What the 2012 election taught us

Nov 6, 2012 Full story: The Washington Post 10,324

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Full Story

Since: Jul 12

Chester, VA

#3419 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text> The media is liberal so the playing field has never been level. Oscumma was certainly not a statesman because his party led the biggest smear campaign in history and it worked on the stupid. The lesson learned is the gimmes have outnumbered the productive. America has become a full fledged welfare state and one that will quickly approach the same financial cliff Greece has. The only way to save this country is to dismantle the govt. and start over.
You are wrong. America is a right of center country. Media reporting from the exact center would appear to be to the left, but they are not, they are still in the center.

The Republican started losing this election almost 4 years ago when they decided to obstruct almost anything the President wanted to do. This was true even when he compromised and incorporated Republican ideas like the state ran health insurance pools and the individual mandate. Both are Republican.

What about when the Republicans voted to extend the bush tax cuts with no problem then claimed the Payroll tax cut had to be paid for? Money for FEMA had to be "paid for" with spending cuts elsewhere.......until a RED state was involved.

Then look at the Republican financial plan: We will cut programs the primarilly benefit the lower and middle classes. But because we are all in this together we will cut taxes for those at the top forcing them to keep more money.

The BIG LIE: Increasing taxes for small business owners will result in less jobs.

First, if you only increase taxes at the $250K or $500K level you eliminate about 98% of all small business owners from a tax increase.

Second, that small business owner does not pay one dime in taxes for expenditures to support an employee. The only required is that employee has to bring in enough money to pay for himself (total cost burden).

Then there is immigration and self-deportation.

Then there is the war on women.

Then there are to calls to go to war in Iran and Syria (OK, Romney changed his mode, but it was way late in the game.)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3420 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text> The media is liberal so the playing field has never been level. Oscumma was certainly not a statesman because his party led the biggest smear campaign in history and it worked on the stupid. The lesson learned is the gimmes have outnumbered the productive. America has become a full fledged welfare state and one that will quickly approach the same financial cliff Greece has. The only way to save this country isto dismantle the govt. and start over.
half of those "gimmees" are staunch republicans, so your imagined reality has no play in the real world.

“Ignore the trolls”

Since: Oct 08

London, UK

#3421 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text> The media is liberal so the playing field has never been level. Oscumma was certainly not a statesman because his party led the biggest smear campaign in history and it worked on the stupid. The lesson learned is the gimmes have outnumbered the productive. America has become a full fledged welfare state and one that will quickly approach the same financial cliff Greece has. The only way to save this country is to dismantle the govt. and start over.
I believe his name is Obama - using derogatory words to name your President is both childish and demeaning to your country. Why you should raise whether you think he was a statesman or not is beyond me, but since you do, most of the rest of the world regards him as considerably better in that department than Romney. The campaign was ugly on both sides, elements of the Republican Party were not above displaying what came precious close to racism. Continue to tell yourself what you have posted is the reason you lost. Not my concern - but unless the GOP returns to the centre of US politics, they may find 2016 is no more comfortable than 2012.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3422 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. America is a right of center country. Media reporting from the exact center would appear to be to the left, but they are not, they are still in the center.
The Republican started losing this election almost 4 years ago when they decided to obstruct almost anything the President wanted to do. This was true even when he compromised and incorporated Republican ideas like the state ran health insurance pools and the individual mandate. Both are Republican.
What about when the Republicans voted to extend the bush tax cuts with no problem then claimed the Payroll tax cut had to be paid for? Money for FEMA had to be "paid for" with spending cuts elsewhere.......until a RED state was involved.
Then look at the Republican financial plan: We will cut programs the primarilly benefit the lower and middle classes. But because we are all in this together we will cut taxes for those at the top forcing them to keep more money.
The BIG LIE: Increasing taxes for small business owners will result in less jobs.
First, if you only increase taxes at the $250K or $500K level you eliminate about 98% of all small business owners from a tax increase.
Second, that small business owner does not pay one dime in taxes for expenditures to support an employee. The only required is that employee has to bring in enough money to pay for himself (total cost burden).
Then there is immigration and self-deportation.
Then there is the war on women.
Then there are to calls to go to war in Iran and Syria (OK, Romney changed his mode, but it was way late in the game.)
War on women?!? It's actually a war on men..according to Fox...

