[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
and it begins with doing more about pocketbook and quality of life topics and less about social issues.[/quote]
Yes, and as we’ve seen this election, leaving yourself open to attacks like “war on women” and not rebuffing it is foolish as well.
The take on social issues needs a polish.
[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]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
First of all congratualtions to all of the liberals on the thread. It was your night last night.
The following is what I believe to be the reasons why Obama was reelected last evening.
It should be very obvious to everyone (as it is to those of us who have lived through many Presidential elections) that Brack Obama has not been treated the same as any other President, or candidate for the office of the Presidency. This is the single worst economy that we have seen since the great depression yet how many serious questions were asked of obama regarding the economy by the press?
Furthermore, how many tough questions were asked of Obama regarding his various foreign policy blunders including Benghazi? I submit to you that if any republican were to have a sitting Ambassador raped, tortured and murdered on his watch it would have been front page news in every newspaper and the lead story on every single broadcast outlet, as it should be.
Now follow that horrendous act with a half hearted cover up “it was a video that caused this” and the media would have been screaming for impeachment. Yet, it was not even an issue for old Barack. So the number one reason for Obama’s reelection is that his friends in the media ran exceptional cover for him and it worked out quite well!
Along with the media “cover-up” Nanny statedom is upon us. We no longer get to look ahead and think, “gee if this keeps going we’re going to be in trouble.” We are in trouble! It is very difficult to defeat someone who wants to hand you free things at someone else’s expense. You neither feel guilt for taking it, or understand that it’s coming from another hard working American soul.
Just like the screaming woman on the video. “I want some of that Obama money.” Interviewer: “Where does Obama get the money?” Screaming woman: “I don’t know he has a stash somewhere…” Oh my! Who voted for Obama in larger numbers than for Romney? Women! Why? Because there is something inside of almost every woman that secretly wants to be taken care of. The democratic party has risen to that “challenge” and has taken upon itself the title of “great distributor.” Just the other day I was talking to one of my employees about the election. She said unequivocally that she was voting for Obama.
I naturally asked why and she told me that she wanted free health insurance. Currently, I have a plan where I (the company) pays 75% and the employee pays 25%. But that’s not quite good enough for her. I then informed her that nothing is free in life and that in order for the government to give you something for “free” they must first take it from someone else. Her answer, “I don’t care as long as I get my medical bills paid.” And so it goes, the taste of “free stuff” can be intoxicating to those uninformed of where such a road will eventually take us.
Fnally, Obama tapped into a large number of 18-34 year olds who don’t know what their doing but are not at all afraid to do it. Recently a conservative interviewer was on a typical college campus asking people who they were going to vote for. Most, not surprisingly said Obama. But not one could give a single good reason why or name any accomplishment from his first four years as the reason. When asked why they would choose him, the typical answer, “Um…I dunno I just think he’s better.” But, they do know that obama was on Jon Stewart and “um…like Jon Stewart is really cool.”
And that is why Obama never addressed any of the serious issues, he never had to and he knew it all along! All he had to do was continue to run behind the media cover and make the left wing talk show circut and look, “really cool” while he was doing it. He didn’t have to run a “large” campaign because he knew his backers were largely small minded kids, nanny state recipients and powerful unions who would continue to reap big bucks should he be reelected. Therefore, voting for him regardless of his many failures. And of course, he was right!
Love him or hate him Mitt Romney was a serious candidate with both business and government success to his credit in turning bad situations into good ones. Moreover, he picked a very serious Vice Presidential candidate in Paul Ryan. A man who helped create a budget that could eventually lead us to economic freedom. The only problem is they were running for office during the wrong time period. Many people don’t want to be serious as that takes thinking, sacrifice and acting like an adult.
And none of those things are what this country is about any longer. We are about video games, texting our every worthless thought, facebook and a number of other silly past times that allow men to act like kids until they are well into their 30’s. Well, last night while the “kids” were voting for the cool candidate, “the chickens came home to roooooost!”
So, while I do congratulate the left for its great win last night I can’t help recalling an old proverb, “Be careful what you wish for as it might come true!”
Zeb
[/quote]
Given your absolute failure to predict how the states would vote (as I recall you had Romney getting Fla, VA, NC, NH, Iowa, Col, and OH) and your misunderstanding of the polling data (particularly how accurate Silver was), I would be really hesitant to try and explain this one.
Sorry to hurt your feelings, but it had to be said.
jnd
[/quote]
Rather than explain why Obama won by countering my arguments you use the fact that I called the election wrong as proof that my rational for why Obama won is wrong?
Weak my friend…very, very weak.
Why don’t you try claiming the opposite of what I wrote and see how far that gets you?
The Opposite
-The media was out to get Obama and relentlessly hounded him regarding Benghazi.
