2012 Election Thread

Now that gun sales are rising once again, I wonder what happens to those guns bought during previous events. Do these responsible owners eventually lose them or they're just dumped in some trunk never to see the light of day once again, as hoarders do with their newspapers.
 
So Doh, I was painfully wrong with regards to the popular vote, but the electoral college will be (assuming Obama holds Florida) 62-38%, Obama. That's a landslide. Popular vote looks to be only 2-3%. I really never thought it was close. Thought the first debate was the best moment for Romney's entire campaign, and think back to the primaries, realizing that Republicans truly thought Romney was the best of the bunch (and were probably right).

Now fingers crossed that Bachmann and West somehow lose.
 
I've been trying to figure out how I can make a buck off those dumbasses. I figure we can predict how conservatives react to certain events, there has to be a way of making money off that. Maybe I should have invested money in gun/ammo manufacturers.
 
[quote name='Clak']I've been trying to figure out how I can make a buck off those dumbasses. I figure we can predict how conservatives react to certain events, there has to be a way of making money off that. Maybe I should have invested money in gun/ammo manufacturers.[/QUOTE]

Hilariously enough, there's a good chance that guns and ammo prices will come down within the next couple years as wars wind down, demand for brass is lower, and firearms manufacturers still have parts inventory. Specifically assault rifles.


Clak wrote:
Batshit Bachmann won.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...minnesota?lite
Click to expand...

Ah fuck. That really sucks. It's not her fault for being a stupid, bigoted c__t. It's the fuckwits that voted for her's fault. She's just an opportunistic piece of shit.
 
[quote name='berzirk']So Doh, I was painfully wrong with regards to the popular vote, but the electoral college will be (assuming Obama holds Florida) 62-38%, Obama. That's a landslide. Popular vote looks to be only 2-3%. I really never thought it was close. Thought the first debate was the best moment for Romney's entire campaign, and think back to the primaries, realizing that Republicans truly thought Romney was the best of the bunch (and were probably right).

Now fingers crossed that Bachmann and West somehow lose.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Romney ate it, but it was still closer than last time on both counts.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, Romney ate it, but it was still closer than last time on both counts.[/QUOTE]

This is true. A stronger candidate could've made it closer, but this was the Bob Dole of candidates running against the incumbent (not sure there'll ever be another Mondale! Haa haa).
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, Romney ate it, but it was still closer than last time on both counts.[/QUOTE]

Not saying much given no republican was winning after four years of n
Bush and the high unemployment rate etc. this time. It was there for the taking by the republicans but the tea party caused them to have a terrible pool of primary candidates and caused moderates like Huntsman to not have a chance.
 
Obama's Demographic Edge

Apparently a large reason for Obama winning key swing counties and states was overwhelming support from ethnic minorities. With this we have seen a fundamental shift in presidential politics. Not only were ethnic minorities able to help a president get elected, but they have succeeded in keeping him in office.

In some ways, this is a positive development. It clearly shows that ethnic minorities in the US are no longer quite as small as they used to be, and that they can now wield political power on a national level. This is for the best. A more homogenous nation in terms of ethnic demographics is a first step to political and social equality. We draw closer to a less divisive world.

In other ways, this could be negative. Thankfully enough, it will probably only prove to be a detriment in the short term. A large reason for a presidential candidate winning was his ethnic heritage. The issues at hand were incidental, and the margins were much closer than the previous election. Basing decisions on a candidate's ethnic heritage is not a good idea. Hopefully it won't take the US long to grow out of this.

Of course, this could also mean an easy win for the Republican party in the 2016 election. The incumbent VP is Joe Biden, and will be the Democratic party's candidate by default. (unless he opts to step down) After this election, it is quite likely that the Republican party will field either a black or hispanic candidate. (with such large margins, they'd be foolish to give up such an advantage) A caucasian like Joe Biden won't stand a chance.
 
I don't see Biden running. I think it's much more likely to be Hillary than Biden. Bill speaking at the DNC was beneficial for the democrats for 2 reasons. 1) Clinton is still massively popular and effectively stole the show in his endorsement and 2 ) it keeps Hillary relevant by way of association. I think part of Clinton's motivation for doing it was that he wanted to support his party but also that there's already been some behind the scene discussions about Hillary in 2016. I mean really, if it hadn't been for Obama she would have ran away with the nomination in 2008. It was a situation where it was 2 people almost the entire race, unlike the Republican primary which was an 8 (or more) person race for a large portion of it.