A Fox News op-ed called "The War on Men" alleges that competitive women have turned men into marriage-averse slackers, and has triggered a predictably measured response from the internet.

"If men today are slackers, and if they're retreating from marriage," it's because the modern woman "has pissed them off," claims Suzanne Venker in her Fox column. As she explains it, "men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families - " it's in their DNA. But modern women won't let them."

Venker calls this "the war on men," but it turns out that it's more of a self-inflicted wound by women. The alleged results may actually sound A-OK for a lot of men - they get to "have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever."

The liberal internet has responded to Venker with a big helping of snark. Hannah Rosin, author of The End of Men, claims that she would love to "surrender to her femininity," as Venker urges, but she's clueless as to how to begin. "I get the general idea but what does it mean, like, in practice? Not wear pants so much? Let my hair grow. Ask my boss to pay me a little less? Open to ideas."
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#3423 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>I think the question to ask is: What defines rich? Seems to me it may be as little as $250,000-$300,000. That is NOT rich but rather upper middle class. These are mostly professionals and owners of small business. They are the core who support their communities with their 'time, talent and treasure'. These are people who work 70 plus hours per week and known for being job creators. They are the folks who will have to reel things in when taxes and the cost of living interferes with their ability to prosper. Republicans tend to nurture this productive group who create jobs and benefit packages, innovate and create, grow the economy and raise the standard of living. The uber rich the libs pretend are the 'evil republicans' are mostly liberals or don't align themselves with any party because they don't need to. They are in the govt. pockets no matter who is in charge. Republicans represent the middle class, the ambitious and independent who want a smaller government that represents the people rather than one that controls them. "lIfe, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was once a given, until now. The middle class will continue to become more enslaved by an oppressive govt. until it's ultimate collapse.
What defines rich? A good question. I agree that $250,000 per year is not rich by my definition either. I do question how, if they are working 70 hours per week, they have the time for both their own families and significant time for the community.

As to taxes reeling in their prosperity, taxes are very low, based upon historical standards that they are not of much consequence. If the tax rates are significantly raised they would simply find other loopholes and still keep their wealth. Companies don't hire and fire based on taxes, but rather on if the employees earn a profit for the company. I would rather pay 90% in taxes on $10,000,000 in profit, than 15% in taxes on $1,000,000.

I have never seen the republicans nurture small business. On the contrary, they support big business lobbying efforts to eliminate small business and make sure the big businesses don't have any competition. As to republicans representing the middle class, I don't know how this can be said with a straight face. They oppose the middle class at every turn. They support the rich and appear to want to eliminate the middle class by pushing them into poverty. Thus the push to eliminate Social Security, medicare, unemployment, flooding the labor pool to reduce wages, etc.

As to the rich buying people from both parties; you are absolutely correct. The republicans do their bidding at the extreme and the democrats pretend to oppose them, caving at every opportunity.

As to the republicans wanting a smaller government, that is laughable. They want a bigger and bigger military, bureaucrats in every doctor's office and bedroom, more lobbyists for the rich, more and more wasteful spending. Look at how much bigger the government became under both extremely conservatives bush jr and Reagan.

As to liberty the republicans passed the Pat Act, which removes all pretense of having liberties. It clearly states the government can put in prison, permanently, any person (including citizens) who the government accuses of being an enemy combatant. No trial, no phone call, no charges, just life in prison. As long as that law is on the books, we cannot pretend that we have any freedom.

That is not to say the democrats are OK on this issue, as Obama extended the Pat Act and to further enshrine our loss of freedom, signed the NDAA with the same declarations of our loss of freedom.

So where is the revolution?

