Oh yeah, the number of attacks against me and the other liberals and liberal-leaning folks here and on other forums have just upped in volume. The Centrist Cultists are also out in force bitching and lying. And of course the conservative people actually in power have been even worse.
"Actually, it's the other way around that's the problem: People keep trying to project their problems on me and blame me for their own shit. I'm not the fucking village sineater; learn to take responsibility for your own bullshit and stupidity and leave me out of it."
Really? Why can't this chick look at herself at the mirror and know what a [bleep] she really is?
"that has everything to do with Obama winning the election and nothing to do with you being a frothing at the mouth lunatic."
Well, yes, that's my point. You guys make up shit about me because you're butthurt whiners, not because I'm actually crazy or anything else wrong with me. Thanks for agreeing! I love it when people make my point for me.
"'church of centrism' btw is a term for everyone not a straight ticket democrat voter."
Nope. Of course, I've explained what it really means multiple times, yet you keep repeating this, then wonder why I claim you're a liar and/or cannot read.
"Also, this need for an 'other' that is 'out to get you', grouping everyone in this mass conspiracy. Paranoia?"
Out to get everyone who has been trying to stick to just the facts, yes. And, well, seeing as how you're sitting here once again replying just to do the very bitching and lying I accused you of, I'd say it's rather justified paranoia, eh?
"we can do this all night, until you stop projecting your problems on other people."
Actually, it's the other way around that's the problem: People keep trying to project their problems on me and blame me for their own shit. I'm not the fucking village sineater; learn to take responsibility for your own bullshit and stupidity and leave me out of it.
In b4 you respond to keep lying, making up shit, and blaming me for your own stupidity and bullshit, while trying to claim I'm wrong for saying you do that. I mean, I love how I'll say people always do something, and they'll reply to me insisting I'm wrong via doing the very thing they just insisted I was wrong for saying they do. I mean, a-dur? Do you people ever actually read and think about what you post?
" Well, yes, that's my point. You guys make up shit about me because you're butthurt whiners, not because I'm actually crazy or anything else wrong with me. Thanks for agreeing! I love it when people make my point for me." your actually crazy.
If you actually followed most of our participation in these forums, you'd find that next to none of us have any real connection, emotional or otherwise to the republicans, nor to ex-presidential canidate mitt romney
You'd also find that we argue with the republicans/conservatives probably more than we argue with you.
Also, don't drag the rest of the left-leaning, the liberals, and the progressives into this, because I manage to have well thought out intellectually meaningful, and civil conversations with many of them. ~TortelliniPen comes to mind, someone who puts a great deal of though into things that are not screaming and is capable of objectively assessing problems.
Even VorpelPen can, and sometimes will make repeated attempts to be civil. Even mgonzeles who I think isn't so bright, doesn't really try and blame the rest of the forums for his own personal failures, stupidity, or even people who disagree with him on politics as mortal enemies that he has to try and recruit every yet unaligned person to help fight his battles.
Even on the right, meanus might be a fumbling doofus, but I never heard the man attack anyone another forums poster for disagreeing with him. Its well obvious that dA has a strong left bias, but you don't even here conspiracy theorists like TBSchemer trying to hijack every thread about how "the liberals are out to get him".
Of course, this places you with the real nutcases, like awake1, psyopsjunkie,infinitetollerance, and bombdrawing.
If not in content, but in the same techniques used. As they say, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is see otherwise acting like a duck, it just may be.
"Nope. Of course, I've explained what it really means multiple times, yet you keep repeating this, then wonder why I claim you're a liar and/or cannot read." It means people who refuse to blame the republicans for every single problem the nation faces, regardless, or anyone who dares hold any member of the democrat party responsible for anything, regardless of how trivial. We call this being a "straight ticket democrat voter"
And for the record, the church has held a meeting, from this moment forward, we would like to be addressed as the "mosque of centrism", as we plan on aquired property on, or around ground zero, for purely, umm, "political reasons".
"Actually, it's the other way around that's the problem: People keep trying to project their problems on me and blame me for their own shit."
You don't see me, nor any of these other "mosque of centrism" people going around complaining about how much of a retard you are, in every thread that doesn't concern you.
All polls are fucking skewed. Every outlet there was said something completely different, so why even bother paying attention to this shit anymore? The only way to find out who's going to win is by waiting for the results and quite frankly is counter-productive already.
If you have a real honest to go fair election, the only way you know for sure is counting the votes.(duh)
Its also really easy to monday morning cornerback.
This is comming from the guy who predicted an Obama landslide the day Romney was elected(on the basis he had no real voting base), and then second guessed himself the entire election season because of mainstream polls.
