What the 2012 election taught us

What the 2012 election taught us

There are 10317 comments on the The Washington Post story from Nov 6, 2012, titled What the 2012 election taught us. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#5024 Dec 5, 2012
That statement about the socialist US healthcare system was true BEFORE Obamacare as well as today.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5025 Dec 5, 2012
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Romney is no free market anything, he's taken more than his share of government largess and picked the pockets of workers in companies he's taken over in his role as a Corporate Raider.
Romney doesn't produce anything, he sales Chinese produced merchandise in his retail outlets.
<quoted text>
Oh my, we are now to Romney Did It. My, how quaint, you children must always find a scapegoat or create yourself as a victim. For once you are right, with Obama at the helm, you will be a victum. We can only hope ObamaCare will set up suicide assist stations for you children. You won't be needed anymore soon.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#5026 Dec 5, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
The Founding Fathers would charge today's big government progressives with treason.
"Describing ObamaCare as an 'entrepreneurial' bill,[Nancy] Pelosi advised artistic Americans to quit their jobs with the assurance that the new health care law would pick up the tab for their health insurance."
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/02/artists-...
Pelosi would be one of the first to face the hangman.
lol!!! WTH does treason have to do with capitalism?!?!?!!?!

Geez! Right wing extremists are really off the edge!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#5027 Dec 5, 2012
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's often been the losers position on the Electoral College votes that signals a clean and convincing landslide victory. Democrats felt the sting of losing in 04 when Kerry won more popular votes than Bush ,but end last in the electoral college.
Don't worry it stops hurting in a while.
Wow, you really do live in dreamland, don't you?:

2004 election:

Bush - 62,040,610

Kerry - 59,028,444

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_ele...

Er...say "hi" to your magic unicorns for me this morn, O.K. scooter? There's a good boy!
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#5028 Dec 5, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>That's what liberals excel in. The love changing the definitions and controlling the vocabulary. They use it most in the MSM and Media Matters electronic outlets.
Well said. Years ago, there were some conservatives who complained about the liberal sway of the media and I thought they were nuts but now.......it's so obvious.
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#5029 Dec 5, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you have no idea what the founding fathers would do. They acted based on the reality of their time, presented with "new" realities they may have been much more socialist than you think.
As an example, they knew that education was a key to success for what they were trying to achieve. They did not trust it to the "free" market or capitalism, instead they chose socialism to provide it for the masses.
In their world, they did not even have a pain killer beyond whiskey is they had to cut your leg or arm off. They had no idea how something became infected so they never sterilized anything leading to more problems. They have no vaccines to protect them from desease or treatment for malaria (a big problem at the time along with dysentary.)
Given today's medical capabilities what makes you think they would not be for socialized medicine as well? In fact, medicine in the US is more socialized than it is in any other western nations other than England and Canada. Germany, France, Japan and the others have more capitalistic medicine than we do today.
I doubt it because they were trying to escape socialism.They came to America to get away from oppressive big govt. In fact, the colonist nearly starved to death using socialist ideas. It wasn't until they became capitalists when things turned around for them.

Back then, people were hardworking and independent. They took on the challenges of a settler's life and forged ahead with their families and friends. They worked together not because the govt forced them but because they were ethical and moral people. There wasn't much tolerance for sloths, drunks and mooches which is why there were so very few.

Anytime you grow the power within the govt. it is not in the best interest of the people. The stupid and gullible will never understand because all they see is the teat flapping in front of the noses.
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#5030 Dec 5, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
And what freedoms did you gain. Medicine as an example. You can have some certainty that the Medicine you purchase will not kill you and it will probably help with what ails you. Thanks to government intrusion.
You can be somewhat assured that the broadcasts you listen to won't be disrupted by someone else broadcasting on the same frequency. Thanks to government intrusion.
You can get weather forecasts that are fairly accurate 3 - 4 days ahead thanks to government intrusion.
Car safety, building standards, desease control, aircraft safety.......
I'm afraid you don't understand what govt. intrusion means.

