Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[Larry]

It would be really nice if just once, just God damned once, I could have a discussion with a liberal and NOT be accused of being a spoonfed idiot.

Perhaps if you could make a post without throwing in Kool Aid talking points?

Guess what, Larry? Your opinion is not the be-all to end-all. I know that comes as a shock to you.

Or making things up that people didn't say, so you can demonstrate your tough guy routine on the straw man.

And I hope you won't stroke out when I expound on that just a little further. An intelligent person can consider an issue, come to a different conclusion, and NOT be influenced by any pundit nor "drink the Kool-Aid."

Depends on the conclusion.

To pull up one example, if the conclusion is that Obama tripped the deficit, then I have no trouble whatsoever pronouncing that that person has been drinking the Kool Aid.

Because the fact is, that he didn't.

And that fact has been well known, and easily demonstrated, and publicly available, for years.

(I think it's probably a safe bet that his actions increased it. I don't think it can be proven without a time machine, but that's the direction I'd lean.) (I'd also lean, admittedly without proof, in the direction that his increasing of the deficit was good for the country.)

As another example, I suspect that almost everybody in Tailgate, now, would agree that anybody who's a birther has been drinking the Kool Aid. (Even the ones who defended the Birthers for years, with slogans like "Well, it's Obama's fault", or "all I want is more proof".)

I am so sick to death of this pathetic cop out of an argument from the left, that I'm surprised my computer continues to survive the experience. How much ****ing Kool-Aid did I drink last year when I voted for Obama, Lare? What color was it? Because clearly you don't think I'm intelligent enough to consider facts and come to disagree with His High-and-Mightiness. So you tell me? How did it happen? Were the FOX rays blocked from entering my house by the uranium siding I put up? Or did I consider the facts and actually end up making a seemingly rational decision?

Whereas, the "beating up straw men" technique, well, that[/u] you never get tired of.

Of course I agreed with you in that case, so you didn't make this type of bull**** accusation back then. But frankly it's more than a little ridiculous, given my posting history, and my record around here to make the foolish assertions that you do every time I encounter you in a thread. Your snarky bull**** has gotten more than tiresome, and frankly, I'm left to wonder what mod you're in such good graces with to even remain here.

Perhaps the fact that I respond to the things you actually write, as opposed to the things that I make up in my mind and then attack you for?

Just a theory.

I've laid off, because I was told by a friend "Don't mess with Larry. He has friends in high places on the board." That's fine. I don't know if I do or not, and frankly I don't care. But this has needed to be said for a long time, and if it costs me my membership here, I'm fine with that.

It's the vast, left-wing conspiracy.

That must be why people act like you're imagining things.

Couldn't possibly actually be because of the things you say.

It's not just you either. Though you seem to be a frequent flyer in this regard. It's damned near impossible to have a discussion with anyone on the left here any more without the same tired "FAUXNews" cop out of an argument. The assertion that conservatives can't think independently is made here HUNDREDS of times a week.

Yep.

Every time the conservative Champions spout off the same talking point that wasn't true the last dozen times it was trotted out.

Every time Fox (or a "conservative filmmaker") gets caught committing outright fraud, and he gets defended with "well, I'm sure that the Democrats lie just as much as we do, they just don't get caught as much", or "well, they both do it (therefore I'm not going to criticize this one)" or "well, they took the bongs" (wonder why it is that not only are the Conservative Champions defending that fraud, but they're defending it with the same defense? Couldn't be.)

I'll point out that I've agreed with you. On many points. Including the post which you just quoted. I think that we've even had some rather respectful conversations via PM, concerning the last Florida election. (I haven't checked. I think it was you, but I could well be wrong.)

I point out your posting of untrue, delusional talking points, when you post untrue, delusional talking points.

Still, I can take some amount of solace away from the fact that it's not us allegedly spoonfed idiots that have to resort to this kind of pathetic assertion. It's the enlightened. It's the elite. It's those oh-so-impressive critical thinkers that have to use that same broken crutch. So you tell me, Larry? Who can't think for themselves?

:secret: The attempt to claim moral superiority because you don't resort to spouting repetitive slogans, cheers, and insults would have worked better if you weren't

a) Quoting a post in which someone actually responded to what you actually said, and

Peppering you entire post with straw men and Rush Limbaugh motivational slogans.

Comes across as "Good thing I never have to resort to name calling and stereotypes, you honky redneck dago Jew." From someone who's serious.