Uh, dude? This guy has been making this analysis and predictions the entire pre-election, not suddenly after the fact. But hey, not like you've ever had a history of researching the facts before opening your mouth and pretending you actually know what you're talking about, so why start now, eh?
And, wow, it's almost like... people make hypotheses based on the data they have at the time, then refine/change their analysis as more data comes in to make analysis with. It's almost like scientists make guesses, test if they were right or wrong, and when they're wrong, admit it and make adjustments. It's almost like that's how science and rational thinking works.
But I forget, the anti-intellectuals and irrational ideologues think scientists and rational thinkers are fortune-tellers who are supposed to guess right from day one, and never update their conclusions to accept and deal with new facts and changes in situations. They're instead proved to be wrong if they didn't fortune-tell, or proved to be worthless sellouts if they account for new facts.
...actually, damn, you just explained why you and the other ideologues on either side have such a hard time accepting the facts without attacking everyone, strawmanning, and/or making up myths and fantasies. Because you can't accept the concept of reality ever changing, or people changing their conclusions to fit the facts rather than changing the facts to fit their conclusions because of course to ideologues their conclusions are never allowed to change or be updated with new information or be admitted to be flawed. It makes so much sense now.
mass support for Governor Romney was no polling fluke. he won the debates, he was going strong with issues related to the economy, and budget and he was gaining support in the face of an overwhelmingly negative ad campaign! and the usual media bias that hounds republicans...
but then the hurricane came in and took control by allowing Obama a chance to look both up front, on time and, on topic as well as giving him an amazing moment of bipartisanship with one of the hardest hitting Republican Governors in the country! this showing in a time of crisis really swung a lot of people over to support Obama, not to mention the storm effectively shut Romney up about the economy for about 3 days...
about 35% of people who voted had the storm on their minds, and about 10% had the storm as top priority. Obama may have won big in the Electoral college but he won the swing states by only a small percentage. this is no coincidence.
I would only say that Romney won the first debate; nobody will argue that. However, the second debate was a tie at the very best (for Romney), and Obama definitively won the third debate.
Also, while most swing states were close, it says something that he won every single swing state except North Carolina. Even Florida, a state that most liberals (including myself) had accepted as a lost cause. That isn't a fluke either.
Plus, the effectiveness of Obama's response helped to remind people that "hey, maybe the government can be a good thing after all!" It couldn't have helped Romney that he had advocated slashing FEMA. What would President Romney have done if another superstorm came along the East Coast, or if we had another Katrina?
Romney also lost Ohio the moment he ran that fateful op-ed. Aside from checking the titles that editors give your pieces before release, Romney should've known that maybe if you're against the policies that saved jobs, then maybe the people who'es jobs were saved won't like you that much. And then Romney released an ad saying that under Obama, Chrysler was moving jobs to China. This was an audacious lie, so blatantly untrue that the higher-ups at Chrysler said that it was bullshit. This only created a storm of bad coverage for Romney only days before the election, and if he hadn't already lost Ohio then, he had certainly lost it at that moment.
Of course, it turns out that Obama didn't even need Ohio. But that's a different story.
Romney did not have a snowballs chance in hell. I called this after he won the nomination, but I let the mainstream media skew my faith in my own judgement.
My friends kinda scoffed when I compared Obama vs Romney to another rematch of Johnson vs Goldwater of 1964, but it looks like I was closer to being right. The polls made me second guess myself, but when the dust cleared, it wasn't quite Johnson vs Goldwater, but it was closer to that, than a 50/50 race. My guess is that a closer race probably sells more news, and higher ratings. people tune in more if they think its close.
While the republicans and democrats kept their positions in congress (slight blue shift?), Romney lost because he was never a viable presidential canidate. Here is my rationale:
1. He was the type of liberal republican businessman that only seems to work in far blue states like Massachusetts. There is no real demand for this on the national stage.
2. He was a centrist, back when this was acceptable, a few years ago. While centrists are out there, there are no large centrist donors, or centrist PACs, or centrist campaign organizers, or people who get fired up about the center.
3. What ground there is left in the center, Obama has on firm footing.
4. Since Obama has the center, any likely members of the Romney base are already voting for Obama, who is incumbent, this means Romney has no real base.
5. To win the primary he had to make a far dive to the right, which conservatives know him already has a liberal, and a centrist. Centrists and liberals will never see him as a centrist or liberal, and are entirely unlikely to vote for him.
6. The conservative base might have gone to Romney, but I really can't see them having come out in great numbers for him. The last ditch effort was run conspiracy theories to try and bring the "right" together about a canidate most of them were pretty apathetic about.
