Search forums

Forums

Export thread

2012 Election Results Thread

Nov 6, 2012#1

strawman

We have a few threads about some aspects of the election, but there's going to be a firehose of information generated over the next 12 hours which we needn't clutter the other political threads with.

So anything election, polling, etc related has a home here.

The first things we're probably going to see are exit polls. The major news organizations fund a single exit poll which is only occurring in 37 states this year (due to cost). But they've all agreed that prior to the polls closing in each state, they won't announce that state's exit poll results - at most they agreed they can post trends, but ever since the 2004 exit poll fiasco (many news organizations called it for Kerry before the polls closed in various states) they are being somewhat more circumspect with exit polls. While the results are secret to the public, they are available to the news organizations in real time, so it'll be interesting to see them try to avoid leaks.

I decided election night is as good a reason as any to hold a party, so anyone who wants to come up to Michigan to watch the ups and downs as the news organizations repeat the same thing over and over and over, come on over! You can tell it's my house, I'm the only one in the area with a Romney sign.

I will post things I find interesting as the news coverage expands.

Nov 6, 2012#2

Reverent-one

stienman said:
I decided election night is as good a reason as any to hold a party, so anyone who wants to come up to Michigan to watch the ups and downs as the news organizations repeat the same thing over and over and over, come on over! You can tell it's my house, I'm the only one in the area with a Romney sign.

On the topic of election night parties, BBC will be live broadcasting from a local restaurant, so I will be there with friends enjoying some tasty sandwhiches while watching those same news reports.

Nov 6, 2012#3

strawman

On that note, if anyone finds good online live updates anywhere, please post links here. I think the BBC's take on our election might be more interesting than our own media's navel gazing.

Nov 6, 2012#4

Terrik

I just got up at 530am so I can run over to the sports bar and watch it live. The Consulate over here is also holding an election party at the 4 seasons hotel I might head over to see as well. How exciting. Woo.

Nov 6, 2012#5

Gared

I don't know how "live" they're going to be, but here are trackers from the NY Times, Politico, NPR, and Bing.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/
http://election2012.npr.org/results-map.html
http://www.bing.com/elections/

Nov 6, 2012#6

Hailey Knight

The line was short when we went in and long when we left. That's my thread contribution for now.

Also, day's depressing moment, a text from a friend: "So is there an election today? I didn't find out until just now, lol"

Nov 6, 2012#7

strawman

Here is CNN's tracker:

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president?hpt=elec_racenav

And here is their projection, which I believe will be updated as exit polls are updated:

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?battleground

Nov 6, 2012#8

Charlie Don't Surf

Obama wins

Nov 6, 2012#9

Piotyr

According to the very right-leaning Drudge Report:

EXIT POLLS: RACE TIGHT
R: NC, FL
O: OH, NH, PA, MI, NV
TOSS UP: VA, CO, IA

Nov 6, 2012#10

GasBandit

Piotyr said:
According to the very right-leaning Drudge Report:

EXIT POLLS: RACE TIGHT
R: NC, FL
O: OH, NH, PA, MI, NV
TOSS UP: VA, CO, IA

apparently just changed to:

EXIT POLL BOOM FOR O
R: NC, FL
O: NH, PA, MI, NV
TOSS UP: OH, VA, CO, IA

Nov 6, 2012#11

Piotyr

Counting electoral votes for states not in contention:

100% Blue (Obama): CA (55), OR (7), WA (12), NM (5), MN (10), IL (20), NY (29), MD (10), DE (3), NJ (14), CT (7), RI (4), MA (11), VT (3), ME (4), HI (4), WI (10) = 208
100% Red (Romney): TX (38), LA (8), MS (6), AL (9), GA (16), SC (9), TN (11), KY (8), WV (5), IN (11), AR (6), MO (10), OK (7), KS (6), NE (5), SD (3), ND (3), MT (3), ID (4), WY (3), UT (6), AZ (11), AK (3) = 191

"Swing" states: NV (5), CO (9), IA (7), MI (16), OH (18), PA (20), NH (4), VA (13), NC (15), FL (29)

So, if we believe the far right (Republican/Romney)-leaning Drudge, that would put Obama at 208 + OH (18) + NH (4) + PA (20) + MI (16) + NV (5) = 271 electoral votes, which is already enough to win.

Nov 6, 2012#12

GasBandit

And now they took down the list entirely.

Nov 6, 2012#13

GasBandit

I know it won't happen, but all the gabbing over the last couple of weeks about a possible 269-269 split made me think how hilariously historic that would make all this, and a Romney/Biden administration would be zany.

Nov 6, 2012#14

GasBandit

CNN just called VT for Obama, and KY for Romney. No surprises there. And it's time to go home. See you tomorrow, Halforums.

Nov 6, 2012#15

Dei

GasBandit said:
I know it won't happen, but all the gabbing over the last couple of weeks about a possible 269-269 split made me think how hilariously historic that would make all this, and a Romney/Biden administration would be zany.

If the election comes down to Florida again for some god forsaken reason, I quit.

Personally, I no longer give a shit who wins the presidential election. I know that Congress will most likely spend 4 more years in a dead lock, and it's unlikely that any justice of the opposing party to the president will retire, so it's all just entertainment to me.

Nov 6, 2012#16

strawman

Early and absentee voting is 1.91 million Obama, 1.86 million Romney. Very, very close margin and closely follows many polls.

Nov 6, 2012#17

Gared

CNN projects that the Republican party will maintain control of the House of Representatives.

Nov 6, 2012#18

Adam

Zzz. Surprised to see Obama doing as well as he is.

Nov 6, 2012#19

strawman

With Obama getting PA, Romney has to get Ohio and Florida to have a fighting chance.

Right now Florida is very close, and too little of Ohio is reporting to say anything substantial.

They should both be callable in an hour or two.

Nov 6, 2012#20

Adam

From the vote counts I've seen, Ohio is an easy Obama win, which means it's over.

303 - 235 Obama. You heard it here first.

Nov 6, 2012#21

Zappit

If it's Ohio to Obama, then yeah, it's over. He'd need only to get the states he was predicted to win out west and Wisconsin, and he just got Wisconsin.

Nov 6, 2012#22

strawman

It's interesting that they're not calling it yet, though. It's over half reporting, and Obama is five points ahead. Who isn't reporting that makes them think Romney has a chance?

Nov 6, 2012#23

Zappit

Something smells in Ohio...

Nov 6, 2012#24

DarkAudit

If they call it now, everyone turns off the TV. There's no money in that.[DOUBLEPOST=1352257008][/DOUBLEPOST]

Zappit said:
Something smells in Ohio...

Is the Cuyahoga on fire again?

Nov 6, 2012#25

Adam

DarkAudit said:
If they call it now, everyone turns off the TV. There's no money in that.

Bump for that truth.

Nov 6, 2012#26

Zappit

Mourdock and Akin defeated. Not a bad night for the anti-rape crowd.

Elizabeth Warren takes the Massachusetts Senate seat!

Tammy Duckworth defeats Joe Walsh, proving that bashing a double amputee veteran for being a double amputee veteran is not a good strategy.

Nov 6, 2012#27

strawman

Ohio was up five points at 47% reporting, but now at 51% reporting Obama is only up three points. That's a pretty big swing for such a small additional reporting.

Perhaps they aren't waiting just to keep us hanging on.

Florida, on the other hand...

Nov 6, 2012#28

Zappit

Florida is close, but they're almost done reporting. We've come to expect shenanigans from them. They'll hold off as long as they can.

Both Ohio and Florida have a lot of provisional ballots, and Florida only starts to count those on the 17th. Good lord, here we go again.

Nov 6, 2012#29

strawman

The election supervisors in Florida should be tossed out. If it was one year, that would be a fluke, but this is an ongoing problem they're having.

Nov 6, 2012#30

bhamv3

Just saw this in the comments on the CNN website:

"Come on Obama, make Romney improvise that concession speech he didn't write."

Nov 6, 2012#31

Covar

Zappit said:
If it's Ohio to Obama, then yeah, it's over. He'd need only to get the states he was predicted to win out west and Wisconsin, and he just got Wisconsin.

Where are you getting that? AP, CNN, and Fox News all show Romney with around 3 points in WI, and less than 20% votes in.

Nov 6, 2012#32

Zappit

NBC and CNN are calling Wisconsin for Obama.

Nov 6, 2012#33

Covar

Nobody told their website I guess

Nov 6, 2012#34

Zappit

They must have updated that. NBC is still showing it going to Obama.

Nov 6, 2012#35

Covar

Fox has the state projected for Obama, with the results showing the Romney lead. :confused:

Nov 6, 2012#36

Zappit

The areas that haven't reported in must be historically Democrat.

Nov 6, 2012#37

strawman

NBC called Wisconsin for Obama over an hour ago. Don't know why everyone else held off for so long. Perhaps NBC is attempting to lead the others in calls?

I'm really only paying attention to CNN (when their website is up) and NBC (TV) at the moment.

Nov 6, 2012#38

drifter

The guy at PEC is recommending Politico and the New York Times for latest results.

Nov 6, 2012#39

Shakey

It's early, but Michele Bachmann is ahead in her race.

Nov 6, 2012#40

strawman

NBC is pointing out that the swing counties in the so-called swing states are all leaning toward Obama. Someone pointed out early in the season that there are really only 12 counties in these several states that actually swing and have the size to move the state electoral votes from one party to the other.[DOUBLEPOST=1352261170][/DOUBLEPOST]NBC is calling North Carolina for Romney.

Nov 6, 2012#41

bhamv3

California, Hawaii, and Washington called for Obama, according to the BBC website. That's 71 electoral votes right there.

Nov 6, 2012#42

strawman

There are at least 5 counties in FL panhandle that haven't yet reported results but are typically republican, so that's probably why FL is not being called, even though that may be balanced by the remaining votes yet to be counted in the heavily democratic counties in southern fl.[DOUBLEPOST=1352261726][/DOUBLEPOST]NBC called the election for Obama, and the crowd in Chicago is going wild.

Nov 6, 2012#43

Zappit

NBC just called it for Obama. Ohio is his.

Suck it, Mitt.

The best part is that the Florida results will have no effect. They can't screw it all up again.

Nov 6, 2012#44

strawman

Fox news has Obama at 275 votes.[DOUBLEPOST=1352262140][/DOUBLEPOST]Well, let's hope Obama forces congress to pass a budget and actually reduces the deficit.

Oh, who am I kidding, he's like a kid in a candy store.

Nov 6, 2012#45

Zappit

He can afford to be bolder now, and could get tough on that Congress.

Nov 6, 2012#46

DarkAudit

So what now, Mitch? What now? How did that "one term" goal work out for ya?

Nov 6, 2012#47

Gilgamesh

stienman - Thank you for being so respectful and honest in your replies to my sometimes very biased views against Romney. I too hope, like you, that things improve in a way that would make both sides happy.

I don't think I need to say how happy the family is here tonight, everyone stayed up to watch this result and we all breathed a sigh of relief. Cannot wait to listen to GoP radio tomorrow though. Seriously cannot wait. I hold no gloating over any honest republican. I hold gloat over the Tea Party Talk Show Hosts.

Nov 6, 2012#48

Zappit

I'm just relieved. Several members of my family -myself included - have medical conditions that could have resulted in us getting royally screwed by the insurance companies under a Romney America. My sister and I are both young educators, and our kind has been vilified by the right. We'd be under siege for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Hell, education would have nosedived under Romney. No one wants to feel like they're going to be punished for being a law-abiding citizen that contributes to society, but I really feared the Republicans getting that kind of power. Mitt himself said that it's not his job to care about nearly half this country. Could be why he lost.

Nov 6, 2012#49

Gared

Sigh... so far, here in Washington, we'd still rather legalize marijuana use than let two dudes get married. So fucking backwards.

Whoop, there we go. Now that more of King County is reporting, we're willing to let two dudes get married and we'd like to go celebrate that fact by lighting up a joint.

Nov 6, 2012#50

GasBandit

With any luck, this defeat will hasten the dissolution of the Republican party... but I may be a little too optimistic in thinking that. Not only did Romney lose, but several other high profile republicans got shellacked, like Scott Brown in Massachusetts and of course, Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin. Barry Goldwater is smugly nodding in his grave.

Nov 6, 2012#51

Gilgamesh

If the Republicans would just drop the Tea Party crazies they'd gain some ground with Democrats/Independants.

Nov 6, 2012#52

Shakey

Hopefully they at least stop catering to the ultra conservative tea partiers.

Nov 6, 2012#53

Timmus

Well done America.

Nov 6, 2012#54

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
With any luck, this defeat will hasten the dissolution of the Republican party... but I may be a little too optimistic in thinking that. Not only did Romney lose, but several other high profile republicans got shellacked, like Scott Brown in Massachusetts and of course, Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin. Barry Goldwater is smugly nodding in his grave.