I know the Vice President running after the term is complete is the usual presumption but in Biden's case I don't think he has any desire to be President, similar to Cheney. I think once his term as Vice President is over he'll retire from politics.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I know the Vice President running after the term is complete is the usual presumption but in Biden's case I don't think he has any desire to be President, similar to Cheney. I think once his term as Vice President is over he'll retire from politics.[/QUOTE]

You are probably right. It would certainly be the best decision for his political party.

Of course, I hope you are not right about Hillary. She has less of a chance of winning than Biden. If there is one take away from the previous election, it is that the US has gone a lot further in overcoming its racial boundaries than it has its gender boundaries. It's still going to be a while before we see a female President.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I don't see Biden running. I think it's much more likely to be Hillary than Biden. Bill speaking at the DNC was beneficial for the democrats for 2 reasons. 1) Clinton is still massively popular and effectively stole the show in his endorsement and 2 ) it keeps Hillary relevant by way of association. I think part of Clinton's motivation for doing it was that he wanted to support his party but also that there's already been some behind the scene discussions about Hillary in 2016. I mean really, if it hadn't been for Obama she would have ran away with the nomination in 2008. It was a situation where it was 2 people almost the entire race, unlike the Republican primary which was an 8 (or more) person race for a large portion of it.

I know the Vice President running after the term is complete is the usual presumption but in Biden's case I don't think he has any desire to be President, similar to Cheney. I think once his term as Vice President is over he'll retire from politics.[/QUOTE]
Biden is going to be old as hell and Cheney would probably die in office unless they built him a cyborg body...and they're halfway there.:lol:

Hillary is definitely a possibility, but my money is still on Deval Patrick, the gov of MA. I don't think either of the Castro brothers is going to be on the big ticket in 2016 or 2020, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Rubio at least in the primaries. The conservatives still have a full bullpen of angry white guys that can go through. Ryan is done though.

[quote name='Richard Kain']You are probably right. It would certainly be the best decision for his political party.

Of course, I hope you are not right about Hillary. She has less of a chance of winning than Biden. If there is one take away from the previous election, it is that the US has gone a lot further in overcoming its racial boundaries than it has its gender boundaries. It's still going to be a while before we see a female President.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Electing a black man to the white house doesn't mean that racial boundaries are that much further along considering the rhetoric against him. The only difference is that we'd be seeing misogynistic attacks as opposed to racist attacks.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I disagree. Electing a black man to the white house doesn't mean that racial boundaries are that much further along considering the rhetoric against him. The only difference is that we'd be seeing misogynistic attacks as opposed to racist attacks.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. But just look at the fact that Obama won the Democratic candidacy back in 2008 over Hillary, despite the fact that Hillary probably had more experience at the time. (as well as an inside look at presidential politics from being first-lady for eight years) A serious argument could be made that she was the more qualified candidate. But she lost to Obama.

In the actual election, a major factor that worked in the favor of the Democratic party was the choice of Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate. A lot of people threw their weight behind Obama, or simply withdrew their support from the GOP because they had selected a female candidate for VP.

And on top of that I remember a lot of the conversations I had with people back then. I was startled at how many of them were relieved that Obama had bested Hillary. I had thought there would be more popular support behind Hillary. And the reason I was always given was that no one wanted a female President.

I had initially thought ethnicity would be a much bigger hurdle than gender. But I was wrong. Ethnicity is now just going to be another factor to consider, but it is by no means an impediment to being elected President. (quite the opposite, in fact) But gender is still up in the air. We won't know for certain until someone actually takes a risk on a female presidential candidate.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']Fair enough. But just look at the fact that Obama won the Democratic candidacy back in 2008 over Hillary, despite the fact that Hillary probably had more experience at the time. (as well as an inside look at presidential politics from being first-lady for eight years) A serious argument could be made that she was the more qualified candidate. But she lost to Obama.

In the actual election, a major factor that worked in the favor of the Democratic party was the choice of Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate. A lot of people threw their weight behind Obama, or simply withdrew their support from the GOP because they had selected a female candidate for VP.

And on top of that I remember a lot of the conversations I had with people back then. I was startled at how many of them were relieved that Obama had bested Hillary. I had thought there would be more popular support behind Hillary. And the reason I was always given was that no one wanted a female President.

