Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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]

It’s football. The lay person raised on biased news channels and who soaks up what they believe from what they are told is who represents the average voter who chooses to scream praise of a party instead of issues.

122

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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]

Indeed he was, and many people probably would have seen that if he hadn’t acted like such a jackass.

123

[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 now the second Presidential election in a row where the republicans have lost to a radical leftist and in 2000 they only just barely scraped together enough votes. This isn’t representative of a current trend that is going to change.

The country has changed radically in the last hundred years and the Republicans need to face up to that reality. The depression era/world war two generation is dying in droves now. Even the early baby boomers are getting old. There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.

On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand.

124

[quote]Sifu 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 now the second Presidential election in a row where the republicans have lost to a radical leftist and in 2000 they only just barely scraped together enough votes. This isn’t representative of a current trend that is going to change.

The country has changed radically in the last hundred years and the Republicans need to face up to that reality. The depression era/world war two generation is dying in droves now. Even the early baby boomers are getting old. There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.

On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand. [/quote]

Agreed.

You have a whole party of self righteous people who like to control others…who seem completely clueless to the fact that millions of people from the generation right below them disagree with them on social issues.

But hey…maybe ranting that marijuana kills will work eventually…despite most people under 35 being literally raised around it as a cultural norm in some cities.

This is why old people die…they aren’t good with social change.

125

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Why would i do that instead of vote on the issues?[/quote]

Did you in fact vote in this election?

126

[quote]Sifu 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 now the second Presidential election in a row where the republicans have lost to a radical leftist and in 2000 they only just barely scraped together enough votes. This isn’t representative of a current trend that is going to change.

The country has changed radically in the last hundred years and the Republicans need to face up to that reality. The depression era/world war two generation is dying in droves now. Even the early baby boomers are getting old. There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.

On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand. [/quote]

Agree again. And you don’t have to change your values at all to change the brand.

You just have to stop running on them to start. Project them, live them, love them, own them, but for the love don’t run on them.

Lets fix the money situation and the charge towards collectivism. Can we put that as a priority?

127

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You have a whole party of self righteous people who like to control others…who seem completely clueless to the fact that millions of people from the generation right below them disagree with them on social issues.

[/quote]

Come on man, the broad brush thing goes all ways. This is a bit over the top.

128

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You have a whole party of self righteous people who like to control others…who seem completely clueless to the fact that millions of people from the generation right below them disagree with them on social issues.

[/quote]

Come on man, the broad brush thing goes all ways. This is a bit over the top.[/quote]

What, hyperbole is out now?

But how will I interest myself in a forum this filled with people with sticks up their asses?

129

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sifu 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 now the second Presidential election in a row where the republicans have lost to a radical leftist and in 2000 they only just barely scraped together enough votes. This isn’t representative of a current trend that is going to change.

The country has changed radically in the last hundred years and the Republicans need to face up to that reality. The depression era/world war two generation is dying in droves now. Even the early baby boomers are getting old. There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.

On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand. [/quote]

Agreed.

You have a whole party of self righteous people who like to control others…who seem completely clueless to the fact that millions of people from the generation right below them disagree with them on social issues.

But hey…maybe ranting that marijuana kills will work eventually…despite most people under 35 being literally raised around it as a cultural norm in some cities.

This is why old people die…they aren’t good with social change.[/quote]

This is my problem, terms like, “whole party,” and, “self-righteous,” are used and it’s just not true. Some republicans are like that just like some democrats are lazy freeloaders, but they do not represent the majority of the party.

There are issues that the R party should bend on, I agree. There are some issues that they should not bend on and I don’t really care how much life has changed in the last 100 or 1000 years. Will that lead to the extinction of the party? quite possibly, but if republicans have any amount of conviction, well that’s just how it’s gonna be.

America will evolve and change to fit her people, maybe republicans or conservatives just aren’t a part of that evolution. Doesn’t mean I’m gonna all of a sudden agree with abortion, for example, because it’s the in thing.

Would the founders bend to the progressives of today?

130

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Why do Republicans think Democrats are the party of the free loaders?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth.html

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]

I couldnt agree more. I am not going to sit here and preach about Paul or Johnson, but both did try to work in the Republican party confines. Both were ostracized and treated unfairly. Where do you think their supporters go after that? These guys know how to reach out to people at the grassroots, and frankly, I dont see alot of their supporters warming up to the RNC in the near future.

Granted, it could, and SHOULD be symbiotic, but it isnt. The side claiming “its not you, its me, bye” were the Repubs. Unless there was some sort of behind the doors collusion to give Rand a larger platform in the future…

131

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You have a whole party of self righteous people who like to control others…who seem completely clueless to the fact that millions of people from the generation right below them disagree with them on social issues.

[/quote]

Come on man, the broad brush thing goes all ways. This is a bit over the top.[/quote]

What, hyperbole is out now?

But how will I interest myself in a forum this filled with people with sticks up their asses?[/quote]

All I’m saying is projecting onto the “whole party” isn’t accurate. You could say the current leadership is, sure, but it isn’t the whole party. The newer generations, movements and sub-parties within aren’t the same as the jackass Bush and McCain era shit heads.

