0
Gravitymaster

The "Why Republicans Lost" thread

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

That women are tired of that, hence Obama got the woman vote.



Wrong, it's because those woman don't know their Founding Principles.

This issue is easily resolved with the Constitution.

Who owns your body after God, You or the government? Same exact issue with Marijuana... both are Limited Government issues.


Quote

GOP needs to forget about Row v. Wade and
move on.



Wrong... we need the Constitution.

R vs W... is right result, wrong reason.


Quote

Personally both REPs and DEms are the same.



Correct, it's called Progressivism. Same cancer that has infected both parties.


Quote

Both only concentrate on filling their own personal coffers via insider trading and off line deal making.



Study history, its called Human Nature... which the Constitution does the best job to prevent, instead of Crony Crap-itialism which we have currently.


Quote

We need a new party (middle class party)



The Constitution has no classes, and Washington warned us about parties in his farewell address.

We need, The Pursuit of Happiness.



I smell a Randian.

Am I close?



I'm getting lost in who you are talking to. You're quoting multiple posters.
For me (OHCHUTE) Atlas Shrugged was so horribly written I never got through the first chapter. I do believe in going after your goals even if there is conflict. Any business person knows that. There's all kinds of conflicts if your off your butt trying to make o of yourself. That is the reason many business people are in court due to conflicts. The welfare group are in court mainly because they've done something wrong. They get the benefit of having their lawyers paid for while the business person has legal bills.

No I don't like have to pay 89 cents for store brand can of corn while the welfare person get Del Monte corn for free priced at $1.38 a can as they walk out to their Lexis after getting a nearly free bag of groceries. Should I fight to overcome that injustice or lay down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>No I don't like have to pay 89 cents for store brand can of corn while the welfare
>person get Del Monte corn for free priced at $1.38 a can as they walk out to their Lexis
>after getting a nearly free bag of groceries. Should I fight to overcome that injustice or
>lay down.

That would indeed be an injustice. But the rich welfare queen who lives in the lap of luxury* is an illusion; it doesn't really happen, and is one of those stalking horses that are used to justify political agendas. The guy getting the "nearly free bag of groceries" is much more likely to be someone clipping coupons than someone who is getting the government to pay for it.

(free big screen TV, free Lexus, free Obamaphone, free food, free makeovers, you name it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>No I don't like have to pay 89 cents for store brand can of corn while the welfare
>person get Del Monte corn for free priced at $1.38 a can as they walk out to their Lexis
>after getting a nearly free bag of groceries. Should I fight to overcome that injustice or
>lay down.

That would indeed be an injustice. But the rich welfare queen who lives in the lap of luxury* is an illusion; it doesn't really happen, and is one of those stalking horses that are used to justify political agendas. The guy getting the "nearly free bag of groceries" is much more likely to be someone clipping coupons than someone who is getting the government to pay for it.

(free big screen TV, free Lexus, free Obamaphone, free food, free makeovers, you name it.)



I buy grocery's. I'm behind the women paying for grocery's with her stamps. I see it. It's not a myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>You have no clue what the Pursuit of Happiness means.

And you didn't even know which document it's in.



Quote

The Constitution has no classes, and Washington warned us about parties in his farewell address.

We need, The Pursuit of Happiness.



Two Separate Sentences...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>You mean like the Liberals (Communists)?

The liberals (communists) seemed to get what they wanted this election cycle. How did the conservatives (racists) do?



It's safe to say they mostly lost in the primaries meaning many of the races on Tuesday were between two liberals like Obama and Romney.

Compare and contrast what the two presidential contenders actually did (as opposed to what they said, because politicians can say anything to get elected and then do the opposite) on health care :

As governor Mitt Romney passed a universal health care law we call "Romneycare". It requires citizens to buy health insurance from private industry. It imposes tax penalties on those who fail to purchase plans deemed affordable to them. It subsidizes those purchases from private industry for citizens not far enough above the poverty level.

