. Beginning in the 1960’s we abandoned in earnest the warnings of the both the earthly designers and the God they took their design from. This is unique in our history. The fact that the preponderance of the morally corrupt contemporary citizenry refuses to see that makes perfect sense or we wouldn’t be doing it.

We have had exactly one presidential candidate who EVER properly assessed this situation and that was Alan Keyes. Who quite rightly told America that her rank immorality was what was fueling every other problem she has, including the financial ones. And he’s a Catholic (big C Chris).

You scoffers can chuckle away. I expect that. In fact it’s an integral part of the package that my stoopid bible tells me you’re SUPPOSED to do. While I do grieve the loss of my beloved country, not to geopolitical enemies who haven’t fired a shot, but to internal ones who have seen fit to surrender anyway, my citizenship is not of this world.

YOU are the ones who are gonna pay with everything you are. You already are, but the very moral degeneration that brought you here blinds you to that fact. Of course I know how this sounds. Most should be holding their side with one hand and pointing at their screen with the other in uproarious laughter. At least if my bible continues to hold true which it has never failed yet.

274

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Grimlorn wrote:

[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.[/quote]

No, he called her a slut because she’s not married, on birth control, and she wants it for free. You are the one insinuating. My wife has used birth control, is a Republican, and doesn’t agree.

For the record I hate Rush[/quote]
No, he called her a slut because he is a drug addicted, draft dodging chickenhawk who has no idea of what it means to be a man. He was also hiding in a radio studio and not in the presence of her father. Is this the poster boy for the (social) conservatives?

275

Talked to some friends of mine last night (Obama voters and true blue Democrats, many of which are involved in the state party, so they aren’t ho-hum about electoral politics), and looked at the polls, and thought some more on this question. I’d add this:

  1. Obama won because of Democratic turnout, and that means there is a Democratic majority. People were dead wrong to think that Democratic enthusiasm (at least for voting) was down or that a sizable amount of people had peeled away from the Demorcatic Party and were now unaffiliated free agents or voters who wouldn’t bother to show up. Self-identifying Democrats showed up, which speaks to the strength of the party machine (I don’t mean “machine” in a pejorative sense, necessarily).

  2. But, and my friends were candid about this, what most Democrats turned to vote for was primarily “Liberal Candidate X” - not necessarily Obama. They passionately want a liberal president in the office, and they understand the importance of turning out to make sure that happens (to their credit). A number of my friends made clear that the think Obama is pretty mediocre - he isn’t a gifted governor, he doesn’t have that “special connection” with the American people that great presidents seem to have, and many influential Democrats frankly thinks he kinda sucks at his job (many were, er, not complimentary at what an awful negotiator he is). Also, many said he has bad instincts. But, he is a liberal Democrat who has the power to influence legislation and a veto pen, and Democrats loved voting for the guy, because he was Liberal Candidate X.

  3. As good as that is for liberal Democrats, that means something going forward - the lack of support among the middle/independents, the criticisms, etc., the flips from Obama to Romney among centrists, etc.: none of that goes away. While Obama gets 4 more years, he wasn’t elected because of growing confidence in his leadership - he was elected because of No. 2 above. There remains a lot of doubt about the president, and that wasn’t cured because he won the Electoral College.

  4. The GOP has work to do - nothing new here. But the GOP has to contend with a true Democratic majority, which comes as a shock, as many thought it simply had to compete with Democrats for free agents after 2010. Something dratsic would have to happen for the Democratic majority to puncture (and there are many things that could, as the coalition is fragile), but the GOP better start building itself as a viable replacement for a durable majority party - durable being the key word, not just election-to-election - or we may see a world where the big battles will be between different types of Democrats, or Democrats and a kind-of non-party “party” of independents…and the GOP will proceed like the old Federalist party did, into the history books.

276

One more important thing to note about the Presidential election:

Every modern day President who has been elected to a second term defeated his second opponent by larger margins than his first opponent.

All of them that is except Bracak Obama.

277

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
No, he called her a slut because he is a drug addicted, draft dodging chickenhawk who has no idea of what it means to be a man. He was also hiding in a radio studio and not in the presence of her father. Is this the poster boy for the (social) conservatives? [/quote]

No he is not the poster boy for conservatives, WHICH WAS MY ENTIRE POINT!

278

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< there is a Democratic majority. [who] passionately want a liberal president in the office, <<<>>> The GOP has work to do - nothing new here. But the GOP has to contend with a true Democratic majority, which comes as a shock, as many thought it simply had to compete with Democrats for free agents after 2010. Something dratsic would have to happen for the Democratic majority to puncture (and there are many things that could, as the coalition is fragile), but the GOP better start building itself as a viable replacement for a durable majority party - durable being the key word, not just election-to-election - or we may see a world where the big battles will be between different types of Democrats, or Democrats and a kind-of non-party “party” of independents…and the GOP will proceed like the old Federalist party did, into the history books.[/quote]In other words the country is becoming increasingly populated with liberals and only liberalism can win. The coming choice will be between liberals with a donkey or an elephant mascot being the difference? We’ve been on our way there for a while. McCain vs. Obama. Yer kiddin right? I could hardly tell them apart during the debates sometimes. (a transcript would make it REALLY tough) And Romney being only a hair more conservative than McCain and on balance maybe not at all? It’s a liberal/libertine country.

Face it. All differences between you and I aside, we are on the rapid decline. We can disagree on my assessment of atheistic immorality being the root cause, but even on the resulting strictly financial level. We cannot survive and are not, in anything like superpower status on this path. Which in my view is the conscious intention of the communist utopians now at the helm. An exceptional United States has always been repugnant to them.

279

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Better, smarter, stronger, morally superior man won. You should all be happy. [/quote]

Does that mean Jerry Brown also was the morally superior man ?

You live in Cali, you know the man openly bribed college kids to vote for taxes.

Watcha think ? Cali now has a 2/3 supermajority Democrat, they don’t even need a public vote for ANYTHING.

They can literally pass any tax, any measure, with NO public interaction.

How bout dat Democracy !

280

First thing you better do it, CLOSE THE BORDER.

Check out this statistic…

“From the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population swelled by 115,000.”

Democrats literally imported millions of Democratic voters, promising to put them on the dole, and they did.