Why the Republican party is toast.

[R/T Hemi]

Seriously. The Republicans had a great candidate. Romney was intelligent and charismatic as he campaigned. He avoided pitfalls, and didn't sink to his neck when challenged. He was a viable candidate. But they lost. They lost at a time when they were given a national issue that could have sunk a battleship. Even an economy that the many feel is in the tank didn't stop the voters from choosing the party they blamed for a lack of progress in the regard. If the Republicans couldn't win with a great candidate, and a great major issue on their side, what the heck is wrong?

I'm going to give you my 47 cents worth. Here's why Obama won in 2012 and why Biden will win in 2016.

1. Organized labor. Pure Democrat. There are more who punch a time clock than there are those who sign a pay check. Labor is solidly blue. Trickle down economics isn't labor friendly.

2. Women voters. Binders of women? Bad form. Republicans need to understand that women are people. Working, voting, struggling people just like most of us. Address their issues and you might be surprised.

3. Black vote. Nothing to do with Obama being seen as a black man. More a matter of the Democrats working to get the blacks to register and actually vote. The Republicans are seen as a party of older white men and brainless wealthy women.

4. Hispanic vote. Here's the real surprise. The Republicans missed the boat with women, blacks and now, with Hispanics. The fastest growing ethnic group in the US. Ignore these minorities and you get bit in the @ss like Romney did. It's the future of American Politics.

These are, IMHO, 4 reasons why the Republican party will not survive this election. And, as blue as my blood is, I hate to see the two party system die.

Seriously. Romney had a great chance. He put up the good fight. He was defeated by his own parties shortsightedness.


The good news is that we have a strong leader for the next 4 years who has the courage to defend his country by extraordinary means. We have an economy that is recovering and will continue to recover from the evils of the Bush era. We have Obamacare. We have a Democratic party that is stronger and more organized than ever.

It was a good night.

[themadscientist]

Romney, a great candidate? Hahaha!

He made John Kerry look downright decisive.

Obama, strong leader? Recovering economy, Obamacare? Dude, stop it, soda all over the keyboard.

[R/T Hemi]

I was being nice to the Romneybot when I posted that. And yes. Obama is a great leader with a Senate majority behind him.

Oh, and put your keyboard in the dishwasher. Works every time.

[themadscientist]

Romney f*** sucked and that's why he lost. Obama could have lost to a wet towel, but Romney was less effective than that. I don't mourn the GOP the just results of their poor decisions. I do mourn what this country will be subjected to in the coming four years.

Great leader, seriously, that's so ridiculous I can't even get riled up, it's just laughable. Trillion dollar deficits, unemployment still through the roof, still in Afghanistan, Benghazi is still smouldering, Gitmo still open for business, drones circling over America when they aren't blowing up a couple of dozen women and children to possibly get one guy, Eric Holder still has a job, etcetera etcetera.



Senate majority eh, so you think dirty harry will manage to produce a f*** budget this go around?

[R/T Hemi]

Quit it. Romney didn't suck. Palin sucked.(as an example) Romney did a good job. All things considered, he wasn't a failure. He lost because the Republican party sucked (sucks). It sucked at seeing where the vote would come from. It sucked at reaching the public and making them feel secure in choosing a Republican candidate.

The budget? Well, I'm betting we do some budget balancing at the expense of the fat cats. (nice cat picture by the way)

[themadscientist]

Back on topic. That's four years ago and not relevant to what we are talking about. Romney was weak, he was confused and he deserved to fail. Not sure why you are carrying his water. If the fact that he gave your guy such a decent race has you embarrassed, rest assured, your fears are well founded, it was because Obama sucks bad too, just not as much as Romney.

You talk about the budget like we haven't had four years of great leader already. Four years and he's been phoning it in and his buddies in congress too. Just taking his time to pull his head out of his a**?

Fat cats? Um, did you check great leader's list of donors? http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus ... cycle=2012

That class warfare smoke and mirror s*** only plays at the shallow end of the pool. This is the diving board end where the grown ups swim.

[stebo0728]

1. Organized labor. Pure Democrat. There are more who punch a time clock than there are those who sign a pay check. Labor is solidly blue. Trickle down economics isn't labor friendly.

Agreed, and they will be their own downfall. They can't provide their own job, the job isn't theirs to provide. $60 bucks an hour to screw a panel into the inside of a car door is beyond ridiculous. Labor is cuttings nose off to spite its face. The boiling point is close, but since you're a frog and the heats been turning up gradually, you don't know you're almost scalded.