I don't think the Republican Party will every really go away. It has too much brand recognition to completely discard and someone is always going to want to exploit that. But yes, it's going to become completely irrelevant unless they are willing to do more to reach out to minority voters. The changing demographics of America are just killing them and they are standing in a corner, fighting the inevitable, instead of finding another way.

Don't be afraid to go after minorities Republicans. Old White people are going to vote for you regardless of what you do.

Nov 6, 2012#55

Adam

Looking forward to 2016 and Palin running! *snerk*

Nov 6, 2012#56

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
If the Republicans would just drop the Tea Party crazies they'd gain some ground with Democrats/Independants.

It depends on what you mean by "tea party crazies." If you mean people sick of the republicans forcing in country club, jello-spined new england RINOs as their candidates like McCain and Romney, I think you've got it backwards. If you mean the "social conservatives," yeah, those guys need to go, but I don't think they will. The non-clueless republicans will have to just realize that their party is on the wrong side of the issues on things like gay marriage and abortion, and realize that's the well that the republicans always flee to when the campaign gets tough.

But you're absolutely wrong about republicans needing to move to the middle. Moving to the middle is what loses elections for them. Mitt Romney, for all the demonizing, was probably one of the most centrist republicans in living memory - mofo invented Obamacare for all intents and purposes. Every poll from here to eternity showed that people "trust" republicans more with economic matters, but they just can't get past their paleolithic social agenda and realize that true conservatives don't care who you marry or what you do with your own body, be it what you put in or take out. Republicans always like to worship at the altar of Reagan - the guy didn't move to the center, he moved the center toward him.

I'll repeat what I said almost a year ago - this race would have been so much more interesting if Herman Cain had ended up the republican nominee.

Well, anyway, my guy Gary has already given his "I was just happy to be here" speech. We'll see if Libertarians count for 5% this year.

Nov 6, 2012#57

Gilgamesh

I'm talking the Tea Party crazies that say that the Gays caused Hurricane Sandy. That illegals need to build a wall and be placed behind it. That we're going into the Mad Max apocolypse now that Obama has won. That women are meant to be seen and not heard.

The Laura/Rush/Sean followers basically.

Nov 6, 2012#58

Hailey Knight

If Republicans stopped the social bullshit and actually focused on the conservative spending and small government they chatter about but never get around to, would a Libertarian party be needed?

But what am I saying? They're going to continue being racist, sexist, homophobic, theocratic dumbasses who choose to lose elections for a little longer. Maybe in 2016 they'll wise up.

For now, I'm so fucking relieved Romney didn't make it. That seals it. If your God supposedly tells you to run for president, odds are he wants a good laugh.

Nov 6, 2012#59

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
I don't think the Republican Party will every really go away. It has too much brand recognition to completely discard and someone is always going to want to exploit that.

Somebody probably once said the same things about the whigs and the federalists. The thing is a party is only useful if it fulfills it's one only true role - getting its members elected. They held on to the house of representatives this time, though it looks like they are losing ground there too... and basically they completely squandered any momentum from their roaring 2010 comeback by practically repeating 2008's playbook verbatim.[DOUBLEPOST=1352265303][/DOUBLEPOST]

Quotemander Prime said:
If Republicans stopped the social bullshit and actually focused on the conservative spending and small government they chatter about but never get around to, would a Libertarian party be needed?

Seeing as how the Libertarian party was basically founded by disaffected republicans sick of the social bullshit... no, it wouldn't. But as you realized in the next sentence, the republicans absolutely refuse to stop adhering to their reactionary social policy. That's their true identity, not the fiscal stuff they pretend to care about and then discard the instant they come to power.

Nov 6, 2012#60

Shakey

At least Florida doesn't matter this time.

Nov 6, 2012#61

Covar

Quotemander Prime said:
If Republicans stopped the social bullshit and actually focused on the conservative spending and small government they chatter about but never get around to, would a Libertarian party be needed?

But what am I saying? They're going to continue being racist, sexist, homophobic, theocratic dumbasses who choose to lose elections for a little longer. Maybe in 2016 they'll wise up.

For now, I'm so fucking relieved Romney didn't make it. That seals it. If your God supposedly tells you to run for president, odds are he wants a good laugh.

It's amazing how bigoted your post comes across.

Nov 6, 2012#62

Reverent-one

GasBandit said:
Well, anyway, my guy Gary has already given his "I was just happy to be here" speech. We'll see if Libertarians count for 5% this year.

Not looking so good on that, only .9% so far. Shame.

Nov 6, 2012#63

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Somebody probably once said the same things about the whigs and the federalists. The thing is a party is only useful if it fulfills it's one only true role - getting its members elected. They held on to the house of representatives this time, though it looks like they are losing ground there too... and basically they completely squandered any momentum from their roaring 2010 comeback by practically repeating 2008's playbook verbatim.

True enough, though I don't think the Whigs and Federalists had the same kind of media power the Republicans have today.

Nov 6, 2012#64

Shakey

Doesn't sound like they'll be a concession speech from Romney any time soon.

Nov 6, 2012#65

Hailey Knight

Covar said:
It's amazing how bigoted your post comes across.

I know it comes across that way, but beneath that surface appearance of it being bigoted, there's a core in which it actually is bigoted.

I'm sick of the Republican party's bullshit. The GOP platform does not respect human rights; it adheres to power. It doesn't know how to spend or save money; it knows how to waste. I have lost all respect for the party. And no, the Democrats don't know how to get finances together either, but if the government's gonna fuck me over financially either way, I'd rather not see it fuck over people for their gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc. on top of that.

Nov 6, 2012#66

Krisken

Congrats to Tammy Baldwin. The nations first openly gay Senator is from Wisconsin

Nov 6, 2012#67

Gilgamesh

https://twitter.com/GOP_Tears/republican-tears

Not as entertaining as the Rush/Laura/Hannity facebook pages.

(Romney is on the way to concede as of right now)

Nov 6, 2012#68

Krisken

See, I just see that as gloating. The problem with throwing poop is you get poop on your hands.

Nov 7, 2012#69

Gilgamesh

Krisken said:
See, I just see that as gloating. The problem with throwing poop is you get poop on your hands.

I said very clearly I AM gloating over the Rush/Hannity/Laura Tea Party republicans.

I also said I have nothing but the utmost respect for those like stienman who always presented great points and facts in a respectful and clear way.

Nov 7, 2012#70

Krisken

I know, Gil. I meant the people who present the site, not you.

Nov 7, 2012#71

Bones

now that the fighting is over, we can get back to the real issues, like how to further the power of the graceful but rare, head-sucking cowfish!

Nov 7, 2012#71

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
See, I just see that as gloating. The problem with throwing poop is you get poop on your hands.

With all the stupid and crazy the local media subjected us to in support of their owner and his teabagger masters as he ran for Senate yet again, I want to gloat, and gloat HARD. For all the fake "war on coal" the mine owners tried to pull on this state, and fooling their employees to go along with, I want to gloat, and gloat HARD.

For the failure of "legitimate rape".

For the failure of attacking a double amputee war veteran for being a double amputee war veteran.

Poop washes off.

Nov 7, 2012#72

PatrThom

stienman said:
You can tell it's my house, I'm the only one in the area with a Romney sign.

According to the results, the urban SE and the college areas (AA, Kzoo) might've gone Obama, but pretty much the entire rest of the State went Romney, all the way up to something like a 75/25 split in the Holland area. If the election were decided based on area, Romney would've probably won this election with something like 80-90% of the vote.

--Patrick

Nov 7, 2012#73

Gilgamesh

Another of the Tea Party Crazies I was talking about the Republicans needing to drop:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/donald-trump-election-revolution_n_2085864.html

Nov 7, 2012#74

DarkAudit

Bones said:
now that the fighting is over, we can get back to the real issues, like how to further the power of the graceful but rare, head-sucking cowfish!

Not until you tell us if we're done with Bachmann!

Nov 7, 2012#75

Bones

at this moment, its looking like no, but it is a close race.

EDIT: but my district which is no longer hers has a democrat, so I am happy.

Nov 7, 2012#76

Gilgamesh

More of the Crazy side I'm talking about:
https://twitter.com/vicjackshow

Nov 7, 2012#77

LordRendar

Good job America.

By the way,why the hate on Florida?

Nov 7, 2012#78

Piotyr

LordRendar said:
Good job America.

By the way,why the hate on Florida?

Read up a bit on the 2000 election, and why it took almost three weeks to decide who won.

Nov 7, 2012#79

DarkAudit

Gilgamesh said:
More of the Crazy side I'm talking about:
https://twitter.com/vicjackshow

That's beyond crazy, that's totally unhinged.

Nov 7, 2012#80

Piotyr

I also fully admit I have a soft spot for Obama because I met the guy about 15 years ago when he was an unknown running for the Illinois state senate. I helped set up the network on his first campaign office.

Nov 7, 2012#81

Shakey

DarkAudit said:
Not until you tell us if we're done with Bachmann!

The race is so close right now... It's down to less than 2,000 votes between them, but she's still ahead.

Nov 7, 2012#82

Zappit

Well, one of two things will happen now with the GOP. Either they realize that the extremists cost them not only the presidency, but Senate seats and House seats, and work to distance themselves from those elements and remove the Tea Party from the national stage. Moderates make a comeback.I don't know if there's enough sanity left there for that to happen, but voters did reject Akin and Mourdock, so there may be some hope for moderates there. If Obama keeps posting gains, there won't be as much a reason to vote them in, though.

Or...

The extremists push even harder and force out moderates, attacking former favorites like Christie for "costing" Romney the election. Then we hear more about their philosophy on rape and insurance should cover Viagra but not birth control. They set themselves back for a decade. This is likely, and it would be good for the Dems.

Nov 7, 2012#83

strawman

GasBandit said:
With any luck, this defeat will hasten the dissolution of the Republican party... but I may be a little too optimistic in thinking that.

A little? Ha! 2000 called, and they want their "demise of the democratic party" wishful thinking back.

Romney lost decisively, but the fact that he still got 48% of the popular vote and a huge disparity between popular vote and electoral college shows this was more a failure of campaign strategy than a failure of party, platform, message, or candidate. I'm not going to rain on anyone's parade here, but those who believe the GOP will change significantly are probably a little election drunk right now and not thinking clearly.

Nov 7, 2012#84

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
A little? Ha! 2000 called, and they want their "demise of the democratic party" wishful thinking back.

Romney lost decisively, but the fact that he still got 48% of the popular vote and a huge disparity between popular vote and electoral college shows this was more a failure of campaign strategy than a failure of party, platform, message, or candidate. I'm not going to rain on anyone's parade here, but those who believe the GOP will change significantly are probably a little election drunk right now and not thinking clearly.

I actually agree with you, as I've said, it was more about how poor Romney was as a candidate than the whole of the Republican party. The Tea Party caused too many rifts in the Republican party though and caused them those crucial points.

The problem is that Romney and the Tea Party couldn't show how they could fix the things that Obama did wrong in his first 4yrs and worse, they added problems that people didn't want to begin with (Rape issues, Fight against gay rights etc)

Nov 7, 2012#85

@Li3n

stienman said:
Romney lost decisively, but the fact that he still got 48% of the popular vote and a huge disparity between popular vote and electoral college shows this was more a failure of campaign strategy than a failure of party, platform, message, or candidate. I'm not going to rain on anyone's parade here, but those who believe the GOP will change significantly are probably a little election drunk right now and not thinking clearly.

Why is the disparity between the popular vote and the electoral college not something totally expected, considering that a lot of states award all their electoral votes to the winner?

But really, the reason why the Reps lost wasnt that they put off conservative leaning people, is that they scared lazy liberal leaning people into voting...

Gilgamesh said:
I actually agree with you, as I've said, it was more about how poor Romney was as a candidate than the whole of the Republican party.

Romney was totes the worst candidate, you know, except all those other people in the republican primary that kept overtaking him until they went full retard.

Nov 7, 2012#86

Gilgamesh

@Li3n said:
Romney was totes the worst candidate, you know, except all those other people in the republican primary that kept overtaking him until they went full retard.

When did Ron Paul go full retard? I'd have given Ron Paul some serious consideration.

One of my favorite tweets of the night:

@Streeter Seidell -- Legal weed, gay marriage and a black president - take THAT, grandma!

So far only listening to Walton & Johnson. GasBandit you should know all about them (Being a Texan yourself). They're nearly in tears. So far they've already called for a Civil War and for the Southern States to secede from the country. This is going to be a long day of radio.

Nov 7, 2012#87

GasBandit

stienman said:
A little? Ha! 2000 called, and they want their "demise of the democratic party" wishful thinking back.

Romney lost decisively, but the fact that he still got 48% of the popular vote and a huge disparity between popular vote and electoral college shows this was more a failure of campaign strategy than a failure of party, platform, message, or candidate. I'm not going to rain on anyone's parade here, but those who believe the GOP will change significantly are probably a little election drunk right now and not thinking clearly.

