Romney - what went wrong?

Here's what went right with the election:

1) Obama won!

2). Dick Morris was proven once again to be incredibly wrong, proving that reality trumps the alternate version conservatives like to foist upon us.

3). Karl Rove's epic meltdown on Fox News when they declared Obama the winner - it was like watching a child at a baseball game when the game is nearly over and his team is losing badly talking about "We only need 3 grand slams and we're right back in it!"

Do you think Romney should have promised to take tax payer funds and bailout overpriced union workers?

I don't think that Romney should have entertained any of your ridiculous hypothetical loaded questions.

I do think Romney should have taken a position, any position, and stuck with it.   People want a man of conviction to lead of the free world, not a chameleon.

>>I do think Romney should have taken a position, any position, and stuck with it.

Like gay marriage, transparency, change in washington?


>>People want a man of conviction to lead

Like Rev Wright?

>>Like gay marriage, transparency, change in washington?

If he would have ran on that he would have had a better chance. The flip flopping all the time is what killed him. He never had the option to be consistent though because his base wouldn't let him.

Obama didn't win this election. Romney lost. But it wasn't even Romney. The Republican party lost because it went too far to the right.

>>Like Rev Wright?

I hope today you realize nobody cares about that anymore and knows Obama doesn't hold the values of that idiot today.

>>I hope today you realize nobody cares about that anymore

No one knew.  Media barely covered.


>>The flip flopping all the time is what killed him.

Obama's propaganda, lies, deceit are what doomed Romney.

This kind of stuff is fun to watch though:

5 Amazing Fox News Freak-outs: Karl Rove, Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, and More - The Daily Beast : http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/07/5-amazing-fox-news-freak-outs-karl-rove-megyn-kelly-bill-o-reilly-and-more.html

I think O'Reilly got it right though and the Republicans have to deal with this and adjust. The fringe they are on now wont work and they have to come back towards the center or will keep losing.

No one knew.  Media barely covered.

Because of the issues and punditary firestorm over Rev. Wright, which played out on all the major news networks,  Obama gave one of the greatest speeches of all time on the subject of race .  

So yeah, aside from all the major networks and a nationally televised speech on the subject by the President, it was largely ignored (at least in the conservative version of history).


You were pretty close on the second point though.  I've fixed it for you, so now it's correct:

Romney's propaganda, lies, deceit are what doomed Romney.

>>The fringe they are on now wont work and they have to come back towards the center or will keep losing

The vote was nearly split in half.  The difference is what now have a tilt towards dependency, towards those that envy yet demonize wealth, that want something for nothing, and those that do not inform themselves as to the issues and candidates.  

These voters do not know what the debt clock is, do not understand the fiscal cliff, do not understand that taxing small businesses eliminates jobs, that Obamacare will create a doctor shortage and increase premiums.

What they do care about is watching Survivor, government handouts, and getting the next Iphone.

Here's what we get from Democrats:

Chris Matthews:  

"I'm So Glad We Had That Storm Last Week"

No, that's what you get from a pundit.   Want to see more pundits make ridiculous assertions?  Just turn on Fox News any time of day.  Oh, yeah, I forgot - that's what you consider reality which explains why you see the opposition party the way you do despite any facts or evidence.

>>They're stuck in the economics of the eigtheenth centuary.

Explain the liberal economic philosophy then.



>>Mr.Obama's second term presidency requires constructive criticizism not blockag

At this point, I honestly think the Republicans should just get out of the way.  Let Democrats have their way and give yet more examples of how borrowing and wasteful spending, as is done in Europe, fails each and every time.  We had the stimulus but people have short term memories.


>>No, that's what you get from a pundit.

How many people died from that hurricane?  Lost their homes?  And Democrats are glad?

We have longer term memories than conservatives who seem to have forgotten that the reason we had the stimulus is because of the great recession, and we have more of a grip on reality than those same conservatives who assert the stimulus didn't help us.

How many people died from that hurricane?  Lost their homes?  And Democrats are glad?

Democrats are not glad.   Chris Matthews was making an extreme statement in context to make his point, but he's a blowhard and that's what blowhards do.  Democrats, in fact no one agrees with that statement.    

