Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:01 pm
The Maleficent
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
meatwad wrote:
I don't think Republicans were ever fully behind Mitt Romney. He was clearly a sacrificial lamb for this election, as evidenced by the party's complete disregard of him the following day.
I don't know if he was quite the sacrificial lamb for the party- I think he was all they had, and they got pretty serious about him when it came time - I think the Republican party dearly wanted to put him in office, and may have truly believed he would win, rather than just nominating him because they felt Obama couldn't lose no matter who the nominated to run against him... can anyone (or has anyone already) found anything on the amount of money that was spent on his campaign - even if it was by the super rich millionaires etc- were there any records broken in the funding of his running? it seemed that way...
Barack spent more, of course.
Perhaps victory justifies it.
Hard to believe, though, that the party of the working class, which seems to constantly vilify the wealthy, found a cool billion to get BO re-elected.
at any rate, I don't disbelieve you but do you have a link or anything?
vilify in what way? also, I'm not sure I agree that it was strictly the 'working class' either - there's plenty of wealthy dems... and I thought the democratic party was supposedly composed of elitist, academic, self righteous intellectuals? that's certainly the rhetoric I've been hearing for the last 4+ years.
It appears that you don't watch much TV, nor surf the www. That's a good thing, I suppose.
so I appreciate your going all the way to the alaska dispatch for that... I'll add that site to my list of www. web surfing. I'm hoping to ensure my idealism is completely shattered asap
All kidding aside, though; you trot out some typical left-wing drivel about the GOP trying to buy elections then find out that Saint Barack spent even more. Would you say that your idealism has been ever so slightly diminished?
ok, what? please show me what you're talking about. my initial comment was about Romney not being a sacrificial lamb put out there by the GOP because they felt Obama was unbeatable. and I asked about how much Romney spent on his campaign (since the actual amount of time I spend on the interwebs is extensive and work based rather than tracking that info) - anything you read into that on your own isn't my fault. I wasn't making comparisons, you were, and I asked you about it in kind.
Ok, you're right I'm wrong.
What are your thoughts on Obama outspending the GOP, who we all know are represented by self-serving "super rich millionaires" who have corrupted the election process with the evil influence of money.
so I'm condemned on the use of three words, huh? was I incorrect in noting that there were, in fact, a number of very rich (which I inaccurately termed as super rich, apparently) business men who were all widely touted during the entire election process as donating millions of dollars to Romney's campaign as well as to various other Republican candidates?
the thing is, d, that I'm having trouble figuring out what is so horrible about a campaign that collected money from the 'working class' as part of a grass roots effort? and why you feel some compulsion to make that something akin to a stolen election when poor Governor Romney only had the support of influential and rich (even super rich) business men to help move along what must have been an otherwise wounded and limping general campaign?
the results of the election show the margin of Obama's win to be slim at best yet it seems you have some problem with one party out raising another if that party is not the one you favor. can I assume you're good with the contributions Romney received but not Obama? how are Romney's financial backers more politically pure than Obama's?
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:50 pm
Supersonic
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am Posts: 10694
So, four years and 88 pages later.
The Republicans are more conservative. Lost to an incumbent president by just 4 points. Lost because of three things: government workers in northern Virginia, hispanics expecting amnesty, and the auto bailout. Now hold the house. And are just a few seats away from the senate.
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:34 pm
Reissued
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
So, four years and 88 pages later.
The Republicans are more conservative. Lost to an incumbent president by just 4 points. Lost because of three things: government workers in northern Virginia, hispanics expecting amnesty, and the auto bailout. Now hold the house. And are just a few seats away from the senate.
The Republican Party is TRULY a regional party.
Hispanics are going to make up a larger part of the electorate over the years, not a smaller one, and old people die more often than young people (and the elderly happen to be the biggest Republicans). Romney also lost the electoral college big, and in this country, that's what matters.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:29 am
too drunk to moderate properly
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
Lost because of three things: government workers in northern Virginia, hispanics expecting amnesty, and the auto bailout.
What about the whores that want free birth control?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:25 am
Got Some
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm Posts: 2932
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
meatwad wrote:
I don't think Republicans were ever fully behind Mitt Romney. He was clearly a sacrificial lamb for this election, as evidenced by the party's complete disregard of him the following day.
I don't know if he was quite the sacrificial lamb for the party- I think he was all they had, and they got pretty serious about him when it came time - I think the Republican party dearly wanted to put him in office, and may have truly believed he would win, rather than just nominating him because they felt Obama couldn't lose no matter who the nominated to run against him... can anyone (or has anyone already) found anything on the amount of money that was spent on his campaign - even if it was by the super rich millionaires etc- were there any records broken in the funding of his running? it seemed that way...
Barack spent more, of course.
Perhaps victory justifies it.
Hard to believe, though, that the party of the working class, which seems to constantly vilify the wealthy, found a cool billion to get BO re-elected.
at any rate, I don't disbelieve you but do you have a link or anything?
vilify in what way? also, I'm not sure I agree that it was strictly the 'working class' either - there's plenty of wealthy dems... and I thought the democratic party was supposedly composed of elitist, academic, self righteous intellectuals? that's certainly the rhetoric I've been hearing for the last 4+ years.
