Obama WINS!!

[socket]

I'm aware that at one time way, way, way back the right was more fiscally liberal and the left more fiscally conservative when it comes to how large a role government should play in the peoples lives.

I've also heard it said over and over that the parties switched with regard to racism, I've heard it said this switch took place back around the civil war time, but I've also heard it claimed that it happened once again after the civil rights act was passed. Now in this case I've yet to see any factual information to support it, none. I would be happy for someone to point out how exactly this change supposedly took place, seriously!

I think the civil rights era may have had an impact on the old "solid south", but only for a short time. I think the biggest impact to turn the south from blue to red is the religious right movement. It's not called the Bible belt for nothing. But my opinion is not very well researched, it's just my perception


Why the hell are some of you're quotes from m314 showing up as mine? Did you notice that? I don't mind being quoted, but I don't like being quoted for something I never wrote/spoke DAmn website!!

[SP1966]

Why the hell are some of you're quotes from m314 showing up as mine? Did you notice that? I don't mind being quoted, but I don't like being quoted for something I never wrote/spoke DAmn website!!

Copy & Paste is a powerful tool, to powerful when in stupid hands! I fixed that post.

[GuyJin]

SP used the wrong 'to'. Just sayin'.....

With Obama, he's got a lot of problems to contend with. He has a pretty decent track record with human rights, gay rights (pandering to the mob, maybe, but whatever) and comes across as a people person. Okay, I have nothing against two gay people having a civil union. I just don't call it a 'marriage'. But if they want to wed, fine by me. No biggie. Abortion should always be a woman's choice, plain and simple. You can argue about the sanctity of life all you like--and it is a big issue--but the state should never impose its values upon anyone. Period.

Someone mentioned his record on giving loans out to the solar power companies and yes, not only risky but stupid. What was even dumber were the loans to the housing companies which cost billions, put people out of their homes, and screwed up the economy. Yes, a lot of that happened under Bush Jr. but to be fair, he did warn against it. Obama basically let it slide and look what happened.

The question everyone asks is why Obama won. Really, the Republicans should be asking themselves why they lost. They backed Romney who came across as flip-flopping all over the place, not owning up to Bain Capital, and seemingly catering the anti-abortion, very conservative element as m314 mentioned on page 8 of this wonderful thread. Republicans are entitled to have and keep their values--as they should--but I'd have to agree with him (m314): they seem hopelessly and helplessly out of touch with the things the Dems are very good at marking--human rights, immigration, and job creation (or so Obama promises).

What the Rep. party needs to do is focus in on the jobs thing. Creating them, lowering taxes, less spending, less gov't intrusion, and a bit more of a social conscience. Romney's '47 percent' argument killed his campaign. It came across as insensitive and downright stupid and Obama jumped on it--as he should have.

The big thing which worries me is Obama's foreign policy--it appears too cautious in many cases. Caution implies weakness as many foreign countries may interpret it. Right or wrong, he has to seize the day and not wait and then react. The other thing is Obamacare, the sustainablity of it. I asked this question on another forum and got crickets. People think it will mean cutting certain programs i.e. the military. While I'm not a warmonger, other countries are pushing for regional dominance (China for one, and those nutty Iranian gov't scumbags, for another. Not the people but their leaders). The US canNOT afford to lose its power but I fear Obama might try to reduce the forces unduly. Less waste is always good, but too much cutting is not good for US interests in the international sense.

[SP1966]

SP used the wrong 'to'. Just sayin'.....

There are two too many tos if you ask me.

[socket]

Copy & Paste is a powerful tool, to powerful when in stupid hands! I fixed that post.

Thank you!!!! My mind was getting ready to explode!!!!!!!!



Not really, but it did fck me up a first. I was reading them trying to think of what thread I posted them in I was starting to wonder if I was "sleep posting" or something

[cowboybiker]

there are two too many tos if you ask me.

x2.

[Karl_Hungus]

Republicans don't have to turn into Democrats. They need to move away from the social policies of Evangelical Christians if they're going to win elections in the future. I don't want to start an argument about gay rights, but that's one issue where some Republican leaders seem hopelessly out of touch to the younger generations of voters. When the Republican Party makes eliminating pornography part of their official platform, that alienates a huge number of young voters. Younger generations are increasingly against the policies of legislating Christian morality in this country. Some people do vote on these issues.

Again, these are non-issues that have NO impact on any election. Further, some of the stuff above is just silly .... Did Romney mention anything about pornography on the campaign trail? Nope, because it is a non-issue. Nobody cares about it. You are throwing out useless red herrings here.

[Karl_Hungus]

Just on these quick values I am already in the f'cking middle.