Which brings us to another difference between Repubs and Dems;  Dems don't let the pundits set the agenda.   Chris Matthews is just a guy with a show.   Repubs on the other hand laud and support Limbaugh, and rush (no pun intended) to kiss his ring should they ever offend the "de facto leader of the party!"

Beetos, educate me.  Explain liberal economics.  How does it work?

Austerity during recession = depression.

Government stimulus during recession = shorter recession.

Tax cuts on the wealth DO NOT equal prosperity.    

Increases in GDP reduces the deficit, not cuts to social safety nets.

Social safety nets provide assistance to those most in need, especially during difficult economic times such as the great recession.

>>Austerity during recession = depression.

Warren G Harding cut spending and unemployment dropped 5 points.



>>Government stimulus during recession = shorter recession.

See Obama's stimulus - Unemployment is higher now than when Obama took office.  See Hoover and FDR - government intervention made depression longer.


>>Tax cuts on the wealth DO NOT equal prosperity.    

Most jobs come from small business owners.  Obama wants to raise their taxes.  Somehow, I believe people will be let go to account for Obama's intervention.

Lower capital gains result in more investment, capital, risk taking - all needed to create jobs.  Obama even admitted this in a debate with Hillary - but said he didn't give a shit.



>>Social safety nets provide assistance to those most in need,

Breeds government dependence, decreases incentives to go out and work.  But it does allow Democrats to say that, if you vote for Republicans, they'll take your welfare away.

What's all that got to do with Wright and Ayers?


BTW - your boy Dick Morris just wrote a piece on why he was so wrong.   Are you ready?  It was hurricane Sandy!      

Now, I know you're thinking, "but he made his predictions AFTER the hurricane hit!  Why didn't he take that and Christies and Obama's actions into account?"    

Well, like so many conservatives he probably only watches Fox News and therefore didn't even know there was a hurricane!

>>BTW - your boy Dick Morris just wrote a piece on why he was so wrong.

Dick didn't account for the deadbeat vote.




>>Well, like so many conservatives he probably only watches Fox News

And he would have missed MSNBC praising hurrican Sandy and the death and destruction it brought.

Well, again, you're out of context.  Here's the full quote:

I'm so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things. No, politically I should say. Not in terms of hurting people. The storm brought in possibilities for good politics.

See, in the aftermath of the hurricane, Obama and Christie were able to work together despite Christie's prior assessment of Obama as being feckless and incompetent for the purposes of Romeny's campaign.

Chris Matthews was merely making that point, not praising the "death and destruction" the hurricane brought. In fact, he specifically did the exact opposite of that.


Unfortunately,  adding this context will do nothing to keep you from repeating this nonsense every time you want to throw stones at Democrats.

>>Well, again, you're out of context.  Here's the full quote:


It's not one bit different.  Sick comment.  Democrats are shameless.

>>You could say that the Democrats didn't get caught saying as many stupid things as the Republicans.

Caught is the appropriate word.  They called Romney a fellon, said he didn't pay his taxes, covered up Libya, and denied Stephanie Cutter lied.


>>Obama campaign knew more about where their votes were coming from

That's why Democrats play to illegals, welfare recipients, and single women (the phony war on women lie).  They simply couldn't run on their record.

The media is the real felon.  They generated false stories and blew things out of proportion on Bush, but ignore major stories with Democrats.

It's not one bit different.  Sick comment.  Democrats are shameless.

Taken alone, yes, it's a sick comment.   Taken in context, it's just a poor way to make his point.  However, your boy Dick Morris agrees with him 100%.   He blamed Sandy for the loss because Obama and Christie worked together ( as they should)  which is what Matthews was saying he was "glad" for.

>>The vote was nearly split in half.

Obama won over 300 Electoral votes and had over 2/5 million more on the popular vote. Hardly split in half.

>>These voters do not know what the debt clock is, do not understand the fiscal cliff, do not understand that taxing small businesses eliminates jobs, that Obamacare will create a doctor shortage and increase premiums.
>>What they do care about is watching Survivor, government handouts, and getting the next Iphone.

