Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 357
  1. #76
    Duck Dude Donald M.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    22,687

    Default

    Because Obama is the better rapper.

  2. #77
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    221B Baker Street
    Posts
    18,005

    Default

    Basically yes, the Republican party had no "star" candidate. I used to live in Texas, and I always loathed Rick Perry long before he came into attention as a candidate. But I thought he had a good shot at this kind of position. Texas seems to be the kind of Republican utopia of economic prosperity with very little business regulation and he was Bush's sidekick. But wow he turned out to be an idiot. I really hope this means he'll lose his next governor election.

    Of course, Rick is just one example (one that I'm familiar with). It was pretty clear the GOP had no good candidates, and Romney was the only sane one (even if he was really problematic in other ways, which he was).

    Part of it is of course that the GOP went batshit crazy because of the Tea Party. When Romney got the nomination, I really thought he was going to run as a moderate. So you would have the right moderate vs the left moderate. But Romney ended up running all over the place, and later flip flopping all over the place. He couldn't really please the moderates and his party at the same time, but he tried anyway in the most fraudulent way possible.

    It is a bit sad they couldn't take advantage of the economic situation to win the election. Economists have said that it's going to take roughly a decade to fix this recession. (The situation with the economy gets really tough because it's not just about fixing, it's that all the growth we've had is from spending money that didn't exist and we need to find new ways altogether for growth but I digress). But I do think people are very aware that the GOP basically undermined Obama in every way from making the proper reforms. And despite all the anger of ObamaCare, I'm sure millions of people are grateful they have healthcare now.

    Basically the GOP needs a major, major metamorphosis. There's a legitimate case for economic conservatism for a more libertarian stance, but social conservatism has gone too far, and is just way too backwards. I think all their stances on gay marriage, abortion, etc. will be seen in history as the "wrong" side, just as it has been for racism and other social issues in the past.

    Tea Party needs to pretty much die. They're not really interested in too much spending, they're just misguided nut cases that the rich corporations can use as puppets.

  3. #78
    The Central Sca-rutinizer Pól Rua's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    17,269

    Default

    Our own Greg Hatcher pointed me in the direction of this which sums it up quite nicely.
    Yeah, I know it's long, but I think it says pretty much everything worth saying on the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Ellsworth
    To Tea Party Patriots and Hardcore Religious Engineers:

    Republicans lost because their party leadership and most candidates feared you, listened to you, and looked the other way on important issues as you picked the dumbest, craziest nominees in key primaries (Murdock and Akin), or converted otherwise sensible, experienced candidates to Crazy Town (Romney).

    There's nothing wrong with wanting limited government. I do. There's nothing wrong with believing in God, the Golden Rule, or wanting to reduce abortions. I do, too. But you've taken it too damn far and scare the shit out of people you could otherwise persuade.

    Yes, the message and messenger matter (you're failing at both, BTW), but no Madison Avenue P.R. firm, K Street lobbying firm, Fox News "analyst", or local chapter of "Freedom Works" can sell the flaming dung you're slinging.

    Smart people can lose. But smart people always learn.

    You didn't lose because you "weren't conservative enough" or because the country has become full of lazy "takers" who don't want to earn a living or just want America to "turn in to Europe".

    You didn't lose because of Hurricane Sandy or because Chris Christie hugged the President on TV - they were both doing their jobs.

    You didn't lose because of a liberal media, liberal college campuses, liberal polls that were "weighted to Democrats" (mostly because they were accurate), or because of "election fraud"... actually, that probably benefited you this time.

    No. You lost because your policies, tone, conspiracies, rigid inflexibility and irrational rhetoric helped align enough moderates, swing voters, and minority groups whom otherwise could be persuaded by Republicans, to align with Democrats and a beatable incumbent.

    It's not that you didn't get your message out, it's that we all actually heard it and threw up a little in our mouths.

    There isn't a mandate for Democrats in this election. Liberalism wasn't rewarded in this election. However, calm pragmatism, compassion, working together, compromise and sincerity were rewarded. People may not have agreed with President Obama, but more felt he was sincere and that he understood their daily problems, fears, and dreams. If you don't trust what the polls say, take a look at who is sworn in on January 20th. I thought you'd at least believe in Math when it came to counting to 270.