Modern society has many hurdles to overcome in addition to an intrusive govt....there are greedy lawyers who sue over everything causing costs to skyrocket. Because of this, there are some meds hung up in red tape that would be able to save people lives but alas........govt. interference to the extreme. Not to say there shouldn't be regulations but moderation should be the word of the day.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#5031 Dec 5, 2012
inbred Genius wrote:
geez, you guys are thick....its basically a yes or no question...do we need more rich people, or more poor people, just check one blank
more rich_____
more poor_____
don't come back with your philosophy of who shot who, just answer the question.
This is not a one or the other question, just like

Did you stop beating your wife is not a yes or no question.

What is better is allowing people to get most of the value of the work they do. In the old west, if you built your own house, you didn't have to give it to some banker. If you saw the local doctor, you didn't have to give some guy thousands of dollars for the right to see the doctor.(insurance company CEOs) If you raised food for yourself and sold the rest to those in the community, you didn't have a middle man, selling the food at outrageous prices, and giving you pennies. I saw a long time ago, that the box that Wheaties comes in costs more than the wheat to make the product, yet the price was very high.

It is better to have a whole society of people who can enjoy the fruits of their own labors. That way, there won't really be any rich or poor, just those who work for sustenance, and those who work a bit more and enjoy a bit more.

Now we have a class of people (the rich) who don't work, but enjoy the fruits of those who do labor. The rich removed opportunity for everyone else to avoid competition, thus ensuring low labor costs. But they have gone too far and are destroying their customer base. A nation with a very small number of exceedingly wealthy individuals is not nearly as good as a nation with a large number of secure people, with opportunities.

“Ignore the trolls”

Since: Oct 08

Glastonbury, UK

#5032 Dec 5, 2012
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you really do live in dreamland, don't you?:
2004 election:
Bush - 62,040,610
Kerry - 59,028,444
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_ele...
Er...say "hi" to your magic unicorns for me this morn, O.K. scooter? There's a good boy!
Try the 2000 election result - wonder who was governor of the crucial state in that one?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5033 Dec 5, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you have no idea what the founding fathers would do.
OK, in "actual" terms neither do you.

Now, why did you ignore Pelosi's take on Obamacare I posted? Do you find it indefensible? Embarrassing?

Here it is again:

"Describing ObamaCare as an 'entrepreneurial' bill,[Nancy] Pelosi advised artistic Americans to quit their jobs with the assurance that the new health care law would pick up the tab for their health insurance."
1 post removed
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#5035 Dec 5, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1960 in most states a house suitable for raising a family in did not have to have electricity or indoor plumbing. If the parents had to leave the kids at home alone so they could work no one said a thing.
When I was 6 I could be anywhere within about a one-mile cirlce of my house and no one said a thing......as long as I was home for supper.
I regularly walked to school which was one mile away.
An employer would save a job for a guy until he could show up to accept it. No phone required.
In 1940 no drivers license was required in most states.
All you are doing is blaming the guy at the bottom because you moved the goal posts (or support them being moved) and then did not pay them enough to keep up with the new requirements.
But then you are a Republican, aren't you.(Statement, not question)
I don't know if you were from the backwoods of Arkansas but electricity and plumbing was standard equipment for homes during that time. If parents left their kids at home alone, you better believe something would be said. It was a time when most mothers stayed home with their children and in some cases, they may only have one family car. They may have taken dad to work or get her shopping done on Saturdays. Having no parents at home was not the norm and it would have been considered extremely deviant behavior. While I agree elementary aged children played in their backyards until dark during the summer without parents hovering..... it has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make. If your parents let you wander like that at six, they were negligent parents even by the sixties standards. Just because you weren't hauled away by CPS doesn't mean your parents were within the norms. Not even close.

Unfortunately, bad parenting can breed more bad parents and the cycle goes on. You want to blame Republicans for that? Sheet, Kennedy was prez back then...wanna blame him for the way you were raised? Or do you want to blame Ike?

“Ignore the trolls”

Since: Oct 08

Glastonbury, UK

#5036 Dec 5, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text> I doubt it because they were trying to escape socialism.They came to America to get away from oppressive big govt. In fact, the colonist nearly starved to death using socialist ideas. It wasn't until they became capitalists when things turned around for them.
Back then, people were hardworking and independent. They took on the challenges of a settler's life and forged ahead with their families and friends. They worked together not because the govt forced them but because they were ethical and moral people. There wasn't much tolerance for sloths, drunks and mooches which is why there were so very few.
Anytime you grow the power within the govt. it is not in the best interest of the people. The stupid and gullible will never understand because all they see is the teat flapping in front of the noses.
There were many reasons for people emigrating to America over the years, but "oppressive big government" was not one of them - or at least not in the sense you suggest. Subsequently, economic hardship and oopressive landlords were also a major factor - not to mention the import of Africans as slaves - a very capitalistic activity.