Haven't I been telling you that for the past year?

>>"I'm So Glad We Had That Storm Last Week"

That was a stupid thing to say!

>>I believe that he is a convinced Mormon and the tendentious campaign troubled him greatly.

I agree. I never felt Mitt was a bad guy. He just was just the guy that the Repubs put up there and they controlled him so much he couldn't be himself but had to pander to them. I'm sure he is having the best day he has had in a year.

>>Mr.Obama's second term presidency requires constructive criticizism not blockage and I think Mr.Rommney acceeds to that.

I agree there as well. I don't feel Romney was as bad as Santorum or Newt would have been and just wants what is best for this country. The others just wanted their party in control.

>>Dick didn't account for the deadbeat vote.

No. Dick didn't account for the uninformed vote which we discussed in the above point.

He won the Electoral by over 120 votes once Florida results come in. He won the Popular vote by over 2.75 Million votes. It wasn't close at all really. It wasn't as big a win as his last election but it was hardly a squeaker either.

So can we now safely say Obama owns the economy?

Or are we going to hear another four years about how he inherited a mess?

Keep in mind the unemployment rate is higher than when he took office.  I can now see why people decided to rehire him.

My opinion is that Romney was leading in the polls but when it got down to crunch time some people decided to play it safe and voted differently than what they said they would.  They didn't want Obama a 100% but with him they were more sure of what they were getting.

>>with him [Obama] they were more sure of what they were getting.


You really think so?   Do you really think the average voter knows what they got and are about to get? Obama's first four years have been a financial disaster.   No company would rehire a CEO after leading a company in the same manner Obama led the country.

In 2008, Obama had no record, nothing to show, except his work as an attorney for an organization known for voter fraud (ACORN).  Only other thing we knew about him was he hung around radicals and was the most liberal senator in the senate.  I can understand then, since the media never vetted Obama as it does Republicans.

I think it was voter ignorance and negative ads filled with lies.

I think it was voter ignorance and negative ads filled with lies. I think it was voter ignorance and negative ads filled with lies.

Well that certainly sums up the Romney campaign!

If it were up to me, I would have revived the Jeremiah Wright story and talked about his radical connections.  I  also would have put him, in his own words, stating his desire to bankrupt the coal industry - then another, in his words again, bashing Christianity.

LOVE AN ANSWER TO THIS:

Why is his support for infanticide off limits?

AUDIO

Eric,

Aren't you conservative guys always railing about personal responsibility?   Well then why the hell are you guys trying to blame everyone else for the election loss?

Voter ID laws,  redistricting, ending or shortening early voting,  mailers to specific groups with the wrong date on them, robocalls with wrong information, and actual calls telling people they could vote by phone, untold SuperPAC donations -    All these techniques were designed to give the election to Romney and they all failed.  

Why?  Because the voting public isn't as dumb and disengaged as you would believe.    

Wright, Ayers, birtherism, and whatever other nonsense you ascribe to in a feeble attempt to discredit the President doesn't matter to folks who care about more important (real) issues.

Republicans in general have been taking more radical right positions.   They all attacked Romney for not being radical enough in the primaries, and he responded by becoming more radical.

Could it be that more than half the country doesn't like these positions?

The 47% comment was not a gaffe - it shows what Romney like you mistakenly believes in his heart about the country.    Either that or it was an outright lie to wealthy campaign donors to curry their favor.  Whichever it was speaks to Romney's character.

Regarding unemployment and the economy,  it would appear that a lot of voters have memories, and remember the calamities Obama faced and how he dealt with them.  Despite what your conservative news channels tell you, he didn't cause these calamities, rather he dealt with them.  

Point is, Obama voters had plenty of reason to choose him over Romney, and it's not the BULLSHIT coming from conservatives about "free stuff".

So according to you, Beetos, no one cares about Obama's radical connections/past and his economic failures?

I guess that's the same as a husband not caring about his wife cheating on him if he doesn't know about it.  

If you notice, most of Obama's support came from bankrupt states and highly unionized areas.  Areas with good American/traditional/hard working values rejected him.