It appears that you don't watch much TV, nor surf the www. That's a good thing, I suppose.
so I appreciate your going all the way to the alaska dispatch for that... I'll add that site to my list of www. web surfing. I'm hoping to ensure my idealism is completely shattered asap
All kidding aside, though; you trot out some typical left-wing drivel about the GOP trying to buy elections then find out that Saint Barack spent even more. Would you say that your idealism has been ever so slightly diminished?
ok, what? please show me what you're talking about. my initial comment was about Romney not being a sacrificial lamb put out there by the GOP because they felt Obama was unbeatable. and I asked about how much Romney spent on his campaign (since the actual amount of time I spend on the interwebs is extensive and work based rather than tracking that info) - anything you read into that on your own isn't my fault. I wasn't making comparisons, you were, and I asked you about it in kind.
Ok, you're right I'm wrong.
What are your thoughts on Obama outspending the GOP, who we all know are represented by self-serving "super rich millionaires" who have corrupted the election process with the evil influence of money.
so I'm condemned on the use of three words, huh? was I incorrect in noting that there were, in fact, a number of very rich (which I inaccurately termed as super rich, apparently) business men who were all widely touted during the entire election process as donating millions of dollars to Romney's campaign as well as to various other Republican candidates?
the thing is, d, that I'm having trouble figuring out what is so horrible about a campaign that collected money from the 'working class' as part of a grass roots effort? and why you feel some compulsion to make that something akin to a stolen election when poor Governor Romney only had the support of influential and rich (even super rich) business men to help move along what must have been an otherwise wounded and limping general campaign?
the results of the election show the margin of Obama's win to be slim at best yet it seems you have some problem with one party out raising another if that party is not the one you favor. can I assume you're good with the contributions Romney received but not Obama? how are Romney's financial backers more politically pure than Obama's?
Honestly, I can't fathom why anyone would pledge allegiance to either of these two gangs.
Just noted that you were unaware of the Obama campaign's prodigous spending, and in my usual provocative manner, wondered what you thought of it.
well, chat with you again in a few years.
_________________ For your sake I hope heaven and hell are really there but I wouldn't hold my breath
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:30 am
Got Some
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm Posts: 2932
LittleWing wrote:
So, four years and 88 pages later.
The Republicans are more conservative. Lost to an incumbent president by just 4 points. Lost because of three things: government workers in northern Virginia, hispanics expecting amnesty, and the auto bailout. Now hold the house. And are just a few seats away from the senate.
The Republican Party is TRULY a regional party.
Can't touch SS or Medicare. That's the lesson of this election. I think exit polling said as much, didn't it?
_________________ For your sake I hope heaven and hell are really there but I wouldn't hold my breath
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:35 am
The Maleficent
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
malice wrote:
meatwad wrote:
I don't think Republicans were ever fully behind Mitt Romney. He was clearly a sacrificial lamb for this election, as evidenced by the party's complete disregard of him the following day.
I don't know if he was quite the sacrificial lamb for the party- I think he was all they had, and they got pretty serious about him when it came time - I think the Republican party dearly wanted to put him in office, and may have truly believed he would win, rather than just nominating him because they felt Obama couldn't lose no matter who the nominated to run against him... can anyone (or has anyone already) found anything on the amount of money that was spent on his campaign - even if it was by the super rich millionaires etc- were there any records broken in the funding of his running? it seemed that way...
Barack spent more, of course.
Perhaps victory justifies it.
Hard to believe, though, that the party of the working class, which seems to constantly vilify the wealthy, found a cool billion to get BO re-elected.
at any rate, I don't disbelieve you but do you have a link or anything?
vilify in what way? also, I'm not sure I agree that it was strictly the 'working class' either - there's plenty of wealthy dems... and I thought the democratic party was supposedly composed of elitist, academic, self righteous intellectuals? that's certainly the rhetoric I've been hearing for the last 4+ years.
It appears that you don't watch much TV, nor surf the www. That's a good thing, I suppose.
so I appreciate your going all the way to the alaska dispatch for that... I'll add that site to my list of www. web surfing. I'm hoping to ensure my idealism is completely shattered asap
All kidding aside, though; you trot out some typical left-wing drivel about the GOP trying to buy elections then find out that Saint Barack spent even more. Would you say that your idealism has been ever so slightly diminished?
ok, what? please show me what you're talking about. my initial comment was about Romney not being a sacrificial lamb put out there by the GOP because they felt Obama was unbeatable. and I asked about how much Romney spent on his campaign (since the actual amount of time I spend on the interwebs is extensive and work based rather than tracking that info) - anything you read into that on your own isn't my fault. I wasn't making comparisons, you were, and I asked you about it in kind.
Ok, you're right I'm wrong.