The Republicans lost this election in the primary. Having run Cain out on a rail, and then having to pick between Santorum, Gingrich and Romney... the writing was on the wall. The only hope they had after that, as I said, was to make the election about Obama. They didn't. Lots of pundits will complain today about the media covering for Obama (especially on Benghazi, or on 24/7 republican gaffe coverage) but what they really failed at was letting the narrative switch to who they were instead of focusing on Obama.

I knew they were in trouble when there wasn't even an option for Chris Christie or Marco Rubio. Hell, Joe Arpaio probably could have run a better campaign than Romney.[DOUBLEPOST=1352298551][/DOUBLEPOST]

Gilgamesh said:
So far only listening to Walton & Johnson. GasBandit you should know all about them (Being a Texan yourself). They're nearly in tears. So far they've already called for a Civil War and for the Southern States to secede from the country. This is going to be a long day of radio.

Yeah, I know who they are, but they're the evil empire of radio.

Nov 7, 2012#88

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Yeah, I know who they are, but they're the evil empire of radio.

Exactly. I heard them every morning since they were the first GoP backing show to come on every morning. They try and pretend to be about comedy but they're very Tea Party Nutty. Listening to them this morning is just so vindicating.

Nov 7, 2012#89

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Tea Party

Nov 7, 2012#90

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:

Oh but I do. Sadly I do.

Unless you think the people I've called out -Rush/Laura/Hannity/Levin/Walton&Johnson- aren't part of that group.

Nov 7, 2012#91

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Oh but I do. Sadly I do.

Unless you think the people I've called out -Rush/Laura/Hannity/Levin/Walton&Johnson- aren't part of that group.

I'd call them establishment republicans.

Nov 7, 2012#92

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
I'd call them establishment republicans.

I don't know many sane republicans that think it's time for a Revolution/Civil War and it's time to secede.

Nov 7, 2012#93

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
I don't know many sane republicans that think it's time for a Revolution/Civil War and it's time to secede.

Well, I should clarify - Rush, Ingraham, Hannity and Levin are establishment, Walton and Johnson are just rednecks.

Nov 7, 2012#94

strawman

They've been around a lot longer than the so-called tea party. It seems everyone is lumping all the far right republicans in with the tea party, but there's no reason to do so.

Nov 7, 2012#95

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Well, I should clarify - Rush, Ingraham, Hannity and Levin are establishment, Walton and Johnson are just rednecks.

Maybe I'm just too hopeful that people are smarter than to follow them without being party of the insane side of the party.

Nailed it on W&J though.

Nov 7, 2012#96

GasBandit

A lot of people forget that the Tea Party is primarily an economic/fiscal issues group. Mostly they were upset about taxes and spending. Yeah, they got a lot of clingers and hangers-on who were just mad about something else, but those were just other republicans trying to ride coattails. Leftists just tend to lump everything they hate and fear into the "Tea Party" label.

Nov 7, 2012#97

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
A lot of people forget that the Tea Party is primarily an economic/fiscal issues group. Mostly they were upset about taxes and spending. Yeah, they got a lot of clingers and hangers-on who were just mad about something else, but those were just other republicans trying to ride coattails. Leftists just tend to lump everything they hate and fear into the "Tea Party" label.

Hate and Fear? I hope you're being general and not speaking about anyone in particular.

If you're saying that Rush/Laura/Levin/Hannity represent what the Republican party is really about, then I guess I was wrong about the Republican party being relatable in the future.

Nov 7, 2012#98

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
I'm just too hopeful that people are smarter

You are entirely too optimistic, bless your heart.

Did I do that right?

Nov 7, 2012#99

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
You are entirely too optimistic, bless your heart.

Did I do that right?

Always use Bless your heart and yes I'm sadly always overly optimistic.

Nov 7, 2012#100

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
Hate and Fear? I hope you're being general and not speaking about anyone in particular.

If you're saying that Rush/Laura/Levin/Hannity represent what the Republican party is really about, then I guess I was wrong about the Republican party being relatable in the future.

You're the one that keeps insisting that Rush et al are tea party. GB is just talking about what the tea party is, not necessarily about Rush et al.

Rush, etc, are not what the GOP is really about. The tea party is not what the GOP is really about. They are factions and pundits within the GOP which attempt to pull the GOP in a particular direction, but to claim that they are the core of the GOP, or even represent it faithfully is silly.

Nov 7, 2012#101

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
You're the one that keeps insisting that Rush et al are tea party. GB is just talking about what the tea party is, not necessarily about Rush et al.

Rush, etc, are not what the GOP is really about. The tea party is not what the GOP is really about. They are factions and pundits within the GOP which attempt to pull the GOP in a particular direction, but to claim that they are the core of the GOP, or even represent it faithfully is silly.

I never claimed Rush etc was part of the core of the GoP I said they were the core of the Tea Party. Gas said they were GoP core not Tea Party.

Nov 7, 2012#102

@Li3n

Gilgamesh said:
I don't know many sane republicans that think it's time for a Revolution/Civil War and it's time to secede.

He said establishment, not sane...

But Gas is still deluding himself about the Tea party actually standing for what they originally said they did instead of just being, well, the tea party...

Gilgamesh said:
When did Ron Paul go full retard? I'd have given Ron Paul some serious consideration.

Silly rabbit, everyone knows Ron Paul doesn't count (i'll ignore the whole gold standard thing).

Nov 7, 2012#103

strawman

I suspect we're arguing semantics. Gas said they were establishment, not core.

Regardless, I don't personally believe that Rush and most other pundits and the tea party are the core of the republican party. They are extremists for some portions of typically republican principles, and they've latched onto the republican party as the only party with enough power and close enough to their desires as to be usable for their purposes, but they are not and do not define the party.

The democrats have done a fantastic job of showcasing them, however, and portraying them as the party faithful in order to dissuade independents and disaffected democrats.

Nov 7, 2012#104

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
I suspect we're arguing semantics. Gas said they were establishment, not core.

Regardless, I don't personally believe that Rush and most other pundits and the tea party are the core of the republican party. They are extremists for some portions of typically republican principles, and they've latched onto the republican party as the only party with enough power and close enough to their desires as to be usable for their purposes, but they are not and do not define the party.

I also don't believe the Tea Party is the core of the republican party. We're on the same page.

Honestly? Getting to know your views and talking with you over these past few months helped me see that even better.

Nov 7, 2012#105

GasBandit

Like Steinman says... the GOP is actually a fractious bunch. In fact, I wouldn't even put all three of the big 3 R pundits in the same group - Ingraham is more of a shrill social conservative than the others, by far. She's one slip of the tongue/mask away from saying we need to round up and shoot all the gays.

Gil - just about everyone who most conservatives don't consider a windsock or RINO is who you push into a big bag labeled "tea party." But the tea party is actually a lot smaller and less inclusive than that. Like I said, it's more of a single issue group. Rush is not Tea Party (he often, in facts, gripes about them being a distraction and detriment to the furtherment of the party as a whole). Neither are the other two. They're a lot closer to what most label "Republican Elite" - the country club megacorp republicans. The Tea Party is inherently populist, which is antithetical to them.

Nov 7, 2012#106

@Li3n

stienman said:
Regardless, I don't personally believe that Rush and most other pundits and the tea party are the core of the republican party. They are extremists for some portions of typically republican principles, and they've latched onto the republican party as the only party with enough power and close enough to their desires as to be usable for their purposes, but they are not and do not define the party.

The democrats have done a fantastic job of showcasing them, however, and portraying them as the party faithful in order to dissuade independents and disaffected democrats.

Where you on this planet in 2008/2009 when the Tea Party appeared? Because really, they where just republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush's trolling while protesting Obama...[DOUBLEPOST=1352300844][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
The Tea Party is inherently populist, which is antithetical to them.

You mean it's what they're missing...

Nov 7, 2012#107

DarkAudit

stienman said:
You are entirely too optimistic, bless your heart.

Did I do that right?

I was always taught that "Bless your heart" was southern for "you're an idiot".

Nov 7, 2012#108

Charlie Don't Surf

Wait wait

did you just say they "lost it(the election)" when they ran Herman Cain out of the primaries?

did you go up to Colorado last night

Nov 7, 2012#109

Gilgamesh

DarkAudit said:
I was always taught that "Bless your heart" was southern for "you're an idiot".

It usually is.

Nov 7, 2012#110

Espy

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Wait wait

did you just say they "lost it(the election)" when they ran Herman Cain out of the primaries?

did you go up to Colorado last night

Yeah, I don't get that either. Someone thinks dumb as bricks Herman Cain was good candidate to run? Honestly, Romney was the only one worth running out of this bunch of yahoo's and even he was a terrible choice.

Nov 7, 2012#111

Gilgamesh

Laura Ingram is fantastic today. All she's done is congratulate Dems on a better run campaign and how she's been right all along about Romney being the wrong choice for the Republicans. Riiiiight Laura, you were always Anti-Romney. :rofl:

Nov 7, 2012#112

strawman

It seems there are many who simply didn't want to run against Obama this cycle. I expect a number of interesting contenders will show up for the 2016 primaries who would love to run against Biden. I don't see Biden as a good choice for the democrats, but if they don't have someone better to offer 2016 is going to end badly for them.

Nov 7, 2012#113

Gilgamesh

I definitely don't see Biden as a real option in 2016. I'm going to watch the 2016 Elections really close and see what options are really presented. It should be very interesting.

I will definitely say that if the GoP candidate comes out clearly against Gay Rights/Women's Choice/Women's Pay Equality then I'm going to lean Dem again. If the GoP can field someone who has more open views while presenting a solid position, I'll give them a definite look and chance.

Nov 7, 2012#114

AshburnerX

I almost think Hillary would be a better option than Biden right now. She's got the name, foreign experience, and already knows where all the bodies are buried. Her winning would be a pretty smooth transition.

Chris Christie will probably be the 2016 Republican candidate and I could see him doing well.

Nov 7, 2012#115

figmentPez

If I hear one more person talk about leaving the country because of who was elected president, or that they were going to leave if the other guy did; if I hear one more person talk about how terrified they were about the results of this vote... I am going to... GAH!

Seriously, this country has checks and balances set up in the system for a reason. We have three branches of the government precisely to ensure that the President is not all-powerful. While the President does wield great power, and has tremendous influence, no matter what way any Presidential election goes, it is not the end of the world, or the sole deciding factor in the fate of the nation. Grow up and get involved with local politics if you want to have a real impact in the world around you, and stop acting like the "wrong" president terrifies you.

Nov 7, 2012#116

GasBandit

Espy said:
Yeah, I don't get that either. Someone thinks dumb as bricks Herman Cain was good candidate to run? Honestly, Romney was the only one worth running out of this bunch of yahoo's and even he was a terrible choice.

As if intelligence was prerequisite to winning the presidency... :rolleyes:

Nov 7, 2012#117

Tress

Neither Biden nor Clinton will run in 2016. Biden isn't that stupid, he knows he doesn't have the confidence or popularity to win over Democrats (much less independents). Clinton won't run because she's fucking tired. I think she wants to be done with everything and start living the fun post-public office life President Clinton has been enjoying for the past decade.

I predict that 2016 will be a contest between two people who aren't even on the national radar right now. I'm sure whomever runs is already in office right now, but it won't be any of the people who just ran in the primary.

Nov 7, 2012#118

@Li3n

AshburnerX said:
Chris Christie will probably be the 2016 Republican candidate and I could see him doing well.

Like he has a chance now that he's said something nice about Obama...

Nov 7, 2012#119

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
If the GoP can field someone who has more open views

They've been fighting against abortion for 40 years, and you think they'll give up on homosexuality after a mere 15 or so?

Democrats fought for segregation and slavery for over a hundred years before finally giving up on it, and even then had a hard time fully letting go.

In fact, your statement itself shows that social issues are far more important to you than economic, financial, military, education, health, etc. You will not give a single look to a party that does not also hold your social views. I daresay that if you got your perfect candidate in every other way, but they promised to fight against gay rights and abortion, you would look elsewhere, despite them meeting every other criteria you might have.

Now reverse that. There are huge swaths of the population that disagree with your social views AND hold them just as strongly as you do. They will not vote for the party that doesn't hold their social views, regardless of the rest of their platform.

You are just as strongly tied to your social views as they are. Don't expect them to let go of them any more easily than you will let them go.

Both parties use this to divide the country. It's easy to get someone to flip flop on a particular course of action for the economy by throwing experts and numbers at them. But attack their personally held beliefs and you can get them riled up enough that they are easier to move and predict according to your desires.

You are just as much a pawn of the democrats as your neighbors are of republicans, due to your strongly held personal beliefs. As your statement affirms, they know you'll consider other candidates if they don't keep telling you that republicans are against gay rights, abortion, and pay equality. They've got you down cold.