So according to you, Beetos, no one cares about Obama's radical connections/past and his economic failures?

No, the radical connections/past assertions by conservatives were and still are nothing but a pathetic mudslinging attempt;  Obama didn't take your guns, or lock up dissenters, or make the US subservient to the UN.

His economic policies staved off economic ruin for our country.   Our unemployment went up and then down.  Europe, which has implemented austerity measures instead of a stimulus continues to see their unemployment rise.  Obama was successful ( though conservatives will never admit it).  

I guess that's the same as a husband not caring about his wife cheating on him if he doesn't know about it.  

No, it's nothing like that at all.   Not even close.  

If you notice, most of Obama's support came from either bankrupt states and highly unionized areas.  Areas with good American/traditional/hard working values rejected him.

The red states rejected him - you know, the states that TAKE far more from the government than they GIVE.    And he won all but one swing state.   He won in the REAL AMERICA!

Finally, someone willing to talk the issues.   You have to promise me you're not going to get mad and stomp off.  Makes it no fun.  See below - no fox news references.

>>Nope, it's the same.  7.8%.

That's news to the rest of the world.

CNBC Friday, 2 Nov 2012: ..the unemployment rate moved higher to 7.9 percent, setting the stage for a final push to the finish line in the heated presidential campaign.

The REAL unemployment rate is closer to 11%.  The ONLY reason the rate is at 7.9% is because so many have dropped out of the workforce.

Workforce participation rate lowest since 1948

>>Rev. Wright is far saner.

-"America's chickens are coming home to roost" (meaning we deserved 9/11)
-"not god bless america god damn america"
-"Hillary ain't never been called a n!gger"
-"Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky! He was riding dirty!"

(Your president spent 20 years in this church)

>>You mean areas where people WORK FOR A LIVING?  As in, are members of UNIONS?  So much for your earlier argument that Obama's supporters are all living on government assistance

Public unions (and bailed out car companies) ARE a form of government assistance.  They make far more than the same jobs in the private sector.  

Was this a good move?

As GM shares near record low, taxpayer loss on bailout rises to $35 billion

Compare Rev. Wright's patriotic questioning of his government's policies (which is substantially the same thing you're doing here) with the Mormons and their magic underwear and magic hats.  Wright is exaggerating for effect, but in essence suggesting that the US has had a history of exploiting Middle East countries, propping up brutal dictatorships there, and supporting genocidal nutcases (like, for example, Saddam Hussein, until we decided we didn't like him after all), which understandably generates some anger against us.  Did we "deserve" 9/11?  No, but I don't think he said that; he said we created the anger that gave rise to it.    And be's basically right about that.  Do you honestly believe that we were attacked because there are people out in the world who "hate freedom", as Bush asserted?  Nobody hates freedom; people hate being subjugated by monsters who are bolstered by US arms and US money, because they're willing to play ball with us.  He's following a timehonored tradition among preachers of hyperbole, to get his congregation fired up.  The Mormons, in contrast,  actually believe their shit.

You can harp about the distinction between 7.8% and 7.9% if you want, but it's insignificant compared to the difference between that and the 10% (oh, and what was the "REAL" unemployment rate when the nominal rate was 10%?) that Bush's policies got us to.

And as far as unions - since when are plumbers' unions, mechanics' unions, electricians' unions, projectionists' unions, communications workers unions etc., etc. a form of public assistance?    Are you suggesting that when UNIONIZED government employees (teachers, for example) get decent pay and benefits that's government assistance, whereas when UNIONIZED nongovernment employees get decent pay and benefits, it's not?   i guess everyone who gets a paycheck from the government (like Congressmen) are on "government assistance" by your logic.

As to the bailed out car companies (who have repaid their loans and as to which the government made a substantial PROFIT, if you include the avoidance of paying unemployment, etc.  to out-of-work GM and GM-dependent company employees), would you prefer that we had let GM fail?  If we had, where would your beloved unemployment rate be now?    You want to provide government subsidies to "small business" (which by definition includes multibillion dollar hedge funds, for example) in the form of reduced taxes, but you're against loans (which got paid back, though admittedly partially in underperforming GM stock) to one of America's largest employers?  And you would have wanted to kill the entire ecosystem of suppliers that sells to GM as well?