[Teller]

HH, if I remember correctly, you didn't vote for Obama, in fact you didn't actually get to vote at all

Sorry, I didn't think I needed to explain the proxy vote yet again. I usually say "decided to" which would have been more accurate. But that's far from my point, obviously.

[Burgold]

Yeah, I think HH's intent to vote for Obama is sincere and pretty much counts. If in his heart that was his candidate then Obama was his guy. If he now regrets that... well, that's okay too, but it's really crying over spilt milk. Much the way libs whined eternally about being rooked and judiciaried and conned in the 2000 election by activist judges, decision makers who were working for the Bush campaign, and by a really, really, really stupid liberal ballot designer.

For what it's worth, I think Obama has been an okay President, but he's been saddled with such a destructive congress (this includes the Dem Supermajority Congress) that events had to go south. The Dems those first two years acted like spoiled, corrupt, disgusting brats (or villains). The Reps are basically as bad. Frankly, I think if we could fire Congress entirely and rehire Obama we'd be in much better shape.

(I'm probably off topic again. My tailgate muscles are out of shape.)

[Teller]

Perhaps if you could make a post without throwing in Kool Aid talking points?

Nope. You're right. I didn't watch and read about black voters with my own two eyes, saying they were voting for him BECAUSE he was black. Frankly, I don't care if some conservative pundit repeats that he saw the same thing. I don't watch any of the crap, and it's pretty presumptuous of you to assume I do. (Even after having to defend myself against the previously described bull**** almost daily.)

Or making things up that people didn't say, so you can demonstrate your tough guy routine on the straw man.

It presents as pretty damned high and mighty to assume that if someone disagrees with you, he's "drinking the Kool Aid." I stand by what I said 100%.

As another example, I suspect that almost everybody in Tailgate, now, would agree that anybody who's a birther has been drinking the Kool Aid. (Even the ones who defended the Birthers for years, with slogans like "Well, it's Obama's fault", or "all I want is more proof".)

That's an excellent point.

What do you think about the people who said for years that "that's all Hawaii issues. There isn't a long form." Damnable Kool Aid drinkers, the lot of 'em, right?

Whereas, the "beating up straw men" technique, well, that[/u] you never get tired of.

Asked and answered.

Perhaps the fact that I respond to the things you actually write, as opposed to the things that I make up in my mind and then attack you for?

Many African Americans voted for Obama because of his race, or strongly considered his race when voting. That's a fact. What IS NOT a fact, is how you think I arrived at that conclusion. And I think I know just a LITTLE better than you do how that happened.

It's the vast, left-wing conspiracy.

That must be why people act like you're imagining things.

Couldn't possibly actually be because of the things you say.

The only imagining that's been done here, is you imagining I watch Rush or Hannity or any of the other garbage that's out there. But nice effor.

Every time the conservative Champions spout off the same talking point that wasn't true the last dozen times it was trotted out.

Point me to the one I used.

Every time Fox (or a "conservative filmmaker") gets caught committing outright fraud, and he gets defended with "well, I'm sure that the Democrats lie just as much as we do, they just don't get caught as much", or "well, they both do it (therefore I'm not going to criticize this one)" or "well, they took the bongs" (wonder why it is that not only are the Conservative Champions defending that fraud, but they're defending it with the same defense? Couldn't be.)

I guess you missed my posts in the FOX/Murdoch thread. Burgold and I actually had a nice little discussion about journalistic integrity, as I recall. I thought you were gonna stick to the things I actually say. Fat chance.

I'll point out that I've agreed with you. On many points. Including the post which you just quoted. I think that we've even had some rather respectful conversations via PM, concerning the last Florida election. (I haven't checked. I think it was you, but I could well be wrong.)

Yup. That was me. Doesn't change the fact that I'll call a spade a spade when I feel the need to.

I point out your posting of untrue, delusional talking points, when you post untrue, delusional talking points.

Again. Where?

a) Quoting a post in which someone actually responded to what you actually said, and

I said our base is the most motivated, and we wouldn't settle for electing a liberal in conservative clothing. You turned that into "true republicans" are Kool-Aid drinking idiots.

Peppering you entire post with straw men and Rush Limbaugh motivational slogans.

Thank you very much for this. You just did EXACTLY what I said you do. I've NEVER listened to Rush's radio show, and I watched his TV show in the late 80s (as a teenager, mind you) maybe twice. I've criticized him here plenty. And I have no use for ****-stirring jackwads on EITHER side. If Rush says the same thing as I do in ANY case, it's because he came to the same conclusion I did, not because I've ever even heard what he has to say.

