Mitt Romney's failure was inevitable

[ONEBIGDADDY]

Very entertaining that the cons go-to reaction to the election is to call half the country racist, shiftless moochers for not voting for them. Of course, it's exactly that attitude that turns people off from voting for them in the first place. Bigotry, sexism, and elitism costing you votes? Why not try doubling down on bigotry, sexism, and elitism. That's sure to advance the conservative cause.
 

Its a shame that the Republicans result to hey we lost to a better candidate on issues that we couldn't capitalize on. Now between Karl Rove and the Tea Party throwing everything out there who knows whats next. I have read some doosies coming out even now just today...OBD

[GameTime]

well, half the country is somewhat racist, so i dont think thats wrong.  as for the rest of the votes, some believe we should balance the budget today, some believe we should wait til tomorrow.

[Dolorous Jason]

well, half the country is somewhat racist, so i dont think thats wrong.  as for the rest of the votes, some believe we should balance the budget today, some believe we should wait til tomorrow.

 Sit down in the that deck chair and listen to the band play . That was only an iceberg and this magnificent boat can't possibly sink. When 3rd class comes up on deck and sees no lifeboats remain , they will appreciate your calm demeanor.
I bet they'd even vote for you. Oh joy.

(This wonderful advice brought to you by the village idiot , CBW.)

[dbucfan]

Very entertaining that the cons go-to reaction to the election is to call half the country racist, shiftless moochers for not voting for them. Of course, it's exactly that attitude that turns people off from voting for them in the first place. Bigotry, sexism, and elitism costing you votes? Why not try doubling down on bigotry, sexism, and elitism. That's sure to advance the conservative cause.
 

Its a shame that the Republicans result to hey we lost to a better candidate on issues that we couldn't capitalize on. Now between Karl Rove and the Tea Party throwing everything out there who knows whats next. I have read some doosies coming out even now just today...OBD

What is the Tea Party saying OBD?

[tripblood]

well, half the country is somewhat racist, so i dont think thats wrong. 

I hate to pull the race card... But this election made me see some of the worst in people (primarily in Tennessee). I would continuously have debates and conversations with people who were pro-Romney and most of the time I heard something like "you'll vote for Romney if you don't want to speak Mandarin in 5 years" or "your gonna vote for the guy who thinks global warming is a real thing" or "obama is trying to take our 2nd amendment away(which is total BULLSHlT)".

For Halloween the Sheriff deputy that lives down my street has a "Defeat Obama" sign , and a skeleton hanging from a tree implying a lynching . (still up, its November 11th)

[CBWx2]

well, half the country is somewhat racist, so i dont think thats wrong.  as for the rest of the votes, some believe we should balance the budget today, some believe we should wait til tomorrow.

 Sit down in the that deck chair and listen to the band play . That was only an iceberg and this magnificent boat can't possibly sink. When 3rd class comes up on deck and sees no lifeboats remain , they will appreciate your calm demeanor.
I bet they'd even vote for you. Oh joy.

(This wonderful advice brought to you by the village idiot , CBW.)

Coming from someone who has hook, line, and sinker bought into the philosophy of the poli-sci equilvalent of L. Ron Hubbard. Just keep wearing the tin foil hat and waiting for the Ayn Rand mothership to come take you to that Libertarian paradise that only exists in the mind of imbeciles like yourself who seem to think that the world you wish to create isn't simply paving the way for thug rule, or at best, plutocratic rule.

[jbear]

paving the way for thug rule, or at best, plutocratic rule

 

Always the same tired argument from partisans of either party. 

You gotta wear a tinfoil hat if you think anything other than that a strong central government is what we need to save people from themselves?  It's always going to be thug rule as if we wouldn't have laws or law enforcement?  And somehow in an America where nobody suggests anything other than equality for anyone based on thier own work and merrits we fear plutocracy as if not having a massive federal government is the same thing?   I don't understand how that leap seems so obvious to so many.  We live in the age of information... I don't think we would devolve into a wild west scenario if we gave power back to the states and held the federal goverment to thier constitutional mandate.  I think people will have a voice and most especially the people who educate themselves and try to make a difference no matter what race or creed.  We will always, barring complete revolution, have a representative government.  There will always be discussion and people who disagree.  What better sword to weild against socialisim that libertarianism? 

The idea that you have to be crazy to believe in a limited federal mandate is the same thing as someone like me saying that you have to be crazy to want to live in socialist state.  As far as I'm concerned it's a valid viewpoint but I expect those who feel that way to defend what they believe honestly and appreciate that a difference of opinion doesn't make others crazy or stupid. 

And yes... when holding the ideals the democractic party claims to support in contrast to the ideals of libertarianisim I feel it is more than fair to call them socialist.  When republicans do it... not so much but if the discussion is Obama liberalisim vs Libertarianisim it would be disingenuous to call democrats anything but. 

[GameTime]

I hate to pull the race card... But this election made me see some of the worst in people (primarily in Tennessee). I would continuously have debates and conversations with people who were pro-Romney and most of the time I heard something like "you'll vote for Romney if you don't want to speak Mandarin in 5 years" or "your gonna vote for the guy who thinks global warming is a real thing" or "obama is trying to take our 2nd amendment away(which is total BULLSHlT)".

not sure any of these arguments are racially motivated.  fearmongering and hyperbole sure.  the line i didnt include might have some racial tones, but skeletons are everyone during halloween.

[BucNY]

The truth is that for moderates like myself there is no winner. Each candidate had things I liked about him and things I loathed about him.

Obama scares me because he comes across as someone who is pushing this country towards socialism, more hand outs, more tax and in general more penalty for being an evil rich person.

Romney scared me because he comes across as a religious fanatic who truly believes god made the world in 7 days and things evolution is complete non-sense. I also dislike his stand on abortion. I would never want my wife/gf to have one, but I don't think someone else can make that call for me.

