Conquer Club

Army of GOD wrote:THE ELECTIONS OVER STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN POLITICAL THREADS

Don't you have football to watch?

I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.

InkL0sed wrote:I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.

I agree. I'm fascinated by so many things right now.

Boehner reaching out to Obama.
Democrats saying they have a mandate.
What are the Republicans going to do now?

I'm hoping we return to an era like the Clinton years... but I'm realistic.

Can you ever return to the past really? I don't think ever think so. Too many variables. But here's to hoping the future is bright.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Can you ever return to the past really? I don't think ever think so. Too many variables. But here's to hoping the future is bright.


--Andy

I did use the qualifier "like." Jerk.

InkL0sed wrote:I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.

0*x=0

OH MY GOD YOU'RE SO RIGHT

HOW DID I NOT SEE THE TRUTH OF THAT EARLIER

Army of GOD wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.

0*x=0

Not if x is infinity. Derp.

thegreekdog wrote:I read an editorial (I think from Fox) on how the mainstream media cost Romney the election. While I think this is mostly about putting their heads in the sand, it is interesting to read the thoughts.

For example, there were two weeks of regular news commentary on the 47% comment. And I think that's valid. But, as a counterpoint, there was virtually no mention at all of the Benghazi fiasco, which I think is reportable news that shows poorly on the president.

As another example (and something I've brought up a number of times on this form), there was a lot of focus on the lack of detail (or "lies") of Romney/Ryan regarding their fiscal and tax plans. There was no focus on the Obama fiscal and tax plans, which were similarly lacking in detail.

I tended to watch more mainstream media than not, and I didn't see a lot of reporting on any of the negative Obama items. I suspect a study will be done in the near future that shows that the mainstream media was more in bed with Obama, similar to what was done in 2008.

Sorry, Greekdog, but that's just not so, Obama has stated his plan over and over again, it's just that "Republicans" wanted him to fail so much they wouldn't address it, at all, and now it comes up for another fight.

As to did conservatives (pundits or media) con their base? Not really; it was wishful thinking.
1) They discounted that 47% or thought that Obama's "you didn't build that!" would outweigh it as a negative. The problem with that was that most American's who have done well, freely admit that they would have had a much harder time building what they've built without American infrastructure - and that infrastructure (education, freedom to trade state to state without needing to bribe, roads, bridges, ports, railroads, trucks) is PRECISELY what Obama meant when ... you didn't build that.... (all by yourself)
2) They discounted pro-choice Republicans who would be leery of Ryan and leery of Mitt's penchant to change sides/views (they often do discount pro-choicers as though just because THEY want to make abortion illegal, anyone who claims to be Republican wants to make abortion illegal.) Many women were legitimately concerned that Ryan would be convinced to accept someone pushing to make abortion illegal in some form or other; something Ryan openly stated he would like to see.
3) They refused to acknowledge areas where Obama did pretty well, trying to tar him with a "totally incompetent" brush that frankly doesn't fit, if you use critical thinking to analyze what he inherited, what's happened since, and different things he's done. They'd have been better off admitting where Obama did okay, and explaining, in detail, what should have been done differently for a better outcome. Without those details, Mitt was basically claiming he'd be Obama and Bush only better, (his plans outlined in the debates were half Bush, half Obama) and that just wasn't credible.
4) Basically, they were relying on, "Fire Obama" rather than, "Hire Mitt." They forget, though.. most people hated Bush at the end, far more than any but the most right wing crazies hate Obama - and some of those right wing crazies mix racism in with it, which many will (did) oppose.

Basically, the Rush Limbaugh approach to politics - twist the truth to the very worst interspersed with near-lies and omitting many pertinent facts because they would disprove what you're spouting - works well for entertainment radio, but was insufficient to run a successful Presidential campaign.

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I think David Brooks (Of the NY Times, of PBS Newshour) spoke pretty clearly since the start of the election season, and even in the years before, about his thoughts regarding the direction and possibilities of the Republican Party.

In one of his most recent editorials he came back to a line he wrote a while ago, I think due to the changing demographic and social views of America:

Writing from South Carolina last January about the race for the Republican presidential nomination, New York Times columnist David Brooks observed:

“Republican audiences this year want a restoration. America once had strong values, they believe, but we have gone astray. We’ve got to go back and rediscover what we had. Heads nod enthusiastically every time a candidate touches this theme.

“I agree with the sentiment, but it makes for an incredibly backward-looking campaign. I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.”

--Andy

I wonder if white people who voted Democrat ever get offended by things like this.

As a white person who would vote democrat (well to be fair i'd prob vote Jill Stein, but that doesnt count, lets assume i undergo some americanisation before I voted and thus prob vote Dem), I can reasonably comfortably say that anyone who would get offended by that is an idiot.

Its a fair genralisation; you just have to realise its a genralisation and understand what genralisations mean in practice (that is theres exceptions to every rule).

stahrgazer wrote:Sorry, Greekdog, but that's just not so, Obama has stated his plan over and over again, it's just that "Republicans" wanted him to fail so much they wouldn't address it, at all, and now it comes up for another fight.