-The 18-24 age group is very knowledgeable regarding political and world affairs.
-Obama went on all of the serious news shows and avoided the talk show circut.
-The unions never wanted Obama in office because he’s never done them a favor.
See…you can’t claim the opposite. You can’t even debate the point.
Also, I have news for you. Ready? You can’t hurt my feelings. 
Now come back with something more junior, or don’t waste my time.
[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]666Rich wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Why do Republicans think Democrats are the party of the free loaders?
Both parties are the land of the free loaders and big government. Medicare Part D and the stimulus here is free money checks came directly from the Republicans. Yet all the righty tighties on here act as if only Democrats enjoy and benefit from big government. [/quote]
I whole-heartedly agree. Its just a matter of whose pet programs are deemed the bugaboo of “socialism”. Corporate welfare and subsidies, medicare (part d especially), welfare etc.
[/quote]
I probably pick on the right more because I live in a medium sized very conservative town in Kansas so I’m more used to their BS than the Left (which I also dislike). Standing in line to vote (short ones ha) a guy said Democrats would lead big time in the early voting because all the Republicans would be working till 5. The irony is in our area unemployment is a big problem, and the few Democrats I do know are the one who are employed in the area and fairly well off while a ton of the Republicans are on disability or welfare, whatever!
[quote]666Rich wrote:
To ZEB: There is no doubt that the trend of “free shit” influencing voter decisions will continue, unabated. It is a tried and true tactic that has become even more widespread with the current economy. The Dems are firmly in support of income inequality as a method to their vote getting. Its really LBJ on steroids. We are a society of net makers and takers due to regulations and the tax code etc. There is a definitive political reasoning for having that.
Would you say rather than the people being wrong, that the RNC needs to revamp its marketing and target audience? For example, Romney proposed comparatively more substantial economic ideas to Obama, but I feel a lot of those were lost on the populace. How does one convey that message better. Women and minorities are going to continue to have a huge impact, and it is obvious that the strategy of the RNC is not working with regards to those demographics. [/quote]
First of all you need a media that will present things fairly. When you have 75% of the news outlets tilting to Obama the voice is lost. It is gone. The typical voter hear’s a negative blurb here or there and then decides. This will always be bad news for the republicans.
For example,
As a republican I’ve gotten used to seeing liberals as the moderators of ALL debates. Yet, why does that have to be? When the Chairman of the republican party sits down to negotiate the next series of Presidential debates he must demand that two of the four moderators be conservative. I mean CANDY CROWELY? Where is her counterpart on the conservative side? For every Candy Crowley I want one Brit Hume. I think that’s fair.
Those who say this isn’t important are either liberals or too stupid to understand how important an impartial referee is in any sporting event…or any debate.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
One republican here (Zeb) wanted to make sure no one was screwing dogs in their house near him in his neighborhood.[/quote]
That was a metaphor used to explain a different point Professor idiot.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
The GOP needs to run on transparent fiscal responsibility. They need to stop trying to govern morality and instead focus on governing the nations obvious debt crisis. Socially Neutral Fiscally Conservative = Wins.[/quote]
Yes, but if the responses I have received today on the topic are anything to go by, conservatives/Republicans do not want to. The social issues are just too important to them. It will continue to show at the polls.[/quote]
I will testify to that. Furthermore, we believe your ‘fiscal conservatism’ is a pipe dream without our traditional conservative beliefs. Frankly, I bet we could win over socially conservative blacks and hispanics by dramatically easing up on the market fundamentalism (libertarian style) and immigration planks of the platform, leaving economic liberalism as a way out there, long game, goal. More so than you could convince a socially liberal America to willingly buy into market fundamentalism in the near future.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
It seems Obama’s campaign was flawlessly run with the material to hand, I believe the Fox analysts called it ‘ground game’?
I think the Republicans have very serious problems as regards the female vote. Their policies and general attitude portrayed towards half of the electorate seem not to be in touch or resonate with them ( whether true or not, perception is everything. The rape idiots hurt them. A lot). Demographic realities are also not in the R favour and sliding further away daily.
I think the party needs a serious rethink in order to make inroads.[/quote]
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]
Hmmmmm, I don’t know…Obama presided over the most shocking economy in the US in decades,had that hugely divise healthcare bill passed and STILL won. Good luck if the economy starts recovering even in the slightest. Which it’s bound to do. Perhaps if you get a more charismatic candidate? What about the growing Hispanic vote? I’ll have a look at the stats just now.