Since this is the US of A, its going to backfire, because even if any of the conspiracy theories were true, most people wouldn't be caught dead disagreeing with the mainstream if it cost them their lives. Most of America likes to conform, even when the facts are against them, and when the facts seem to be on their side, they don't even give a second look. Sure radio shock jocks can carve out enough of a niche to make fortunes for themselves, but really garner sizeable support from the population as a whole? No. Rush Limbaugh can make millions if as little as %10 of the nation likes him. You can't win office like that.
7. Therefor most of his campaign was not running as "Mitt Romney", but running "against Obama". The "Anybody but X" movements have historically been failures.
Romney never stood a snowballs chance in Hell. The only reason he appeared to, is because of skewed polls.
I think that you hit the nail right on the head there. A lot of people were disappointed in Obama, but Romney isn't exactly somebody that a lot of people can really rally around. I remember a CNN article saying that "In a presidential election where there's an incumbent nobody wants to vote for, and a challenger nobody wants to vote for, then the incumbent will win."
In the end, Romney didn't really give people a specific reason to vote for him. A lot of conservative voters didn't vote for him, they just voted against Obama. That lack of enthusiasm never won anybody a race. You can see it in the number of Republicans suddenly denouncing Romney, saying that they knew he would lose, etc. Of course, the Obama campaign was counting on this, and they were exactly right.
Besides, incumbents are rarely defeated, and if you lose the election nowadays then the party will most likely not let you run again. That's why we saw Republican heavyweights like Chris Christie (who some argue was partially responsible for Romney's loss) and Jeb Bush (easily the least idiotic of all the Bushes) sit this one out: they knew they would have a much better chance in 2016. Instead we got an absolute circus of a Republican primary, with the rather boring Mitt Romney being the only sane choice out of all of them.
And this isn't even going into the demographic issues that the GOP is facing right now. This can be alleviated by nominating someone like Rubio, but he's still a bit green.
"This can be alleviated by nominating someone like Rubio, but he's still a bit green."
Obama was still a bit green, definately not someone in a career position to run for office. That said, he did, fought the party and won, then won in a landslide the first time, and won again by a good margin the second time. Obama is young for a president,
The GOP is certainly capable of winning the Hispanic vote since Reagan did, because many of them can be pretty conservative on many issues, if the GOP would handle immigration with more sensitivity.
As far as the GOP changing, in the past decade, with Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powel, Hermain Cain, the GOP has proven they can find competant minority leaders. The real question is appealing to the minority electorate. Its doubtful that the republicans will ever win a sizable black vote.
Then we have the question of who are going to be the banner carriers of the GOP standard?
From Richard Nixon until George Washington Bush it was the neo-conservatives, aka disgruntled socially conservative progressives, that harped mostly on social issues, this fell apart with George W Bush in 2008, with libertarians picking up the narrative for the next 2 years under the banner of the tea party, before classical conservatism(USA sense), with economic conservatives as the banner carriers, and social conservationism present, but weaker.
I think the tea party has hit its apex, and a resurgent but weaker social conservative movement might grapple with the libertarian wing for control of the republican narrative.
What the republicans actually do in the next 4-8 years is anyone's guess.
Right now, I do say the democrats have the initiative, and I seriously doubt that someone like Obama would loose to someone like Rubio(although it would be a fuckton closer).
Although I would disagree with Herman Cain being included in your list of competent minority leaders, I agree that the GOP isn't exactly a complete whiteout. And I do agree that Hispanics tend to be conservative. However, the GOP's current stances on immigration have destroyed their current chances with Latinos. Also, there are a lot of poor Latinos, and as a Latino myself I can tell you that we are very family and community-oriented: even if GOP policy wouldn't hurt us, it may hurt an uncle or a cousin that that would be enough for us to dislike the GOP. It's no mistake that the GOP lost the Latino vote by 44 points.
In order to win back Latinos, the GOP has to lighten up and compromise on immigration and the like. Otherwise, the ever-growing Latino population could see states like Arizona and Texas starting to go blue in a few election cycles.
And I agree that the Tea Party has reached its apex. I don't think that the whole movement was entirely libertarian, though, as they tended to win people over with religion as well as fiscal conservatism. I think that the GOP needs more Eisenhowers and Goldwaters before they return to their former glory.
" I don't think that the whole movement was entirely libertarian, though, as they tended to win people over with religion as well as fiscal conservatism"
It started libertarian, but the beginning of the end was when they added god.
Libertarians were the driving force behind the 2010 republican coup. While libertarianism certainly lost momentum, Christian conservatism doesn't have the clout, tenor, or strength like it used to.