And Romney stated his plan over and over again. I posted links in another thread. The first link was to Obama's fiscal plan, including taxes. The second link was to Romney's fiscal plan, including taxes. Neither plan provided any details and were virtually identical (except that Obama's plan called for a tax increase on the "wealthy," which was never defined).

I have no problem with your critique of Romney. It's valid. Your seemingly blind support of Obama is staggering.

That being said, there's a very easy way to prove your point. Provide details on Obama's fiscal plan,including taxes. Good luck.

First of all, the conservative pundits (they are legion and each is different and they all don't like each other and they will be blaming each other for eternity) all assumed the folowing fallicy.

Conservatives are, by and by, fairly intelligent.
Conservative voters are, therefore not stupid.

The second doesn't follow from the first. Conservatives made it quite clear in this election. They just chopped off their noses to spite their faces. They would rather live in progessive hell than to live in a not so perfect semi conservative state. So it is written; so shall it be done.

Romney was spot on when he said that there as 47% of the people who were not going to vote for him no matter what. There was an additional number of people who are think conservative (ask them a question and they will give conservative answers all the time) but swallow whatever the mainstream madia says and as a result votes progressive. It is the later that is hard to predict.

Plus the fact that the democrats actually managed to get their base motivated. They went to the plantations, pulled out the progressive slaves who in turn happily voted for their own slavery again. Many conservatives were convinced that we would be at the participation numbers for 2004 not 2008 among minorities.

tzor wrote:First of all, the conservative pundits (they are legion and each is different and they all don't like each other and they will be blaming each other for eternity) all assumed the folowing fallicy.

Conservatives are, by and by, fairly intelligent.
Conservative voters are, therefore not stupid.

The second doesn't follow from the first. Conservatives made it quite clear in this election. They just chopped off their noses to spite their faces. They would rather live in progessive hell than to live in a not so perfect semi conservative state. So it is written; so shall it be done.

Romney was spot on when he said that there as 47% of the people who were not going to vote for him no matter what. There was an additional number of people who are think conservative (ask them a question and they will give conservative answers all the time) but swallow whatever the mainstream madia says and as a result votes progressive. It is the later that is hard to predict.

Plus the fact that the democrats actually managed to get their base motivated. They went to the plantations, pulled out the progressive slaves who in turn happily voted for their own slavery again. Many conservatives were convinced that we would be at the participation numbers for 2004 not 2008 among minorities.

You're right: only stupid, spiteful, greedy, lazy, brainwashed, slaves suffering from Stockholm syndrome would ever vote differently from you.

That seems like a totally reasonable position.

Timminz wrote:You're right: only stupid, spiteful, greedy, lazy, brainwashed, slaves suffering from Stockholm syndrome would ever vote differently from you.

Those are your words, not mine. But that is in general how the progressives argue.

The first rule is that there are only two extreemes; what they consider totally evil and what they consider totally good.

Arguments need to be made emotionally, not logically, and then according to the model that all arguments are argued by their only two possible extreeme points.

Now we can go back and apply these rules and the inverse notion of rational thought to why people voted against one candidate and for another candidate.

Going through the post Sandy chaos I see perfectly rational people of high intelligence fall into the same entitlement menality trap.

The welfare state as nothing to do with Stockholm syndrone.

More like Plato's cave, actually.

The media swept everything about Obama under the rug. After the election, they started reporting shit again

Compare the media coverage of Katrina to Sandy

compare the hysteria the media put us through when gas hit 3$ under Bush, and the crickets the media turned into at 5$ gas under Obama

I'm not saying Romney was the right guy to put up against Obama, or that Romney should have won. Personally, Romney would have been one of my last choices from the primaries.

Obviously, Ron Paul was the right guy. But that doesn't mean Obama does not have the media in his pocket, because it's clear that he does, just like any other Democrat president had in the past and will have in the future. The Republican, whoever it is, that runs against a Democrat, is always going to have the narrative reinforced about them that they hate the 47%, or the 99%, want to outlaw abortion, and reinstitute slavery. And it's the media that builds and promotes that construct.

tzor wrote:

Timminz wrote:You're right: only stupid, spiteful, greedy, lazy, brainwashed, slaves suffering from Stockholm syndrome would ever vote differently from you.

Those are your words, not mine.

You directly implied every single one of the words I used, and used half of them specifically.

tzor wrote:First of all, the conservative pundits (they are legion and each is different and they all don't like each other and they will be blaming each other for eternity) all assumed the folowing fallicy.

Conservatives are, by and by, fairly intelligent.
Conservative voters are, therefore not stupid.

The second doesn't follow from the first. Conservatives made it quite clear in this election. They just chopped off their noses to spite their faces. They would rather live in progessive hell than to live in a not so perfect semi conservative state. So it is written; so shall it be done. (Stupid. Spiteful.)

