Zombaypirate;1316162 wrote:Are you completely insane? Obama SMASHED Romney in electoral votes the people have spoken, as much as you hate it. The GOP is suffering horribly Obama was terrible READ MY LIPS Obama was terrible and yet the GOP could not beat him?

The GOP is flawed horribly drop the religious nonsense. Fairy tales do not go far in todays world except in 3rd world countries. Focus on the economy and making a solid MIDDLE CLASS........ NOT record profits for the few.

THe GOP is about worthless. The people have spoken and you do not like how they have spoken. The GOP needs MAJOR reworking.

You're right; what was I thinking.

QuakerOats;1316164 wrote:Yeah, he did it while getting a hummer too; Gingrich and Kasich had nothing to do with it. Now scram; go watch spongebob or something.

kasich, strickly small potatoes at the time and since. And gosh who was getting a hummer, good old king of the hypocrites newt was continuing his serially cheating on multiple cancer inflicted wives. but gosh what can we expect from someone with a tea party understanding of history,

Hey GOP quit worrying about whether or not you should be allowed to own an AK 47 to shoot squirrels, keep your hands off other people's vaginas, give up trying to police who is having sex with who, don't try to force Jesus down other's throats and actually focus on issues that matter to intelligent people and maybe some disenchanted former Repubs might come back to the pack.

Tiernan;1316484 wrote:Hey GOP quit worrying about whether or not you should be allowed to own an AK 47 to shoot squirrels, keep your hands off other people's vaginas, give up trying to police who is having sex with who, don't try to force Jesus down other's throats and actually focus on issues that matter to intelligent people and maybe some disenchanted former Repubs might come back to the pack.

Seems like all the issues the Dems focus on. Other than the guns, I would say the rest are not political issues at all. How about focusing on the economy, deficit, budget and foreign affairs. Instead they debated abortion and gay rights. Turned the election into a social one.

WebFire;1316081 wrote:I don't really know what the point of this thread is.

The point of this thread is for a blind, divisive, overly-partisan hack to "save face" by ignoring how he was wrong about virtually everything he posted over the last few months (well, he was pretty close on the Electoral Vote totals...but he did have the other guy winning by that margin) in order to praise the Republican Party for not losing by TOO much.

I applaud it. With the way Izzy's becoming more of an obnoxious nuisance than usual, it's nice to find posters who seem willing to give everyone something funny to laugh about on these forums.

Gotta love it: obama support craters 15%, tell nation GOP is finished.


Carry on.

Heretic;1316528 wrote:The point of this thread is for a blind, divisive, overly-partisan hack to "save face" by ignoring how he was wrong about virtually everything he posted over the last few months (well, he was pretty close on the Electoral Vote totals...but he did have the other guy winning by that margin) in order to praise the Republican Party for not losing by TOO much.

Kind of reminds me of Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House. "Remain calm, all is well".

QuakerOats;1316533 wrote:Gotta love it: obama support craters 15%, tell nation GOP is finished.


Carry on.

Makes as much sense as Romney receiving millions less votes than McCain, tells nation the GOP is on the right track.

Obama lost 8 million votes from last time, Romney lost 2 million votes from McCain. Where I find hope for this country is that over 10 million people that voted 'yes' on the referendum last time did not this time.

Also hopeful is that around 7 million people voted in this election but did not vote for either of those two for president. Now we need that number to grow.

Cleveland Buck;1316560 wrote:Also hopeful is that around 7 million people voted in this election but did not vote for either of those two for president. Now we need that number to grow.

We do indeed, although the "wasted vote" contingent will pretend that growing number is irrelevant because no one won. They are myopic in that regard, That number alone carries political power.

This is like a team saying even though we were blew out on the scoreboard (electorate) we had just as many yards (popular). We also held them to less yards than last year. Thanks for the laughs Quacker.

queencitybuckeye;1316565 wrote:We do indeed, although the "wasted vote" contingent will pretend that growing number is irrelevant because no one won. They are myopic in that regard, That number alone carries political power.

Yep. If you factor in the 7 million who disobeyed their orders to vote for Obamney and the 6.5 million who voted last time but didn't even waste their time showing up this time, that number would have gotten over 10% in this election.

Where do you guys get 7M from? The two combined for 98% of the vote.