Nov 7, 2012#120

MindDetective

stienman said:
They've been fighting against abortion for 40 years, and you think they'll give up on homosexuality after a mere 15 or so?

Democrats fought for segregation and slavery for over a hundred years before finally giving up on it, and even then had a hard time fully letting go.

In fact, your statement itself shows that social issues are far more important to you than economic, financial, military, education, health, etc. You will not give a single look to a party that does not also hold your social views. I daresay that if you got your perfect candidate in every other way, but they promised to fight against gay rights and abortion, you would look elsewhere, despite them meeting every other criteria you might have.

Now reverse that. There are huge swaths of the population that disagree with your social views AND hold them just as strongly as you do. They will not vote for the party that doesn't hold their social views, regardless of the rest of their platform.

You are just as strongly tied to your social views as they are. Don't expect them to let go of them any more easily than you will let them go.

Both parties use this to divide the country. It's easy to get someone to flip flop on a particular course of action for the economy by throwing experts and numbers at them. But attack their personally held beliefs and you can get them riled up enough that they are easier to move and predict according to your desires.

You are just as much a pawn of the democrats as your neighbors are of republicans, due to your strongly held personal beliefs. As your statement affirms, they know you'll consider other candidates if they don't keep telling you that republicans are against gay rights, abortion, and pay equality. They've got you down cold.

I've been thinking recently that we almost have a four party system, at least in the abstract. Social conservative and fiscal/regulatory conservative, Social liberal and fiscal/regulatory conservative (AKA libertarians), Social Liberal and fiscal/regulatory liberal (Democrats, progressives, green, etc.), and Social conservative, fiscal/regulatory liberal (too much of the GOP, frankly). The problem is that we don't get to vote along those lines. We get to vote for people that are (sometimes loosely) lumped into Democrat or Republican. I wouldn't mind even pulling fiscal and regulatory apart as another dimension, but I don't really think many people can separate that many groups very distinctly.

Nov 7, 2012#121

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
They've been fighting against abortion for 40 years, and you think they'll give up on homosexuality after a mere 15 or so?

No, I don't, I simply hoped for people to open their eyes to their bigotry. You're right, it won't happen. I'm listening to Laura now and she's clearly making the case to keep fighting against Gay Equality and it's very obvious she's not alone.

stienman said:
Democrats fought for segregation and slavery for over a hundred years before finally giving up on it, and even then had a hard time fully letting go.

You're absolutely right. It's sad that our country was ever in that position.

stienman said:
In fact, your statement itself shows that social issues are far more important to you than economic, financial, military, education, health, etc. You will not give a single look to a party that does not also hold your social views. I daresay that if you got your perfect candidate in every other way, but they promised to fight against gay rights and abortion, you would look elsewhere, despite them meeting every other criteria you might have.

Economic IS financial so that's still one point. Military I'm 100% in favor of cutting it down and moving out of war. Education? Where did the GoP ever fight for education in a way that was greater than the Democratic party this election? It wasn't even close. Health? Really? I'm just going to let that go because the only point you make that I can back on the GoP was an economic/financial one.

Of course I won't give another look at a party that's basically fighting to keep segregation going, the only difference is that it's against the Gay community instead of the Black. I will never be able to look past that. I turned away from my entire family to support my sister when they turned their back on her. They in turn turned their back on me as well. I can't begin to tell you how hard my life has been because of the decision but I would NEVER go back on it. NEVER.

Stienman said:
Now reverse that. There are huge swaths of the population that disagree with your social views AND hold them just as strongly as you do. They will not vote for the party that doesn't hold their social views, regardless of the rest of their platform.

You are just as strongly tied to your social views as they are. Don't expect them to let go of them any more easily than you will let them go.

Except my view is equality for all. Of course I expect them to let go of their view. It's a view of bigotry and hatred.

Stienman said:
Both parties use this to divide the country. It's easy to get someone to flip flop on a particular course of action for the economy by throwing experts and numbers at them. But attack their personally held beliefs and you can get them riled up enough that they are easier to move and predict according to your desires.

You are just as much a pawn of the democrats as your neighbors are of republicans, due to your strongly held personal beliefs. As your statement affirms, they know you'll consider other candidates if they don't keep telling you that republicans are against gay rights, abortion, and pay equality. They've got you down cold.

They've got me down cold because they're right. Romney/Ryan flat out came with a plan to be against those views and made the decision for me WAY more than the Democratic party did. If anything, Romney convinced me to go Democratic this election more than Obama did.

Nov 7, 2012#122

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
If I hear one more person talk about leaving the country because of who was elected president, or that they were going to leave if the other guy did; if I hear one more person talk about how terrified they were about the results of this vote... I am going to... GAH!

Not only that. Sure, renouncing your citizenship and leaving the country is a form of protest. Unfortunately, since this is a democracy, leaving actually makes it less likely that your preferred platform will win, since you are by definition removing your vote from the next election.

--Patrick

Nov 7, 2012#123

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
Except my view is equality for all. Of course I expect them to let go of their view. It's a view of bigotry and hatred.

You believe you are on the side of the righteous (morally right or justifiable).

They believe they are on the side of the righteous.

They aren't going to let go of their belief any easier than you will let go of yours.

The only hope you have is that homosexuality becomes normalized enough in society that the electoral math demonstrates it's better to let it go.

Nov 7, 2012#124

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
The only hope you have is that homosexuality becomes normalized enough in society that the electoral math demonstrates it's better to let it go.

I never said it was my only stance, I said it was one of my most important because of the strong ties it has to my family.

Also are there two real sides to this issue? I mean I'm sure the Plantation owners felt they were on the side of the righteous. I know Mormons did a few years ago. Yet I think it's pretty universally agreed that both those groups were wrong. It wasn't an opinion, it was simply wrong.

Also I don't have to hope it's going to become -normalized-. The polls are already showing it.

Nov 7, 2012#125

@Li3n

stienman said:
As your statement affirms, they know you'll consider other candidates if they don't keep telling you that republicans are against gay rights, abortion, and pay equality. They've got you down cold.

So Rush is a deep cover liberal/democrat?

MindDetective said:
I've been thinking recently that we almost have a four party system, at least in the abstract. Social conservative and fiscal/regulatory conservative, Social liberal and fiscal/regulatory conservative (AKA libertarians), Social Liberal and fiscal/regulatory liberal (Democrats, progressives, green, etc.), and Social conservative, fiscal/regulatory liberal (too much of the GOP, frankly). The problem is that we don't get to vote along those lines. We get to vote for people that are (sometimes loosely) lumped into Democrat or Republican. I wouldn't mind even pulling fiscal and regulatory apart as another dimension, but I don't really think many people can separate that many groups very distinctly.

That's because Duverger's law.

In any system under it's effect both the parties actually comprise of more then one viewpoint...that's why in some places Duverger's law doesn't apply when there's some sort of historical reason why a 3rd party that actually has a significant % of votes can't integrate with any of the other two.

Nov 7, 2012#126

strawman

MindDetective said:
I've been thinking recently that we almost have a four party system, at least in the abstract.

You are probably already aware of the political compass:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

It shows pretty much that we are truly living in a one party state. While we give lip service to at least two of the other quadrants, for all intents and purposes the US as a whole is authoritarian right.

Nov 7, 2012#127

@Li3n

Gilgamesh said:
Also are there two real sides to this issue? I mean I'm sure the Plantation owners felt they were on the side of the righteous. I know Mormons did a few years ago. Yet I think it's pretty universally agreed that both those groups were wrong. It wasn't an opinion, it was simply wrong.

WHY IN THE FUCKING HELL DO WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET THINK AN OPINION CAN'T BE WRONG.... most fucking opinions are.

Opinions about subjective stuff aren't the only ones, you can have an opinion about something that is objectively wrong, an opinion is not some unassailable personal preference.[DOUBLEPOST=1352312811][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
It shows pretty much that we are truly living in a one party state. While we give lip service to at least two of the other quadrants, for all intents and purposes the US as a whole is authoritarian right.

You guys don't even seem to know what the left is sometimes...

Nov 7, 2012#128

Piotyr

@Li3n said:
WHY IN THE FUCKING HELL DO WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET THINK AN OPINION CAN'T BE WRONG.... most fucking opinions are.

Opinions about subjective stuff aren't the only ones, you can have an opinion about something that is objectively wrong, an opinion is not some unassailable personal preference.

That's just your opinion, man.

Nov 7, 2012#129

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
It wasn't an opinion, it was simply wrong.

Now you're getting into the whole question of moral absolutism. You assert that you are a moral authority, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Not just relatively wrong, but absolutely and universally wrong.

Guess what? They believe the same thing.

Your assertion that they will change because you are "right" only means one thing:

Politicians can grab you by your tail and swing you at their opponent simply by appealing to your moral righteousness.

Nov 7, 2012#130

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
Now you're getting into the whole question of moral absolutism. You assert that you are a moral authority, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Not just relatively wrong, but absolutely and universally wrong.

Guess what? They believe the same thing.

Your assertion that they will change because you are "right" only means one thing:

Politicians can grab you by your tail and swing you at their opponent simply by appealing to your moral righteousness.

Ok sure. I'm not arguing they don't think they're right. I'm saying segregation is wrong. You can argue against that point all you like.

You can say I think of myself as some kind of moral authority. That's fine. If it's because of my stance against segregation then sure.

Nov 7, 2012#131

Charlie Don't Surf

Obama is a Republican

Nov 7, 2012#132

@Li3n

Piotyr said:
That's just your opinion, man.

[DOUBLEPOST=1352313426][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Obama is a Republican

Or you know, you don't have any actual leftist parties in the US... but that's like totally my opinion.[DOUBLEPOST=1352313594][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
Now you're getting into the whole question of moral absolutism. You assert that you are a moral authority, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Not just relatively wrong, but absolutely and universally wrong.

Guess what? They believe the same thing.

The only problem with this is that none of the sides are offering any arguments for their stance...

I'm feeling frisky, so i'll offer one for fun: gay people invented democracy!

Nov 7, 2012#133

Gilgamesh

stienman - I get the point you're trying to make. If I rely 100% on my moral and social issues then a Politician can just say whatever he wants on those subjects and he'll sway my vote. Isn't that the same thing as voting Romney because he said whatever he wanted on economic issues?

I think a person should vote for their officials based on what's important the MOST to them. If it's social/moral issues then that's the best choice for them. If it's for Economic issues then they should vote based on that. It's impossible to know if a candidate truly feels what they do on a subject so we have to take them at their face value and their actions. If they appeal to you based on the issues most important to you, then you should vote based on that.

Nov 7, 2012#134

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
stienman - I get the point you're trying to make. If I rely 100% on my moral and social issues then a Politician can just say whatever he wants on those subjects and he'll sway my vote. Isn't that the same thing as voting Romney because he said whatever he wanted on economic issues?

When one invokes social issues many humans engage their emotions rather than their brain.

So, no, the economy is much more a logical issue for most people, while homosexuality is an emotional one, and thus one might flip more easily on economic issues than social issues.

Jobs can be an emotional issue for those who are struggling to get, keep, or be happy within their job.

It's hard for people to become emotional about the 16 trillion debt we have, though, so there are plenty of issues where it hardly matters where the president stands, since the emotional issues will more easily sway voters than those which are hard to grasp or see the immediate effects of. Some politicians try to make them emotional by triggering fears (most often) such as "being bought out by China", or "leaving our children holding the bag".

But social issues will almost always have much more immediate and actionable emotional response in humans than most other issues.

I'm not saying it's wrong to put social issues at the top of your list, but I am suggesting that for most people it's shortsighted. Emotional responses engender immediate, urgent action, whereas it's usually better to take the slow deliberate route to social change, and that change should come from the bottom up, rather than the top down.

However if we don't balance that with our economic issues, for instance, then we'll be trading social change today for economic security tomorrow.

Nov 7, 2012#135

Gilgamesh

So the point you're getting at is that we should vote based on Economic Issues only?

Nov 7, 2012#136

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
So the point you're getting at is that we should vote based on Economic Issues only?

I edited it further. The last line answers this question - we shouldn't be so quick to enact social change at the cost of economic recovery, though I'm sure many people believe that Obama has a good balance of both, I don't think blind trust in the person holding your social bag is a wise choice. You should look at all the issues carefully, and treat your social desires with appropriate caution, rather than letting them decide everything for you.

Also I'm using economy as a placeholder for many, many issues.

Nov 7, 2012#137

Bowielee

BTW, I'm proud of my state voting in the first openly gay senator.

Nov 7, 2012#138

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
I edited it further. The last line answers this question - we shouldn't be so quick to enact social change at the cost of economic recovery, though I'm sure many people believe that Obama has a good balance of both, I don't think blind trust in the person holding your social bag is a wise choice. You should look at all the issues carefully, and treat your social desires with appropriate caution, rather than letting them decide everything for you.

Also I'm using economy as a placeholder for many, many issues.

I did look at more than social issues.