I had initially thought ethnicity would be a much bigger hurdle than gender. But I was wrong. Ethnicity is now just going to be another factor to consider, but it is by no means an impediment to being elected President. (quite the opposite, in fact) But gender is still up in the air. We won't know for certain until someone actually takes a risk on a female presidential candidate.[/QUOTE]

I think withdrawal of support for McCain/Palin had less to do with Palin being a woman and more with her being ignorant and whoa-fully underqualified to be a heartbeat away from running this country. People looked at how old McCain is and said no way I am risking letting Palin run this country.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']Fair enough. But just look at the fact that Obama won the Democratic candidacy back in 2008 over Hillary, despite the fact that Hillary probably had more experience at the time. (as well as an inside look at presidential politics from being first-lady for eight years) A serious argument could be made that she was the more qualified candidate. But she lost to Obama.

In the actual election, a major factor that worked in the favor of the Democratic party was the choice of Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate. A lot of people threw their weight behind Obama, or simply withdrew their support from the GOP because they had selected a female candidate for VP.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree that Hillary was more qualified than Obama, but you can't completely disregard his ability to give good speeches and that counts for a lot when an important part of the job is being able to communicate and do it well. Palin is an incurious parrot, but if she had the type of knowledge and mastery of it like a true policy wonk, she'd be a force to be reckoned with. Luckily for us, this wasn't the case.

And on top of that I remember a lot of the conversations I had with people back then. I was startled at how many of them were relieved that Obama had bested Hillary. I had thought there would be more popular support behind Hillary. And the reason I was always given was that no one wanted a female President.
Click to expand...
I don't think it was because no one wanted a female president, but a lot of Obama's support came from grassroots organizing and that's Very important. The organization of his campaign was far more dynamic as well as crafting a narrative while following the same basic framework of the Dean campaign.

I had initially thought ethnicity would be a much bigger hurdle than gender. But I was wrong. Ethnicity is now just going to be another factor to consider, but it is by no means an impediment to being elected President. (quite the opposite, in fact) But gender is still up in the air. We won't know for certain until someone actually takes a risk on a female presidential candidate.
Click to expand...
No doubt that the Democrats will beat the Republicans to it. I just don't see the Republicans headlining a person of color as their presidential nominee for at least another 2 elections though. Maybe in 2024, but I still don't see Republicans moderating their message to be less hostile to non-white males and I don't mean just softening the language of it like they've been trying to. Following the Atwater strategy of coding the language hasn't worked very well this election.


edit: Not to mention that the Republicans don't really have anyone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hillary would have beaten McCain just as soundly as Obama in 2008 if she'd eeked out the primary, and people would now be talking about how the gender gap was lessened but the race gap was still wide.

I don't think either is a major issue anymore due to the changing demographics in key states. Hard to think a female would have a hard time these days when a majority of the voters are female--and turnout would probably be even higher with a female candidate.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Hillary would have beaten McCain just as soundly as Obama in 2008 if she'd eeked out the primary, and people would now be talking about how the gender gap was lessened but the race gap was still wide.

I don't think either is a major issue anymore due to the changing demographics in key states. Hard to think a female would have a hard time these days when a majority of the voters are female--and turnout would probably be even higher with a female candidate.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...I'd have to agree with this.
 
Not sure I entirely agree about Hillary doing as well as Barack, but then again I'm heavily biased as I have a long history of despising Hillary. I don't see how it's anyone but Christie from the Republicans. The media loves him, he's had his hand reaching across the aisle moment with Obama after the hurricane. As long as he's not banging his secretary in a broom closet, it's his to lose. Hopefully the Tea Party will be further marginalized, and parties can stop catering to the radicals in their respective groups. Bachman and Santorum could choke and die on their vomit and America would be up 2-0.

No way Biden runs. He was meant to give Obama his foreign policy experience, everything else about him is unelectable at a national level IMO.
 
She was neck and neck with him in the primaries, so support in the general election would have been similar.

Pretty much any half decent Democratic candidate was going to win easily after 8 years of Bush and with Bush having some of the lowest approval ratings in history during his second term.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Not sure I entirely agree about Hillary doing as well as Barack, but then again I'm heavily biased as I have a long history of despising Hillary. I don't see how it's anyone but Christie from the Republicans. The media loves him, he's had his hand reaching across the aisle moment with Obama after the hurricane. As long as he's not banging his secretary in a broom closet, it's his to lose. Hopefully the Tea Party will be further marginalized, and parties can stop catering to the radicals in their respective groups. Bachman and Santorum could choke and die on their vomit and America would be up 2-0.