Is anyone really talking about that? No. Like I said, all these people who protested by voting for someone else or staying home (if that's the case) aren't really on the radar. Happens every election. Dems certainly don't care they won - heck, they are celebrating what they view as a permanent advantage in base. Disappointment with a candidate to the extent people stay home does not indicate any leaning or enthusiasm for a third party.

And Repubs? Some are saying they need to be more inclusive. Others are saying they need to be more conservative. If these "protest voters" sent a message, ain't nobody heard it. There isn't anyone - other than the protest voters - talking about winning or losing this election for the reasons that led people to "protest" the election.

Same thing every year. Wash, rinse and repeat.

WebFire;1316490 wrote:Seems like all the issues the Dems focus on. Other than the guns, I would say the rest are not political issues at all. How about focusing on the economy, deficit, budget and foreign affairs. Instead they debated abortion and gay rights. Turned the election into a social one.

Uh...didn't I just sorta say that? The reason the Dems bring these things up is bc the Tea Party jihadists would institute all these things in a heart beat if they could. Intelligent moderates want no association with these fanatics at all and IMO Romney is a closet Tea Bagger.

rmolin73;1316566 wrote:This is like a team saying even though we were blew out on the scoreboard (electorate) we had just as many yards (popular). We also held them to less yards than last year. Thanks for the laughs Quacker.

Sort of; except it is more like a team that was beaten by 3 touchdowns last time, by a field goal this time, and with that trend continuing, will turn it into a win next time; if the country still exists then.

Good luck, and I hope you remain employed, if you are presently employed.

gut;1316578 wrote:Where do you guys get 7M from? The two combined for 98% of the vote.

Is anyone really talking about that? No. Like I said, all these people who protested by voting for someone else or staying home (if that's the case) aren't really on the radar. Happens every election. Dems certainly don't care they won - heck, they are celebrating what they view as a permanent advantage in base. Disappointment with a candidate to the extent people stay home does not indicate any leaning or enthusiasm for a third party.

And Repubs? Some are saying they need to be more inclusive. Others are saying they need to be more conservative. If these "protest voters" sent a message, ain't nobody heard it. There isn't anyone - other than the protest voters - talking about winning or losing this election for the reasons that led people to "protest" the election.

Same thing every year. Wash, rinse and repeat.

It is estimated the around 126 million people voted in the election. Just over 119 million of them went to Obamney/Yes I Approve.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/election-results-2012-voter-turnout-lower-than-2008-and-2004-report-says

The two combined for 98% of the vote for president as reported in the media. That probably doesn't count write-in votes, and definitely doesn't count people that left it blank.

As far as the message, the state controls the message you see in the media. The real message is that a growing number of people are waking up on their own or just fed up.

Tiernan;1316585 wrote:Uh...didn't I just sorta say that? The reason the Dems bring these things up is bc the Tea Party jihadists would institute all these things in a heart beat if they could. Intelligent moderates want no association with these fanatics at all and IMO Romney is a closet Tea Bagger.

The focus of the Tea Party is on tax/spend issues; they have little to do with any social issues. That is where the liberal media has fooled you, and apparently many more.

Referring to regular Americans who appreciate individual liberty and desire fiscal sanity as "jihadists" is truly an indication of how sick and diseased this nation has become.

Cleveland Buck;1316591 wrote:
As far as the message, the state controls the message you see in the media. The real message is that a growing number of people are waking up on their own or just fed up.

Anyway you spin it, the "protest" votes are being ignored. As predicted, and as seen in nearly every single election.

If the state controls the message, then the state is pretty clearly writing you off as irrelevant.

Perot got 19% of the popular vote in '92. Clinton would not move toward the center until years later. Perot came back again in '96 and got 8.4%. Figure it out.

QuakerOats;1316594 wrote: Referring to regular Americans who appreciate individual liberty and desire fiscal sanity as "jihadists" is truly an indication of how sick and diseased this nation has become.

Yeah, that made me think tens of millions of financially responsible Americans must be on govt watch lists. I figure the number is somewhere north of 53%.

gut;1316599 wrote:Anyway you spin it, the "protest" votes are being ignored. As predicted, and as seen in nearly every single election.

If the state controls the message, then the state is pretty clearly writing you off as irrelevant.