Romney's stance on teachers/education was very important to me (My wife is a Middle School Math teacher).
Romney's lack of an economic plan against Obama's growing (albeit slower growing than some wanted).
Romney's stance against Obamacare which I fully support.
Romney's stance about bigger Military which I fully was against.
Romney's constant stance change on multiple issues, literally sometimes from month to month.
Romney's stance against Lily Ledbetter act and equal pay for women.

These were all factors. Again like I said early on, the Gay Equality issue was important to me, but not my only reason. So rest safe knowing that I had many reasons and wasn't -a politicians emotional pawn-

Nov 7, 2012#139

Bowielee

Gilgamesh said:
I did look at more than social issues.

Romney's stance on teachers/education was very important to me (My wife is a Middle School Math teacher).
Romney's lack of an economic plan against Obama's growing (albeit slower growing than some wanted).
Romney's stance against Obamacare which I fully support.
Romney's stance about bigger Military which I fully was against.
Romney's constant stance change on multiple issues, literally sometimes from month to month.
Romney's stance against Lily Ledbetter act and equal pay for women.

These were all factors. Again like I said early on, the Gay Equality issue was important to me, but not my only reason. So rest safe knowing that I had many reasons and wasn't -a politicians emotional pawn-

That pretty much sums up my reasons for voting for Obama in a nutshell.

Nov 7, 2012#140

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
So rest safe knowing that I had many reasons and wasn't -a politicians emotional pawn-

So you're saying that if Romney was for gay rights, and Obama was against them, you wouldn't have swapped your vote?

Nov 7, 2012#141

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
So you're saying that if Romney was for gay marriage, and Obama was against it, you wouldn't have swapped your vote?

Nope. Never said it was my 100% deciding factor. I said it was important.

It's a very strong and powerful issue for me and it would have affected my view nearly completely though, I will admit.

What would have happened if Obama would have been the Anti-Gay candidate, I would have voted third-party. Because Romney still had a multitude of issues I was against as I stated before.

Nov 7, 2012#142

strawman

Ah, I misunderstood your earlier statements. Sorry.

Nov 7, 2012#143

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
Ah, I misunderstood your earlier statements. Sorry.

I know, I may have not articulated myself correctly, which happens often unfortunately.

Anti-Gay Equality is my hot button as for some it's Economy, others it's Military or perhaps something else. Everyone has their big issue that's a 99% deciding factor but I agree with you that there has to be MORE than that for someone to choose their candidate.

Nov 7, 2012#144

Bowielee

Even I would be hard pressed to vote for Romney over Obama if the gay rights issues were reversed.

Nov 7, 2012#145

strawman

Now I'm left with the critical question:

Do I permit FB posts on my newsfeed for friends I had to block prior to the election due to their incessant political re-posts?

Nov 7, 2012#146

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
Now I'm left with the critical question:

Do I permit FB posts on my newsfeed for friends I had to block prior to the election due to their incessant political re-posts?

I'd wait a couple of days. I know I'm on block with a few people at the moment.

Nov 7, 2012#147

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
It seems there are many who simply didn't want to run against Obama this cycle.

That's what I've been saying since the Republican primaries. I mean, look at the list of shmucks Republicans had to choose from. These were the full-of-themselves, delusions of grandeur losers. Smart Republican potentials hung back in the wings. They're waiting for 2016 against a fresh Democrat opponent.

Nov 7, 2012#148

Hailey Knight

Snagged from Tumblr:

Obama mentions his wife in his victory speech: “…The woman who agreed to marry me 20 years ago”
Romney mentions his wife in his concession speech: “… The woman I chose to marry”
It’s amazing how someone’s views on equality can come out in one simple sentence

Nov 7, 2012#149

Terrik

Nov 7, 2012#150

Gilgamesh

Quotemander Prime said:
Snagged from Tumblr:

Obama mentions his wife in his victory speech: “…The woman who agreed to marry me 20 years ago”
Romney mentions his wife in his concession speech: “… The woman I chose to marry”
It’s amazing how someone’s views on equality can come out in one simple sentence

Romney himself said in the captured video -We have to use Ann sparingly or the people will get tired of her- that's a vote of confidence and equal thinking if I ever heard one.

Nov 7, 2012#151

strawman

Quotemander Prime said:
Snagged from Tumblr:

Obama mentions his wife in his victory speech: “…The woman who agreed to marry me 20 years ago”
Romney mentions his wife in his concession speech: “… The woman I chose to marry”
It’s amazing how someone’s views on equality can come out in one simple sentence

That's a pretty stupid conclusion to draw from those sentences, but that seems to be par for the course this election.

Nov 7, 2012#152

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
That's a pretty stupid conclusion to draw from those sentences, but that seems to be par for the course this election.

Sometimes it's reading too much into something.
Sometimes it's reading between the lines.

I wouldn't call it stupid, it's simply a perspective that can be read from the context in question.

Nov 7, 2012#153

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
Sometimes it's reading too much into something.
Sometimes it's reading between the lines.

I wouldn't call it stupid, it's simply a perspective that can be read from the context in question.

Are you defending another Charlie? You seriously think that this statement is worth consideration as a valid analysis of the two candidates phrasing?

Nov 7, 2012#154

Zappit

To be fair, he had to read through, like, ten binders before he finally chose Ann.

Nov 8, 2012#155

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Sometimes it's reading too much into something.
Sometimes it's reading between the lines.

"And the difference is whether it's my candidate or the other guy who said it."

/57 states
/200 years ago, "a" colony gained independence...

Nov 8, 2012#156

Eriol

This example will get trotted all over, but it's still what this discussion reminds me of: Survivor.

One season (an older one, haven't watched it in the last 5-ish years) there was a case of where an alliance had virtually all the power, and they literally told people "if you're not working very hard, we'll just vote you out next" and that's what actually happened. They had the majority of the votes (people), but the minority was doing most of the work around camp to keep them fed, watered, etc, because they wanted to stay in the game on the hope of the alliance crumbling and them coming through. Now unfortunately I don't remember what ultimately happened in that season, but the parallel is there: those with more numbers trump those actually doing the work to keep everybody afloat.

Do I think this is directly applicable to western democracies? No, but it bears keeping in mind. I don't think it's as drastic as that in numbers, but I do think it's a significant proportion of welfare-state supporters that are afraid of losing their benefits that they aren't working for. Not that they're not working, but that they're getting more from the government than they're putting in by a drastic amount.

Nov 8, 2012#157

GasBandit

Eriol said:
This example will get trotted all over, but it's still what this discussion reminds me of: Survivor.

One season (an older one, haven't watched it in the last 5-ish years) there was a case of where an alliance had virtually all the power, and they literally told people "if you're not working very hard, we'll just vote you out next" and that's what actually happened. They had the majority of the votes (people), but the minority was doing most of the work around camp to keep them fed, watered, etc, because they wanted to stay in the game on the hope of the alliance crumbling and them coming through. Now unfortunately I don't remember what ultimately happened in that season, but the parallel is there: those with more numbers trump those actually doing the work to keep everybody afloat.

Do I think this is directly applicable to western democracies? No, but it bears keeping in mind. I don't think it's as drastic as that in numbers, but I do think it's a significant proportion of welfare-state supporters that are afraid of losing their benefits that they aren't working for. Not that they're not working, but that they're getting more from the government than they're putting in by a drastic amount.

Mix that with equal parts "bread and circuses" and you've got yourself the United States Federal Government. An added layer of irony since reality TV is the "circuses" of our modern declining republic.

Nov 8, 2012#158

Bowielee

So, this happened in the city i work in.

http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com...nt-Obama-Effigy-from-Billboard-177549331.html

Fucking disgusting.

Nov 8, 2012#159

Krisken

Wow. People are pathetic sometimes.

Nov 8, 2012#160

Frank

I've been reading some salty tears....but this just might be the saltiest.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html?spref=tw&m=1

Nov 8, 2012#161

Gared

Yep, them's some damn salty tears there.

Nov 8, 2012#162

Krisken

Wait, are we sure this isn't comedy?

Nov 8, 2012#163

Hailey Knight

Frank said:
I've been reading some salty tears....but this just might be the saltiest.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html?spref=tw&m=1

This is so stereotypical it borders on satire.

Nov 8, 2012#164

Gilgamesh

Frank said:
I've been reading some salty tears....but this just might be the saltiest.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html?spref=tw&m=1

Thank you so much for that piece of comedy.

Krisken and Quotemander Prime - I've already met/heard people saying this exact thing in public. Along with seceding from the nation or moving to the woods.

Nov 8, 2012#165

Krisken

Gilgamesh said:
Thank you so much for that piece of comedy.

Krisken and Quotemander Prime - I've already met/heard people saying this exact thing in public. Along with seceding from the nation or moving to the woods.

Well yeah, I hear people say it, but it's not quite this unhinged and generally by people living very comfortably (ie would not give up their comfort to shit in the woods and live in a bunker).

Nov 8, 2012#166

Frank

Krisken said:
Wait, are we sure this isn't comedy?

I dunno, the commenters are pretty genuine sounding. If it is, it's hilarious, if it isn't, it's incredibly sad.

Nov 8, 2012#167

Gilgamesh

Krisken said:
Well yeah, I hear people say it, but it's not quite this unhinged and generally by people living very comfortably (ie would not give up their comfort to shit in the woods and live in a bunker).

If you were to hear them speak for a good half hour to hour on the subject, I'm very sure it'd reach levels of -that unhinged- and of course they're not going to secede or move to the woods/bunker, they have it made here, even with all the -destruction Obama is bringing to America-. As before the election and after it, they're full of shit and can't do anything about the situation so they just rant.

Nov 8, 2012#168

GasBandit

He calls himself a libertarian, but I bet he voted for Romney. Poser.

Nov 8, 2012#169

Frank

He's a libertarian republican.

So, a moron. - that's not fair, I shouldn't have said this. It's overly judgemental on my part. I'm not deleting it though.

Nov 8, 2012#170

GasBandit

Frank said:
He's a libertarian republican.

So, a moron. - that's not fair, I shouldn't have said this. It's overly judgemental on my part. I'm not deleting it though.

A libertarian republican? The hell is that? If you are libertarian, it precludes you from being republican. That's literally akin being a pro-abortion catholic.

Nov 8, 2012#171

Krisken

GasBandit said:
A libertarian republican? The hell is that? If you are libertarian, it precludes you from being republican. That's literally akin being a pro-abortion catholic.

Welcome to the co-opting. I'm surprised it's taken you this long to realize it has been happening since Obama took office back in '08.

Nov 8, 2012#172

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
A libertarian republican? The hell is that? If you are libertarian, it precludes you from being republican. That's literally akin being a pro-abortion catholic.

Considering how identical they sound on nearly all positions, it's easy to see how they're confused.

Nov 8, 2012#173

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Considering how identical they sound on nearly all positions, it's easy to see how they're confused.

Someone would have to be pretty stupid to say such a thing. Or trying very blatantly to troll.

Nov 8, 2012#174

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Someone would have to be pretty stupid to say such a thing. Or trying very blatantly to troll.

You seem to do it when talking about Dems, I don't see why I can't do it to Libs?
Seriously though, you guys do sound alot alike.

Nov 8, 2012#175

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
You seem to do it when talking about Dems, I don't see why I can't do it to Libs?
Seriously though, you guys do sound alot alike.

It's a pretty stark difference, you're perfectly aware of it. Even aside from the whole talking the talk vs walking the walk argument.

Nov 8, 2012#176

Eriol

Just remember you two, a Heretic is somebody who believes almost everything you do.

Nov 8, 2012#177

Hailey Knight

I'm with Gas. The Republican party has become such a twisted mess, it's nothing about what the Libertarian party wants.

Nov 8, 2012#178

GasBandit

The twisted mess is why there IS a Libertarian party in the first place. But he knows that, he's just trying to make me rant.

Nov 8, 2012#179

Krisken

The problem with ideologues on any of the 4 quadrants of the political spectrum is an inability to recognize the center is where America is, not in their insane view of the country.

Nov 8, 2012#180

sixpackshaker

I just wonder how much Fox News hurt the turn out. They have been preaching a landslide victory with no numbers for over a week. So how many not so fired up voters sat home because the election was "in the bag?"

Nov 8, 2012#181

bhamv3

Frank said:
I've been reading some salty tears....but this just might be the saltiest.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html?spref=tw&m=1

Huh. How many people started spitting at Republicans when Dubya was elected?

Nov 8, 2012#182

Terrik

Probably quite a few the second time around. Same story, different color.

Nov 9, 2012#183

Krisken

Terrik said:
Probably quite a few the second time around. Same story, different color.

I hardly think "quite a few". I'm sure there were a couple a-holes who delved into their most primal nature, but I will bet it will be similar to the number of a-holes who would do it now.

Nov 9, 2012#184

GasBandit

Quite a few bush effigies were hung/burned, I can remember that much for sure.