Initially, the first settlers was to avoid relgious persecution - and it wasn't socialism that nearly killed them, it was the inability to farm the land adequately. Had it not been for the Native Americans, they would have starved. Perhaps today, the indiginous population might regret that help.

No sloths, drunkards and moochers (I presume you mean)? Think you should look at the history of any US city before you post that. There was simply not any support (apart from charities) right through until the New Deal. There was also a shortage of labour, not a shortage of jobs.

Might be an idea for you to do a little study of the origins of your own country - then you could post accurate information rather than politically motivated inaccuracies (misusing history has, incidently, been the hallmark of every totalitariean regime of the 20th century).
stormy

Fairmont, WV

#5037 Dec 5, 2012
Who you voted FOR, has dubbed himself KING,
He does as he pleases, Rules only apply to the
Republicans. You knew this, you also knew who and
what he would blame. You have played his game
and encouraged it thru the whole campaign. It was no suprise about this "CLIFF" mess! You will take
YOUR punishment as will the rest of us.
Who wants to hear complaints or see your tears,
NO ONE!!! I seriously think, we will no longer
have a country and he just might want HIS JOB
to be declared Pernament. "Whatever Obama wants,
Obama gets", Your votes told the world just THAT
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

#5038 Dec 5, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not a one or the other question, just like
Did you stop beating your wife is not a yes or no question.
What is better is allowing people to get most of the value of the work they do. In the old west, if you built your own house, you didn't have to give it to some banker. If you saw the local doctor, you didn't have to give some guy thousands of dollars for the right to see the doctor.(insurance company CEOs) If you raised food for yourself and sold the rest to those in the community, you didn't have a middle man, selling the food at outrageous prices, and giving you pennies. I saw a long time ago, that the box that Wheaties comes in costs more than the wheat to make the product, yet the price was very high.
It is better to have a whole society of people who can enjoy the fruits of their own labors. That way, there won't really be any rich or poor, just those who work for sustenance, and those who work a bit more and enjoy a bit more.
Now we have a class of people (the rich) who don't work, but enjoy the fruits of those who do labor. The rich removed opportunity for everyone else to avoid competition, thus ensuring low labor costs. But they have gone too far and are destroying their customer base. A nation with a very small number of exceedingly wealthy individuals is not nearly as good as a nation with a large number of secure people, with opportunities.
Give your home to a banker? Uh, if you can't pay cash you take a loan, no? Who pays a doctor a thousand dollars for the 'right' to see him? Outrageous food prices? Who do you want to blame? The grocery owners and product manufacturers? Of course you do. Grow your own food if you are so disturbed about it. Maybe you'll have more appreciation and realize it's a bargain compared to growing it yourself.

Why should it matter to you who lives just to sustain themselves and who lives in superior comfort? Jealous? I'm not sure what you think is rich but anyone who gets to that point have worked their azzes off. Now if you're pissed about the liberal elite who are in oscumma's pocket well that's what you get when you grow an overreaching and oppressive govt. They are going to exchange favors and the cycle will go on.

The middle class encompasses a very large group of folks who may live frugally or very comfortably. They may make $500,000 a year, take grand vacations, have a beautiful home, cars, whatever. Does that bother you? These folks have taken risks, taken out huge loans for their education, made sacrifices and delayed having families. They may have given up vacations and lived on PBJ's in their 20's -mid 30's. Their kids may have helped and sacrificed some of their free time to help them grow their business. You have no clue. Like you said, those who work more, enjoy a little more.