[/quote]
You don’t have to convince me that obama sucks. I already know that. We’ve had shitty presidents before, we’ll have shitty presidents again. Bush won with a lousy approval rating and an unpopular war. He should have lost too, but he didn’t and he kicked Kerry’s ass thoroughly it wasn’t close like this one.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I agree completely with this, although Rush Limbaugh (characteristically) acted like an asshole and continues to be a fat boorish piece of shit. His idiotic “slut” charade did more harm to the conservative argument than anything Fluke or Obama said.[/quote]
True on all counts my friend. But…HE WAS CORRECT!
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]666Rich wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Why do Republicans think Democrats are the party of the free loaders?
Both parties are the land of the free loaders and big government. Medicare Part D and the stimulus here is free money checks came directly from the Republicans. Yet all the righty tighties on here act as if only Democrats enjoy and benefit from big government. [/quote]
I whole-heartedly agree. Its just a matter of whose pet programs are deemed the bugaboo of “socialism”. Corporate welfare and subsidies, medicare (part d especially), welfare etc.
[/quote]
I probably pick on the right more because I live in a medium sized very conservative town in Kansas so I’m more used to their BS than the Left (which I also dislike). Standing in line to vote (short ones ha) a guy said Democrats would lead big time in the early voting because all the Republicans would be working till 5. The irony is in our area unemployment is a big problem, and the few Democrats I do know are the one who are employed in the area and fairly well off while a ton of the Republicans are on disability or welfare, whatever! [/quote]
The thing is, change is slow. Movements like the teaparty and Paul supporters and other libertarians needs to start working together with the established Republican party. The establishment needs to accept this shit and help blend these people in rather than rejecting them.
And then they have to brand themselves as reborn.
Otherwise the Dems will walk for the next 2 elections as well.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa 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]
This is part of what bothers a lot of people, usmc.
Moral people with principle are not found in only one party or the other.
I will assure you that there are plenty of gay, church-going, dope-smoking people on the Government dole who proudly consider themselves flag-waving/card-carrying Republicans.
Mufasa[/quote]
Oh yeah? Name one!
[/quote]
I won’t have to, Zeb.
Give it time…every year there is some Preacher caught having some trist with young boys.
Mufasa[/quote]
Not to mention young girls and assorted farm animals.
[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]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
The GOP needs to run on transparent fiscal responsibility. They need to stop trying to govern morality and instead focus on governing the nations obvious debt crisis. Socially Neutral Fiscally Conservative = Wins.[/quote]
Yes, but if the responses I have received today on the topic are anything to go by, conservatives/Republicans do not want to. The social issues are just too important to them. It will continue to show at the polls.[/quote]
I will testify to that. Furthermore, we believe your ‘fiscal conservatism’ is a pipe dream without our traditional conservative beliefs. Frankly, I bet we could win over socially conservative blacks and hispanics by dramatically easing up on the market fundamentalism (libertarian style) and immigration planks of the platform, leaving economic liberalism as a way out there, long game, goal. More so than you could convince a socially liberal America to willingly buy into market fundamentalism in the near future.
[/quote]
I fully believe there is room for social issue flux as long as the fiscal policy is dead on, and the social policy isn’t hammered, but rather suggested and “open for adult conversation”… If that makes sense.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
But not all social issue are like that either. Some are, some are harder to let go.[/quote]
Good point. I would urge Republicans to slowly evolve on gay marriage and a few other social issues if they’re going to saty competitive with moderates, but no one should be willing to compromise their views on abortion. If you believe it’s murder, you believe it’s murder, and to stand tall on an issue of that depth and gravity is commendable.[/quote]
But see I don’t get the point of basically saying ‘if you make the republicans more like democrats, then they will fare better’. There is a party that supports gay marriage, it’s the democratic party. If you believe in that, then vote democrat. What’s the point of having the two parties if they hold the same opinions?[/quote]
Well, I’m talking about the politics of a campaign here, not what is best for country. In this game, you have to pick your battles. If gay marriage is important enough, then that’s fine, but it looks like it’s going to be an uphill battle in the future.[/quote]
Exactly. That is what I have been trying to get across. Republicans and conservatives are losing votes, particularly among younger people, because of their views on social issues. If not backing down on those issues means that much to Republicans, then they can and should continue to vote that way. But look at how that went for them this election. Republicans had a solid candidate with reasonably good plans and credentials who lost to Obama, who is not going to rank very high on any “best presidents in US history” chart. After a first term like he had, Obama should have lost but he didn’t.
[/quote]
If your views on social issues side with democrats then be democrats. There is still a huge demographic that is on the opposite side of those issues. Who represents them then? This was not a clean sweep by any stretch of the imagination.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
It seems Obama’s campaign was flawlessly run with the material to hand, I believe the Fox analysts called it ‘ground game’?
I think the Republicans have very serious problems as regards the female vote. Their policies and general attitude portrayed towards half of the electorate seem not to be in touch or resonate with them ( whether true or not, perception is everything. The rape idiots hurt them. A lot). Demographic realities are also not in the R favour and sliding further away daily.
