http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-donors-20121115,0,1719033.story
romney shows the self pity and the undertones of racism that were reflected in the way in campaigned and in the true beliefs of many his supporters.

isadore;1320749 wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-donors-20121115,0,1719033.story
romney shows the self pity and the undertones of racism that were reflected in the way in campaigned and in the true beliefs of many his supporters.

It's not racism if it's true.

If Romney is crying racism, then I absolutely LOVE IT! If Osama would have lost in 2008, that's all we would have heard!

I don't see what is wrong with him telling the truth?

ernest_t_bass;1320753 wrote:If Romney is crying racism, then I absolutely LOVE IT! If Osama would have lost in 2008, that's all we would have heard!

Osama did lose big in 2008, he got a President elected who had him killed. He got a bullet in the head out of the election.

WebFire;1320752 wrote:It's not racism if it's true.

gosh the continuing self pity of romney acolytes.

like_that;1320761 wrote:I don't see what is wrong with him telling the truth?

the opionion that will help make the republican party a shrinking minority in our nation.

Romney is a racist.

Obamaphones won the election.

like_that;1320761 wrote:I don't see what is wrong with him telling the truth?

Because the truth hurts, and liberals cannot stomach inconvenience or difficulty.

isadore;1320764 wrote:gosh the continuing self pity of romney acolytes.

See, you're so wrong it's pathetic. I didn't vote for Romney. I am not a Romney acolyte. But what he is saying is true. Even Dems say it when they talk about demographics. What do you think they are referring to?

WebFire;1320807 wrote:See, you're so wrong it's pathetic. I didn't vote for Romney. I am not a Romney acolyte. But what he is saying is true. Even Dems say it when they talk about demographics. What do you think they are referring to?

yeh right and I can say I voted for Wendell Wilkie. Your support for Romney's self pitying racist statement and you constant criticism of the President define you.

isadore;1320831 wrote:yeh right and I can say I voted for Wendell Wilkie. Your support for Romney's self pitying racist statement and you constant criticism of the President define you.

Haha. Do you even read threads on this board? hahahahahaha

WebFire ignore him it's just an act.

WebFire;1320833 wrote:Haha. Do you even read threads on this board? hahahahahaha

sure have, one of many examples of your hate of the President

webfire wrote:YesObama cares so much that the average workers health insurance will rise tounprecedented cost. Thanks!

QuakerOats;1320789 wrote:Because the truth hurts, and liberals cannot stomach inconvenience or difficulty.

Pot meet kettle.

isadore;1320859 wrote:sure have, one of many examples of your hate of the President

I fail to see how this shows hatred.....

YesObama cares so much that the average workers health insurance will rise tounprecedented cost. Thanks!

TedSheckler;1320864 wrote:I fail to see how this shows hatred.....

[/FONT][/COLOR]

that you would not see it is not a surprise.

isadore;1320859 wrote:sure have, one of many examples of your hate of the President

Now you are changing subjects. You said I'm a Romney acolyte. Which I am not. I never said anything about disliking the current POTUS, which I do.

isadore;1320873 wrote:that you would not see it is not a surprise.

Enlighten me.

Wasn't Romney supposed to be the businessman/savior of the Olympics who could manage anything to its desired outcome?

Yet his get out the vote campaign was pathetically managed and under-achieved as spectacularly as any in recent memory. So much so, that he was convinced he had the election in bag based on miscalculated projections from within his own campaign, right up until he officially lost.

So much for that.

2kool4skool;1320953 wrote:Wasn't Romney supposed to be the businessman/savior of the Olympics who could manage anything to its desired outcome?

Yet his get out the vote campaign was pathetically managed and under-achieved as spectacularly as any in recent memory. So much so, that he was convinced he had the election in bag based on miscalculated projections from within his own campaign, right up until he officially lost.

So much for that.

So, that means Quaker worked for the Romney campaign? After all, he was proclaiming a 320-something to 200-something win for Romney up until the end...when he looked at the actual results, slammed bricks into his head for a few minutes and then claimed a moral victory because Obama didn't win by as much as he could have.

It's really too bad that Isadore is here. It's presence keeps things like this from earning the ridicule they deserve.

Heretic;1320966 wrote:So, that means Quaker worked for the Romney campaign? After all, he was proclaiming a 320-something to 200-something win for Romney up until the end...when he looked at the actual results, slammed bricks into his head for a few minutes and then claimed a moral victory because Obama didn't win by as much as he could have.

Romney would have probably at least paid up on his end of a bet he made publicly. Thus far, Quaker is refusing to do so.

TedSheckler;1320908 wrote:Enlighten me.

if reading my writings on this site have not enlightened, you may be beyond the pale. Try to read and understand.

2kool4skool;1320953 wrote:Wasn't Romney supposed to be the businessman/savior of the Olympics who could manage anything to its desired outcome?
.

Could be why it may be so hard to defeat an incumbent. Obama's machine is already in place from 2008 (probably never went away) and could be further ramped and leveraged. Romney's probably did not get out the vote with the base enough, a strategic misstep from a host of sub-optimal choices resulting from playing catch-up.

Think I heard Romney's campaign bragging about directly contacting 150k voters in OH in the days before the election. They were proud of that. Obama's did more than double that number. So my question would be, is it a miscalculation of scale, or simply scale that's difficult to put in place in a few short months?

Kind of a disgusting ugliness of politics that elections are decided on the ability to browbeat people into voting for you. Clearly gone are the days where people are self-motivated to vote based on issues, or at least true of the deciding margins. That's troublesome for anyone disgusted by the amount of partisan money funneling into elections, and even more troublesome that the first hurdle a candidate has to realistically clear is the ability to amass a huge war chest.