Each one of these Republicans have something to say about Romneys " gifts "remarks
The Conservatives still haven't figured out that they are the small party. Romney was promising gifts as well, just that it was to the top 5% of the population. The real issue for Romney was that he was pandering to a smaller segment of society, one that is not large enough to get him elected.
It really is amazing on how the Conservatives can get the vote out. They were able to get women out to vote, they were able to get the Americans of Hispanic heritage out to vote, they inspired young people to get out and vote, and American followers of the Muslim faith found reason to get out and vote, and especially the poor and the elderly saw a need to get out and vote. I wonder how much it cost them for all of those votes besides the election?
OMG,the M.B. didn't let my earlier post go thru---??? Anyway, don't forget that women make up the majority of ANY group that the pundits credit for re-electing Pres. Obama.
Never underestimate the female electorate---the GOP had to learn the hard way.
Yes, Women, especially single Women rose up and told Willard "Hold this between your knees and light the fuse" and he did...
This made print in the MB but all the good parts were edited out for whatever reason....My reasons for posting it here un-edited....
Odd how your letters are edited while FrankAquilla's are printed word-for-word.
Speaking of Frank, odd how he wrote a letter trying to blame Obama for an economic collaps of his own prediction while no less than a week ago he said on the same topic of his letter " I also believe that the Republicans are leading this country to a slow death."
I wonder when Frank will take note of the facts you mention above and give up and fade into obscurity along with pretty much everyone he has ever supported politically.
Hey, Larry! Before you all keep taking that victory lap and spiking the ball like the President has done, I'd remind you that Barak Obama's re-election victory was hardly a resounding mandate from the American people. Yes, he won. Whether it was by one vote or a million, he did win. But when you criticize the opposition for calling it close, it was much closer than his first election. You see, some of us knew his record after four years... and that did some damage.
Let's look at the popular vote. In 2008, the unknown golden boy got 53% but in 2012 just 50.5%. Fewer people voted... or voted for third party candidates. Hardly a mandate.
In numbers, Barak Obama beat John McCain in 2008 by about 8-10 million votes, depending on your source. He only beat Mitt Romney by about three million votes. When over 120 million votes are cast, three million is close.
So, enjoy the victory... you did win. But be aware that it wasn't a landslide, even in the electoral college. In 2008, Barak Obama won 365-173. This time it was 323 - 206. Any way you look at it, Mr. Obama had better be aware that almost half the voters did NOT want him in office... and given the opportunity wouldn't mind seeing him removed.
Excuses excuses Bull153.
What would you say if we looked at REALITY Bull153! You know, that pesky thing that keeps bugging you TeaParty disciples.
The 2004 Bush/Karry election was SUBSTANTIALLY CLOSER (50/49 v 51/47 and 286 v 332). Odd thing with that election: Bush was the President for four years after that! Shock!
Bull153, stop with the melodrama: you are embarrassing yourself.
So sad when the LOSER needs to some how justify their loss. The President has never been elected by the popular vote for a reason, and in this case, the STATES spoke and they handily voted in favor of the sitting President.
"But be aware that it wasn't a landslide" - This is not a requirement, nor does this make a good president. By most standards, Clinton was a successful President, and he did not have a landslide election. Now at least one of the major debt/deficit generating Presidents, Reagan, won by a landslide, and we are still paying for his "gifts" that he gave away. Now, we know that it took the Conservative Supreme Court to give Ol W his win since the people weren't going to give it to him.
"Mr. Obama had better be aware that almost half the voters did NOT want him in office..." - Since the elderly losers want to play with perceptions, let us remember that only about 1/3 of the population voted, or about half of those eligible to vote did so. So in reality, Obama needs to be aware that 1/6th of the population voted against him, so that leaves him knowing that 5/6 ths didn't vote against him. Pretty good numbers for him to proceed on, I would say.
All the losers have is perception, but then again, that is all the Conservatives ever have since reality rarely works in their favor.
Funny how Bull now claims 323 to 206 was close. Remember what Rush said before the election when he was predicting the winner, he said it wouldn not even be close, Romney would get over 300 votes. Now that it was Obama who got those votes, suddenly it's close.... Spike and a belly-bump....
It does, for those who write the laws and control the money, they are elected by the popular vote. The President presides over the Union of States, he is therefor elected by the States.
Hey, Moe... wow is your math off. I guess when you are depending on a moron like Curly and an incompetent like Larry, I can see where you'd go wrong. Nyuk... nyuk... nyuk!!! Gotta keep Larry from slapping you silly and Curly from bopping you on the head!
One... I am not justifying anything. I simply point out that almost half of the electorate didn't want Mr. Obama reelected. The population doesn't count... only eligible voters. Most of the people you seem to think support the big O are either under age, unregistered, ineligible to vote, or illegal.
Two... you said it. Clinton was successful... Obama not so much. I don't care about landslides. Your guy won - OK. Doesn't mean we aren't gonna regret it in four years.
Three... The point is... and you all missed it... IF the great Obama was such a successful and beloved president for all he accomplished in his first term... AND more people were recruited to register and vote... THEN WHY didn't he win in a landslide? WHY was his popular vote so much LESS than in 2008? WHY was his electoral college total LESS than in 2008. Hardly a vote of confidence from the American people...
So.... hop in your clown car and take Curly our for his morning walk, he gets cranky if you don't change him and give him a lollypop... Nyuk... nyuk... nyuk!!!