You can't simultaneously argue that we should "create jobs" by the dubious practice of subsidizing "small business" and that we should kill jobs by letting GM be killed off in large part due to a recession created by corrupt bankers that were unchecked by a government that looked the other way.

To go back to your original question, Romney's campaign failed because the old are dying off and being replaced by the young, and younger people are not as easily fooled.  They also do not buy into hate-based Republican policies like opposition to gay marriage, the failure to recognize that birth control is a species of healthcare, the notion that we should be guided in our policies by imaginary sky-beings, the idea that women who've been raped should be forced to give birth to their rapists' children (and then enjoy sharing parental rights with the rapist for the rest of their lives), etc. etc.   The Reputlican religious taliban who want to preserve a way of life that only ever existed in their imaginations and Norman Rockwell paintings are being replaced by realists.  Hopefully that trend will continue and grow fast enough to save the country from the woman-hating gay-hating science-hating climate-change-denying greedy bozos whose disastrous policies Obama had to spend the bulk of his time rescuing us from.  It'll be great if, in his second term, he can actually move us forward, rather than just repairing past damage.

>>I guess that's the same as a husband not caring about his wife cheating on him if he doesn't know about it.

I mean, you must read this TWICE before you really get the meaning.

1) Wife cheats on husband.

2) Husband doesn't know about it.
   (Don't they all!)

3) So Husband, who doesn't know, doesn't care. Of course he doesn't because he doesn't know.

4) Of course if he did, he MIGHT care.

5) If he did know and he didn't care, that might amount to what Eric was rabitting on about.

6) But since he doesn't, it doesn't matter.

Eric, do you write this stuff for effect or does it come naturally?


I'm currently reading a book by Sybille Bedford. It's a travelog and she's visting an Englishman in Mexico between the wars. Mr Middleton is going on about the trashy Mexican government - all thieves you know - the trashy British government - all clueless upper class twits - and the trashy American government just across the border - all incompetant backwoods farmers you know.

His wife pops out of the kitchen :

"Richard votes Conversative you know, Sybille" she says.
" It's none of her damn business" he yells.
"Drink your tea, dear, it'll get cold" she politely replies.
Which he does.

I wonder if Eric has a wife like that. I'd like to meet here.

>>Compare Rev. Wright's patriotic questioning of his government's policies
>> he said we created the anger that gave rise to it.

Patriotic?  Wow.  "Chickens coming home to roost" means we got what we deserved.  
Maybe we should sing, "Hillary aint never been called a n!gger.  And Bill was ridin' Monica dirty" before sporting events now.



>>You can harp about the distinction between 7.8% and 7.9% if you want

Since Obama took office, we passed a failed trillion dollar stimulus. We added $6 trillion total to the national debt.  We lost billions in bailing out GM's unions (note: the UNIONS were bailed out).

And what do we have to show for it?  More and more giving up looking for work and an uptick in unemployment rate.  Over 4 years we've seen no improvement.  Not ONE net, new job created.   Oh, and millions more on food stamps.


>> Are you suggesting that when UNIONIZED government employees (teachers, for example) get decent pay and benefits that's government assistance, whereas when UNIONIZED nongovernment employees get decent pay and benefits, it's not?  

I don't care what private unions do.  That's their problem, as long as I don't have to subsidize their inflated wages.

See Chicago teachers union - teachers are highest paid in the country, yet the kids fail on almost every academic level.  God bless Scott Walker - he took on their public unions and saved the state from bankruptcy.



>>To go back to your original question, Romney's campaign failed because the old are dying off and being replaced by the young, and younger people are not as easily fooled.

So the country can fall off the cliff but you're happy if some chick can murder her kid or get all the "free" birth control she wants?

I'm not saying this graphic is meaning that anyone who is Republican or votes Republican is less educated or dumb. I'm just saying that in THIS election, it might not have been the smartest choice.

Some things are just tough to argue against. Don't you think Eric?