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3424 Nov 27, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Like ballooning the debt? Expanding the federal workforce. Amnesty for illegals? Gotcha, lejimcrow. That was some damn mavericky governin'
hahahahahahahaha
All you attribute to Reagan, you can also add Obama's name to the top of the list. At least Reagan gave us 24 years of bliss, where Obama has give us 4+ years of hell.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3425 Nov 27, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>War on women?!? It's actually a war on men..according to Fox...
A Fox News op-ed called "The War on Men" alleges that competitive women have turned men into marriage-averse slackers, and has triggered a predictably measured response from the internet.
"If men today are slackers, and if they're retreating from marriage," it's because the modern woman "has pissed them off," claims Suzanne Venker in her Fox column. As she explains it, "men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families - " it's in their DNA. But modern women won't let them."
Venker calls this "the war on men," but it turns out that it's more of a self-inflicted wound by women. The alleged results may actually sound A-OK for a lot of men - they get to "have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever."
The liberal internet has responded to Venker with a big helping of snark. Hannah Rosin, author of The End of Men, claims that she would love to "surrender to her femininity," as Venker urges, but she's clueless as to how to begin. "I get the general idea but what does it mean, like, in practice? Not wear pants so much? Let my hair grow. Ask my boss to pay me a little less? Open to ideas."
What is the war on women? You talk about it a lot, but other than a few MSM propaganda pieces, there is not much clarity on what it is. Was it the 878,000 that became unemployeed under Obama, or was it the lower wages paid to women working in the White House? Which one do you feel was the most important?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3426 Nov 27, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>What is the war on women? You talk about it a lot, but other than a few MSM propaganda pieces, there is not much clarity on what it is. Was it the 878,000 that became unemployeed under Obama, or was it the lower wages paid to women working in the White House? Which one do you feel was the most important?
When have i ever talked about the war on women? if you have to make up outright lies, you are really in sad shape...
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#3427 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Both Gates and Buffet started off upper-middle class. Gates was fortunate to go to a HS sponsored by IBM and got to tinker with computors and write code while in HS. In college he was fortunate to meet a couple of more people. Without either of these two events it is highly unlikely that Bill would be known at all.
Buffet was guided into business almost as much as Romney. Romney was given a deal he could not resist. His boss offered to set up with Bain. When Romney hesitated his boss made a deal where Mitt could not possibly lose a dime of his own money.
Now I am not an absolutist. Everyonce in a while someone from no where makes it to the upper world. But it happens so seldom in America as to be practically non-existent.
Well....there are quite a number who climb out of the ghetto and play basketball or go into the entertainment industry. But when it comes to working hard....the poor have a good thing going. Libs keep their voting base addicted to big govt. and reality tv which makes them less inclined to work hard enough to become independent. Much easier to lay on their backs, multiply and take govt. money. When govt. was less intrusive many who came from nothing became successful. Television has also contributed to slothdom and laziness as the poor can escape rather than work on ways to 'escape' from their poverty. Ironically, they will worship the uber rich royalty of liberal elites in Hollywood who keep them pacified while at the same time teaching them to hate successful hard working folks. The stupid usually never recognize this fact although there are a few and do something with their lives without govt. handouts.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3428 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
CRA had nothing to do with our recent economic calamity and it has nothing to do with anything resembling reparations. Anyone with any knowledge of CRA knows that.
Tell you what though, you show me where Dimon and the other big financial executives are calling for reform of CRA instead of or with changes to Dodd-Frank and you might have something to use as a foundation to draw your sense from. Until then you have demonstrated how willingly you want to believe fairy tales.
lol! Bravo!