    Sincerity is the only thing in politics you can't fake. You can't teach it. No matter how shiny a candidate's bio is, how smooth he is, or how perfect the gray hairs rest on his temples --- any average Joe on the street can spot a bullshitter.

    Mitt is a generous and good man, but he didn't know who he was or "needed" to be at any given time in that campaign. That's largely his fault for lacking core convictions or personal toughness (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush possessed both traits - that's why they won).

    But you, the right wing base of the party, who drove so many of us moderate republicans out the door years ago, were the main catalyst. Your inability to reason, compromise, or let new facts and evidence challenge your predetermined outcomes led millions of moderates to no longer be able to stand on stage with you.

    Frankly, you're embarrassing - more so than a crazy family member at dinner, or having your mom drop you off at a high school dance.

    You say stupid shit and look stupid saying it.

    You pass amendments to ban flag burning and then hang it upside down and post it on Facebook when you lose.

    You preach limited government in the economy when Democrats are in charge and then look the other way when you're in charge.

    You want a government small enough to stay out of corporations and banks but big enough for bedrooms and hospital respirators (see Schiavo, Terri).

    There's a hatred inside of you that burns in a way that scares normal people.

    You made unlikely allies in large corporations who are more interested in tax breaks and loopholes even if the government has to cut your Medicare and Social Security or cut education to a point where states and local governments have no financial choice but to educate your children in portable trailer classrooms with 35 other students.

    Would these corporations do this just to help pad their quarterly earnings reports with certain tax and regulatory policies? You bet your sweet ass they do. And you better believe they're happy to have you make the "freedom" argument as "concerned citizen patriots" on their behalf.

    Yet, after those corporations spent billions on TV adds and herded you like sheep over the last half decade to discredit Barack Obama for everything from being a "Godless communist" --- to his "being born in Kenya and hatching a secret plot to take down America" --- to Obamacare's "death panels and job killing regulations" -

    YOU still lost.

    After having a Senate Republican Leader state that his party's top priority in Congress was to make "Obama a one term President" and a House of Representatives that blocked everything he tried to do and then had the brass to criticize him for "not getting anything done" -

    YOU still lost.

    After attacking gay people who want equal protection under the law (BTW, I'm referring to the 14th amendment to the constitution, I know you forget most of the amendments after the 2nd one) -

    YOU still lost.

    After attacking the Hispanic community who's tired of being spoken "at" like criminals, attacking low income women who rely on Planned Parenthood for services of which 98% have nothing to do with abortion, and attacking relatively trivial things like PBS that children and adults enjoy as "1" damn television channel that doesn't include Honey Boo Boo or a "Fox News Breaking Alert" announcing Obama's latest "Czar" appointment -

    YOU still lost.

    And after throwing all the red meat in your warped political base out to the rest of the country to eat, the majority of Americans weren't hungry for it and didn't trust ordering from your unhealthy, de-regulated menu -

    YOU still lost.

    You can read me the constitution, but you clearly don't have a practical understanding of what you've read, heard on television, or forwarded to your entire email list of like minded xenophobes.

    This country is great because our founders were smart enough to limit the government's power and give the people enough freedom and authority to correct their own mistakes in pursuit of a "more perfect union" (it's in the first damn line of the Preamble, in case you can't find it in your Tea Party Constitution Cliffs Notes).

    Our founders were utterly brilliant and sophisticated. I don't like to speak for them, but I doubt they would have been friends with Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. Nah, they wouldn't have made the guest list at Mt. Vernon or Monticello.

    But let's be clear, our founders weren't perfect. They owned slaves. Only White male property owners had a say in things. Women, blacks, native americans, and other constituencies had to wait for an American dream and in many cases, are still waiting and working for it. Speaking of work, children were working 12-16 hour days with zero safety protections in statute. Zero.

    The constitution, subsequent amendments and Supreme Court rulings and opinions since 1800 aren't perfectly clear (those who think they are tend to have had a healthy serving of Kool-Aid and have never watched oral arguments at the Supreme Court).

    The founders knew that they, and the constitution they drafted, weren't perfect. This is why they added a Bill of Rights and why they created a Supreme Court and a process that has allowed us to add 27 amendments to their work of art.

    Their imperfection is what led to a Civil War to prove that human and civil rights aren't a "states' rights issue" - they're endowed by our creator, not by legislatures in Mississippi or Alabama, and they're protected equally in our constitution, but also in our democratically passed laws.