I can see it's hopeless.  I regret that I've wasted the time I already have on this, and on you; it was a mistake, and I'll not be compounding it by continuing.  Don't mistake my silence as your victory; a new day has begun and I have to get back to doing productive work.

>>I can see it's hopeless.  I regret that I've wasted the time I already have on this, and on you; it was a mistake, and I'll not be compounding it by continuing.

Anyone else want to spout off some economic "facts" they read from a Hope and Change bumper sticker?

Is there some sort of "Liberal economics for dummies" book I can get my hands on?  

Liberal economics - now there's an oxymoron.

No comment on the image?

>>No comment on the image?

Take it with a grain of salt.

These are the same people that believe spending $6 trillion in 4 years with no return is genius.

 The Reputlican religious taliban who want to preserve a way of life that only ever existed in their imaginations and Norman Rockwell paintings are being replaced by realists.  Hopefully that trend will continue and grow fast enough to save the country from the woman-hating gay-hating science-hating climate-change-denying greedy bozos whose disastrous policies Obama had to spend the bulk of his time rescuing us from.  It'll be great if, in his second term, he can actually move us forward, rather than just repairing past damage.

Wow - talk about calling their card!  What a succinct and accurate summation of our current politics!

Anyone else want to spout off some economic "facts" they read from a Hope and Change bumper sticker?

That's the problem Eric, only you've got it backwards.  You're presented with facts and retort with conservative talking points and mantras.    For example "no net jobs created".  While technically true, it completely ignores the depths of the problem, how bad things got, and how Obama turned things around and got us heading in the right direction.

Basically the Republican view on the economy is it's not getting better fast enough, so lets revert to the prior policies which caused the problems instead.

>>No comment on the image?

Take it with a grain of salt.

Again dismissing empirical data.  Just like Romney's "47%" who are takers and are going to vote for Obama no matter what - when they really live in Red states that would vote for Romney no matter what.

Actually, Eric, one of the things that went wrong was people like you making these fantastic claims.  I know a number of people who have been spouting off like you do.  And I think that you and them caused the 'undecided' voters to decide that they didn't want anyone that you would support.  Many of your claims are so unbelievable that they bring into doubt everything you say.

Not to mention that you make it sound like you and the other Repooblicans don't like anyone.  And I'm not even Hispanic or black and I believe that.  Why would people vote for a party that doesn't like them?  That would be stupid.

>>These are the same people that believe spending $6 trillion in 4 years with no return is genius.

No they are not. These are the people that see the Republican party is living in the past and not keeping up with current society.

>>You're presented with facts and retort with conservative talking points and mantras.

I paste links backing up what I say.  


>>Wow - talk about calling their card!  What a succinct and accurate summation of our current politics!

We're in an economic mess, and you yahoos are worried if two dudes can get married.  Fix the economic mess now and worry about that later.


>>Basically the Republican view on the economy is it's not getting better fast enough,

At all, you mean.  It's worse.  



>>Many of your claims are so unbelievable that they bring into doubt everything you say.

Such as???



>> Why would people vote for a party that doesn't like them?

Not sure what you're basing this on?  Provide details/examples.



>>These are the people that see the Republican party is living in the past

So only people in the 1950s spend no more than they take in?  Only in the 1980s did we care about jobs?  Only in the 1960s did we care if people were or were not on food stamps?


All you guys give are social issues, free birth control, and hope that things get better.  We're turning in to Greece and you guys are too blinded to see it.

Didn't your mama or anyone ever tell you about not having anything good to say?

>> Why would people vote for a party that doesn't like them?

Not sure what you're basing this on?  Provide details/examples.


You mean like Romney's speech where he says that 47% of the population will never vote for him so he might as well ignore them?  You mean like all the Hispanic Republicans that go on TV saying that the Republic party has to start including Hispanics?

By the way, the Republican party of the 1950's was big on federal subsidies for education in the form of the GI Bill.  Course, an ex-general was President then.  Used to be that even Republicans wanted us to live better.

This election was about free shit.  Take from producers and give to moochers.  



>>You mean like all the Hispanic Republicans that go on TV saying that the Republic party has to start including Hispanics?