And these are the same execs who want to eliminate SOX as well. From where I sit, they demanded government oversight due to their lack of management skills... and they deserve it!
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#3429 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, we don't have 30,000,000 illegal aliens. Second, most people on public assistance work. It is low wages that keep them drawing money. In most states a single, able bodied adult is ineligable for public assistance under any circumstances except unemployment.
You might find one or two that are doing what you claim. I can find more Repoublicans claiming it is the reality than it is the exception. Governor Mike Huckabee Sunday before last said you were wrong and did not have a grasp of the real problem.
...which is why having more kids brings in more govt. money-duh. Have you had any experience working around the poor? Many of them exploit their kids for drugs, govt assistance and other freebies they wouldn't get without them.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3430 Nov 27, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
As there have only been 17 Republican presidents since Lincoln (as the first one of the party), somehow I don't think your statistic can possibly be correct.
Excuse me.

I should've typed that there have been 17 TIMES when a Republican president has won with more than 50% of the votes cast.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3431 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Both Gates and Buffet started off upper-middle class. Gates was fortunate to go to a HS sponsored by IBM and got to tinker with computors and write code while in HS. In college he was fortunate to meet a couple of more people. Without either of these two events it is highly unlikely that Bill would be known at all.
Buffet was guided into business almost as much as Romney. Romney was given a deal he could not resist. His boss offered to set up with Bain. When Romney hesitated his boss made a deal where Mitt could not possibly lose a dime of his own money.
Now I am not an absolutist. Everyonce in a while someone from no where makes it to the upper world. But it happens so seldom in America as to be practically non-existent.
Actually, te top 1% earners in te Us changes over quite rapidly.

Facts are fun!

What many people see as people being ''guided', others see as someone taking advantae of a n opportunity. i have seen so many people with great ideas or opportunities just do nothing with them. i have also seen many people from wealthhy families do nothingg but waste away te family fortune.

your myth about people not beingg able to succeed in the US from any backround is not based in any fact.
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#3432 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Play it any way you want as long as you are consistent. When taxes go up Republican have 50% of Congress without giving them an ounce of credit in the Senate. However, consider that with 40+ Senators, the Republican party blocked more bills in the Senate in the last ~4 years than were blocked in the 50s, 60s and 70s combined.
Also not one dime was spent this year that was not explicitely approved by the Republican House. So all that deficit spending is 50% their fault as well.
And wasn't it nice that under Reagan the Democrats cut our taxes? And under bush it was the Republican tax cuts? And under Obama it is the Republican/Democrat tax cut extension.....until it becomes the Republican/Democrat tax hikes?
Like I said, any way you want to play it is fine with me.
And speaking of the CRA, during ~12 years of a Republican controlled Congress how many bills did they pass to change the CRA?
It figures you would manage to blame the republicans for the outrageous spending. Certainly, the libs have set them up for failure because if they don't follow in lockstep, the lib machine will brainwash the stupid into voting them out of office and bringing in more commies.The republicans should block everything that is in opposition with what they were elected for. Don't know if it would be best to let this happen so when we collapse, the stupid will realize why and if they are around to rebuild, govt. will be much different the next time around.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3433 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text> But when it comes to working hard....the poor have a good thing going. Libs keep their voting base addicted to big govt.
Exactly, and I can't help but "LOL" every time they deny it.

The lib poster "conservative crapola" said it best yesterday when he posted: "Why try harder if ya don't gotta?"