2. Women voters. Binders of women? Bad form. Republicans need to understand that women are people. Working, voting, struggling people just like most of us. Address their issues and you might be surprised.

I don't completely agree here, but I don't completely disagree either. I don't think the binders comment bothered anyone with half a brain. Women unemployement is above the national average, and equal pay is still down. I don't know that economic matters took the women vote for Obama. I'd say the conservative obsession with abortion dealt a huge blow. I also think women identify and sympathize more heavily with LGBT issues, which tend to swing them more to the left.

3. Black vote. Nothing to do with Obama being seen as a black man. More a matter of the Democrats working to get the blacks to register and actually vote. The Republicans are seen as a party of older white men and brainless wealthy women.

Pretty much agree here too, 2008 saw blacks voting for Obama because he was black, but I don't think you can make that argument this time. This time they defaulted back to voting democrat as always. We can argue about it all day long, and I know you'll disagree, but the left has facilitated the gradual destruction of the urban family unit, and created a dependent class through furthered entitlement. We've succeeded in creating both a legal and moral system that condones plunder. I just don't see how we walk that back.

4. Hispanic vote. Here's the real surprise. The Republicans missed the boat with women, blacks and now, with Hispanics. The fastest growing ethnic group in the US. Ignore these minorities and you get bit in the @ss like Romney did. It's the future of American Politics.

I don't get this either. Hispanics increasingly vote to undermine the very reasons their predecessors risked life and limb to come here for. What's that all about?


I don't think Romney was a fully functional candidate, but I did have hopes for him near the end, especially after debate 1. I don't think he was a complete wet noodle either.

[themadscientist]

[scott farkus voice]You gonna cry now? Cmon crybaby, cry![/scott farkus voice]

[WDRacing]

RT, in case no one told you, the tax increases to the 250+ club don't even come close to balancing the budget dude. You're off by about 750 billion a year. All it does is give the Gov more money to spend. Stop with your theatrics for a second and try to be serious. We need to balance the budget. Lets assume the tax increases are a done deal, I'll buy it. Now what? What are you going to put up? Where are you going to get 750 billion bucks a year? Oh btw, that's not counting any money towards paying down our already accrued debt. Do you not understand that we pay more in interest on our national debt than that the tax increase you're so proud of?

Grab a glove and get in the game dude.

[R/T Hemi]

We're not going to balance this budget until we get the military home. Stop sending billions to foreign countries, and let those who rely on us for protection start paying for out investment. No one talks about all the bucks that get deposited in foreign bank accounts by the government. They accept, or ignore that.

Money spend for the US infrastructure works wonders for the economy. It creates jobs among other things.

Just two ideas.

[WDRacing]

The only problem with your fixing of the infrastructure is that it's more Gov spending. I don't disagree with it being needed, our bridges, roads and water system are in dire need of help. A job created by Gov spending isn't really a job created. It's just another form of Gov welfare.

I'm ALL for stopping payments to other countries though. The so called buying of good will is laughable. That money doesn't even go to the people that need it, it goes to the Gov and is used for arms in the majority of cases.

[stebo0728]

I'm ALL for stopping payments to other countries though. The so called buying of good will is laughable. That money doesn't even go to the people that need it, it goes to the Gov and is used for arms in the majority of cases.

I dont disagree, but lets also remember, that isn't a terribly large part of our budget either, and being so, the good it brings us globally is arguably worth it. Arguably anyway.

[R/T Hemi]

The only problem with your fixing of the infrastructure is that it's more Gov spending. I don't disagree with it being needed, our bridges, roads and water system are in dire need of help. A job created by Gov spending isn't really a job created. It's just another form of Gov welfare.

But it returns a worker to the work force, creates a taxable event(s), and supports a developing economy.

[stebo0728]

But it returns a worker to the work force, creates a taxable event(s), and supports a developing economy.

Temporarily


What we need, is a reason for businesses to stop sitting on all their capital. What we need is a reason for employers, the ones not beholden to overbearing labor unions, to broaden their work force instead of consolidating it to come in below certain thresholds.

[WDRacing]

The only problem with your fixing of the infrastructure is that it's more Gov spending. I don't disagree with it being needed, our bridges, roads and water system are in dire need of help. A job created by Gov spending isn't really a job created. It's just another form of Gov welfare.

But it returns a worker to the work force, creates a taxable event(s), and supports a developing economy.

If I have $100 and I pay you $50 to fix my plumbing and then you pay me back $10 in taxes it still costs me $40. The end result doesn't help from a budget stand point at all. It is actually worse then having that same person collecting UI because we're going to pay him more as a plumber then we already are for UI.