Romney was spot on when he said that there as 47% (Greedy. Lazy.)of the people who were not going to vote for him no matter what. There was an additional number of people who are think conservative (ask them a question and they will give conservative answers all the time) but swallow whatever the mainstream madia says (brainwashed) and as a result votes progressive. It is the later that is hard to predict.

Plus the fact that the democrats actually managed to get their base motivated. They went to the plantations, pulled out the progressive slaves who in turn happily voted for their own slavery again. (Slaves suffering from Stockholm syndrome) Many conservatives were convinced that we would be at the participation numbers for 2004 not 2008 among minorities.

Face it, dude: you are completely out of touch with reality.

The idea that the only way your team could have lost the election is due to the moral failings of the people who voted for the other team, is ludicrous and probably a good indication that you're delusional.

thegreekdog wrote:And Romney stated his plan over and over again.

Not exactly true. Rmoney stated his 5 Point Plan repeatedly and in it he said what
he intended to do, but he never said how he would do it. This left many doubts.

oVo wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:And Romney stated his plan over and over again.

Not exactly true. Rmoney stated his 5 Point Plan repeatedly and in it he said what
he intended to do, but he never said how he would do it. This left many doubts.

How is this hard to understand? Both presidential candidates (Romney and Obama) made some very basic, very rhetoric-laden, statements about what their fiscal and tax plans were. Neither presidential candidate offered any details (which is typical). Only one presidential candidate was roundly criticzed for not offering details. Why?

-a- Tinfoil hat answer is some conspiracy to ensure Obama got re-elected
-b- The media failed by not levelling the same question on the Obama campaign because quite frankly mainstream american media tends to be pretty rubbish and a mistake like this wouldnt surprise me.

I choose b. But I dont really know, and care even less.

Lootifer wrote:-a- Tinfoil hat answer is some conspiracy to ensure Obama got re-elected
-b- The media failed by not levelling the same question on the Obama campaign because quite frankly mainstream american media tends to be pretty rubbish and a mistake like this wouldnt surprise me.

I choose b. But I dont really know, and care even less.

I don't know the answer either.

the media NEVER conspires!!!!! Like minded entities tacitly cooperating to further the same agenda is a line the media has too much honor to cross....

The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Phatscotty wrote:the media NEVER conspires!!!!! Like minded entities tacitly cooperating to further the same agenda is a line the media has too much honor to cross....

But there was plenty of question asked of Obama, and there's plenty of pro-republican bias media (give or take there seems to be roughly equal amounts of media bias on both sides); so really circumstantial evidence points towards there being little chance of a conspiracy occuring (since you would need to "pay off" all the right wing media, and why, then, only do it over this one issue?).

I am really inclined that the pro-repub media just failed in this one area; seems far more likely.

However, TGD, to you think Obama won the election because of this one issue? That is it was the one issue that tipped the balance? As that would answer my other question above adequately

Oh and maybe i lied when i said I didnt care I just dont care as much as I care about say, other stuff.

rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

Lootifer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:the media NEVER conspires!!!!! Like minded entities tacitly cooperating to further the same agenda is a line the media has too much honor to cross....

But there was plenty of question asked of Obama, and there's plenty of pro-republican bias media (give or take there seems to be roughly equal amounts of media bias on both sides); so really circumstantial evidence points towards there being little chance of a conspiracy occuring (since you would need to "pay off" all the right wing media, and why, then, only do it over this one issue?).

I am really inclined that the pro-repub media just failed in this one area; seems far more likely.

However, TGD, to you think Obama won the election because of this one issue? That is it was the one issue that tipped the balance? As that would answer my other question above adequately

Oh and maybe i lied when i said I didnt care I just dont care as much as I care about say, other stuff.

I think Obama won because he is infinitely more charismatic than Romney. I think the "not showing your tax plan details" stuff was about as minor as an issue can get. Romney is/was portrayed as a smug, super wealthy, "doesn't care about you" candidate. He had no charismatic energy and anything he said was tainted with the super wealthy crap. The Obama campaign did a great job with it and Romney didn't help himself.

I contend and will contend that if the Republicans had picked a more charismatic candidate, the Republicans would have won reelection despite the "no details of your tax plan" issue and the social conservative crap. One need look no further than the reelection of George W Bush in 2004. Most independent voters were not Bush fans. But, John Kerry was as charismatic as a rock; if Obama would have run against Bush in 2004, Obama would have won handily.

I bring up the tax plan and other items because people on this website (e.g. Stahrgazer) and media outlets (e.g. Maddow) are trying to justify their choice of Obama over Romney with some sort of data other than "Obama is more charismatic." If that's the reason you voted for Obama, that's cool, but don't pretend it was because Obama had a detailed tax plan. Because he didn't.

The solution for Republicans is to nominate a more charismatic presidential candidate in 2016. There are two right now who have a similar charisma to Obama: Christie and Rubio. Christie is more moderate, so he won't win the primary. Plus he's a confrontationalist. Rubio is a super conservative and I think he can win the primary. And he's very charismatic. I would vote for Christie, but I won't vote for Rubio.