Spike and a belly bump? More like a poke and a bop on the head! Nyuk... nyuk... nyuk!!!
You said once: "I agree that it is indeed 'unfortunate that some are unable to express disagreement with the perspective of others without resorting to an ambush of snide comments and insults. Sad, really, that some must tear others down to build themselves up.' Your point is well taken, others would do well to take notice."
Now look at you past 20 or so posts. They are NOTHING but an "ambush of snide comments and insults."
So, I agree with your original comment and find your current set of commentary unfortunate and sad really. Many people thought there was hope with you and you were more mature and capable of rational discussion. I disagreed completely but held out some hope. This is one of the few times were I'm disappointed at being so correct.
Batgal, thanks for the correction....even sounds better, doesn't it Bull? :-)
Bull, my math was off? You had the same score...:-)
"THEN WHY didn't he win in a landslide? WHY was his popular vote so much LESS than in 2008? WHY was his electoral college total LESS than in 2008." - Why didnt they vote for a Conservative? Ends that conversation!
Suits me... Sov didn't answer the questions anyway. It is tough when your own math just doesn't add up.
That doesn't make much sense Sov, by your logic we could say mayors shouldn't get elected by popular vote because the mayor governs over different neighborhoods. Why does the governor get elected by popular vote if a state is comprised of many many towns, cities, counties, etc. That's not much of an argument for your case IMO, might need to come up with a better excuse to protect the stupid electoral college.
What Democrats seem to be missing is the Obama administration might as well be Republican because 3/4 of the "grand bargain" is stuff only Republicans seem to like and even amongst them these proposals don't get a lot of support by a lot of them. And remember this was all before negotiations started...
Oh how much we all love our democracy where the people get to vote for a politician to do the things we don't want them to do so his rich friends are protected. Yay my side of the coin won! Now when the cuts to Medicare come they will come from the guy that I like!
Romney sure didn't fool this white voter. He is no better than a used car salesman and his politics would only better his rick buddies. To top it off he is a sore loser who is bent on blaming everyone else for his loss, which can pretty much sum up the republican party. Until they try to reach ALL the electorate... they will lose every time.
C_N, you can question the logic all you want, but its not my logic, its the founders logic.
Its unfortunate that the claim that we are a Democracy is a misstatement, we are a Republic, and the process was devised by people who were not looking to have a popular vote for the President or create a Democracy, but rather the states vote for the chief executive since we are a union of states. The Constitution is nothing more than a contract between the various states. There was plenty of debate as to whether there be a chief executive at all. It makes complete sense as to how they devised the process, but in the end it is a representative form of government, and representatives decide on the President. The only reason you or anyone else would state that the electoral college is stupid is because you believe in the direct election by the people. That isn't this country and it never has been. Read your history books to understand why.
Look at the last two presidents from theDemocratic Party and they may as well have been moderate Republicans. That is because Democrats have been too weak kneed to say what they believe in and to fight for it. That is why the health care reform is nothing more than health insurance reform and really has nothing to do with healthcare reform. If they had more of a spine, there would have been single payer instead of what we ended up with.
Do you agree with that logic? Would you support changing the Constitution to allow the popular vote to elect the president?
Democracy or a Republic, the point still stands. We were devised by a white, male, landowning elite, many of whom held slaves in chains, excuse me if I disregard what their plans were for a moment. You and I both know the Constitution allows for change, so let's not pretend like we can't change it to where the president is elected by popular vote. State representatives also used to choose who our Senators were until the 17th Amendment came along and said Senators will be elected by a popular vote. I find it a little insulting that you think I'm ignorant on the subject instead of just being against it. Representative government doesn't have to mean representatives choose other representatives but that we the people elect who it is who will represent us. You say that it's not this country and never has been but forget that I'm not a man who bases his opinion on tradition or popular opinion. But even so I hear plenty of bickering on both sides all the time about the electoral college. Keye and Peel did a great comedy sketch around election season on the electoral college, you heard conservatives complain about the electoral college when they thought Romney won the popular vote, you heard liberals complain about the electoral college when Gore won the popular vote but not the electoral. You only seem to be making an argument for tradition and authority(one that could be changed if you wanted it to).
And at what point are Democrats just sellout politicians instead of weak kneed politicians? Because this has been going on for a very long time, I read an article from 1968 and I could have sworn it was written yesterday about the same crap today. D.C. is a stage where professional liars go to act and we're sitting here thinking it's real. They get money from the same group, they get jobs afterwards making the big bucks, and all they have to do is act like they're weak kneed and can't take on Republicans after they win elections against them. They're not afraid of the people, they're afraid Mr. Moneybags isn't going to drop by to give them money one day if he says something they don't like, they don't mind being tough on regular people.
The idea on the national stage is to try and make the election fair for people across the whole country rather than just population centers. Otherwise, Presidential candidates would just be in New York and Los Angeles.
What is even more interesting would be if Puerto Rico becomes the 51st state. The GOP will fight tooth and nail to keep Puerto Rico out of the Union for no reason other than the electoral college advantage democrats would get from Puerto Rico.
Amazing how we can see even locally, these ultra conservatives - that call themselves 'moderates'- run through the stages of grief. Denial was quick and the anger phase now seems to be shifting toward bargaining. I can't wait until they finally just accept the election and get over it already.