Nov 9, 2012#185

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Quite a few bush effigies were hung/burned, I can remember that much for sure.

Like I said, people are stupid. I'd bet it's the same number as the other side doing the same damn thing right now though. At least with Bush you couldn't assume race had anything to do with it

Nov 9, 2012#186

Hailey Knight

Anyone want to make their brains feel dirty?

Racist teens tweet about Obama

And it probably goes without saying, the comments get pretty bad too.

Nov 9, 2012#187

Krisken

Oh, yeah, I read about that. Kids are stupid too.

Nov 9, 2012#188

GasBandit

The internet - giving unspanked teenagers the same global voice as national news anchors since 1994.

Nov 9, 2012#189

drifter

Nothing says trenchant political commentary like "coinensadince."

Nov 9, 2012#190

Silent Bob

GasBandit said:
The twisted mess is why there IS a Libertarian party in the first place. But he knows that, he's just trying to make me rant.

http://www.isidewith.com/

All of the red states practically sided with Gary Johnson and NOT Mitt Romney

Interesting...

Nov 9, 2012#191

Silent Bob

Is anyone else getting a kick out of FoxNews for the last couple of days as much as I am? Bullshit Mountain!

Nov 9, 2012#192

drifter

Silent Bob said:
http://www.isidewith.com/

All of the red states practically sided with Gary Johnson and NOT Mitt Romney

Interesting...

That map doesn't really mean anything; it just aggregates data from the quiz meant to show how your beliefs line up with the various candidates. Obama would have won 523 to 15 according to that map. Johnson got 1% nationally.

Nov 10, 2012#193

GasBandit

Silent Bob said:
http://www.isidewith.com/

All of the red states practically sided with Gary Johnson and NOT Mitt Romney

Interesting...

I took the little quiz out of curiosity. 90% Gary Johnson. Tell me something I didn't know, quiz.

Nov 10, 2012#194

Bubble181

Quotemander Prime said:
That's what I've been saying since the Republican primaries. I mean, look at the list of shmucks Republicans had to choose from. These were the full-of-themselves, delusions of grandeur losers. Smart Republican potentials hung back in the wings. They're waiting for 2016 against a fresh Democrat opponent.

Which is weird. Obama lost all the "Change" momentum, he's still black which would unfortunately influence a llot of people, he's "too left" for a LOT of moderates, and, though (I believe but YMMV) it's not his fault, the economy is still very weak. He was ripe for a good strong opponent to win. Hilary or whoever in 2016 would seem like a harder fight to me.

As for the Libertarian Republicans: They're the people who still hope or believe the Republican Party will once again become the party for minimal state, low taxes, high personal responsibility people, instead of the extreme-religious crackpot oligarchy bunch it's quickly becoming.

Nov 10, 2012#195

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
I took the little quiz out of curiosity. 90% Gary Johnson. Tell me something I didn't know, quiz.

95% Democrat, 90% Green, but looks like I favor Jill Stein very slightly over Obama.

Not surprising, since my only main complaint about Obama has been he's not left enough.

Nov 10, 2012#196

Hailey Knight

Bubble181 said:
Which is weird. Obama lost all the "Change" momentum, he's still black which would unfortunately influence a llot of people, he's "too left" for a LOT of moderates, and, though (I believe but YMMV) it's not his fault, the economy is still very weak. He was ripe for a good strong opponent to win. Hilary or whoever in 2016 would seem like a harder fight to me.

That's in line with something Gas said early in the election (and again after its end) that if the Republicans could keep the spotlight on Obama, they would win. And maybe that's true.

But the GOP couldn't do that. They had "mobilize the right" or some shit like that and spray all this anti-gay, anti-women, anti-logic and reason bullshit that pushed the moderates away and scared the lazier liberals (i.e. my generation) into voting for Obama. I'm glad, because Romney's vision of America is terrifying.

Keep in mind, his being black also influences to not vote for him. What went on in the U.S. in reaction to even his candidacy in 2008 was pretty disgusting.[DOUBLEPOST=1352580271][/DOUBLEPOST](Quiz: 80% Obama, 79% Gary Johnson.)

Nov 10, 2012#197

Krisken

I also think people underestimated the effect the last election had on people voting. People who vote tend to continue to vote in following elections. Efforts by certain politicians to discourage voting also caused record numbers to turn out.

We all know Americans don't like being told they shouldn't do something, and making it harder to vote only encouraged people to turn out.

Nov 10, 2012#198

drifter

Krisken said:
We all know Americans don't like being told they shouldn't do something, and making it harder to vote only encouraged people to turn out.

Next Republican strategy: You should totally not not vote.

Nov 10, 2012#199

Krisken

I heard a fantastic suggestion for improving debates and the horrible television commercials, though. First, remove the ability for outside groups to purchase ad time for political commercials. Second, in debates and tv commercials, you are only allowed to talk about yourself, not your opponent. This leaves candidates with nothing left to talk about but themselves.

Nov 10, 2012#200

Hailey Knight

Krisken said:
I also think people underestimated the effect the last election had on people voting. People who vote tend to continue to vote in following elections. Efforts by certain politicians to discourage voting also caused record numbers to turn out.

We all know Americans don't like being told they shouldn't do something, and making it harder to vote only encouraged people to turn out.

Good points. And I'll be happy if the people who started voting in 2008 keep it up.

Nov 10, 2012#201

strawman

Krisken said:
I heard a fantastic suggestion for improving debates and the horrible television commercials, though. First, remove the ability for outside groups to purchase ad time for political commercials. Second, in debates and tv commercials, you are only allowed to talk about yourself, not your opponent. This leaves candidates with nothing left to talk about but themselves.

Sounds like a first amendment violation.

Nov 10, 2012#202

Krisken

stienman said:
Sounds like a first amendment violation.

Really? I don't see it that way. They can lie all they want, they just can't advertise it. Since advertisements don't really fall under the first amendment (and we have tons of regulations regarding what is proper for advertising), I don't see it as being all that extreme.

Nov 10, 2012#203

strawman

Krisken said:
Since advertisements don't really fall under the first amendment

They do.

Nov 10, 2012#204

Krisken

stienman said:
They do.

Except they don't. The FTC is a prime example.

FTC Wikipedia Article said:
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 grants the FTC power to investigate and prevent deceptive trade practices. The statute declares that “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.” Unfairness and deception towards consumers represent two distinct areas of FTC enforcement and authority. The FTC also has authority over unfair methods of competition between businesses.

Until the 70's, political advertising was also expected to be honest to a certain degree until the Supreme Court ruled they didn't have to be.

Also, it's not unheard of for television companies to pull political ads for false advertising.

Nov 10, 2012#205

GasBandit

The law is, broadcasters have to air ALL comers for political ads, or none. It could be construed as a first amendment issue to simply change that to none, period, but the first amendment already has limitations on it (shouting fire in a crowded theater, slander and libel, etc).

But I'm not all that sure we stand any better chance of stomping out political advertising than we do installing my oft-repeated dream of instant-runoff elections with no primaries.

Nov 10, 2012#206

Krisken

GasBandit said:
The law is, broadcasters have to air ALL comers for political ads, or none. It could be construed as a first amendment issue to simply change that to none, period, but the first amendment already has limitations on it (shouting fire in a crowded theater, slander and libel, etc).

But I'm not all that sure we stand any better chance of stomping out political advertising than we do installing my oft-repeated dream of instant-runoff elections with no primaries.

I admit, it's tall order. There is just too much money in politics to ever get it changed (and why campaign finance reform was essentially killed by Citizens United). I just don't think the current trend of stupidity and demonizing of political opponents (and thus the fracturing of the country itself) will see any progress without it.

Nov 10, 2012#207

strawman

Krisken said:
Except they don't. The FTC is a prime example.

The FTC applies to any form of communication and other practices, not just to broadcast TV.

I can say whatever I want on TV if a TV station will air it. The TV station, if it has an FCC license to provide public broadcasts has to maintain certain standards of decency, but that's no different than the police telling you that you can't run around town naked.

Neither the FTC nor the FCC regulations inhibit first amendment speech.

If the government were to start telling TV stations that they could NOT broadcast commercials from a particular source, then that would be an attempt to silence public messages from that source.

This is one of the reasons we have PACs, because they cannot be silenced due to the first amendment. They are simply a group touting a message.

To take away one of their platforms for spreading that message would amount to censorship.

I'm not going to go through case law to prove this for you, if you decide to persist in your error, that's fine. Broadcast TV is subject to first amendment freedom just as much as the public square is, since broadcast TV is a shared/common good.[DOUBLEPOST=1352591936][/DOUBLEPOST]Ah well, here:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/will-court-create-different-standards-for-broadcast-tv-radio

Traditionally, broadcast television and radio have been lumped together for second-class status in First Amendment law as “broadcast media.” Because of this, the government has been able to regulate broadcasting more easily than print or online media.

In oral arguments yesterday in FCC v. Fox Television Stations over whether the FCC’s enforcement scheme regarding indecency violates the First Amendment, all three instances of alleged indecency occurred on television, not radio. Yet the Supreme Court’s seminal broadcast-indecency case, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), involved radio — stemming from a New York radio station’s airing of George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue during daytime hours.

The only things the government can "censor" for broadcast media are things pertaining to public decency.

Political messages would be about the last thing they'd be allowed to prevent, although they can enforce other political finance laws that, for instance, requires political advertisers mention their name.

So if you want your suggestion to come about, you'll have to craft po0litical advertising laws that prevent those organizations from advertising in any media - not just TV. This effectively prevent such organizations from forming, again a first amendment issue.

I don't see a way your vision could happen without essentially allowing for broad political government censorship, and if you give the government power to do that you might as well kill non-incumbent parties and live in a one party dictatorship.

Nov 10, 2012#208

Krisken

stienman said:
I don't see a way your vision could happen without essentially allowing for broad political government censorship, and if you give the government power to do that you might as well kill non-incumbent parties and live in a one party dictatorship.

Can you explain how you come to this conclusion? I admit I am befuddled how you reached it.

Nov 10, 2012#209

strawman

Krisken said:
Can you explain how you come to this conclusion? I admit I am befuddled how you reached it.

Krisken said:
First, remove the ability for outside groups to purchase ad time for political commercials. Second, in debates and tv commercials, you are only allowed to talk about yourself, not your opponent.

Disallow political groups from using broadcast media. Period.

Severely restrict the topics political candidates can discuss on broadcast media.

If you don't see the first amendment problem with those two suggestions, I have nothing that I can help you understand. I suggest you research the first amendment. They are in direct opposition to the first amendment.

In order to allow such laws to stand, one would have to severely restrict first amendment freedoms, and thus you might as well remove the ability for people to form political opposition to the controlling party.

Nov 10, 2012#210

Krisken

Way to gloss over what I was asking. Nevermind. I see people are uninterested in discussions today. I'll come back Monday and see if we can do this right.

Nov 10, 2012#211

DarkAudit

Krisken, you're quoting stienman, but it's showing @GasBandit's avatar.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Nov 10, 2012#212

strawman

Meh, my heart's not in it anyway. It's been a long day...

Nov 10, 2012#213

Krisken

I really wanted to understand how we went from limiting advertising to becoming incumbent land (which, if you look at the current election cycle, would practically be no different than now). I understand you feel limiting speech in any way is bad, but i don't agree it should apply to advertising. Commercials are just that, advertising, and I feel that since their speech is offered limited protection under the 1st amendment, why shouldn't a political advertisement?

If nothing else, it would force politicians to state their own stances, not focus so heavily on their opponents. We never heard what Romney's stances were on a lot of things, and I think that actually hurt him in the final election. If you listened to the 3rd party debate at all, you would notice they spent most of their time talking about their own positions, not everyone else on the stage. I can't imagine how this would make it harder for other candidates to enter the political arena, especially 3rd party candidates who have no way to realistically challenge the 2 party system.

Nov 11, 2012#214

Tress

Nov 11, 2012#215

Krisken

Lol, that was better than I thought it would be.

Nov 12, 2012#216

blotsfan

He had to bring up the lockout

Nov 12, 2012#217

Dei

http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/0...republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/

<3 this.

Nov 12, 2012#218

blotsfan

I keep getting an error message, or is that the joke?

Nov 12, 2012#219

drifter

blotsfan said:
I keep getting an error message, or is that the joke?

To whom it may concern regarding the United States federal elections of 2014, 2016 and beyond:
Allow me to introduce myself to you, the existing (or aspiring!) strategist for the Republican Party. My name is Eric Arnold Garland and I am a White Man. Boy, am I ever – you need sunglasses just to look at my photo!
If I read the news correctly, I fit a profile that is of extreme importance to the GOP, as I embody the archetype that fits your narrative of Real Americans. Just how much should my profile interest you? Are you sitting down?