AND....for those who don't work and live off their investments....who the fk cares? They made it possible through hard work. And yet the sloths think they should be able to steal their money.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5039 Dec 5, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bunch of BS. Part of the stimulus package originally was a jobs program similar to what FDR used. It was the Republicans that blocked it. It is the Republicans that talk work but then run from it.
Remember all the disdain for having the area around the WH and Congress landscaped? That is exactly what a lot of the jobs during the Depression did in our national parks. Republicans ran from it and you can not hide from that fact.
majority of the people during FDR wanted to work instead of the government providing benefits but today we have more people wanting the federal government to provide benefits instead of working and if these people of today had to deal with what the people did during FDR they would not survive.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#5040 Dec 5, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text> I doubt it because they were trying to escape socialism.They came to America to get away from oppressive big govt. In fact, the colonist nearly starved to death using socialist ideas. It wasn't until they became capitalists when things turned around for them.
Back then, people were hardworking and independent. They took on the challenges of a settler's life and forged ahead with their families and friends. They worked together not because the govt forced them but because they were ethical and moral people. There wasn't much tolerance for sloths, drunks and mooches which is why there were so very few.
Anytime you grow the power within the govt. it is not in the best interest of the people. The stupid and gullible will never understand because all they see is the teat flapping in front of the noses.
Thank you once again for proving how little Republicans know.

1. The colonists were "escaping" Monachies that were forcing specific religious choices down their throats.

2. The original colonists nearly starved to death becaue they were working for corporations in England instead of themselves.

3. Ale was a popular drink, particularly when wells and fresh water drinking sources went bad, which they frequently did. I am talking Breakfast, lunch, supper and evening popular.

3.a. Take a tour of "Old" Philladelphia and find out how many times they sent the women and children away because the water sources were polluted and killing people. Then you will find out how popular Ale, Wine and other alcoholic beverages free of germs were.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#5041 Dec 5, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>...
AND....for those who don't work and live off their investments....who the fk cares? They made it possible through hard work. And yet the sloths think they should be able to steal their money.
I see you are one of the sloths. If you want money, work for it. Quit stealing from everyone else.

You did have it right about those who don't work, they live off investments and reap the rewards of those who do work, while they idle away the hours, making sure those who work, don't get enough to eat, don't have access to health care and they are increasing the homeless population. Gotta have enough desperate people willing to do anything for a few pennies.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#5042 Dec 5, 2012
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>

It is better to have a whole society of people who can enjoy the fruits of their own labors. That way, there won't really be any rich or poor, just those who work for sustenance, and those who work a bit more and enjoy a bit more.
Now we have a class of people (the rich) who don't work, but enjoy the fruits of those who do labor. The rich removed opportunity for everyone else to avoid competition, thus ensuring low labor costs. But they have gone too far and are destroying their customer base. A nation with a very small number of exceedingly wealthy individuals is not nearly as good as a nation with a large number of secure people, with opportunities.
What do you do about the people who won't or can't work in your Communist utopia, shoot them?

Your "the rich don't work" comment is hogwash.

Sheesh...do you really believe the tripe you posted?

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#5043 Dec 5, 2012
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text> I'm afraid you don't understand what govt. intrusion means.
Modern society has many hurdles to overcome in addition to an intrusive govt....there are greedy lawyers who sue over everything causing costs to skyrocket. Because of this, there are some meds hung up in red tape that would be able to save people lives but alas........govt. interference to the extreme. Not to say there shouldn't be regulations but moderation should be the word of the day.
Lawyers, greedy or not have little to do with government unless of course you think we should get rid of the system we have set up for redress of wrongs and prefer a six-shooter strapped to you side instead. Of course, who can afford the fastest, most accurate shooter? You or that multi-billion dollar corporation?

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#5044 Dec 5, 2012
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, in "actual" terms neither do you.
Now, why did you ignore Pelosi's take on Obamacare I posted? Do you find it indefensible? Embarrassing?
Here it is again:
"Describing ObamaCare as an 'entrepreneurial' bill,[Nancy] Pelosi advised artistic Americans to quit their jobs with the assurance that the new health care law would pick up the tab for their health insurance."
No, I find that I don't know the context the comment was made in and actually had no knowledge of the comment.

I would look like a Republican if I started saying things about something I had no knowledge of.

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
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 1 min TheOriginalDoby 249
News Obama says he respects Britain's decision to le... 5 min woodtick57 22
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 9 min woodtick57 387,967
News Michelle Obama to visit Africa to highlight gir... 12 min moochie 21
News State Democratic Party convention held in Albuq... 22 min nuevomehico 3
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 25 min Gov Corbutt of th... 910
News Trump hits 'hostile' media, 'rogue' Scarborough... 27 min Ronald 292
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 30 min Nuculur option 1,394,921
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 31 min woodtick57 3,317
More from around the web