As president Barack Obama passed a universal health care law we call "Obamcare". It requires citizens to buy health insurance from private industry. It imposes tax penalties on those who fail to purchase plans deemed affordable to them. It subsidizes those purchases from private industry for citizens not far enough above the poverty level.

Then there's guns. While Obama talks about banning assault weapons, Romney actually signed a ban.

This liberal take-over of the Republican party is nothing new.

Bush 43 saddled America with the most progressive income tax system (defined as the top earning decile's share of tax to share of income - although people make a big stink about the cuts that went to "the wealthy" his tax cuts on the less affluent moved us from second to first place) out of the OECD 24 including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, The Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and The United Kingdom.

Even Reagan was a liberal. He contributed to the 47% by expanding the earned income credit. He got the capital gains rate raised to match the earned income rate (something which had never happened before and hasn't happened since). He signed off on amnesty for 3 million illegal alliens of all ages (nearly 4 times the 800,000 kids who got here before they turned 16, have been here at least five years, and are still under 30 let in by Obama). If Obama ran against him he'd probably have lost as the more conservative candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>No I don't like have to pay 89 cents for store brand can of corn while the welfare
>person get Del Monte corn for free priced at $1.38 a can as they walk out to their Lexis
>after getting a nearly free bag of groceries. Should I fight to overcome that injustice or
>lay down.

That would indeed be an injustice. But the rich welfare queen who lives in the lap of luxury* is an illusion; it doesn't really happen, and is one of those stalking horses that are used to justify political agendas. The guy getting the "nearly free bag of groceries" is much more likely to be someone clipping coupons than someone who is getting the government to pay for it.

(free big screen TV, free Lexus, free Obamaphone, free food, free makeovers, you name it.)



I buy grocery's. I'm behind the women paying for grocery's with her stamps. I see it. It's not a myth.



Assuming you're referring to the plural "groceries" and the singular "woman", do you have the slightest idea what that womAn's personal and financial circumstances are? Or is that level of analysis just not something you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

>No I don't like have to pay 89 cents for store brand can of corn while the welfare
>person get Del Monte corn for free priced at $1.38 a can as they walk out to their Lexis
>after getting a nearly free bag of groceries. Should I fight to overcome that injustice or
>lay down.

That would indeed be an injustice. But the rich welfare queen who lives in the lap of luxury* is an illusion; it doesn't really happen, and is one of those stalking horses that are used to justify political agendas. The guy getting the "nearly free bag of groceries" is much more likely to be someone clipping coupons than someone who is getting the government to pay for it.

(free big screen TV, free Lexus, free Obamaphone, free food, free makeovers, you name it.)



I buy grocery's. I'm behind the women paying for grocery's with her stamps. I see it. It's not a myth.



Assuming you're referring to the plural "groceries" and the singular "woman", do you have the slightest idea what that womAn's personal and financial circumstances are? Or is that level of analysis just not something you do?


Yes, I do. Seeing she is buying expensive corn with food stamps show me the gov't is totally out of control in letting that happen. Why do I have to buy the store brand product while the welfare lady get Del Monte. What brand do you buy? And are you on food stamps also? I don't give a hoot about her financial situation as I'm concerned about mine. If you are so concerned about others welfare then please send me a money order for the difference between the store brand and the Del Monte and we'll just call it even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


7. They believed their own pollsters.



This election, I was watching Intrade closely. Here is it's historical data on the POTUS election: http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

Now look at Nate Silvers "Chance of Winning" graph on the righthand side of this page: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
(You can run your cursor across it to get data for specific dates.)

So while the pollsters, pundits, and media were going on, and on, and on, about what a "close" race it was, these two independent sources were showing similar data indicating it never was a close race.

Note that this data is not predicting percentages of popular vote, but just probability of who will win.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>No I don't like have to pay 89 cents for store brand can of corn while the welfare
>person get Del Monte corn for free priced at $1.38 a can as they walk out to their Lexis
>after getting a nearly free bag of groceries. Should I fight to overcome that injustice or
>lay down.