Spending is spending.

I'm ALL for stopping payments to other countries though. The so called buying of good will is laughable. That money doesn't even go to the people that need it, it goes to the Gov and is used for arms in the majority of cases.

I dont disagree, but lets also remember, that isn't a terribly large part of our budget either, and being so, the good it brings us globally is arguably worth it. Arguably anyway.

I know I don't have to tell you this, but in order to make a dent in the 6 billion a day in interest payments we're making on our already accrued debt, every single expense needs to be cut. Otherwise we have to cut that money from something else. Better it be another country that goes without imho.

[Marenta]

If I have $100 and I pay you $50 to fix my plumbing and then you pay me back $10 in taxes it still costs me $90. The end result doesn't help from a budget stand point at all. It is actually worse then having that same person collecting UI because we're going to pay him more as a plumber then we already are for UI.

Is it just me or is my math not mathing right? Did you mean 40$?

I like infrastructure, I really, really do. The power companies have a huge overhead, and it's nigh impossible for them to really update the antiquated distribution system without some sort of local gov't co-op for power outages. Our nation depends on this power grid, and I think it's a safe investment for the local, state, and federal gov't to ensure that it remains up-to-date and safe.

Oh, and can somebody PLEASE change the title of this thread? That "ids" is pestering the living bejesus out of me! I would log into Bart's acct to do it, but that is AoP and I don't believe in that.

Edit: Whoever changed that.. thank you!

[WDRacing]

Roger, $40. Guess I subtracted 10 from 100...fixed.

Fixed the title too.

I understand the point of fixing the infrastructure, especially the grid. It wastes what, 50% through leakage? That's part of what makes me so heated though. We can't make our own country better because we're already broke. Sure it's a good investment because it's useful, but it's still spending money. You shouldn't spend money that you don't have.

Right now we have a functioning grid but we have an upside budget. Adding more negatives to an upside budget doesn't fix our biggest problem.

We can't rescue all the people that make poor choices, support everyone that is old, pay for everyone to get a college education, support everyone that has a health problem and expect to have any money left in the kitty for Nation building anymore. Something has to give.

[telcoman]

Seriously. The Republicans had a great candidate. Romney was intelligent and charismatic as he campaigned. He avoided pitfalls, and didn't sink to his neck when challenged. He was a viable candidate. But they lost. They lost at a time when they were given a national issue that could have sunk a battleship. Even an economy that the many feel is in the tank didn't stop the voters from choosing the party they blamed for a lack of progress in the regard. If the Republicans couldn't win with a great candidate, and a great major issue on their side, what the heck is wrong?

I'm going to give you my 47 cents worth. Here's why Obama won in 2012 and why Biden will win in 2016.

1. Organized labor. Pure Democrat. There are more who punch a time clock than there are those who sign a pay check. Labor is solidly blue. Trickle down economics isn't labor friendly.

2. Women voters. Binders of women? Bad form. Republicans need to understand that women are people. Working, voting, struggling people just like most of us. Address their issues and you might be surprised.

3. Black vote. Nothing to do with Obama being seen as a black man. More a matter of the Democrats working to get the blacks to register and actually vote. The Republicans are seen as a party of older white men and brainless wealthy women.

4. Hispanic vote. Here's the real surprise. The Republicans missed the boat with women, blacks and now, with Hispanics. The fastest growing ethnic group in the US. Ignore these minorities and you get bit in the @ss like Romney did. It's the future of American Politics.

These are, IMHO, 4 reasons why the Republican party will not survive this election. And, as blue as my blood is, I hate to see the two party system die.

Seriously. Romney had a great chance. He put up the good fight. He was defeated by his own parties shortsightedness.


The good news is that we have a strong leader for the next 4 years who has the courage to defend his country by extraordinary means. We have an economy that is recovering and will continue to recover from the evils of the Bush era. We have Obamacare. We have a Democratic party that is stronger and more organized than ever.

It was a good night.

Yes it was a very good night

As long as the republicans continue to support wack jobs like Trump and Limbaugh they are toast

http://www.upworthy.com/rush-limbaugh-a ... bes?c=ufb1

Telcoman

[Marenta]

I understand the point of fixing the infrastructure, especially the grid. It wastes what, 50% through leakage? That's part of what makes me so heated though. We can't make our own country better because we're already broke. Sure it's a good investment because it's useful, but it's still spending money. You shouldn't spend money that you don't have.