Many more issues with both sides but I won't get into that any deeper. The sheep that vote republican or democrat regardless had no decision to make. Moderates like myself who vote for their values are the ones caught in the middle essentially voting for something they truly do not believe in.

For this election I knew Obama would win. He has promised to many people more for free and to strike down the rich people of the world for him to not get re-elected. Want more free stuff? Hell yeah? Good, we'll make that evil rich guy pay for it because he probably cheated you in the first place to get there.

[Dolorous Jason]

paving the way for thug rule, or at best, plutocratic rule

 

Always the same tired argument from partisans of either party. 

You gotta wear a tinfoil hat if you think anything other than that a strong central government is what we need to save people from themselves?  It's always going to be thug rule as if we wouldn't have laws or law enforcement?  And somehow in an America where nobody suggests anything other than equality for anyone based on thier own work and merrits we fear plutocracy as if not having a massive federal government is the same thing?   I don't understand how that leap seems so obvious to so many.  We live in the age of information... I don't think we would devolve into a wild west scenario if we gave power back to the states and held the federal goverment to thier constitutional mandate.  I think people will have a voice and most especially the people who educate themselves and try to make a difference no matter what race or creed.  We will always, barring complete revolution, have a representative government.  There will always be discussion and people who disagree.  What better sword to weild against socialisim that libertarianism? 

The idea that you have to be crazy to believe in a limited federal mandate is the same thing as someone like me saying that you have to be crazy to want to live in socialist state.  As far as I'm concerned it's a valid viewpoint but I expect those who feel that way to defend what they believe honestly and appreciate that a difference of opinion doesn't make others crazy or stupid. 

And yes... when holding the ideals the democractic party claims to support in contrast to the ideals of libertarianisim I feel it is more than fair to call them socialist.  When republicans do it... not so much but if the discussion is Obama liberalisim vs Libertarianisim it would be disingenuous to call democrats anything but.

Well said . CBW's ridiculous comments didn't even dignify a serious response , but you did a good job.

[CBWx2]

You gotta wear a tinfoil hat if you think anything other than that a strong central government is what we need to save people from themselves?

Yeah, I'd say your calculated wording suggests tinfoil hat to me. To save people from themselves? No. To save people from the inherent abuses and inequities that are the proven result of laissez faire capitalism? Absolutely.

It's always going to be thug rule as if we wouldn't have laws or law enforcement?

Thug rule, or plutocratic rule. Perhaps a mixture of both. You see, detoothing the federal government and leaving the states solely in charge of public policy leads to things like Jim Crow, and similar injustices.

And somehow in an America where nobody suggests anything other than equality for anyone based on thier own work and merrits we fear plutocracy as if not having a massive federal government is the same thing?

Your problem is that you are ideologically predisposed to associating size of government with type of government. A "massive federal government" is not a plutocracy unless it is a massive plutocratic government. The society you wish to create is anything but based on equality. It is myopically focused on eliminating government constraints, yet unapologetically advocates the allowance of social constraints, such as classism, sexism, racism, and various other "ism's" which you and your ilk seem to think are inconsequential to liberty and self determination, but in reality are anything but.

We live in the age of information... I don't think we would devolve into a wild west scenario if we gave power back to the states and held the federal goverment to thier constitutional mandate.  I think people will have a voice and most especially the people who educate themselves and try to make a difference no matter what race or creed.  We will always, barring complete revolution, have a representative government.  There will always be discussion and people who disagree.  What better sword to weild against socialisim that libertarianism? 

And what happens when those who are represented call for their limited government to do more, which was exactly the case at the turn of the century, and then again during the 1930's and 40's? What will your wielded sword do then to ensure that the will of the people is not done?

The truth is that for moderates like myself there is no winner. Each candidate had things I liked about him and things I loathed about him.

Obama scares me because he comes across as someone who is pushing this country towards socialism, more hand outs, more tax and in general more penalty for being an evil rich person.

Romney scared me because he comes across as a religious fanatic who truly believes god made the world in 7 days and things evolution is complete non-sense. I also dislike his stand on abortion. I would never want my wife/gf to have one, but I don't think someone else can make that call for me.

Many more issues with both sides but I won't get into that any deeper. The sheep that vote republican or democrat regardless had no decision to make. Moderates like myself who vote for their values are the ones caught in the middle essentially voting for something they truly do not believe in.

For this election I knew Obama would win. He has promised to many people more for free and to strike down the rich people of the world for him to not get re-elected. Want more free stuff? Hell yeah? Good, we'll make that evil rich guy pay for it because he probably cheated you in the first place to get there.

A moderate would not have characterized the election this way. Why is it that conservatives always think themselves moderates, when they are really not moderates at all? It's like you are trying to Jedi mind trick yourself and others into thinking you are anything other than what you are. It's absurd. Just because you don't buy into social conservativism doesn't make you a moderate. It makes you a Libertarian, which is anything but a moderate philosophy.

[tripblood]

The elections over. Who gives a f anymore. Lets stop pretending we like either one of em

[tripblood]

Im a moderate.

Technically a registered Republican... But just so I can troll

[Chief Joseph]

 " Your problem is that you are ideologically predisposed to associating size of government with type of government. A "massive federal government" is not a plutocracy unless it is a massive plutocratic government."

Your problem is that you're comfortable with the phrase "massive federal government."

[Dolorous Jason]

 " Your problem is that you are ideologically predisposed to associating size of government with type of government. A "massive federal government" is not a plutocracy unless it is a massive plutocratic government."

Your problem is that you're comfortable with the phrase "massive federal government."

...and is also predisposed to over-using the word "plutocracy" in a psuedo-intellectual attempt to justify Mobocracy.