But thanks for going the extra mile to prove me right.

[twa]

Mitt's really waiting for twa's backing.....

I don't see that forthcoming

Mitt is welcome to the spineless ones

[Guest Spearfeather]

It might be... but I was riffing off what Spearfeather was saying while he was basically complaining that Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to this country and anything could be better.

Your words, not mine.

[Burgold]

Your words, not mine.

If I've misinterpreted you, I apologize. Certainly sounded like what you were saying.

[Guest Spearfeather]

If I've misinterpreted you, I apologize. Certainly sounded like what you were saying.

No, I think it's more like what you wanted me to say,,,,.or at least it certainly sounded like what you were saying.

[Burgold]

No, I think it's more like what you wanted me to say,,,,.or at least it certainly sounded like what you were saying.

No, I certainly wouldn't have WANTED you to say that

For curiousity, how would you alter my paraphrase. What would have been the correct statement?

[Guest Spearfeather]

Well, since you asked.

You wrote:

It might be... but I was riffing off what Spearfeather was saying while he was basically complaining that Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to this country and anything could be better.

but could have wrote: " It might be....but that was just done in response to Spearfeather's post."

[Burgold]

Well, since you asked.

You wrote:

but could have wrote: " It might be....but that was just done in response to Spearfeather's post."

Ah, certainly would have been more political

I was hoping that your paraphrase would have corrected the political statement instead of excluding it so we could see how far off base I was :halo:

[Guest Spearfeather]

Ah, certainly would have been more political

I was hoping that your paraphrase would have corrected the political statement instead of excluding it so we could see how far off base I was :halo:

I shouldn't have to exclude it, because it should never have been included in the first place.

[NoVaO]

Nope. You're right. I didn't watch and read about black voters with my own two eyes, saying they were voting for him BECAUSE he was black. Frankly, I don't care if some conservative pundit repeats that he saw the same thing. I don't watch any of the crap, and it's pretty presumptuous of you to assume I do. (Even after having to defend myself against the previously described bull**** almost daily.)

How many did you hear say that? 15? 20? 25? There were 8.5 million black people that voted in 2008. 90% of them voted for Obama because he's a Democrat. Obama did about 5 points better with black voters than a Democrat normally does. That is still a lot of extra people that voted for him (about 440,000 voters) but in the grand scheme of the election, it was nothing -- a drop in the bucket.

Also, is it completely unreasonable that black voters felt pride in voting for this country's first black President given the history they have in this country?

In addition, just because somebody says they are voting for Obama partly because of his race does not mean they wouldn't have voted Democratic if there was somebody white on the ballot. They've been voting Democratic for decades. They would have done the same thing in 2008.

[Burgold]

Now, you are just being silly. You inserted Obama several times into this thread. All with negative allusions.

But, we should stop this sidetrack anyway because we are subverting a thread that is supposed to be about Romney and not about your opinions of Obama or my interpretation of your opinion about Obama.

[Guest Spearfeather]

Now, you are just being silly. You inserted Obama several times into this thread. All with negative allusions.

But, we should stop this sidetrack anyway because we are subverting a thread that is supposed to be about Romney and not about your opinions of Obama or my interpretation of your opinion about Obama.

I don't think I'm the one being silly Burgold. The fact is, I never said what you posted. The only person " sidetracking ", is you.

If Romney ends up being the nominee, then someone's opinion of Romney compared to Obama seems completely relevant to me.

[DeaconTheVillain]

[X] Discussions of retard pundits

[X] Claims of "show me where I said that"

[X] HH feels victimized

[. ] Got lastest info on Romney

[X] Larry underlines words

[No Excuses]

[X] Discussions of retard pundits

[X] Claims of "show me where I said that"

[X] HH feels victimized

[. ] Got lastest info on Romney

[X] Larry underlines words

If any one wants to kill time, they should go on Mitt Romney's facebook page. For someone who is supposed to be the leader of the pack in this group, his own base really dislikes him. Even then if he wins the nomination, it will be interesting to see if he can rally those who don't trust him to generate enough momentum to beat Obama.

[Larry]

Deleted post.

(But I still had to underline something.)

[mjah]

Romney is not in any way, shape, or form a conservative. And we've got a full year to make that perfectly clear. Bookmark it. Romney will NOT be the nominee.