Economic Ideas: D ~ Raise taxes on the rich not the poor or middle class

Actually, repubs want to lower taxes on everybody (poor, middle class, and the rich). Dems talk about taxing the rich and corporations and fomenting class warfare, but in reality, those taxes end up getting passed on the poor and middle class.

[paolo59]

ugh, right.. all liberals are moochers of the system! That lame statement is so baseless. Nobody is trying to give anyone a free ride. Look outside your borders. Other countries implement social programs in order to help people improve their lives and give them a better chance to succeed and it works. Yes, some will abuse the system but that's always going to happen. There's much less poverty and much less income inequality in Canada and our taxes are WAY higher than yours. I find it odd that the right, (the majority of which consider themselves christian), have such a "me me me" attitude towards social policy.

Most liberals are just stupid. They believe the larger the government is, the better it is for everyone. Never mind the fact that billions fall through the fingers of the Federal Government minute by minute. It is worse than the most 'suspect' of charitable organizations. For every dollar spent, 20 to 30 cents actually does some good. As far as the great majority who voted for Obama, they aren't liberals. Hell, they don't know what they are. They're just looking for the outstretched hand of the Federal Government to meet their needs. And by the way, someone else should always pay for those needs.

[m314]

Again, these are non-issues that have NO impact on any election. Further, some of the stuff above is just silly .... Did Romney mention anything about pornography on the campaign trail? Nope, because it is a non-issue. Nobody cares about it. You are throwing out useless red herrings here.

I didn't vote just on these issues, but some people do. Obama automatically won the vote of the vast majority of gays and lesbians when he came out for gay marriage. Even some of the Log Cabin Republicans voted for Obama this time because one candidate was clearly on their side and one candidate wasn't. Some people with gay relatives voted that way too, not because of economic issues. Not everyone follows the economic issues that closely. Some vote based on emotional issues like this.

Romney didn't come out and personally talk about pornography like Santorum did, but there was a sh*tstorm on slashdot, facebook and some other sites I'm on when they changed the party platform a few months ago. People were joking about it (they can take my porn when they pry it from my warm sticky hands), but a lot of people were seriously pissed off. They didn't want to vote for someone who would try to censor the internet, even if Romney didn't say that personally. The Republican Party officially endorsed that position.

I wouldn't vote just on that issue either, but when you put them all together it seems like one party is for personal freedom and the other one isn't. The Republican Party isn't like that as a whole, but it seems like the evangelicals are the ones currently in control of the party. I have nothing against evangelical Christians either; I just don't want them telling me how to live my personal life. The younger voters feel that way in increasingly higher numbers.

[Karl_Hungus]

I didn't vote just on these issues, but some people do.

Not enough to impact an election.

I wouldn't vote just on that issue either, but when you put them all together it seems like one party is for personal freedom and the other one isn't.

You mean personal freedoms like telling bars they can't allow smoking? Or restaurants prevented from allowing you to buy soft drinks of a certain size? Or how much salt you can put in your food? Whether you can own a gun? Or speech codes? etc. Yup, dems are definitely the party of personal freedoms

If any part of your contention was true, Ron Paul would have huge support during his many presidential bids. The fact is, he doesn't. Let's be honest here -- The things you mention are issues that are important to YOU ... but they aren't issues that largely drive elections.

[m314]

Not enough to impact an election.

When there's less than a 2% difference between the winner and loser, social issues like this most certainly make a difference.

You mean personal freedoms like telling bars they can't allow smoking? Or restaurants prevented from allowing you to buy soft drinks of a certain size? Or how much salt you can put in your food? Whether you can own a gun? Or speech codes? etc. Yup, dems are definitely the party of personal freedoms

Bloomberg became mayor of New York as a Republican. I don't know what you mean about speech codes, but Republicans want to restrict free speech too. Some of them, anyway. The issues you listed are part of the reason why I'm a Libertarian. Republicans (some) want to let bars set their own smoking policies, but they want to put people in prison for smoking a safer plant. Democrats (some) want people to be free to smoke that safer plant, but they want to make tobacco increasingly expensive and eventually illegal. I'd rather just let people and businesses decide what's best for themselves. The same goes for gun ownership, food, personal relationships, etc.

If any part of your contention was true, Ron Paul would have huge support during his many presidential bids. The fact is, he doesn't. Let's be honest here -- The things you mention are issues that are important to YOU ... but they aren't issues that largely drive elections.

Ron Paul did have support this time. He did better this time than he ever had, but it wasn't enough to beat Romney. He didn't win partly because of his personality and lack of charisma. A lot of people think he's too extreme on economic issues too. I'm not saying a different candidate with his positions would have won the election, but I am saying the Republicans would do better in a general election if they followed his lead on social tolerance. Every generation is more socially liberal (or socially tolerant) than the one before. Social conservatives just won't do as well in future elections if they hold on to their old views.