That should be the lib's new party motto.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3434 Nov 27, 2012
Billy Ringo wrote:
As they say ..........
IT WAS A SLUM DUNK !!!!
A "Freudian Slip" if there ever was one.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3435 Nov 27, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>It figures you would manage to blame the republicans for the outrageous spending. Certainly, the libs have set them up for failure because if they don't follow in lockstep, the lib machine will brainwash the stupid into voting them out of office and bringing in more commies.The republicans should block everything that is in opposition with what they were elected for. Don't know if it would be best to let this happen so when we collapse, the stupid will realize why and if they are around to rebuild, govt. will be much different the next time around.
Agree. The GOP should just step aside and let the left do exactly what they want. Zero opposition would prevent them AND their media sycophants no one to blame but each other.
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#3436 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. America is a right of center country. Media reporting from the exact center would appear to be to the left, but they are not, they are still in the center.
The Republican started losing this election almost 4 years ago when they decided to obstruct almost anything the President wanted to do. This was true even when he compromised and incorporated Republican ideas like the state ran health insurance pools and the individual mandate. Both are Republican.
What about when the Republicans voted to extend the bush tax cuts with no problem then claimed the Payroll tax cut had to be paid for? Money for FEMA had to be "paid for" with spending cuts elsewhere.......until a RED state was involved.
Then look at the Republican financial plan: We will cut programs the primarilly benefit the lower and middle classes. But because we are all in this together we will cut taxes for those at the top forcing them to keep more money.
The BIG LIE: Increasing taxes for small business owners will result in less jobs.
First, if you only increase taxes at the $250K or $500K level you eliminate about 98% of all small business owners from a tax increase.
Second, that small business owner does not pay one dime in taxes for expenditures to support an employee. The only required is that employee has to bring in enough money to pay for himself (total cost burden).
Then there is immigration and self-deportation.
Then there is the war on women.
Then there are to calls to go to war in Iran and Syria (OK, Romney changed his mode, but it was way late in the game.)
Only in the brainwashed, the media appears to be center. The debates were a dead give away but of course the brainwashed can't see through the mire of s*** the media paints over their eyes.

You have no knowledge or experience in small business and the upper middle class. If you want to raise taxes on the uber rich, make it for only for millionaires. Leave the middle class alone and begin pecking on the lower upper classes and above. Of course this will impact jobs and many may outsource more than ever before...but at least it will leave the middle class alone. The uber rich will not be directly impacted as they will pass it down to us anyway. They have more options such as outsourcing or moving to a more business friendly country. The middle class does not have this option.

oscumma wants to destroy the middle class of hardworking folks by making them responsible for the sloths who don't want to work. The great divider and scumbag obama and friends have fanned the flames of class envy so the stupid feel entitled to take from those who have worked harder than they have. The stupid believe they are somehow entitled to their money.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3437 Nov 27, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe his name is Obama - using derogatory words to name your President is both childish and demeaning to your country. Why you should raise whether you think he was a statesman or not is beyond me, but since you do, most of the rest of the world regards him as considerably better in that department than Romney. The campaign was ugly on both sides, elements of the Republican Party were not above displaying what came precious close to racism. Continue to tell yourself what you have posted is the reason you lost. Not my concern - but unless the GOP returns to the centre of US politics, they may find 2016 is no more comfortable than 2012.
Your damn right, and they better tone down Fox and tell heir House republicans to start legislating for the good of the country, instead of for the party politics....Time to return to a recognizable centered, republican party and quit protecting the corporate wealthy.....
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#3438 Nov 27, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>half of those "gimmees" are staunch republicans, so your imagined reality has no play in the real world.
Oh really? Republicans want govt. out. They didn't want social security but the govt. went forward and has stolen from their paychecks for decades. They don't have options for health care when they reach a certain age because govt. insists they rely on it for assistance. Republicans never wanted it but they have been forced to pay for this program as well. Libs are a stupid bunch because they actually think these programs they forced on Americans suddenly make gimmes out of those who never wanted it. It's like those losers who have kids and then don't want to support them.

And when oscumma moves his commie healthcare plan through, those republicans become gimmes too? Of course they are in your mind. Keep in mind, there are people who are not influenced by the liberal media and their backwards ideology.

So tell me, support your statement that 'half of those gimmees are staunch republicans'. Hahahahaha.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min red and right 293,193
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Smart Alex 1,154,187
How Should the US Government Respond to ISIS? 6 min Apalachin Don 1,954
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min dirtclod 132,778
Obama: We're not at cyber war with North Korea 9 min SirPrize 2
Your Thoughts on the Midterm Elections 11 min Fa-Foxy 447
Ben Carson: Race Relations Have 'Gotten Worse' ... 11 min barefoot2626 726
After CIA torture report: rebuilding a culture ... 2 hr dollarsbill 136
Obama: Keystone benefits for U.S. consumers, wo... 3 hr Bury that thing D... 47
More from around the web