Right now we have a functioning grid but we have an upside budget. Adding more negatives to an upside budget doesn't fix our biggest problem.

We can't rescue all the people that make poor choices, support everyone that is old, pay for everyone to get a college education, support everyone that has a health problem and expect to have any money left in the kitty for Nation building anymore. Something has to give.

I admit that I don't like where we are necessarily heading. I'm almost to the point where I want the people of America to demand the same standards that we have to live with be applied to our congressional appointees. If I can admit and openly declare that I want spending to be curbed, is it so impossible for the other side to say: "We wouldn't mind seeing some tax reform" as long as both sides get the majority of what they really want?

[szh]

Oh, and put your keyboard in the dishwasher. Works every time.

Umm ... not my wireless keyboard!

Z

[stebo0728]

I admit that I don't like where we are necessarily heading. I'm almost to the point where I want the people of America to demand the same standards that we have to live with be applied to our congressional appointees. If I can admit and openly declare that I want spending to be curbed, is it so impossible for the other side to say: "We wouldn't mind seeing some tax reform" as long as both sides get the majority of what they really want?

We HAVE HAVE HAVE to understand that spending is the bulk of the problem, and I don't mean to pick on social welfare either, because corporate welfare is just as rampant, and just as bad. We can put taxes on the table, both style and quantity, but we have to address and understand that people dont produce enough capital to support our level of spending, our debt has exceeded our GDP, therefore no amount of taxation alone is going to handle the problem. I think if you would find, if we put forward a comprehensive model of spending reform, and find ways to keep as much quality of services while reducing their quantity as much as possible, that people would be much more apt to sign on to an necessary taxation increases. But people lock down tight on taxes when spending isn't being seriously addressed. Look at it like this, if our economic problems were likened to heart failure, then spending reduction would be the equivalent of the pacemaker, and tax increases would only be roughly the equivalent of the stitches needed to close the wound. Necessary, but not the key part of the solution.

Another bridge you will not cross on taxation: people who have wealth don't like to be forced to contribute to charity. Welfare is forced charity. However, good hearted, charitable people almost completely live by a simple tenet. Help those who help themselves. Welfare would not be nearly as demonized if we didn't see people institutionalized into it. People on welfare need to contribute, and if it isn't in a private sector job, then it should be in public sector service of some kind. We have people on welfare that don't even bother to show up for jury duty. If people in need were seen to be contributing to society in at least SOME way, it would go alot further. People have lost work ethic. If we had all along in place some system that keeps people working in some way to earn their keep, we wouldn't be in such an institutionalized mess.

And then there's waste. People don't like to see their hard earned money wasted, especially when the waste was at the hands of someone else. Its alot harder to sell tax increases when we aren't good stewards with the taxes we already pay.

[WDRacing]

^THIS^

[Marenta]

I'm not against cutting spending. I know it's a big deal. I know it's a larger portion of our problem than our revenue. But, I also consider those subsidies going to corporations welfare as well.

If anything gets fixed in this country, ALL of the cards have to be in play on the table. ALL of them. That's what I want. I don't want a cut only approach, and I don't want a revenue only approach. Neither way will work, it has to be together. And, hell, I'm not even saying that tax reform HAS to bring in more revenue, either.

I'm giving up something: entitlement spending. All I would ask is that the other side at least offer up the chance to do tax reform in conjunction. I don't think it's that painful of a compromise.

But, as I've said multiple times... Person is smart, people are stupid. The minute you add another person into the mix, the IQ level just drops dramatically. Ugh, they're all guppies anyway.

[ImStricken06]

I'm going to give you my 47 cents worth. Here's why Obama won in 2012 and why Biden will win in 2016.

let me stop you right there. biden win? lmfao you are out of your mind. biden is the laughing stock

[Marenta]

In the famous words of a feathered, flightless bird:

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

No president or congress is going to go in and change the status quo. It's just NOT going to happen. To move from the moderate course (either side) would be political suicide. All Americans think they want change but, hate change in reality.

[WDRacing]

The only ones that will hate change are the ones that would be hurt the most. What are our biggest expenditures? SS, medicare, defense and welfare. You can remove every cent we spend on the war and then chop defense in half and still be upside 600 billion annually. So in truth, the people that will hate change are going to be the ones on welfare. What else could you cut? Can't cut SS or Medicare, it's a paid into system. That leaves welfare.

That's really just the brutal truth of it.