That would indeed be an injustice. But the rich welfare queen who lives in the lap of luxury* is an illusion; it doesn't really happen, and is one of those stalking horses that are used to justify political agendas. The guy getting the "nearly free bag of groceries" is much more likely to be someone clipping coupons than someone who is getting the government to pay for it.

(free big screen TV, free Lexus, free Obamaphone, free food, free makeovers, you name it.)



I buy grocery's. I'm behind the women paying for grocery's with her stamps. I see it. It's not a myth.



Assuming you're referring to the plural "groceries" and the singular "woman", do you have the slightest idea what that womAn's personal and financial circumstances are? Or is that level of analysis just not something you do?


Yes, I do. Seeing she is buying expensive corn with food stamps show me the gov't is totally out of control in letting that happen. Why do I have to buy the store brand product while the welfare lady get Del Monte. What brand do you buy? And are you on food stamps also? I don't give a hoot about her financial situation as I'm concerned about mine. If you are so concerned about others welfare then please send me a money order for the difference between the store brand and the Del Monte and we'll just call it even.



Well, Mr. No-Name-Entered-Registered-5 Nov-2012, no-one forces you to buy any brand. You CHOOSE to buy store brand and apparently you have enough money to skydive.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It will be posted soon. Its gonna need to come with some other aspects as well.



So you don't know what it is yet either?



Oh Shucks, [finger snap] ya got me.

Perhaps while you wait for Coco's Classroom to convene, you could look back at prior posts and find the word that someone posted, that I said was close, but didn't finish it.

The other aspects, are further information regarding original intent; from the manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you are one of those people who don't think the Constitution should be taken as-is; that it should be reinterpreted in light of other documents. That's fine. But it's a bit hypocritical to get all offended when other people do the same.



I would seriously appreciate an elaboration. The more I read this the less sense it is making to me, given the statements I have made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You put a business man who used every loop hole to not pay his share! Thats a choice ;that most americans who have suffered through the economic down turn by no fault of there own will not like. I dont blame them.

But the root reason is the gop used to be progressive now they are not. People thankfully are evolving and the gop is anti evolution no pun intended.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wasn't talking to you.

coco seems like a randian/objectivist, even if he doesn't realize it.

Also, to reiterate my previous post which no one read or responded to because it was apparently too long and not written in sound bite form:

they lost because:

economy
social issues
demographics
ground game
strawmen issues hammered about by the right wing media (LIBYA SANDY BIRTH CERTIFICATE MOOSLIM!)
living in an information bubble.

there, short enough for you? now, let's argue about my completely unexplained, out of context sound bytes instead of what i actually said, like everyone else around here does.

*edited to add.. "you" in the latter half of this post is the general you, not specifically directed to ohchute
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

coco seems like a randian/objectivist, even if he doesn't realize it.



I would say, Franklin... but how do you figure? I haven't read any of her books, but I am aware of the basics. Like knowing she is Godless.

I didn't respond because I don't agree, nor really care. He lost. So lets stop nominating McCain's and Romney's... and collectivism will lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mitt Romney lost because he ran a very poor campaign.

His economic plan was "Vote for me and you will see". He had no real plan to create the jobs he predicted.

Naming Ryan as VP was a very poor choice. His budget plan doesn't add up and the older population is afraid of him.

Bashing gay rights and playing the God card is a losing battle.

The lingering odor of GWB didn't help.

A lot of people love Bill Clinton. When you can't bring out a Republican President to help fund raise and support your party's candidate, game over.
And if Obama keeps improving the economy and reaches some sort of debt reduction deal with Boehner, he will be a formidable fundraiser for the next election. The Republicans always rally around a dead guy, Ronald Reagan. Most voters don't know who he was and informed voters know he was one of the worst presidents in history.

Mitt being a Mormon scared some voters.

His flip flopping was ridiculous.

His Jeeps to China lie was a whopper.

