This is a continuation of: http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/274728-election-results-1-a.html
Flying through Frankfurt 3 days ago and waiting to board, there was a middle aged white women in line, dressed in Obama t-shirt. The look on her face was absolutely ferocious, even crazed, like - if you say one word about my t-shirt, I'll break your face... everyone was giving her a wide berth... I remember thinking to myself at the time - a typical Obama voter...
I wanted to carry this post over from thread #1, because I agree with this completely. The Conservatives have to start understanding the notion of freedom and liberty, and give up crap that just doesn't matter enough in order to right our fiscal ship. Unbubba's posts and ideology mirror mine probably closer than anyone else in this forum, and I thought that this particularly post of his was a great example of that.
So, what does that mean exactly? As long as we agree to give them all the free (*)(*)(*)(*) that gets taken from people who have earned it.....and make available drugs, abortions on demand paid for by those who don't believe in it, that they would then vote for Republicans? And do we have to agree to abortion on demand too......and being forced to use our tax dollars to pay for something we don't morally agree with? Really? You really believe that?
What the partisans still seemingly don't get: Elections aren't decided by partisan loyalty. Elections are decided by the squishy middle and independents, many of whom vote for the person they think is the least scary; the one who they think will do the least damage. It's a matter of whose policy positions seem least likely to upset the apple cart, not who is expected to get great things done. Obama did not win because more people favor Obama's/Democrats' policy positions. Romney did not lose because more people disfavor Romney's/Republicans' policy positions. Romney lost because he and other Republican candidates were scarier to more people than Obama. There's also the matter of consistency for those who did pay attention through the primary season. Romney/Republicans had to run far to the right to procure the nomination, and then sounded like completely different candidates during the final weeks. That turns off people on both sides.
You said she was white...? You've said that Obama voters are black... I mean, "poor" and black and on federal assistance... She was white... So which is it?
No. I believe that Conservatives (Tea Party/fiscally conservative GOPers) should abandon their social platforms and what "they" would want to see. It just doesn't matter. We're at a critical fiscal point now; nothing else LITERALLY matters - so we have to garner the votes of the myriad skulls full of mush who are dedicated to the notions of the abortions, birth control and drugs, and tell them very simply: we will support legalization of ALL of it, but the Government refuses to pay for it. Absolutely not, as explained above. Conservatives are viewed with fear by these dingbats for really only one reason: they fear the position that says that these things should be ILLEGAL.
Close. Independents are sick and tired of being lied to by the Republicons. We are sick of "death panels", "Obama is a non-American, America-hating socialist Muslim", "global warming is a anti-capitalistic hoax by America hating scientists", "Obama is going to take our guns away" and on and on and on and on. Independents are sick and tired of Rovian tactics of spreading rumors and half truths about the opposition. Independents want the Republicans back; Republicans that can rationally discus the issues; Republicans that can make their points of view understood with resorting to conspiracy theories. We're tired of the Republicons putting their loyalty to their party ahead of their loyalty to the country. We're tired of the hypocrisy of using the Constitution when it suits the Republicons and ignoring the Constitution when it does not support their agenda. What do you base this on? Romney did not have a policy position to disagree with. You, yourself, stated that in the last paragraph.
alcohol is a much more dangerous and addictive drug than thc you got that right and it's not just independents
Do you really want to know why Romney lost? It's hard to compete with Santa Clause, that's why. I mean, if you only have two choices, Santa Clause or hard work, what do you think will win? That's right.
Looked last night in the ELECTION SECTION and saw nothing, posted a thread but little action so just watched it. Why didn't ya'll put this in the proper section?
That isn't what he said at all. It's that conservatives and liberals both need to stop trying to inject their beliefs onto the rest of us. If I want to light up a joint, then so be it. If I want to risk my health with a lady of the night, then so be it. What ever befalls me due to my own actions is my own fault and not the business of anyone in the government. His post, and quote said nothing about providing free stuff to anyone.