My family lineage goes back to the MAYFLOWER, BOAT ONE!!! (Garland family of New England-> John Adams -> Howard Alden -> Plymouth colony ->KINGS OF MUTHAF***IN’ ENGLAND)
I am a heterosexual, married to the super Caucasian mother of my two beautiful children who are, inexplicably, EVEN WHITER THAN I AM.
I am college educated (Master’s degree!) and affluent.
I am a job creator and small businessman.
We pay a lot of taxes! Every year!
I grew up in a rural area and despise laziness!
Having started my own business, I have complained at length about the insanity of federal, state and local bureaucracy – and its deleterious impact on the innovative small businessman.
I currently live in the suburbs in a historically Red state.

HOLY WHITE PEOPLE, BATMAN!!! Wow, you’re thinking – this is not some Mexirican in the Sun Belt we need to attract via harsh anti-Castro policies or appeals to “valores de familia” - this is the BREAD AND BUTTER OF THE GRAND OLD PARTY, a Mayflower-descended small business owner, burdened by taxation, looking out for his beautiful White family in the suburbs of a city (St Louis) surrounded by racial tension and urban blight!
How can I put this gently? My wife and I are not sensitive to your messaging, nor did we vote for the candidates you proposed for us this past Tuesday.
B-b-but, what? Aren’t we investors, hard-workin’ white folk surrounded by same in a manicured cul-de-sac, scared by a vision of economic collapse amidst the takers in a land of fewer givers? Didn’t Mitt Romney’s strong family, wealth, leadership history and chiseled chin give us the uncontrollable urge to high-five him into the White House?
No.
May I explain why not, purely for your education, such that you might be interested in winning an election on the national level at some point in the future? It bears pointing out that I should be your Low Hanging Fruit, the easy vote to get as opposed to, say, African-Americans, Latinos, or Asians – and you’re not even speaking well to me. The reasons why ought to concern you deeply.
As a Card-Carrying White Male I love expressing my opinion irrespective of whether people care to hear it, so let’s get started.
>>>>>>
Science - One of the reasons my family is affluent is that my wife and I have a collective fifteen years of university education between us. I have a Masters degree in Science and Technology Policy, and my wife is a physician who holds degrees in medicine as well as cell and molecular biology. We are really quite unimpressed with Congressional representatives such as Todd Akin and Paul Broun who actually serve on the House science committee and who believe, respectively, that rape does not cause pregnancy and that evolution and astrophysics are lies straight from Satan’s butt cheeks. These are, sadly, only two of innumerable assaults that the Republican Party has made against hard science – with nothing to say of logic in general. Please understand the unbearable tension this might create between us and your candidates.
Climate - Within just the past 18 months the following events have come to our attention: a record-breaking drought that sent temperatures over 100 degrees for weeks, killing half the corn in the Midwest and half the TREES on our suburban property – AND – a hurricane that drowned not New Orleans or Tampa or North Carolina but my native state of VERMONT. As an encore, a second hurricane drowned lower Manhattan, New Jersey and Long Island. The shouted views of decrepit mental fossil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma that this is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by evil, conspiring climate scientists is belied by such events and is looking irresponsible to even the most skeptical.
Healthcare - My wife and I are quite familiar with America’s healthcare system due to our professions, and having lived abroad extensively, also very aware of comparable systems. Your party’s insistence on declaring the private U.S. healthcare system “the best in the world” fails nearly every factual measure available to any curious mind. We watch our country piss away 60% more expenditures than the next most expensive system (Switzerland) for health outcomes that rival former Soviet bloc nations. On a personal scale, my wife watches poor WORKING people show up in emergency rooms with fourth-stage cancer because they were unable to afford primary care visits. I have watched countless small businesses unable to attract talented workers because of the outrageous and climbing cost of private insurance. And I watch European and Asian businesses outpace American companies because they can attract that talent without asking people to risk bankruptcy and death. That you think this state of affairs is somehow preferable to “Obamacare,” which you compared ludicrously to Trotskyite Russian communism, is a sign of deficient minds unfit to guide health policy in America.
War - Nations do have to go to war sometimes, but that Iraq thing was pretty bad, to put it mildly. Somebody should have been, I dunno – FIRED for bad performance. Aren’t you the party of good corporate managers or something? This topic could get 10,000 words on its own. Let’s just leave it at: You guys suck at running wars.
Deficits and debt - Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!
Gay marriage - As the child of Baby Boomers who got divorced (as was the fashion!) in the 80s and 90s, and for whom 50% of my friends had their homes broken by divorce in the critical years before age 18, I sure am unsympathetic to your caterwauling bullshit that “gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage.” Perhaps if everyone in your generation didn’t take the period of 1978 – 1995 to start surreptitiously banging their neighbors and coworkers, only to abandon their kids because “they just weren’t happy,” I would take your defense of marriage more seriously. The institution of Middle Class suburban marriage was broken by the generation of aging white Baby Boomers who populate what is left of the Republican Party, so your defense is wrongheaded and disingenuous. And moreover, as someone who got called “faggot” about 127 times a day from the years 1985 through 1991 – guess what – I grew up to be pretty good friends with actual homosexuals, whose sexual orientation is usually the least significant thing about them. The Republican perseveration on homosexuals as any sort of threat consigns them to history’s trough of intellectual pig dung.
>>>>>>
That’s quite enough for one essay, wouldn’t you say? Now, given my initial description as a wealthy, hard-working, job creating, heterosexual, married suburban White Male – doesn’t your current platform look woefully insufficient to the task of gaining my vote? This doesn’t even get into the demographic tensions that show that people of my exact profile are going away permanently in America. You can’t even win on what you perceive to be “home field advantage.”
Uh oh, wait, I can already hear you through the web browser, dismissing all of my above points because THAT GUY WAS NEVER GONNA BE A REPUBLICAN ANYHOW, CUZ HE’S A LIBRUL WHO HATES AMERICA AND…
All right, let’s do one last point:
Meanness- Your party is really mean, mocking and demonizing everyone who does not follow you into the pits of hell. You constantly imply – as Mitt Romney did in his “47% speech” – that anybody who disagrees with you does so not by logic or moral conviction, but because they are shiftless, lazy parasites who want “free stuff” from “traditional Americans.” Wow, you guys managed to follow up a stunning electoral defeat with insulting the very people you wish to attract for a majority in the political system! Brilliant! You are losing elections because being angry and defensive and just-plain-mean is more important than being smart and winning elections – and thus you deserve everything happening to you.
If you want to know exactly where you failed in 2012, and will continue to fail, here it is. Look you assholes, I’m as traditional an American as it gets, and I do not “want free stuff.” I am a taxpayer, and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. I got my first job – dragging bags of cow manure, horse feed and fertilizer around a farm store – when I was 12. I started my first company when I was 28. I have followed the vast majority of the rules set out for middle class white males (for good and for ill.) And if it weren’t bad enough that your policy positions are a complete clusterfuck for the reasons I lay out in great detail, you manage to follow up the whole exercise with insulting me, my wife, and my friends of every stripe who didn’t vote for your political party – all of whom are hard-working, taxpaying, job creating, law abiding, great AMERICANS of EVERY COLOR AND CREED.
From this white, Mayflower-descended strategic analyst, allow me to offer you the three strategic options you have before you:
1. You drastically moderate your platform to harmonize with the policy positions I present above
2. You disband the party and reorganize it to reflect current realities
3. You kick and scream and stamp your feet and call me and my friends names – and submit to several decades of one party rule
While I do not want a one-party system, I also don’t particularly care which of these options you choose. If you look carefully at the numbers on Tuesday, nobody else cares, either.
Just a word to the wise from one White Man to (presumably) another.

Nov 12, 2012#220

Silent Bob

http://www.examiner.com/article/citizens-four-more-states-file-petitions-to-secede-from-united-state

I find this kind of ironic, considering most of this is a bunch of dumbass, rednecks who "love" this country so much.

Nov 12, 2012#221

Krisken

Of course. 'Real Mericans' want to secede.

Nov 13, 2012#222

JCM

We need another third party for the reasonable Republicans who are not religious or racist fucktards, to keep the democrats in check.

Because the only idiots who voted Romney are pretty much the racist and religious fucktards.

Nov 13, 2012#223

strawman

The Republican Party put an end to segregation, while the Democratic Party fought for segregation and lawful racism for over a hundred years.

Nov 13, 2012#224

Silent Bob

stienman said:
The Republican Party put an end to segregation, while the Democratic Party fought for segregation and lawful racism for over a hundred years.

This is true, and shows how much the current republican party is a shell of its former self.

Nov 13, 2012#225

DarkAudit

Silent Bob said:
This is true, and shows how much the current republican party is a shell of its former self.

I don't think so. The southern whites left the Democrats in droves after JFK and LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act through. They've been red states ever since.

Nov 13, 2012#226

JCM

stienman said:
The Republican Party put an end to segregation, while the Democratic Party fought for segregation and lawful racism for over a hundred years.

True. And Like what I said, we need a third party for the Republicans who are not religious or racist fucktards, to keep the democrats in check.

Simply the fucktard racist states switched party when the Republicans started becoming more fanatical and teh democrats, more reasonable towards race. People judge the U.S. by it´s political parties, when its just the same damn assholes (and their future generations) in the same damn states giving whatever party they´re in a bad name.

While I disagree with much of the more libertarian right (real libertarians, not the rich-sponsored joke that was the Tea Party), with today´s Republican party being a home to the religious racists, we need another party that is about personal responsibility and keeping government in check, and small, around.

A two-party system will simply mean the democrats winning over and over, if the right does not get rid of the ultra-religious Republican party and its own "scare away any decent voter" news channel, Fox News. The U.S. might be too great an industrial and consumerist powerhouse to fail like many EU countries, but its never good for a country to be in the grasp of just one party.

Or a miracle might happen and they might find a Bill Clinton of their own, who may form a new party ideological platform ala a "New Republicans" movement. If Bill Clinton managed to make a non-electable democrat party be vote-able by shutting up the control freaks and promoting deregulation of critical industries, forgoing the tax-happy past and giving tax-breaks to the middle class and poor and giving focus to the economy, its not impossible for a new movement to turn the Republican ship away from "the idiots who want to shove trans-vaginal ultrasounds and make idiotic comments about rape" party into saner waters.[DOUBLEPOST=1352813086][/DOUBLEPOST]What's with GasBandit´s avatar appearing on Stienman´s quotes?

Nov 13, 2012#227

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
The Republican Party put an end to segregation, while the Democratic Party fought for segregation and lawful racism for over a hundred years.

That was because of shifts in where people saw themselves, that is not the same group of people that did the freeing of the slaves back then.

Nov 13, 2012#228

strawman

JCM said:
What's with GasBandit´s avatar appearing on Stienman´s quotes?

I found a bug and am exploiting it for fun and profit.

Well, fun anyway.

Nov 13, 2012#229

JCM

Looking back at the political party maps, the racist states were democrats for up to the 1900s.

1900

1904

Up to the time when the democratic electoral vote was supreme

Only at around 1964 did the Republicans start getting the Southern states (although the previous elections gave the Republicans Florida)

And from then on the South went more and more Republican (up to Reagan, who pretty much locked in which States would become diehard Republicans), and the better states became more and more Democratic (with JFK, then Clinton, locking in which states would become diehard Democrat).

Of course there were temporary shifts, with Nixon winning almost all states for Republicans, and Carter winning only the South for the democrats, but basically the USA has become a democracy in the way that only the swing states decide, everyone else is pretty much useless. Thus the need of a reformed Republican party, or a third party.

Nov 13, 2012#230

strawman

JCM said:
the USA has become a democracy in the way that only the swing states decide, everyone else is pretty much useless.

The two parties have forced the current situation where they appeal to people's emotional politics in order to get votes. While the electoral college makes a nice stark red/blue image, you really should take a look at a county by county map, shaded purple with the mixture of the two. Calling an entire voting block "racist and religious f**ktards" is the same partisan phrasing the campaigns enjoy and promote in order to divide people emotionally. People who believe that sort of rhetoric are the problem, and they exist in both parties in about equal numbers.

That's not going to change. So the parties - both of them - use the same tactics in order to get those independent votes.

Nov 13, 2012#231

JCM

Which is why I admire Clinton. The guy might have made some decisions that helped fuck up the economy later, but his moving his party from the left to center pretty much gave the democrats 15 states, yes, not everyone in those southern States are racist arseholes, but the majority keeps voting on racist arseholes. Which is why I call Brazil a country of lazy communist idiots, because they´d rather vote on the most corrupt officials who are going to leave the country a broke nation in 10 years to get more benefits, than on the more educated party that actually got Brazil to be a powerhouse. Thankfully, we don not have Fox-news type of religious idiocy here though.

Anyway, those racist arsholes in the majority make it harder for the Republicans to change. The democrats had nothing to lose in 92, having lost by huge margins to the Republicans for a few elections running. But I doubt the Republicans can ever get the balls to change away from anti-women/gay/blacks/hispanic/immigrant and ye-must-obey-mah-bible rethoric that makes sure they win the same 15-20 states automatically every election, back to the "free labor, free land, free men" party Lincoln envisioned.