Take a close look at the last Republican presidents since Ike.
Nixon, left in shame.
Ford was a non factor.
Ronald Reagan crapped all over the Constitution, allowed amnesty to millions of illegals, ran up the national credit card and should have been in jail over Iran-Contra.
Bush 1 was a one termer.
Bush 2 was the worst president in modern history.
There's not much to run on.

Until the Republican party can get a candidate that can run a brilliant grass roots campaign, it will be an uphill battle in today's changing demographics.

Having Fox News folks like Ann Coulter say Romney will lose, primary battles where ever Republican says Mitt isn't a conservative and other same team pundits not rallying behind him wasn't ver helpful either.

When they lost in MA, MI and WI, what does that tell you????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Until the Republican party can get a candidate that can run a brilliant grass roots campaign, it will be an uphill battle in today's changing demographics.



The republicans already had such a candidate in front of their face -- twice. His name is Ron Paul, and his party ignored and laughed at him.
He also appealed to a comparatively broad demographic. For example, Snoop Dogg supported him. :ph34r:

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Quote

I buy grocery's. I'm behind the women paying for grocery's with her stamps. I see it. It's not a myth.



You have actually seen a person use food stamps? that's interesting, seeing how they haven't used stamps in almost 15 years.



WIC is on the Demonte Brand and not on the store brand. WIC is plastered all over the store on products. Yes the woman hands the cashier her WIC card or what ever you call it and she paid $14 for $80 worth of groceries.

The card you use (a credit card if you have one) you have to pay for the food--full price. Are you aware the Del Monte is also private label firm and corn in both cans are the same! Why are we allowing the person to have the more expensive corn when corn is corn. And what infant is eating can corn anyway? They don't even have teeth! That the mothers who supposedly needs food for an infant needs corn, potato chips and soda also WIC approved.


Read all about the WIC here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIC

Liberal idiots, just give them what they want and don't worry about what it cost. Perhaps they should be allowed to get caviar on the WIC at $88 an once. I gather babies could gum caviar a lot easier than corn and get more nutrition to boot.

You line of thinking is foolish. Spending more when you really don't have too the reason we are heading to the fiscal cliff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Perhaps while you wait for Coco's Classroom to convene, you could look back at prior posts and find the word that someone posted, that I said was close, but didn't finish it.



I could, but why?

Quote

The other aspects, are further information regarding original intent; from the manual.



Go on then, let's have it.










Naaah, you're just chuteless in disguise.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Mitt Romney lost because he ran a very poor campaign.

His economic plan was "Vote for me and you will see". He had no real plan to create the jobs he predicted.

Naming Ryan as VP was a very poor choice. His budget plan doesn't add up and the older population is afraid of him.

Bashing gay rights and playing the God card is a losing battle.

The lingering odor of GWB didn't help.

A lot of people love Bill Clinton. When you can't bring out a Republican President to help fund raise and support your party's candidate, game over.
And if Obama keeps improving the economy and reaches some sort of debt reduction deal with Boehner, he will be a formidable fundraiser for the next election. The Republicans always rally around a dead guy, Ronald Reagan. Most voters don't know who he was and informed voters know he was one of the worst presidents in history.

Mitt being a Mormon scared some voters.

His flip flopping was ridiculous.

His Jeeps to China lie was a whopper.

Take a close look at the last Republican presidents since Ike.
Nixon, left in shame.
Ford was a non factor.
Ronald Reagan crapped all over the Constitution, allowed amnesty to millions of illegals, ran up the national credit card and should have been in jail over Iran-Contra.
Bush 1 was a one termer.
Bush 2 was the worst president in modern history.
There's not much to run on.

Until the Republican party can get a candidate that can run a brilliant grass roots campaign, it will be an uphill battle in today's changing demographics.

Having Fox News folks like Ann Coulter say Romney will lose, primary battles where ever Republican says Mitt isn't a conservative and other same team pundits not rallying behind him wasn't ver helpful either.

When they lost in MA, MI and WI, what does that tell you????



Yep, a party out of touch with their own party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0