No way Biden runs. He was meant to give Obama his foreign policy experience, everything else about him is unelectable at a national level IMO.[/QUOTE]
Uhh...and who are the radicals that the Democrats are catering to? Women and the LGBT community?:rofl:
 
[quote name='berzirk']Not sure I entirely agree about Hillary doing as well as Barack, but then again I'm heavily biased as I have a long history of despising Hillary...[/QUOTE]


Why do you despise Hillary Clinton? Just curious since I don't really have an opinion of her yet.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I don't disagree that Hillary was more qualified than Obama, but you can't completely disregard his ability to give good speeches and that counts for a lot when an important part of the job is being able to communicate and do it well.[/QUOTE]

You're right. I wish you weren't, but you are.

And this is a major issue I have with modern politics. If the actual function of a position was to schmooze and cajole all the time, then it would be fine for someone talented in those areas to hold it. But the US Presidency is more than that. The President has to make hard decisions with widespread influence.

I would vastly prefer that Presidential elections be much more about capability rather than charisma. Public presence shouldn't be the deciding factor.
 
Communication ability and ability to sway people to your side is a huge part of being an effective president though. Be it having to work to get things through Congress or working with foreign leaders to solve diplomatic crises.

So being a good communicator isn't in anyway irrelevant to the task at hand. It's also not 100% indicative of being good under pressure, making good decisions under stress etc. But there's really no way to gauge that until one's been president as there's no other job like it. Even being a governor just can't compare with the pressure of leading the most power nation in the world.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']So being a good communicator isn't in anyway irrelevant to the task at hand. It's also not 100% indicative of being good under pressure, making good decisions under stress etc. But there's really no way to gauge that until one's been president as there's no other job like it.[/QUOTE]

Granted, communication is part of it. But it isn't nearly as essential as many people make it out to be. And on top of all that, any effective President is going to know how to delegate most of those activities to his cabinet and staff.

And working in jobs that involve a lot of management and stress is a good way to gauge readiness for a job like the Presidency. This is why I get frustrated seeing career politicians flooding our government. Career politicians are only good at being politicians, which has almost nothing to do with actually achieving anything. Our electoral system just turns it all into some bizarre popularity contest.

I know I'm an idealist, but I would vastly prefer if the government were run by engineers. They wouldn't have people skills for crap, but at least everything would work properly. (and at the end of the day, that's what most people really want)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Communication ability and ability to sway people to your side is a huge part of being an effective president though. Be it having to work to get things through Congress or working with foreign leaders to solve diplomatic crises.

So being a good communicator isn't in anyway irrelevant to the task at hand. It's also not 100% indicative of being good under pressure, making good decisions under stress etc. But there's really no way to gauge that until one's been president as there's no other job like it. Even being a governor just can't compare with the pressure of leading the most power nation in the world.[/QUOTE]
Right. And I don't want to make it seem like Obama was unqualified either as I think the last 4 years has shown that he's most certainly qualified. Although, I don't think that Hillary would've handled negotiating with the obstructionists the same way, but I'd like to think she would've gone a little more LBJ. Then again, Obama can only do so much without looking like the Angry Black Man and we can't ignore the reality that race plays a large part in how people have been critiquing him just as Hillary could only do so much without looking like an old bitty, especially when it comes to attacks from the right.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Then again, Obama can only do so much without looking like the Angry Black Man[/QUOTE]

Frankly, I think it would be better if he did go a little "Angry Black Man." Angry Black Men have been known to get results, and certainly attention. Perhaps we will see a little more Angry Black Obama now that his second term is assured. Without another election to worry about, we will hopefully see a more agressive, take-charge President in the next four years. I think he actually wanted to adopt this kind of role in his first term, but the eventual election was always hanging over his head.

I don't care about charisma or popularity. Show me some results. Show me some decisive action. Don't tell me, show me!
 