And with women, latinos, african-americans and gays, as well as moderates, becoming the bigger voter block in the US, and old angry white farmers dying out, the Republican party will not survive without change.

Nov 13, 2012#232

GasBandit

JCM said:
True. And Like what I said, we need a third party for the Republicans who are not religious or racist fucktards, to keep the democrats in check.

http://www.lp.org/
Ahem! I know, I'm a broken record sometimes. The thing is, having a "third" party won't keep the democrats in check, it will hand them everything on a silver platter because the rest of the vote will be split. What needs to happen is either the republican party needs to be replaced, or the entire party system done away with in favor of (say it with me now, everybody, I know you know the words) instant runoff elections.

Nov 13, 2012#233

strawman

JCM said:
And with X becoming the bigger voter block in the US, and Y dying out, the Z party will not survive without change.

It's a revelation! The politicians must change with the electorate! Quick, someone call the political science department at Harvard!

Nov 13, 2012#234

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
It's a revelation! The politicians must change with the electorate! Quick, someone call the political science department at Harvard!

Yet listen to any GoP talking head: -We don't need to change, we just need to try REALLY hard to make them understand what we stand for! We obviously weren't trying hard enough in the past because if people just understood what we mean when we say things, they'd think like we do-

Nov 13, 2012#235

strawman

Their not wrong, though, but it's a complex dynamic.

Nov 13, 2012#236

JCM

The problem is the message that is being heard is something like this

FoxNews said:
we hate gays, immigrants, women's rights, and want everyone to live in a Shariah-like Americanized 'Merica, the Earth is 6 million years old, women can't get raped because of magic vaginas and we'll spend hours of airtime defaming our candidate, and yet after he wins the primaries, we lie our ass off and pretend all we said was never true.

Sorry, as long as they keep pandering to the ultra-religious and racist right, no matter how good their message is, it will get drowned out every time some dumbass Republican does something stupid, which is every damn day (or when Donal Trump is bored make that twice a day).

I believe that Reagan's and Lincoln's Republican party had great idiologies, and could even be applied to a third-world country like Brazil with great success, but today's Republicans are pretty much a modern slavery-era Democratic party, with a tv and radio channel and loud pundits, even Reagan and Lincoln wouldn't be able to run in today's republican party.

Nov 13, 2012#237

GasBandit

stienman said:
Their not wrong, though, but it's a complex dynamic.

stienman said:
Their not wrong, though

stienman said:
Their not wrong

stienman said:
Their not

stienman said:
Their

stienman said:
Their

Nov 13, 2012#238

Bowielee

What makes me laugh are all the conservatives up north here are saying that they want to move to Canada because Obama won the election.

CANADA, you know, the socialist nightmare that the republican party is railing against?

I find it extremely funny and indicative of the ignorance of those people about the world.

Nov 13, 2012#239

Tress

Bowielee said:
What makes me laugh are all the conservatives up north here are saying that they want to move to Canada because Obama won the election.

CANADA, you know, the socialist nightmare that the republican party is railing against?

I find it extremely funny and indicative of the ignorance of those people about the world.

Where do you want them to go? There are only a few civilized parts of the world that speak 'Merican, and Canadia is one of them. It's either them or England, and they talk kinda funny too.

Nov 13, 2012#240

Bowielee

Tress said:
Where do you want them to go? There are only a few civilized parts of the world that speak 'Merican, and Canadia is one of them. It's either them or England, and they talk kinda funny too.

I'd find it even funnier if they DID move and ended up in Quebec.

Nov 13, 2012#241

Silent Bob

Tress said:
Where do you want them to go? There are only a few civilized parts of the world that speak 'Merican, and Canadia is one of them. It's either them or England, and they talk kinda funny too.

Isn't the Republic of Congo a Republican wonderland?

Nov 13, 2012#242

bhamv3

I want to talk more about magic vaginas.

Nov 13, 2012#243

AshburnerX

Silent Bob said:
Isn't the Republic of Congo a Republican wonderland?

Belize is generally where wealthy American ex-pats go to form their very own fiefdoms. Some of the reasons...

- It's remote but not so remote you can't get stuff shipped in or not get internet
- The dollar goes a long way down there
- It's English speaking (or at least English is spoken by a lot of people down there)
- The locals are very susceptible to bribes
- Pretty sure it doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US

If your rich and tired of dealing with the American government, but don't want to learn another language, it's basically paradise. Hell, John McAfee went down there. Just don't go talk to him right now, he's wanted for murder.

Nov 13, 2012#244

Hailey Knight

JCM said:
the Earth is 6 million years old

Now, now, let's get our dates straight.

The Earth is only 6 thousand years old. There's no such thing as millions.

Nov 13, 2012#245

JCM

bhamv3 said:
I want to talk more about magic vaginas.

According to a source that knows a friend that might not be unfamiliar with a non-Fox news employee's cousin on his second Mormon wife's side, vaginas of undecided voters get up at night and mail-in vote Democrat.

That's why Obama won.

Nov 14, 2012#246

Krisken

JCM said:
According to a source that knows a friend that might not be unfamiliar with a non-Fox news employee's cousin on his second Mormon wife's side, vaginas of undecided voters get up at night and mail-in vote Democrat.

That's why Obama won.

Was that source Ann Coulter?

Nov 14, 2012#247

Timmus

Book of revelations

...and lo the heathen vaginas will rise up and vote of their own accord...

Nov 14, 2012#248

Tress

JCM said:
According to a source that knows a friend that might not be unfamiliar with a non-Fox news employee's cousin on his second Mormon wife's side, vaginas of undecided voters get up at night and mail-in vote Democrat.

That's why Obama won.

Nov 14, 2012#249

Eriol

Pearls is awesome: http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2012/11/14

Nov 14, 2012#250

Tress

This little gem can be found here.

Romney Dings Obama for 'Gifts' to Minority Voters

By Devin Dwyer

President Obama today heaped praise on his defeated rival, GOP nominee Mitt Romney, saying the former governor's record and ideas "could be very helpful" in shaping policy over the next four years.

"My hope is, before the end of the year… that we have a chance to sit down and talk," Obama told reporters in his first post-election press conference.
But even as Obama extended something of an olive branch - which some skeptics saw as disingenuous - Romney was reportedly accusing the president of doling out "gifts" to minority voters to curry their support for a second term.

"The President's campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift-so he made a big effort on small things," Romney told donors on a conference call, first reported by Maeve Reston of the L.A. Times. "Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars."

Romney claimed Obama had been "very generous" to blacks, Hispanics and younger voters, according to the Times, insisting that the policy decisions had been a decisive factor in high turnout that tipped the scale against him.

"I am very sorry that we didn't win. I know that you expected to win," Romney reportedly said. "We expected to win…. It was very close, but close doesn't count in this business."

Several participants on the call confirmed to ABC News the account and quotes presented by the L.A. Times.

Senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod responded to the "gifts" remark by accusing Romney of "still looking at America through that 47 percent prism."

"Mitt tells donors the takers did him in," Axelrod wrote on Twitter, referencing Romney's remarks earlier this year disparaging 47 percent of Americans as self-perceived "victims" and government dependents.

The back and forth by suggested some lingering ill-feeling on both sides after what was a bruising - often personal - campaign.
On election night after both men spoke briefly by phone, Obama told his supporters that he extended an invitation to meet with Romney to demonstrate a spirit of bipartisanship. But today he conceded he does not know whether Romney is willing to play along.

"He presented some ideas during the course of the campaign that I actually agree with. And so it'd be interesting to talk to him about something like that," Obama said. "There may be ideas that he has with respect to jobs and growth that can help middle-class families that I want to hear."

But Obama added, "I'm not either prejudging what he's interested in doing, nor am I suggesting I've got some specific assignment. But what I want to do is to is to get ideas from him and see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together."

(emphasis mine)

This is why I'm glad Romney didn't win. He doesn't get it, and he has nothing but contempt for anyone who is not an older, middle-to-upper class white male. He equates paying attention to people of color with bribes.

Also, are we supposed to forget his tax plan was basically a love letter to the wealthy? I'm sure he doesn't see that as doling out "gifts."

Nov 14, 2012#251

AshburnerX

People vote for the candidate that actually improves their lives? At least Obama's "gifts" went to people who actually needed them.

Nov 15, 2012#252

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
People vote for the candidate that actually improves their lives? At least Obama's "gifts" went to people who actually needed them.

All hail suckling at the government teat.

Nov 15, 2012#253

Krisken

Where have I heard this song before?

Nov 15, 2012#254

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Where have I heard this song before?

Well, with no irony whatsoever: Every thread, ever?

Nov 15, 2012#255

Krisken

I have to give you credit, you're willing to play the same song over and over, even if it is terrible.

Nov 15, 2012#256

Gilgamesh

Krisken said:
I have to give you credit, you're willing to play the same song over and over, even if it is terrible.

It's like hyper religious people that even in the face of fact, just keep repeating the same thing as if nothing were ever said.

Some call it (living in a bubble) but that would mean they could actually see outside of it. It's more like a room made of lead that was soldered shut as they entered.

Nov 15, 2012#257

Krisken

I like arguing with Gas (most of the time). It does make me think about my own positions and justify them not really for you all, but for myself. If I find the position lacking, I can always use the new evidence to form a new position.

We almost never agree, but that's not really what I get out of it. I'm not trying to convince him (nor him me).

Nov 15, 2012#258

Timmus

Krisken said:
I like arguing with Gas (most of the time). It does make me think about my own positions and justify them not really for you all, but for myself. If I find the position lacking, I can always use the new evidence to form a new position.

We almost never agree, but that's not really what I get out of it. I'm not trying to convince him (nor him me).

I'm pretty sure you're doing it wrong. The way I understand it works is that you should both be convinced that the other one is subhuman filth and also that the one who shouts loudest is right.

Nov 15, 2012#259

Gilgamesh

Krisken said:
I like arguing with Gas (most of the time). It does make me think about my own positions and justify them not really for you all, but for myself. If I find the position lacking, I can always use the new evidence to form a new position.

We almost never agree, but that's not really what I get out of it. I'm not trying to convince him (nor him me).

I find alot of substance in stienman 's conversations and discussions I've had with him in the past on his views. Mostly because he offers differing ideas on the same subject with an over arcing similarity. It really does get interesting.

Nov 15, 2012#260

AshburnerX

Timmus said:
I'm pretty sure you're doing it wrong. The way I understand it works is that you should both be convinced that the other one is subhuman filth and also that the one who shouts loudest is right.

That really doesn't work when almost all the venom is contained here. It's kind of hard to keep it going when you do other stuff with the guy.

It's kind of like Mario and Bowser. Sure, the asshole might kidnap the princess every other week, but your still going to go go-karting with him, keep up your board game night, and play with him in that tennis league. After all, you've known him for years!

Nov 15, 2012#261

Eriol

AshburnerX said:
It's kind of like Mario and Bowser. Sure, the asshole might kidnap the princess every other week, but your still going to go go-karting with him, keep up your board game night, and play with him in that tennis league. After all, you've known him for years!

Derail: Wreck-it-Ralph was awesome btw.

Nov 15, 2012#262

strawman

Eriol said:
Derail: Wreck-it-Ralph was awesome btw.

One of the reviewers whose opinion I pay attention to indicates that Wreck it Ralph was the second most fun film this year (so far - I'm sure hobbit is going to give it a run) for him, and was second only to avengers. Between this and the good reviews it's getting here on halforums, it's on my list of movies to see in the theater, and one of the few movies I could take my kids to and know they'll enjoy.

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/wreck-it-ralph-review

Nov 15, 2012#263

Azurephoenix

For kicks I did that little test and ended up with 86% Gary Johnson. Obama was next at 80%. Interesting.

Nov 15, 2012#264

Zappit

Giving rich people getting insane tax breaks is not a gift - it's a business expense. S'different.

I mean, Obama reacting to the needs of voters and trying to implement policies that will provide them much-needed help? FUCK that guy, amiright?

Nov 16, 2012#265

PatrThom

From this site, the election if they only let in the white males to vote:

There are other maps...ones which show what happened once women were allowed a vote, once poll taxes were abolished, even when the voting age was lowered to 18. Suffrin' Sufferage!

--Patrick

Nov 17, 2012#266

JCM

Timmus said:
Book of revelations

...and lo the heathen vaginas will rise up and vote of their own accord...

Great, now my boss thinks I am a lunatic, laughing out loud for like a minute.

Nov 17, 2012#267

Zappit

JCM said:
Great, now my boss thinks I am a lunatic, laughing out loud for like a minute.

Hole Lee Shit. It's JCM!

Nov 17, 2012#268

JCM

I was just posting some pics of my assassin Sith-in training son when someone used a Master Ball on me. Go figure.

Forums