Why are liberals caught up in labeling people all the time?  I have American goals in mind, not goals related to my ethnicity or if I have a vagina or not.

>>Why are liberals caught up in labeling people all the time?  I have American goals in mind, not goals related to my ethnicity or if I have a vagina or not.

Because that is human nature and while it would be nice to all have the thoughts of the country first, it isn't reality. Taking care of the different groups in the country though will be taking care of the country as a whole.

The Republican party used to be viable until the Tea Party hijacked them and made them a bunch of wackos. I hope it can go back to what it was 10 years ago and I can actually start voting for the better person rather than the one that is less controlled by idiotic philosophy.

Romney I think could have been a good President if his party would have let him. Too bad they aren't able to do that currently with the extreme right wingers.

>>The Republican party used to be viable until the Tea Party hijacked them and made them a bunch of wackos.

Yeah, less spending and more freedom.  Very nutty.

I have American goals in mind, not goals related to my ethnicity or if I have a vagina or not.

Maybe you'd have some of those other goals in mind if the Republi-ban was passing laws directly restricting your rights like they have been for Latinos and women.

>>Maybe you'd have some of those other goals in mind if the Republi-ban was passing laws directly restricting your rights like they have been for Latinos and women.


I could see this as a bumper sticker on this guy's car.

I find it ironic that the Republican party is so fixated on bumper stickers, when "bumper sticker slogans" is what they've been using as a political message for years.

Here's a question for you Eric:

The Senate passed a bill to keep the tax rates for those making under $250K the same.  As the President said "No one, Republicans nor Democrats, is opposed to this."  This would effect 98% of Americans and 97% of small businesses.

In order to improve the economy, and thus benefit the nation by removing uncertainty, shouldn't that bill be passed and put into law?

No one's taxes should go up.

Raising taxes on the "rich" will do ZERO to lower either Obama's trillion dollar deficits or our national debt.

Raising taxes on those over $250K will result in small businesses laying off people and others moving their money out of the country.  

Why can't liberals extrapolate?

>>Yeah, less spending and more freedom.

You know that is what they say it is all about, but what is it really all about?

Their values that they want the rest of the country to follow.

Abortion - must be pro-life. Fine if you want to be pro-life than don't have an abortion. Stop trying to shove it down the rest of the country's throat through. Let people choose for themselves.

Gay Marriage - must be opposed to it. Fine then don't get married if you are gay. Stop trying to tell anyone else whether or not they should get to be married when it does nothing to your own marriage by them getting married.

Gun Control - Wanting to keep gun control laws which fit the time they were written 200+ years ago but are beyond stupid in modern society as the shootings continue.

Religious zealots fighting to teach creationism as science. Denying there is any climate change when most every scientist says there is.  The blast against 'liberal academia' (Newt's quote from a debate) that they are poisoning the minds in college with all the science.

The Republican party used to be able to at least discuss these issues and had some valid points on them. Today they are intolerant and just want the extreme version of them all. The country today is more modern and they have to stop acting like they can keep it the way it was in the 1950's or the 1850's.

The mantra of working hard and bettering yourself I agree with, but they put too much baggage on it to be able to back them.

>>Raising taxes on those over $250K will result in small businesses laying off people and others moving their money out of the country.  

Because that honestly is either what they are going to do now, or not going to happen with a tax raise. If it's cheaper to move jobs overseas than make your product here, they will do so whether they pay 1% or 90% in taxes. It's that pesky math again!

>>Gun Control - Wanting to keep gun control laws which fit the time they were written 200+ years ago but are beyond stupid in modern society as the shootings continue

I've carried a .380 LCP pistol for years (have it on me as I'm typing this).  Never once have I had an issue.  See the 2nd amendment.  It's my Constitutional right.


>>Denying there is any climate change when most every scientist says there is.

Eyes rolling.  Global warming exists to line Al Gore's pockets with money and to weaken the US globally.  Gore goes flies around in his private jet telling the rest of us how to live.  



>>Abortion - must be pro-life.

Obama is for infanticide.  Look that up.  