What are your thoughts on Obama outspending the GOP, who we all know are represented by self-serving "super rich millionaires" who have corrupted the election process with the evil influence of money.
so I'm condemned on the use of three words, huh? was I incorrect in noting that there were, in fact, a number of very rich (which I inaccurately termed as super rich, apparently) business men who were all widely touted during the entire election process as donating millions of dollars to Romney's campaign as well as to various other Republican candidates?
the thing is, d, that I'm having trouble figuring out what is so horrible about a campaign that collected money from the 'working class' as part of a grass roots effort? and why you feel some compulsion to make that something akin to a stolen election when poor Governor Romney only had the support of influential and rich (even super rich) business men to help move along what must have been an otherwise wounded and limping general campaign?
the results of the election show the margin of Obama's win to be slim at best yet it seems you have some problem with one party out raising another if that party is not the one you favor. can I assume you're good with the contributions Romney received but not Obama? how are Romney's financial backers more politically pure than Obama's?
Honestly, I can't fathom why anyone would pledge allegiance to either of these two gangs.
Just noted that you were unaware of the Obama campaign's prodigous spending, and in my usual provocative manner, wondered what you thought of it.
Lost because of three things: government workers in northern Virginia, hispanics expecting amnesty, and the auto bailout.
So... in general I can't argue with this. Almost of the govvies I know in the Crystal City through Herndon corridor voted Obama. Most of the contractors voted Romney to avoid sequestration.
What I find interesting is that lower income African Americans support amnesty and vote for candidates that openly advocate it. They are voting to increase competition and decrease wages for the diminishing number of jorbs available to them.
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:01 am
The Maleficent
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
broken iris wrote:
What I find interesting is that lower income African Americans support amnesty and vote for candidates that openly advocate it. They are voting to increase competition and decrease wages for the diminishing number of jorbs available to them.
What I find interesting is that lower income African Americans support amnesty and vote for candidates that openly advocate it. They are voting to increase competition and decrease wages for the diminishing number of jorbs available to them.
glad to have you back
Explain it to me, smarty pants. Why vote to diminish the strength of your voting block?
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:49 am
Reissued
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
malice wrote:
broken iris wrote:
What I find interesting is that lower income African Americans support amnesty and vote for candidates that openly advocate it. They are voting to increase competition and decrease wages for the diminishing number of jorbs available to them.
glad to have you back
Explain it to me, smarty pants. Why vote to diminish the strength of your voting block?
Sometimes ideals overtake interests? Or a broader conception of interests is at play (eg a class perspective)
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:01 am
a joke
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
dkfan9 wrote:
broken iris wrote:
malice wrote:
broken iris wrote:
What I find interesting is that lower income African Americans support amnesty and vote for candidates that openly advocate it. They are voting to increase competition and decrease wages for the diminishing number of jorbs available to them.
glad to have you back
Explain it to me, smarty pants. Why vote to diminish the strength of your voting block?
Sometimes ideals overtake interests? Or a broader conception of interests is at play (eg a class perspective)
Are we talking about the generally highly religious, undereducated, lower income african american voting blocks that are generally strongly opposed to homosexuality?
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:01 am
a joke
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
dkfan9 wrote:
broken iris wrote:
malice wrote:
broken iris wrote:
What I find interesting is that lower income African Americans support amnesty and vote for candidates that openly advocate it. They are voting to increase competition and decrease wages for the diminishing number of jorbs available to them.
glad to have you back
Explain it to me, smarty pants. Why vote to diminish the strength of your voting block?
Sometimes ideals overtake interests? Or a broader conception of interests is at play (eg a class perspective)
Are we talking about the generally highly religious, undereducated, lower income african american voting blocks that are generally strongly opposed to homosexuality?
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:06 am
Supersonic
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:07 pm Posts: 12393
Skitch Patterson wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
broken iris wrote:
malice wrote:
broken iris wrote:
What I find interesting is that lower income African Americans support amnesty and vote for candidates that openly advocate it. They are voting to increase competition and decrease wages for the diminishing number of jorbs available to them.
glad to have you back
Explain it to me, smarty pants. Why vote to diminish the strength of your voting block?
Sometimes ideals overtake interests? Or a broader conception of interests is at play (eg a class perspective)
Are we talking about the generally highly religious, undereducated, lower income african american voting blocks that are generally strongly opposed to homosexuality?
Sometimes ideals overtake interests? Or a broader conception of interests is at play (eg a class perspective)
Well, yeah. It just seems to me that the "they took our jobs" mantra would play well and reminding the low-income end of the African American community that they have long benefited from being the largest minority group and that is under threat via amnesty would drive some interesting changes.
Post subject: Re: The new direction for the Republican Party
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:19 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
broken iris wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
Sometimes ideals overtake interests? Or a broader conception of interests is at play (eg a class perspective)
Well, yeah. It just seems to me that the "they took our jobs" mantra would play well and reminding the low-income end of the African American community that they have long benefited from being the largest minority group and that is under threat via amnesty would drive some interesting changes.
i think region has a lot more to do w/ this specific question.
look where hispanics are growing the most and look where blacks are growing the most. they're not competing for the same space/ jobs.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