[13donniedarko]

Ron Paul did have support this time. He did better this time than he ever had, but it wasn't enough to beat Romney. He didn't win partly because of his personality and lack of charisma. A lot of people think he's too extreme on economic issues too. I'm not saying a different candidate with his positions would have won the election, but I am saying the Republicans would do better in a general election if they followed his lead on social tolerance. Every generation is more socially liberal (or socially tolerant) than the one before. Social conservatives just won't do as well in future elections if they hold on to their old views.

I think it was because of the mainstream media shunning him.

[m314]

I think it was because of the mainstream media shunning him.

That was part of it. The media did the best they could to ignore him. I don't think he'll run again, but I hope he continues to work to influence the direction of the party. I'm hoping a more charismatic leader with Ron Paul's ideas about limited government emerges as the Republican frontrunner in 2016.

[Karl_Hungus]

When there's less than a 2% difference between the winner and loser, social issues like this most certainly make a difference.

Yes, but you are making my original point. You want republicans to become democrats on these issues.

Bloomberg became mayor of New York as a Republican. I don't know what you mean about speech codes, but Republicans want to restrict free speech too. Some of them, anyway

Who generally supports the policies of Bloomberg? Republicans or Democrats? Who is the party of sin taxes? Who is the party that insists on verbal gymnastics in order maintain a politically acceptable expression of ideas? Look, my point isn't to say that republicans are perfect by any stretch. I just disagree with your assertion that democrats are the party of personal freedoms. I don't see it that way at all.

Republicans (some) want to let bars set their own smoking policies, but they want to put people in prison for smoking a safer plant.

Again, this is a non-issue that will have NO impact on an election.

Ron Paul did have support this time. He did better this time than he ever had, but it wasn't enough to beat Romney. He didn't win partly because of his personality and lack of charisma. A lot of people think he's too extreme on economic issues too. I'm not saying a different candidate with his positions would have won the election, but I am saying the Republicans would do better in a general election if they followed his lead on social tolerance. Every generation is more socially liberal (or socially tolerant) than the one before. Social conservatives just won't do as well in future elections if they hold on to their old views.

Ron Paul doesn't do better because you are wrong about people wanting a Libertarian candidate. They don't. With respect to social issues, you are doing exactly what I said in my earlier post. You want republicans to become democrats on these issues. But again, these issues aren't the drivers of elections. The biggest divide is not young/old, but racial. THAT is what is driving these elections, not the issues you mention. Every poll I've seen has shown blacks are overwhelmingly against gay marriage...yet they voted as a block for Obama. Hispanics are largely Catholic, yet they aren't letting the abortion issue stand in the way of voting democrat. The point is, the issues you mention aren't the ones that will move the needle one way or the other.

[Karl_Hungus]

I think it was because of the mainstream media shunning him.

Look, I like Ron Paul. I really do. But we have to be honest here. People don't want a libertarian candidate. They just don't. Most people aren't all that keen on legalizing drugs and prostitution, or an isolationist foreign policy. Ron Paul doesn't do well because his views do not resonate with most Americans.

[acrawlingchaos]

Yes, but you are making my original point. You want republicans to become democrats on these issues.

Who generally supports the policies of Bloomberg? Republicans or Democrats? Who is the party of sin taxes? Who is the party that insists on verbal gymnastics in order maintain a politically acceptable expression of ideas? Look, my point isn't to say that republicans are perfect by any stretch. I just disagree with your assertion that democrats are the party of personal freedoms. I don't see it that way at all.

Again, this is a non-issue that will have NO impact on an election.

Ron Paul doesn't do better because you are wrong about people wanting a Libertarian candidate. They don't. With respect to social issues, you are doing exactly what I said in my earlier post. You want republicans to become democrats on these issues. But again, these issues aren't the drivers of elections. The biggest divide is not young/old, but racial. THAT is what is driving these elections, not the issues you mention. Every poll I've seen has shown blacks are overwhelmingly against gay marriage...yet they voted as a block for Obama. Hispanics are largely Catholic, yet they aren't letting the abortion issue stand in the way of voting democrat. The point is, the issues you mention aren't the ones that will move the needle one way or the other.

Your post and m314s is exactly why bi partisan politics is retarded. There is no voting on issues, and politicians that fall outside of traditional party views rarely succeed.

A successful secular/moderate 3rd party would be a step in the right direction.

[acrawlingchaos]

Look, I like Ron Paul. I really do. But we have to be honest here. People don't want a libertarian candidate. They just don't. Most people aren't all that keen on legalizing drugs and prostitution, or an isolationist foreign policy. Ron Paul doesn't do well because his views do not resonate with most Americans.

There is more support for these platforms than you give credit.