"A full year?" The primaries begin in nine weeks, my friend.

Nine weeks!

Whoever it is who can take it from Romney, they'd better at least be IN the election by then.

So who will it be instead of Romney? Suggest a name. For Republican voters' sake, hopefully not anybody from the rest of the existing GOP candidate circus. Although I suppose Democrats would love that.

Nine weeks may seem like a political eternity, but Romney has weathered every flash-in-the-pan challenge so far without any crisis-level difficulty with GOP voters, and that process has already spanned far more than two months. He leads or co-leads polls for each of the most important early primaries/caucuses. This isn't the Democratic nomination where Clintons and Kerrys and Obamas rise from obscurity during the early primaries while Deans and Hillarys crash and burn. The GOP has a long and infrequently interrupted history of nominating the next guy in line. I've seen little to no evidence that it will change this time. Maybe you think, I dunno, Gingrich is that guy. I certainly don't.

There's a first time for everything, but to guarantee that the exception will occur this time? You'll be lucky to be correct. Personally, I give GOP voters enough credit to realize that their candidate must be, at a basic level, electable in the general. Right now Romney and Huntsman fit that general description. Can you name anyone else? They have 83 days to jump into the race!

It's better than voting for a skin color.

I didn't realize that a candidate could so easily garner votes just by being half-white.

Imagine how many votes Obama would have gotten, were he ALL white!

But your basic point would be a great lesson for my multiple racist card-carrying Republican neighbors, who by their own admission absolutely were voting against the guy whose skin pigment was darker than their own.

Direct quote: "The last thing we need is a n***** in the White House." Direct quote. And not just once.

I wonder which effect was bigger: whites' race-driven votes or blacks' race-driven votes. Let's see, holding the per capita rate of occurrence of racists per 1,000 people constant between the races, let's contrast the relative share of the Presidential vote between black and white voters... alright, carry the one... Oh, how fascinating! Yeah, that's about what I expected. Not that degree matters so much when we're talking about principle, of course.

But actually, in reality it does: Larry's example of voting for the party line (on both sides) eclipses either racial effect and therefore is the far more important issue. The degree absolutely does matter.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I just don't understand how someone could've voted for Obama (or wanted to vote for him) and then now be so totally opposed to him. He might be coming up short in some areas, but he hasn't done anything he didn't say he was going to do. Goes back to my belief that hardly anybody was listening to what the man actually was saying. Noticed it big time at his Inauguration. People were projecting like crazy.

[Larry]

I just don't understand how someone could've voted for Obama (or wanted to vote for him) and then now be so totally opposed to him. He might be coming up short in some areas, but he hasn't done anything he didn't say he was going to do. Goes back to my belief that hardly anybody was listening to what the man actually was saying. Noticed it big time at his Inauguration. People were projecting like crazy.

Agree with the prev posters. We should try to get back to Romney.

[twa]

better?

[DeaconTheVillain]

^^^

Now thats the kind of news I came in here looking for.

(very funny btw)

[visionary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/30/us-usa-campaign-iowa-idUSTRE79T02R20111030

Cain, Romney in tight Republican race in Iowa: poll

Republican White House hopefuls Herman Cain and Mitt Romney are in a tight race in Iowa, which kicks off next year's presidential nominating contests, according to a closely watched opinion poll published on Saturday.

The poll conducted for The Des Moines Register showed Cain, a conservative businessman, with the support of 23 percent of Republicans surveyed. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, had 22 percent, and Texas Representative Ron Paul 12 percent in the race to challenge Democratic President Barack Obama in the November 2012 election.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has stumbled in debates and on the campaign trail after a fast start, scored only 7 percent support.

The poll showed Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann fading after running neck and neck with Romney in the June Iowa poll. Bachmann dropped to 8 percent and fourth place in the new poll

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who has spent more time in Iowa than the other candidates and visited more than 70 of Iowa's 99 counties, received just 5 percent support in the poll. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who has lagged consistently behind his rivals, received 1 percent

[Prosperity]

The problem w/ Romney, from the GOP's perspective, is that no one likes him. Yes, he's still their best (i.e. only) shot at the Presidency, but it's still a slim shot. The GOP has no shot at the Presidency, but they do have a shot in the Senate. If they get some nutter running then they may be able to get a big showing at the polls, and maybe enough to win some Senate seats and take over Congress. If Romney gets the nod, the nutters stay home and the GOP loses its chance to take Congress.