So I overheard my bro-in-law talking to his Dad on the phone today. He basically is saying we have crossed over to a society of "moochers and gimmie gimmie gimmie types" and that things are "going to get ugly" in America. It really makes me laugh the bubble hard core conservatives live in. He has been a public employee (fireman) his entire life and yet rails against unions and government. To make things even more ironic he is most likely going to be retiring early due to a disability and the only reason he has this option is that his Union was able to collectively bargain this benefit into his job. So now he will be getting 75% of his pay the rest of his life yet he sees this as his right while everyone else must be "moochers". It really drives me nuts sometimes.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Why do you despise Hillary Clinton? Just curious since I don't really have an opinion of her yet.[/QUOTE]

I think she's a panderer to the degree of right wing talk radio hosts. Her opinion is whatever the opinion of the group she's talking to. She tried to push her healthcare stuff through when her husband was in office, but was so despised, it got shot down. She is extremely polarizing, strikes me as incredibly unethical, was caught up in a few scandals for that land deal, Chinese donors, lying about being under fire in (Bosnia?) during the campaign, only to have to be told, no you weren't, you're lying. She was a Senator from NY, because she moved out of the White House, after living in Arkansas. WTF? How does that make you a resident of a State, then later the Senator? She's weak for "sticking by her man" despite his confirmed adultry. I don't trust a word out of her mouth. Sigh-I'm not a fan :p

I'm not saying there aren't people as terrible in the world that have an (R) after their name (Santorum and Bachmann are as evil...maybe worse?) but I see her, and I just think liar and slimey.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Uhh...and who are the radicals that the Democrats are catering to? Women and the LGBT community?:rofl:[/QUOTE]

Whoops, multi-quote fail...just noticed your response after posting my last one.

I think people who believe that government should expand and have an active role in our lives, people who believe that the government should take over healthcare, yes, people who are strongly in favor of gay marriage (which as unpopular as it is, is something I've not shied away from as an issue I oppose), legalization of drugs (libertarians also "guilty" on this one), folks who believe all of our taxes should go up (not just the wealthy), amnesty to illegal immigrats. Maybe a better way to summarize them would be the people who voted Nader over Gore. That crowd seems to have converted to the Democratic party and not Green, or other smaller groups.

What was the Democrats complaints against Obama? Not that he didn't end wars faster, didn't close down Guantanamo, but that he tried to work with the Republicans too much, and didn't go single-payer, naturalize all illegal aliens, come out supporting and working for gay marriage (earlier). Maybe he does that now because he knows he doesn't have an election to win, I don't know. He doesn't seem like a "socialist" like the right win nutjobs accuse him of, but he's certainly further left than I am on a host of issues.

Edit-and after reading through once more quickly, fully appreciate the hypocrisy in saying government shouldn't be as intrusive in our lives, while saying they also shouldn't allow gay marriage. Didn't say I'm a perfect commentator! :p
 
[quote name='Clak']Batshit Bachmann won.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...le-bachmann-wins-tight-race-in-minnesota?lite[/QUOTE]

From what I was reading, she represents one of the most conservative counties in Minnesota and generally has little competition because the Democrats really don't pay attention to it. The fact that she very narrowly retained her seat almost guarantees the Democrats will make a much bigger play for it next time around, provided she isn't able to fly under the radar and get people to forget about what a nutjob she is.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Hillary would have beaten McCain just as soundly as Obama in 2008 if she'd eeked out the primary, and people would now be talking about how the gender gap was lessened but the race gap was still wide.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure about that. I think if Hillary got the nomination, McCain would've had a different running mate. A large part of the reason McCain picked Palin was the hopes that they could draw some of the disenfranchised Hillary supporters.

And I don't think it's controversial to say the choice of Palin lost him a ton of votes.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']

And I don't think it's controversial to say the choice of Palin lost him a ton of votes.[/QUOTE]
He lost my vote when that happened, he totally sold out. I was a big time Hillary supporter in the primaries, wasn't enamored with Obama but there was no way I'd let Palin be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']Wow that is convoluted. Grover article was the best Read that then Read the comments afterward. Looks like the kool aide has been watered down[/QUOTE]

"The modern Republican party is the party of the Ryan Plan: No tax hikes, Reaganesque tax reform, and entitlement reform. Before today, many believed that entitlement reform was political poison."


Wow one day later and he is doubling down on this. How in the world do you think after this election you think people want trickle down? And then on top of that cut the only thing that keep millions of people from eating a dog from the street. It truly is delusional.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Whoops, multi-quote fail...just noticed your response after posting my last one.

I think people who believe that government should expand and have an active role in our lives, people who believe that the government should take over healthcare, yes, people who are strongly in favor of gay marriage (which as unpopular as it is, is something I've not shied away from as an issue I oppose), legalization of drugs (libertarians also "guilty" on this one), folks who believe all of our taxes should go up (not just the wealthy), amnesty to illegal immigrats. Maybe a better way to summarize them would be the people who voted Nader over Gore. That crowd seems to have converted to the Democratic party and not Green, or other smaller groups.