It is as bad as when rightys (which I’ve been guilty of myself at times) say all Democrats are lazy and want a hand out.

You actually fit the conservative narrative pretty well based on reading your posts for the last couple of years, and I just want some suggestions on polishing the stances or changing the approach rather than stating what is on some levels obvious and others misleading.

I’m not looking to attack you here, just pull out more of your opinion, in detail.

132

[quote]Sifu wrote:
There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.
[/quote]

Doesn’t matter. If it’s destructive legislation it needs to be opposed. And EVERYTHING libs advocate is destructive. Doesn’t matter if you don’t win, you can still put up one hell of a fight and obstruct them every step of the way.

[quote]
On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand. [/quote]

It’s the libs who are focused on social issues. They demand radical change: changing the definition of marriage, changing drug laws etc. Conservatives mostly just want to keep the status quo. It’s the libs who are polarising and refusing to bend. Let them make the concessions for once.

133

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You have a whole party of self righteous people who like to control others…who seem completely clueless to the fact that millions of people from the generation right below them disagree with them on social issues.

[/quote]

Come on man, the broad brush thing goes all ways. This is a bit over the top.[/quote]

What, hyperbole is out now?

But how will I interest myself in a forum this filled with people with sticks up their asses?[/quote]

Just do your usual lying and stretching of the truth. Not that it’s worked for you before but why change now?

134

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

Exactly right.

135

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.
[/quote]

Doesn’t matter. If it’s destructive legislation it needs to be opposed. And EVERYTHING libs advocate is destructive. Doesn’t matter if you don’t win, you can still put up one hell of a fight and obstruct them every step of the way.

[quote]
On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand. [/quote]

It’s the libs who are focused on social issues. They demand radical change: changing the definition of marriage, changing drug laws etc. Conservatives mostly just want to keep the status quo. It’s the libs who are polarising and refusing to bend. Let them make the concessions for once.[/quote]

This attitude will yield days like yesterday again and again and again. If you are so intent on telling somebody they can’t dry out and smoke a plant that makes them goofy, confused, and hungry in the comfort of their own home–and if that is more important to you than fiscal conservatism–then fine, but it and positions like it will make presidential elections an uphill battle from here on out, given the shifting demographics of this country. If electoral losses are what you crave, they’ll be handed to you–as one was yesterday, despite 7.9 percent unemployment and $16 trillion in debt.

136

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Lets fix the money situation and the charge towards collectivism. Can we put that as a priority?

[/quote]

Not if you believe the social order must–not should, or could–come first to move away from the nanny state in the first place.

137

Libertarian Party is that way---->

138

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.
[/quote]

Doesn’t matter. If it’s destructive legislation it needs to be opposed. And EVERYTHING libs advocate is destructive. Doesn’t matter if you don’t win, you can still put up one hell of a fight and obstruct them every step of the way.

[quote]
On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand. [/quote]

It’s the libs who are focused on social issues. They demand radical change: changing the definition of marriage, changing drug laws etc. Conservatives mostly just want to keep the status quo. It’s the libs who are polarising and refusing to bend. Let them make the concessions for once.[/quote]

This attitude will yield days like yesterday again and again and again. If you are so intent on telling somebody they can’t dry out and smoke a plant that makes them goofy, confused, and hungry in the comfort of their own home–and if that is more important to you than fiscal conservatism–then fine, but it and positions like it will make presidential elections an uphill battle from here on out, given the shifting demographics of this country. If electoral losses are what you crave, they’ll be handed to you–as one was yesterday, despite 7.9 percent unemployment and $16 trillion in debt.[/quote]

Romney didn’t lose because of marijuana. As you say, there are more important things to worry about. So why are people concentrating on marijuana and gay marriage? As I said, it’s the “progressives” who are making these demands when they should be more concerned about the economy.

139

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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]

Indeed he was, and many people probably would have seen that if he hadn’t acted like such a jackass.[/quote]

I could not agree with you more. Tact is something that has always been lost on Rush Limbaugh. But when you make something like 25 million a year I guess tact doesn’t matter as much as ratings.

140

[quote]Sifu 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 now the second Presidential election in a row where the republicans have lost to a radical leftist and in 2000 they only just barely scraped together enough votes. This isn’t representative of a current trend that is going to change.

The country has changed radically in the last hundred years and the Republicans need to face up to that reality. The depression era/world war two generation is dying in droves now. Even the early baby boomers are getting old. There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.

On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand. [/quote]

Interesting historical note, after Reagan won two terms by big margins and his VP went on to crush the democrat in 1988 the democratic party was wondering if it would ever win again. Then BLAM 1992 Bill Clinton enters the picture. You see it’s more about the man than the party. The republican party doesn’t need to do a damn thing other than brush up their ground game a little. And of course find a 2016 candidate with more charisma than the democrat candidate and the republicans take back the White House and the country …what ever is left it after 8 years of Obama.

As a side note we should actually do a T Nation pool and try to bet how high obama will cause the debt to rise.

The sky is the limit now!