    I run from the Capitol steps to the Lincoln Memorial most mornings that I'm in Washington. I may not be fast or smart, but I can read what's carved in stone.

    Please. I welcome a challenge to what I've said. If you think because I voted for President Obama that I'm a socialist or that I don't want a better America, I'm happy to take time from running a business I've co-founded and time from money I'm trying to raise for Big Brothers Big Sisters of America to pause and give you a fresh one. At no charge.

    But I do ask this: be a real Patriot. Look at that flag you've hung upside down. Look at what you've done to it and what that means. Thousands of our bravest men and women, braver than me, just lost limbs and in many cases their lives so that Iraqis and Afghanis could vote however they see fit. I did that on Tuesday and so did you. That's what that flag stands for - equal access to a process, not a guarantee for any of our desired outcomes.

    A country that defeated Hitler, Mussolini, and bin Laden won't crumble because the guy you wanted to be President got beat.

    You lost. Now learn from it.

    Sincerely,

    A Proud American
    "Loudly proclaiming that you are above childish things isn't a sign of maturity - it's proof of adolescence." - Schnitzy Pretzelpants

    Co-host of The 'Mike & Pól Save The Universe' Comics podcast - check it out on www.mikeandpol.com

  4. #79
    Elder Member mikekerrIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    23,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winslow View Post
    That chart is easier to read than the NYT link I posted earlier.

    I wonder why Asians voted so strongly for Obama? I haven't heard any talking heads even mentioning that.
    Much of the Asian population are recent immigrants or the children of recent immigrants and the anti-immigrant tone of the Republicans pissed many off. But that is just based on the folks I deal with regularly
    Pain shared is divided, joy shared is multiplied

  5. #80
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    221B Baker Street
    Posts
    18,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pól Rua View Post
    Our own Greg Hatcher pointed me in the direction of this which sums it up quite nicely.
    Yeah, I know it's long, but I think it says pretty much everything worth saying on the topic.

  6. #81
    Elder Member mikekerrIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    23,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J. Robb View Post
    The Nineteenth Amendment.
    The 14th was as least as damaging to him
    Pain shared is divided, joy shared is multiplied

  7. #82
    Too late Nick Soapdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hurricane-y FL
    Posts
    14,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    I've been reading that immigration policy was like 5th on the list of issues for hispanic voters.
    Also read that 72% of the people who voted were white.
    This is probably the poll that you're thinking of. I heard that it was third on their list, but that was a couple years ago and I don't know if it was among registered voters or not. Even so, an issue that is relatively unimportant can still sway votes if one of the candidates takes an extreme position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosebunse View Post
    Well, this is interesting. Well, this proves one thing, and that's that you can't just appeal to white people, particularly men, and hope to win. I hope Republicans realize that they NEED to include those other demographics. If they don't, they won't last long.

    Once more, Republicans are trying to cater to a dying demographic of old white people.
    Yes, it can. It just requires discouraging or preventing other voters.

    Quote Originally Posted by stillanerd View Post
    Exactly. Romney and the Republicans unwillingly allowed themselves to be defined by the Democrats instead of making a genuine case why people should vote for them or why their ideas were better than what Obama and the Democrats offered. Which was especially difficult considering how his own party during the primary labeled as a "political flip-flopping opportunist" and "vulture capitalist in bed with Wall Street bankers." The only time Romney really gave a reason for people vote for him was in the first Presidential debate in which he played offense to an uncharacteristically defensive Obama, a debate in which even Democrats admitted Obama lost.
    I disagree. The bigger problem for Romney was letting other Republicans define him and the party - such as Paul Ryan, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Like you said before, Democrats didn't need to define him as a vulture capitalist or flip-flopper because Republicans have been saying that about him for four years (particularly the latter).

  8. #83
    Rargh! Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Woo!
    Posts
    29,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish View Post

    I disagree. The bigger problem for Romney was letting other Republicans define him and the party - such as Paul Ryan, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Like you said before, Democrats didn't need to define him as a vulture capitalist or flip-flopper because Republicans have been saying that about him for four years (particularly the latter).
    I dunno, i remember that time he was pushing old ladys off cliffs.