Most of the nation is facing away from social conservatism, and they've moderated their stances a little to counter. Even Pat Robertson has come out for the legalization of marijuanna, something unthinkable as late as 2002, for all but the furthers "left"(on social issues") democrats might even consider.
back in the 1990s there were still people arguing for keeping sodomy laws on the books and sending homosexuals and sexual/gender misfits into camps.
Today the big issue is over if they can marry or not, and few if any advocate putting them in camps. Consentual Sodomy laws have been overturned by the supreme court, and struck down constitutionally in 2003.(before 1962, it was a felony just about everywhere, and in most places until the 1970s, thats right, a bigger crime than getting drunk and punching someone in a bar). [link]
George Bush tried compromising on immigration, but it fell on deaf ears.(mainly because at that point, no one was in the mood for immigration). That was pre-tea party. Its obvious the republicans CAN compromise on immigration, and they have in the past. The real issue is will they.
why do you and so many others deny this? sure the republicans should have wiped the floor with Obama storm or no Storm, but fact is people come together in times of crisis, Natural Disaster is a crisis. Obama was given the perfect last minute chance to look on topic, presidential, and helpful across party lines! 35% of people had the storm on their minds 12% said it was the most important topic!, 12-15% of people didn't even know who to vote for until the last week/days!!! these facts add up to being just enough to tip the swing states in his favor from a tie, which won him the election.
Or a simpler reason is that Obama isn't as hated as many conservatives seem to think. The way we view the world isn't always what reality is. I thought for sure the personal mandate of Obama care would have been ruled as unconstitutional. I was off base here. Just have to live and learn and adapt for the next election.
I'd note that Romney could have had an equal chance to prove he could also handle the challenge, if he hadn't both slammed FEMA and staged a donation drive that not only was fake, but would have been unwelcome and poorly handled even if it was real.
He could have done anything from donating large amounts of money to the Red Cross, to massing his campaign staffers to help join the swell of Red Cross volunteers in distribute supplies, providing mobile power recharging and refueling stations, opening up temporary housing, etc. Instead he made a feeble attempt that was campaigning disguised as not campaigning.
A conspiracy that drove left... a part of the country that's already solidly left-leaning to begin with.
I admit it's been a little amusing seeing conservatives on other sites complaining about how Obama swung the vote back his way by getting to appear bipartisan and competent, though. Yeah, man, the dude convinced people he'd make a good president who can do his job well no matter what happens by... being a good president that did his job well no matter what happened. How evil of him!
Ron Paul won the nomination for Republican candidate - and he probably would have won had they run him because of his monetary reform (replace parasitic FED with gold standard). They really killed the golden goose!
And, uh, no. Ron Paul was never a contender. Thank the heavens for the Republicans being that sane, at least.
The gold standard would kill us, just like the legal-equivalent gold standard the Euro is stuck in is killing them. If you want to see what the gold standard would do to the US, the Euro crisis is a textbook example.
Nothing will happen, since there are things backing up that amount: Labor, products, resources, and services. The Fed prints money when we need money to keep the economy expanding, and to boost exports, boost imports, raise inflation, curb inflation, etc. as needed to keep the economy running smoothly.
We can't do that with a gold standard. If we need more money to grow the economy with, we're boned, since we can't do that. If we need to boost exports to grow our economy, we're boned, since we can't do that. Do you want the US to experience what Greece and other Euro countries are experiencing right now? Because that's what will happen if we adopt a gold standard.
Ironically what you should be hating is the private bankers and investors, as every day the stock market produces money not actually connected to anything. It's the Fed's job to compensate for that and other financial foibles and keep the economy from crashing as a result.
Seriously, you gold standard people need to take Economics 101 on what the gold standard would do and how the Fed actually works; it's embarrassing every time you bring up this ignorant BS. Here's the facts: [link][link][link][link][link]
It's the private bankers you need to worry about. I'd be all over an audit and regulation of the private banking system. But the Fed basically exists to keep the economy from crashing every time the financial sector does something stupid. Without it we'd be even more fucked.
Hi did you even go to the link and watch the video? The 15 TRILLION DOLLAR amount was back up by a fraudulent amount of gold. The amount of gold that it is claimed backed it up HAS NEVER BEEN MINED IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND. It is a fraud hence the call for a parliamentary inquiry. And it is a FED fraud since Ben Bernanke's signature is on the document.
Please read that article and view the speech before commenting.
...uhm, yes, retard, that's why the country moved from a gold standard to fiat currency to begin with. Because the amount of money needed to keep the economy growing enough to sustain everyone was impossible to back up with gold.
It's almost like that's the entire fucking reason why the gold standard doesn't and cannot ever work, as explained by the links I gave you.