[Karl_Hungus]

There is more support for these platforms than you give credit.

There IS support for them, I just don't think in terms of national elections, that a strong position on either side of these issues will have much of an impact -- And there are more people against them than for them, which means they aren't really political winners.

[acrawlingchaos]

And there are more people against them than for them, which means they aren't really political winners.

On some, not all.

[bodyhard]

Actually, repubs want to lower taxes on everybody (poor, middle class, and the rich). Dems talk about taxing the rich and corporations and fomenting class warfare, but in reality, those taxes end up getting passed on the poor and middle class.

WTF enlighten me here please..

[erinlee01]

I'm not sure we can say no one wants a libertarian candidate. I don't think the people know enough about libertarians because all of the focus in the media and education are on the 2 parties. I was a little surprised that my middle schooler, who is currently learning about the American government, was completely shocked when he went to vote with me and saw that there were more than 2 parties. Until this election, I didn't know much about them, either. I started looking around because I wasn't crazy with either candidate.

I'm not saying that if Americans were as versed in other parties as they were in the democratic and republican parties that they would change and support them. I'm just saying we don't know. Frankly, I don't think many Americans know much about any of the parties and where they stand on anything outside of whatever the media decides to pay attention to.

[mslman71]

I'm all for a Libertarian in a position of power so long as that person is balanced by the other parties. There seems to be a tendency to want to speak in terms of extremes; that is, a government of nothing but Libertarians or any other single party. A balance would be nice.

If the Republicans would move toward (not all the way necessarily) the conservative and tolerant principles of libertarianism they'd have my vote.

[Karl_Hungus]

WTF enlighten me here please..

If you raise taxes on corporations, they generally offset those by raising their prices on goods and services -- Meaning that you and I are paying that tax.

[bodyhard]

If you raise taxes on corporations, they generally offset those by raising their prices on goods and services -- Meaning that you and I are paying that tax.

Ahh OK thats makes sense, I thought you meant taxes from your pay.

So where does the "middle class" bracket ends at, $250,000.00 annually?

[Karl_Hungus]

So where does the "middle class" bracket ends at, $250,000.00 annually?

I'm not sure there is a well-defined middle class metric, as it probably varies quite a bit by region. I bet your dollar will go a lot farther when you move to Virginia than it does NYC.

[bodyhard]

I'm not sure there is a well-defined middle class metric, as it probably varies quite a bit by region. I bet your dollar will go a lot farther when you move to Virginia than it does NYC.

Hmmm,,, good point.

[Wyomann]

I don't agree with the ACA. I think people should buy their own health care. My employer has purchased health care for us, but our paychecks are deducted to pay for it, so we are basically paying for it ourselves.

One mandate that I can not believe is that insurance companies are forced to cover people's children through the age of 26. Are you kidding me? 26 as a "kid". That's just ridiculous. I'm 32 I really have no benefit or loss on this particular mandate, but it's still retarded. I'm sure this means some people's insurance will go up to cover their 25 y/o "kid" insurance. It's more crap designed to make people rely on someone else. At age 26 you should be buying your own and not have your parents insurance forced to cover you.

I'm guessing another reason they did that is because many people under the age of 26 would financially qualify for assistance from the government, so they are making their parents pay for it instead.

[danap3681]

I don't agree with the ACA. I think people should buy their own health care. My employer has purchased health care for us, but our paychecks are deducted to pay for it, so we are basically paying for it ourselves.

One mandate that I can not believe is that insurance companies are forced to cover people's children through the age of 26. Are you kidding me? 26 as a "kid". That's just ridiculous. I'm 32 I really have no benefit or loss on this particular mandate, but it's still retarded. I'm sure this means some people's insurance will go up to cover their 25 y/o "kid" insurance. It's more crap designed to make people rely on someone else. At age 26 you should be buying your own and not have your parents insurance forced to cover you.

I'm guessing another reason they did that is because many people under the age of 26 would financially qualify for assistance from the government, so they are making their parents pay for it instead.

Never thought much about this but what happens if your 25 year old who is still on your insurance ends up pregnant and has a child. Would the grandchild be placed on the insurance as well? Just wondering how all that would work out.

I had my own coverage at age 19 through my employer so if that is the situation you would not be forced to stay on your parents plan right?

[Wyomann]

Never thought much about this but what happens if your 25 year old who is still on your insurance ends up pregnant and has a child. Would the grandchild be placed on the insurance as well? Just wondering how all that would work out.

I had my own coverage at age 19 through my employer so if that is the situation you would not be forced to stay on your parents plan right?

The “ObamaCare” coverage for adult children does not extend to grandchildren.

If your son and daughter-in-law are low income, the baby may qualify for Medicaid. The Medicaid plan can cover just the baby or the baby and mother.