Perot got 19% of the popular vote in '92. Clinton would not move toward the center until years later. Perot came back again in '96 and got 8.4%. Figure it out.

You can state this until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't mean it should be given up on.. What a defeatist attitude.

WebFire;1316604 wrote:You can state this until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't mean it should be given up on.. What a defeatist attitude.

How many times does that play have to fail before they pursue a different path? How long will it take to realize that? 15, 20, 40 years? When you are not making gains and progress it's time for a new plan.

You can keep pretending until you are blue in the face you are making gains, but the data clearly shows you are not. Your grand protest/movement is stuck in neutral, at best, and has been for decades.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party has accomplished more in 4 years than Libertarians have in 40. Hmmm, perhaps there's a lesson in there somewhere.

gut;1316608 wrote:How many times does that play have to fail before they pursue a different path? How long will it take to realize that? 15, 20, 40 years? When you are not making gains and progress it's time for a new plan.

You can keep pretending until you are blue in the face you are making gains, but the data clearly shows you are not. Your grand protest/movement is stuck in neutral, at best, and has been for decades.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party has accomplished more in 4 years than Libertarians have in 40. Hmmm, perhaps there's a lesson in there somewhere.

Perhaps there is. But your suggesting to just go back to status quo and only vote R or D.

WebFire;1316614 wrote:Perhaps there is. But your suggesting to just go back to status quo and only vote R or D.

No I'm not. I've advocated choosing the best from the viable alternatives. I've advocated not throwing your vote away on an unviable alternative. I've advocated having an impact. The approach your advocating is not having an impact, at least not a positive one that anyone can see.

And, honestly, the issue I see is a fundamental problem with candidates and not the two-party system. Besides the fact that I don't see other systems working any better, I struggle to envision how a different system would be better with such a large and diverse nation.

Even if we had half a dozen parties that were strongly aligned with their constituents, the compromise and coalition building process would still have necessarily result in policy that is closely aligned with few, if any, constituents. You can build consensus to elect representatives, or you can elect representatives to build consensus. That sounds, to me, a distinction without a difference between the systems.

It's simply fantasy, IMO, to expect policy and views to reflect your beliefs when the culture & electorate has rather disparate views and values from your own. And if everyone stubbornly refused to participate in the consensus process we would go nowhere, neither forward nor backwards.

I mean, in an ideal world I'd elect myself as the person most qualified and capable of representing my views. But would that make me better off? What that be more effective in shaping things to my worldview? Or do I prioritize what is important, and elect people that can move the needle? Find someone that can fix something that's important, and if they fail find someone else. If they succeed, move on to the next thing.

And I lean libertarian on many issues. But when I look at that party, I see it going nowhere because they refuse to move the needle in favor of futile attempts to move the mountain.

gut;1316629 wrote:No I'm not. I've advocated choosing the best from the viable alternatives. I've advocated not throwing your vote away on an unviable alternative. I've advocated having an impact. The approach your advocating is not having an impact, at least not a positive one that anyone can see.

And, honestly, the issue I see is a fundamental problem with candidates and not the two-party system. Besides the fact that I don't see other systems working any better, I struggle to envision how a different system would be better with such a large and diverse nation.

Even if we had half a dozen parties that were strongly aligned with their constituents, the compromise and coalition building process would still have necessarily result in policy that is closely aligned with few, if any, constituents. You can build consensus to elect representatives, or you can elect representatives to build consensus. That sounds, to me, a distinction without a difference between the systems.

It's simply fantasy, IMO, to expect policy and views to reflect your beliefs when the culture & electorate has rather disparate views and values from your own. And if everyone stubbornly refused to participate in the consensus process we would go nowhere, neither forward nor backwards.

I mean, in an ideal world I'd elect myself as the person most qualified and capable of representing my views. But would that make me better off? What that be more effective in shaping things to my worldview? Or do I prioritize what is important, and elect people that can move the needle? Find someone that can fix something that's important, and if they fail find someone else. If they succeed, move on to the next thing.

And I lean libertarian on many issues. But when I look at that party, I see it going nowhere because they refuse to move the needle in favor of futile attempts to move the mountain.

There has been a decent amount of Libertarian leaning republicans who have been elected to local and state offices. Even some decent gains in the House this past election. At the end of the day whether it is by having a true third party candidate or taking over the republican party, I don't care how we get there.