What was the Democrats complaints against Obama? Not that he didn't end wars faster, didn't close down Guantanamo, but that he tried to work with the Republicans too much, and didn't go single-payer, naturalize all illegal aliens, come out supporting and working for gay marriage (earlier). Maybe he does that now because he knows he doesn't have an election to win, I don't know. He doesn't seem like a "socialist" like the right win nutjobs accuse him of, but he's certainly further left than I am on a host of issues.

Edit-and after reading through once more quickly, fully appreciate the hypocrisy in saying government shouldn't be as intrusive in our lives, while saying they also shouldn't allow gay marriage. Didn't say I'm a perfect commentator! :p[/QUOTE]
It kind of sounds like your definition of "radical" is "people who believe things".
 
Is this the "awesome reactions" thread now?

I disowned them this morning. On Facebook and through an email. But fortunately my parents are diehard Republicans, and a sister. It's only the fucked up brother in Delaware, piece of shit, scumbag mother fucker who is a Democrat, and another sister in Philly who won't tell me, but I'm almost certain voted for Obama.

They are dead to me now. And I will not under any circumstances attend their funerals in 30 or 40 years.
Click to expand...

- http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html?spref=tw
 
[quote name='dafoomie']He lost my vote when that happened, he totally sold out. I was a big time Hillary supporter in the primaries, wasn't enamored with Obama but there was no way I'd let Palin be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, absolutely lost my vote as well. I really liked McCain prior to the election and was happy when he started getting some momentum in the primaries, but he just apparently went off the deep-end by bending over backwards to appeal to the Tea Partiers.
 
Looking back, you can see all the signs of conservatives tacking hard right from the Reagan Era. It's this insanity that explains why Bush Jr became the nominee and Powell saw the writing on the wall as well as within his own party back in the 80's, so he never tried to get into the game. The things Powell said about the Republican party recently are all things that he's known for years and it's only gotten worse. All things considered, Powell could've been the first black president and a Republican one to boot, but let's get real, we all know why not.

McCain might've been a "maverick" because he didn't go along with his party 100% of the time, but he was always a privileged temperamental asshole. If anything, the swiftboating that was done to Kerry was more accurate of McCain. His mythology doesn't match up with the reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='berzirk']Whoops, multi-quote fail...just noticed your response after posting my last one.

I think people who believe that government should expand and have an active role in our lives, people who believe that the government should take over healthcare, yes, people who are strongly in favor of gay marriage (which as unpopular as it is, is something I've not shied away from as an issue I oppose), legalization of drugs (libertarians also "guilty" on this one), folks who believe all of our taxes should go up (not just the wealthy), amnesty to illegal immigrats. Maybe a better way to summarize them would be the people who voted Nader over Gore. That crowd seems to have converted to the Democratic party and not Green, or other smaller groups.

What was the Democrats complaints against Obama? Not that he didn't end wars faster, didn't close down Guantanamo, but that he tried to work with the Republicans too much, and didn't go single-payer, naturalize all illegal aliens, come out supporting and working for gay marriage (earlier). Maybe he does that now because he knows he doesn't have an election to win, I don't know. He doesn't seem like a "socialist" like the right win nutjobs accuse him of, but he's certainly further left than I am on a host of issues.

Edit-and after reading through once more quickly, fully appreciate the hypocrisy in saying government shouldn't be as intrusive in our lives, while saying they also shouldn't allow gay marriage. Didn't say I'm a perfect commentator! :p[/QUOTE]
If you're saying that he's further left than you on a bunch of issues, it might behoove you to think about where your stances actually lie on the spectrum.

If you can't see how your laundry list of things "the left" doesn't hold him accountable for is directly related to the things "the left" Does hold him accountable for, then the problem isn't "the left," but your lack of perspective and dismissal of reality.

And yes, we all realize that you're an ideological mess, but that's libertarianism for you.
 
It's always funny to see Republicans say: 'We need to focus more on our conservative base' or 'We lost because we went too far to the middle.' Yeah... that's why you don't attract more votes... need more heavy-handed social engineering.
 
[quote name='dohdough']McCain might've been a "maverick" because he didn't go along with his party 100% of the time, but he was always a privileged temperamental asshole. If anything, the swiftboating that was done to Kerry was more accurate of McCain. His mythology doesn't match up with the reality.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty repulsive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top