+2 senate seats is huge, as it's combined with a shift of replacing sucky Democrats with good Democrats. Lieberman and Nebraska-Nelson are gone, and they were two reliable Republican votes on many issues. Now Harry Reid just has to do the right thing and kill the filibuster. He's got the votes for it this time, and the popular mandate. Another big prize is those Supreme Court picks. Definitely two, to replace the aging Ginsburg and Breyer. Replacing two moderates with two moderates just keeps the status quo, but at least it slows down the march to a corporate feudal state. But possibly a third pick, as you never know who'll get sick. A bit ghoulish to watch such things, but that's politics these days.
That's our current problem and has been for a while, I don't know why many republicans have went to the side of a better social policy. If we did do this the main thing people would vote on would be the fiscal policies, balancing the deficit a basic flat low tax rate. You would think the republican party, a party about self responsibility would be more accepting of many of what are now considered "liberal" policies like ending the drug war, not going after rode vs wade, and we should have supported the end of don't ask don't tell things like that. Sadly I think Barry Goldwater was right about the taking over of our party by religious extremists would be the end of our party, or at least it will make the Republicans be remembered as on the wrong side of history.
Most people who the left label as "religious extremists" aren't. That's a ploy that the left is using against the Right, and there's no defense against it, just as there is no defense against being called a racist. The left - particularly when they feel they're losing - immediately bring up these social issues, and certain Republicans just fall into the trap. It's very hard to defeat sneakiness and deceit with the presence of the public magnifying glass focused nearly exclusively by liberals.
Easy fix....quit trying to take rights away from people based on a silly belief about an imaginary creature.
You have to admit that there are some elements in the Republican party that take religion to extremes though. I mean Mourdock's comment about a rape baby being god's will certainly killed his campaign, prior to that it was looking like he had a solid chance of winning. Akin didn't do himself favors either, even though his comment wasn't religious, his stance against abortion is. I personally think both sides are guilty of using social topics to cloud the minds of their followers from what's happening from day to day, and that's as much a reason I doubt either side will ever willingly gibe up these banners. It allows them to play the smoke and mirrors game to easily.
First of all, belief in God isn't silly, and I have already rationally defended the legitimacy of such a belief. You throwing this asinine swipe at people who believe in God simply explains to anyone listening that you aren't interested in being reasonable or tolerant, nor do you really wish for free expression: you want expression with which you agree. Secondly, what you call 'rights' aren't always rights: they're privileges that you and yours are lobbying for. I'm simply suggesting that such topics are stupid for Conservatives to battle over, because no matter what they attempt to say, the media will twist it into the most damaging form of intent possible, as another strategy to defeat Conservatives. You calling God an "imaginary creature" is not unexpected. You support the liberal notion of separation of church and state, where no personal expressions of religious belief can appear in any public or Government venue. Of course, that's you pushing your own ideology on other people, but you rationalize it's okay because you've based it upon an erroneous rationalization of the intent of the First Amendment. Like I said, and said simply: Conservatives need to be about fiscal policy, and abandon even DISCUSSING social ideology. Personally, I am in favor of legalizing all drugs, but simultaneously demanding that NO ONE has any treatment for abuses of said drugs paid for by the public (only private charity). I am in favor of making abortion a State determination, as should gay marriage be. None of it has any place in Federal Government, nor should Conservatives represent any position which alludes to any Federal control over it. Unbubba said it very well: there is a difference between a sin and a crime, and the wages of sin should not fall on the public as a burden.
Both of those candidates were incredibly stupid, and I don't suffer fools lightly. These clowns should be ashamed of themselves for being so tone-deaf and naive as to think that even an attempt to express a position regarding such topics would be played in any way beneficially to their candidacy. I don't do well attempting to discuss such generalities. If you want to discuss specific examples of this 'cloud' about which you speak, I can do that.