[ImStricken06]

No president or congress is going to go in and change the status quo. It's just NOT going to happen. To move from the moderate course (either side) would be political suicide. All Americans think they want change but, hate change in reality.

never will it be changed in one term, or in 2 terms. but take a look at the last 20 years.... i understand society changing - but take a look at society & politics as a whole for the last 20years. America is a lot closer to socialism than ever before. so no, we will never have a president or congress that will go in and in one term morph things into one way or another, but slowly it is changing; and since its so close to my life-time it scares the s*** out of that my family and I escaped Russian socialism to come here for a better life where hard work once paid off, now we are faced with college kids coming out of school and are pure liberal socialists(because of what their professors fed them), millions of illegals voting democrat, blacks vote democrat, union members voting democrat... and it scared the crap out of me.

America will NEVER be the same. democrats have millions of more supporters today than ever. illegals flooded this country and now will help reshape the way this country once was, via their vote. they WILL and DO vote democrat, thus empowering the socialist platform. RIP AMERICA.

[telcoman]

America will NEVER be the same. democrats have millions of more supporters today than ever. illegals flooded this country and now will help reshape the way this country once was, via their vote. they WILL and DO vote democrat, thus empowering the socialist platform. RIP AMERICA.

Socialist platform? Bulls#it

The republicans think they were not far enough to the right as to why they lost?

They did not learn anything from 2008, and thought they were on the right track after 2010.

WRONG on both

Republicans attacking woman, gays, abortion, contraception, hispanics, restricting voting, not believing polls, not believing government statistics, are just some of the many reasons why they lost the election.

Palin refused to do the Sunday morning talk shows and she lost

Romney refused to do the same and he lost. Ryan tried but said there was not enough time to explain his math.

Romney stating he didn't care about 47% just about did him in.

Listen to d!ck Morris and Bill O'Reilly and then listen to Chuck Todd and Nate Silver and you will understand why getting political news from Fox is such a joke.

Telcoman

[ImStricken06]

Socialist platform? Bulls#it

hate to break it to you, redistribution of wealth is socialism. i lived through it in russia. my family lived through it russia.

please, tell me how the Democrats dont have a socialist platform:

"We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." - OBAMA

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." - OBAMA

"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody."

President Obama gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, to "civil rights" activist Dolores Huerta. She also happens to be honorary chairwoman of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the U.S.' main socialist party and an affiliate of Socialist International.

His mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member. Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was a hard-core Marxist. Ditto his mother, Stanley Anne Dunham.

......GO ON AND DISPUTE THAT DEMOCRATS OR OBAMA ARE NOT SOCIALISTS - go on wichyo bad self!

[stebo0728]

Obama won because 3 million republicans stayed home rather than accept the moderate that was being crammed down their throats. The right ticket got 10% of the black vote this time, and 25% of the hispanic vote. Thats UP from last time around. Many are trying to crucify pro-lifers for the loss. Mourdock lost to PRO-LIFER. The difference? The right has to morph their position to allow for rape/incest/health. But they don't have to drop the pro-life banner altogether. When Roe-v-Wade was handed down, the court was giving women a safe avenue for the procedure, but it was supposed to be in exchange for a "rare occurance rate". Safe but rare, that was the mantra. Anyone heartless enough to actually position themselves with an idea that widespread infanticide in answer to irresponsible behavior, in my opinion now, has some problems. But extreme pro choicers recognize this, that's why they try to start discussions about when life begins. There's no discussion to be had there, not for anyone with any a rational bone in them. But then their next answer is "well what about the sperm?" Equally absurd argument. Life begins at conception, deal with it. If you still want ultimate freedom of choice at the cost of that life, have the balls to admit that you consider the termination of a life in that case to be acceptable. We kill criminals, and we consider that to be acceptable. The only difference here, the unborn child is no criminal. I'm all for freedom of choice, in down with LGBT freedom, I'm down with legalized pot, I'm down with widespread overall reduction in prohibitive law where applicable, but this issue transcends a simple right to a choice. Exercise your choice of responsibility when a life is NOT in the balance. Realize I'm speaking to the practice of abortion purely as birth control, and not to the practice involving the exceptions for rape/incest/health. If giving out free birth control would help stop the need for widespread frivalous abortions, sign me up. I'd rather pay taxes for preventative measures any day. I don't think it should be free, but we gotta make some concession somewhere. Republicans can be successful with pro-life if they A) shut the hell up about it until its actually pertinent and B) Realize that just because they believe their God would have them trust him when you're raped or projected to die in childbirth, it doesn't mean the rest of the world should have to. That's really the only religious part of the matter, as far as I'm concerned.