I think the party needs a serious rethink in order to make inroads.[/quote]
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]
Hmmmmm, I don’t know…Obama presided over the most shocking economy in the US in decades,had that hugely divise healthcare bill passed and STILL won. Good luck if the economy starts recovering even in the slightest. Which it’s bound to do. Perhaps if you get a more charismatic candidate? What about the growing Hispanic vote? I’ll have a look at the stats just now.
[/quote]
You don’t have to convince me that obama sucks. I already know that. We’ve had shitty presidents before, we’ll have shitty presidents again. Bush won with a lousy approval rating and an unpopular war. He should have lost too, but he didn’t and he kicked Kerry’s ass thoroughly it wasn’t close like this one.
[/quote]
Of course, no doubt about that. Are you saying nothing’s broke so need for fixing as far as the R party and its platforms in the long term goes?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Zeb:
Since you give me so much grief about this; I wanted to post it here.
(It seems appropriate).
I have now “called” the last two elections wrong…VERY wrong…and I think I know why. It’s my mis-judgment of enthusiasm…and what it does (or does not) mean.
First…2008:
I COMPLETELY underestimated the enthusiasm out there for the then candidate Obama…and over-estimated McCain’s, especially leading out of the GOP convention. Even now, whether one chooses to like him or not…the President “connects” with a lot of people.
One GOP Pundit put it well last night:
“…Romney told people he could solve their problems…the President went furthur and said I [i]understand[/i] your problems…”
That obviously resonated with a lot of people.
And 2012:
While I didn’t over-estimate the scope and degree of disdain and absolute hate out there that exist for the President…I did over-estimate how that would translate into the Voting box.
I’m sure all of you have heard it…hate is a terrible motivator…and it is. And while there is no question that there is a portion of the electorate that truly were “for” Romney…I would guess (but cannot prove) there was a much larger % of what I called “Not Obama” voting; while on the flip-side, the President had a much larger % of voters whom were “for” him. (This was proven in poll after poll of likeability going back to when the President was first running).
I also underestimated this thing I kept hearing about concerning “boots-on-the-ground” or the “ground game” of the President. In many ways, despite all of our technology…elections STILL depend a lot on phone calls and knocking on doors.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Obama won because:
1-The media ran cover for him. Where were the difficult questions for the past four years for President Obama? Where were the questions on Benghazi for Candidate Obama?
2-People like free stuff and Obama gives free stuff and promises more.
3-Unions backed Obama who in turn gives them jobs and money (see how the GM deal was constructed to assist unions)
So…he won. The republicans don’t have to do anything more than rest control of a few media outlets and things will turn. The masses only know what you tell them. And the media lied for Obama for four years straight!
By the way you are 0-2 I’m only 1-1.
See you in four years Mufasa!
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 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.
[/quote]
I agree completely with this, although Rush Limbaugh (characteristically) acted like an asshole and continues to be a fat boorish piece of shit. His idiotic “slut” charade did more harm to the conservative argument than anything Fluke or Obama said.[/quote]
I think what’s sad is that conservatism has been tied to Rush like liberalism has been tied to Stewart. They’re both sensationalist out to make money. They are not the core of the party. That really irks me.
People have been turned away from the republican party because of Rush and how Rush is portrayed in the media. If you don’t agree with conservatism or the republican party, that’s all well and good. That why America is so great. You have choice, but choose based off the actual facts and the actual situation, not off some asshole on TV trying to make a buck.
[/quote]
There is nothing ‘Traditionally Consevative’ about the republican party.
[quote]pat wrote:
If your views on social issues side with democrats then be democrats. There is still a huge demographic that is on the opposite side of those issues. Who represents them then? This was not a clean sweep by any stretch of the imagination. [/quote]
LOL.
Like I have said before, I really think in years to come, you will find that people stop thinking like the typical two party system.
I do not claim “democrat” or “republican”. I have found people insist on telling you what you think when they have a label.
I also think there is a huge social gap between youth and the baby boomer gen. Voting democrat? Why would i do that instead of vote on the issues?
[quote]pat wrote:
We’ve had shitty presidents before, we’ll have shitty presidents again. Bush won with a lousy approval rating and an unpopular war. He should have lost too, but he didn’t and he kicked Kerry’s ass thoroughly it wasn’t close like this one.
[/quote]
You must be mistaken. 2004 was closer than this election in terms of the electoral college. If Kerry had won Ohio he would have won the whole thing which is why if I remember right that election was called later than this one. Popular vote totals might have been a touch higher for Bush than Obama’s margin, but it was definitely not a thorough ass kicking by any means. Kerry was around 100,000 votes in Ohio from being the President. Romney needed multiple states to flip.