In my opinion, liberals are crazy.  Nothing in their world make sense.

In my opinion, liberals are crazy.  Nothing in their world make sense.

We know.   And unfortunately for you, their world is outside of the Fox News conservative bubble, AKA the real world.

What is this fixation with Fox News?

Liberals are obsessed with it.

Well, it's because conservative keep trumpeting Fox News as being the most watched news channel.   However, they've shown they're not really a news channel and more of a Republican propaganda channel.    Conservatives tune in, pick up their talking points, and then try to drive the political conversation using the misleading information they've been given.

Republicans use this misinformation campaign to bolster their political arguments.   You know, things like "death panels" and "Acorn is committing voter fraud" and "Obama's not an American."

Most of the questions you've posted happen to be identical to the topic of the day on Fox.

Fox does have some "Foxes,"  I will admit that.   But if you wanted critical information about a serious issue in a foreign country, who would you trust:  Gretchen Carlson, or Christianne Amanpour?

>>who would you trust

The comedy channel?


>>Fox does have some "Foxes,"

They dig Dick Morris.

>>I've carried a .380 LCP pistol for years (have it on me as I'm typing this).  Never once have I had an issue.  See the 2nd amendment.  It's my Constitutional right.

I have no problem with you and your handgun. I have a problem with idiots that want to have  semi-automatic weapons. I have a problem with stupid laws the NRA pushes through that allow hotheads to shoot others and get away with it. Zimmerman case is a good example but there are plenty of others.

>>Eyes rolling.  Global warming exists to line Al Gore's pockets with money and to weaken the US globally.  Gore goes flies around in his private jet telling the rest of us how to live.  

I don't buy everything Gore spouts out either but to deny that humans have an effect is ridiculous. Weather is changing and it is a real happening.

>>Obama is for infanticide.  Look that up.  

You don't like abortion then fine, but you don't have to choose for others. Let them make that choice. The same goes with gay marriage. You don't like it so you don't want anyone else to do it either, like it affects you somehow.

We wont even go towards the creationism in schools crap or other religious wackos in your party.

The right wing doesn't just want their values for themselves. They want everyone to follow what THEY think it should be like. It doesn't work that way.

Your values are like your religion and like your penis.

Fine for you to have and I don't care what you do with it but don't be waving it all over the place or try to shove it down my throat. When you go that far is when you lose them, and that is where the Republican party is heading and why Romney lost.

>>You don't like abortion then fine, but you don't have to choose for others


When did Romney bring up abortion?  It's legal - women can kill their babies all they want.

Again, phony war on women nonsense.  All so Obama didn't have to run on his failed policies.

>>When did Romney bring up abortion?

I wasn't talking about Romney. I was talking about the extreme right wing conservatives that have taken over the Republican Party.

If it wasn't for them, then Romney would probably have won. He could have been his own person standing up for what he believed rather than what his base made him stand up for, causing his campaign to backtrack on something he said in interviews because it pissed off his base.

>>We added $6 trillion total to the national debt.

Although I'm not for overspending, I honestly don't understand the problem here. Of all the G7 countries the US has a debt of 73% of GDP. All the others are above 80%. In fact Germany has 98% debt.

Amongst the G8 countries only Russia has a lower value - 11% - and that's because they haven't had enough time to clock it up. China has 10%, but their GDP is growing faster than their debt.

And add to that the fact that the US is borrowing at around one and a quater percent - a ridiculous cheap figure.

American management used to be "throw money at a problem to make it go away". Under that aspect I'd paraphrase Sarah Palin - "Borrow, baby, borrow!"

>>Although I'm not for overspending, I honestly don't understand the problem here.

Contradict yourself in one sentence.



>> Of all the G7 countries the US has a debt of 73% of GDP.

Very dangerous level.  And with obamacare, per the CBO, that number is expect to increase quickly, with some estimates having it at 200% over the coming years.  

Add to that Obama job killing regulations, amounting to a whopping average of 68 per day now, and you're going to see more people out of work and thus lower tax revenue.  

47 million currently on food stamps - I think Obama wants to see how high it can go.

Well stated Tom.