  9. #84
    Elder Member dupersuper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    31,007

    Default

    Because less than half of the American voters are greedy, xenophobic, paranoid, insane bible thumpers...?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosebunse View Post
    The fact is, the Republican party doesn't realize that women, African Americans, immigrants, Hispanics, Asians, and gays, lesbians, and transgender people vote. The Republicans, I think, seriously believe we live in 1950.
    Except women could vote in 1950...
    Pull List; seems to be too long to fit in my sig...

  10. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosebunse View Post
    Once more, Republicans are trying to cater to a dying demographic of old white people.
    They're also making themselves appear as an exclusively Christian party in a country where around one quarter of the population describe themselves as being atheists or of "no faith".

    Now I'm sure there are atheists who vote Republican (just as 6% of working scentists still identify as Republicans) but if you consistently try to alienate 1/4th of the electorate, you're starting from a bad position.
    Last edited by Iangould; 11-09-2012 at 03:02 AM.
    Visit the Ace Comics & Games Digital shopfront:
    http://www.acecomics.comicretailer.com

  11. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cactusmaac View Post
    Romney did really well in the last month, much better than anyone expected.

    This wasn't the typical comfortable victory for a satisfactory incumbent by any means.

    He may have won it if he was a better politician than a corporate executive, capable of running a hard-hitting national campaign. And if he'd thought long and hard about a policy mix that would have appealed to the disaffected middle class.

    No one cares about military spending and tax cuts now, they want jobs and well-run healthcare and education.

    Still, it was a good effort and nowhere near the disaster it could have been after the Bush 2nd term and the 47% debacle.
    No. Romney SHOULD have won by a landslide based on the state of the economy.

    At least one well-respected (until now) economic model predicted that Obama would lose heavily.
    Last edited by Iangould; 11-09-2012 at 03:19 AM.
    Visit the Ace Comics & Games Digital shopfront:
    http://www.acecomics.comicretailer.com

  12. #87
    Marquis de carabas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Belgium.
    Posts
    31,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iangould View Post
    No. Romney SHOULD have won by a landslide based on the state of the economy.

    At least well-respected (until now) economic model predicted that Obama would lose heavily.
    Maybe people are actually getting smarter and this time enough voters remembered how the economy got in that state in the first place...
    'The marquis. Well, you know, to be honest, he seems a little bit dodgy to me.'
    'Mm,' she agreed. 'He's a little bit dodgy in the same way that rats are a little bit covered in fur."

  13. #88
    They call me Mr. Pip! the4thpip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    31,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stillanerd View Post
    Exactly. Romney and the Republicans unwillingly allowed themselves to be defined by the Democrats instead of making a genuine case why people should vote for them or why their ideas were better than what Obama and the Democrats offered.
    Did the democrats add anything to the "Definition of Romney" that his primary opponents had not already flung upon him?
    My blog.

    We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given.
    - Desmond Tutu

    Getting married? Check http://www.fandgweddings.com/

  14. #89
    for the lulz 7thangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    8,657

    Default

    a snippet from Charles P. Peirce

    The Real Problem with the Demented Republican Party
    I thought I'd wait until the National Schadenfreude Day celebrations had died down a bit before examining some of what happened on Tuesday night, in which we elected a new Democratic president and a whole binder full of new Democratic lady senators, but during which, because I was down reporting in the Duchy of Grand Clusterfkistan, I was tasked with following the election from a state in which the election just ended. Rock, paper, scissors, kids. Best three out of five. Florida doesn't need UN observers. It needs exorcists.

    The Republicans, of course, are all in a hilarious tizzy about how it all went sour. Was Romney the wrong candidate? (Of course he was. Nominating G.I. Luvmoney four years after his best pals nearly burned down the world was almost as stupid as nominating one of the other clowns in the clown car would have been. Oops. Paradox! Alert! Alert! Arrrrrooooooooogaaaahhh!!) Was the "message" bad? (Of course it was. It's been bad for 30 years. The country's just been catching up to how godawful it is. Hint: You've lost the official popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections, and the one you "won" has an asterisk the size of Alpha Centauri hung on it.) Was the moon in the seventh house? In my capacity as Gracious Winner, let me suggest an alternative general theory.

    You lost because your party has become demented.

    The Republican party is a cascade of symptoms right now. And it's very hard to see a way out of it. It has managed to construct an almost perfect Newtonian hall of mirrors — for each solution, there is within the party an equal, but opposite problem. There is almost no way to function within the party structure as it has been redefined by the various elements of the conservative "movement" without rounding a corner and colliding with the image of itself coming in the other direction. For example, let us consider the problem of "demographics," which is the polite Republican way of talking about the browns, and the blahs, and the ladies with their ladyparts potions. I wish I had a nickel for the number of people I heard tell me how ready the Republican party is to adapt to the changing face of America. The evidence always cited for the plaintiffs: Marco Rubio, "Bobby" Jindal, and the newly elected Ted Cruz down in Texas.

    Okay. Even leaving aside the utter tokenism of the basic argument, Rubio is a pro-life fanatic. Jindal is even more of a pro-life fanatic, plus he's bringing into Louisiana through his charter "schools" a veritable torrent of Jesus-on-a-dinosaur propaganda textbooks, and he has all the charisma of a handball at this point. And Ted Cruz is completely batshit:

    Cruz is a conspiracy theory character. He is convinced billionaire George Soros is funding a secret agenda to shutdown golf courses because they harm the environment and is conspiring with the United Nations to eliminate national sovereignty and private property. Cruz is convinced sharia law is an enormous problem in the U.S. and that extending unemployment benefits creates more unemployment and that churches ought to be able to keep their tax exemptions even as they endorse candidates from the pulpit.

    Even assuming, which I don't, that simply elevating, say, Cruz would dazzle some of the Hispanic voters who are fleeing from the party in droves — the Republicans almost lost the Cuban American vote in Florida, which hasn't happened since the Bay of Pigs invasion — elevating one of these guy also would do nothing for the party's miserable image among the blahs. It would outrage the gay people (who, after all, had a better night on Tuesday than the Democrats did), further inflame the ladies with their ladyparts, and scare the Sansabelts off the grumpy white people who are the problem in the first place. The problem the Republicans have is one of competing, self-negating orthodoxies, each with its own center of power within the Republican electorate.

    Okay, so the "deep bench" has all the same problems that the alleged "first string" has. How about "moderating the policies"? Okay, good luck with that. Rick Perry defended giving in-state tuition to the children of undocumented immigrants in a debate this year and that was the real end of his campaign. The Republican party had a "moderate" position on immigration as recently as 2008. John McCain had to run away from his own bill. For that matter, on a number of other issues, "cap and trade" was once a Republican position. So, for that matter, was the individual health-care mandate. All of them are completely dead in the water. And even if you could find a moderate Hispanic who supported gay marriage, held the old George H.W. Bush position on reproductive freedom, believed in evolution and climate change, and argued for cap-and-trade, the DREAM Act, and the insurance-friendly health-care reform currently on offer for what they are, which is decent traditional Republican positions, and he was charismatic enough to overcome the anger within the "base" that all of these positions would engender, you'd still have two insurmountable problems....

    The first is the economy. Strip away all the anti-science, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigrant positions, and the Republicans still are wedded to an economic doctrine that's as nutty as is Ted Cruz's opinion on the UN plot to steal our golfs. Five years ago, Jonathan Chait — who, by the way, had a great election season — wrote a book called The Big Con, in which he successfully linked the Republican devotion to supply-side economics to all the other wacky positions into which the conservative "movement" has finessed the Republicans. And that, friends, is the real hill on which they are prepared to die. Even our hypothetical candidate cannot abandon that doctrine even though study after study, suppressed or not, and three decades of practical experience, have all taught us that it is simply destructive moonshine. This is the one thing on which Willard Romney remained constant throughout his entire career. Witness, if you please, the reaction of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to the events of Tuesday night. Fudge and nonsense, and a continued instance that any "compromise" must needs take place on their home ground. How destructive is this enforced orthodoxy on purportedly "moderate" Republicans? Ask Scott Brown, who signed Grover Norquist's idiotic "pledge" not to raise taxes, and then had Elizabeth Warren beat the pink leather shorts off him for it during the campaign.

    [...]

  15. #90
    They call me Mr. Pip! the4thpip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    31,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7thangel View Post
    Yet, when we had a thread called "have Republicans lost their collective minds", our mods got swamped with complaints until they changed the title.
    My blog.

    We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given.
    - Desmond Tutu

    Getting married? Check http://www.fandgweddings.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •