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: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8245 Feb 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
President Kennedy... was a...Democrat?
Bigot, you have to make your rants more believable.
Somewhat... believable.
Why are there no blacks in the GOP?
Bigot?
And you are a Liar . I dare you to show one post where I have posted anything that could be considered bigoted.
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#8246 Feb 10, 2013
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish more conservative pundits would recognize they had a flawed, out of touch, backward thinking candidate which is why they lost the election.
At least they should start with that small premise!
You get a choice of two people. You then move to one of them. Four years ago you would think the elitist Repubs would have wised up. They took over the tea party before the 2010 election and shut out Ron Paul completely by the convention and made sure the neo con conservatives stayed in long enough to nullify him during the primaries. And wallah, another RINO/NEO CON became the standard bearer. He was presidential though. For me, I don't believe them anymore as they would rather lose or risk an election then to lose any power even if they are the minority. Wars and the loss of freedom will continue now.
2 posts removed

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8249 Feb 10, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> You get a choice of two people. You then move to one of them. Four years ago you would think the elitist Repubs would have wised up. They took over the tea party before the 2010 election and shut out Ron Paul completely by the convention and made sure the neo con conservatives stayed in long enough to nullify him during the primaries. And wallah, another RINO/NEO CON became the standard bearer. He was presidential though. For me, I don't believe them anymore as they would rather lose or risk an election then to lose any power even if they are the minority. Wars and the loss of freedom will continue now.
people in the US shut out Ron Paul because his platform was untenable. his ideas were proven to not work before he was even born...
1 post removed
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#8251 Feb 10, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>people in the US shut out Ron Paul because his platform was untenable. his ideas were proven to not work before he was even born...
His ideas would not have been voted in. The premise of what conservatives were would have been mandated back to the Republican Party. With a common sense foreign policy on our war footing of madness and a real agenda on our military industrial complex. At home we would actually talk about freedom. So he gets percentages of this at different levels. The other Repubs are RINOS/NEO CONS. And forget about the Democrats.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8252 Feb 10, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> His ideas would not have been voted in. The premise of what conservatives were would have been mandated back to the Republican Party. With a common sense foreign policy on our war footing of madness and a real agenda on our military industrial complex. At home we would actually talk about freedom. So he gets percentages of this at different levels. The other Repubs are RINOS/NEO CONS. And forget about the Democrats.
I think Republicans should follow the lead now of Rand Paul. Give Obama what he wants and then he will have no one to blame when the USA crashes and burns.
Yes it will be painful in the short run but some times the best thing you can do is let people learn a hard lesson
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#8253 Feb 10, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> I think Republicans should follow the lead now of Rand Paul. Give Obama what he wants and then he will have no one to blame when the USA crashes and burns.
Yes it will be painful in the short run but some times the best thing you can do is let people learn a hard lesson
It is very difficult when you are basically by yourself or are a few around you and you continue to spout your beliefs. It is easy for the others because they spout the same thing basically. Even other men who profess to think like him, criticize him. His foreign views have him accused as a hater to some. His opinion on the sharpshooter who died caused some backlash also. Which was nothing more then him saying we glorify war and that is not supposed to be us. And that makes him more in touch with a God then many who profess to be in a deity's corner. Either way, he will pass away knowing he was right. How can you keep telling people things are happening...and they are...and the people keep rejecting the truth?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8254 Feb 10, 2013
californio wrote:
I think Republicans should follow the lead now of Rand Paul.
I think you tea baggers should start your own party. As Jindal has said: the Republicans have to stop being the stupid party.

You tea baggers can start your own party, have your own conventions, declare your own candidates, and the mantel of "stupid party" can be passed to you.

You are a good candidate to carry their banner. You are a mo-ron so are well-qualified.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8255 Feb 10, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text>And you are a Liar . I dare you to show one post where I have posted anything that could be considered bigoted.
Is Nixon a Republican?

Yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8256 Feb 10, 2013
californio wrote:
There where 4 million less votes cast in 2012 then in 2008. So many people have become so discouraged will not even show up to vote any more.
Or lazy.

And then there are the people who are dying.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8257 Feb 10, 2013
californio wrote:
You are right I cannot teach the Democrats
You can't teach anyone anything that is legal... or at least... desirable.

Wipe your chin, you are a mess.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8258 Feb 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right.
Look at how fast he got us out of Vietnam.
You are a a m/f c/s liar.
Nixon was as Republican as a Republican could be.
I will remind you frequently that you are a big a m/f c/s as a m/f c/s liar can be, and as an example, your insistence that Nixon was some kind of liberal.
Wipe your chin, you have conservatism all over your face..
Nixon & G.W. Bush Were definitely liberals which their polices proved that, besides are you that blind to see there is Moderen Liberals in Both Parties just like there is not too many left that fit the Criteria of a Conservative anymore in both parties either and has nothing to do with Party affiliation Republican or Democrat besides most of the National Democrat seem to lean towards Leninism vs Moderen Liberalism lately.

New word for Liberal Republican is a Rino it used to be Rockefeller Republican.

Republican in name only(RINO)

A RINO (Republican in Name Only) is an officeholder or candidate who is a member of the Republican Party, but holds views to the political left of most Republican voters. The term "RINO" describes politicians who claim to be Republican but are in fact liberal, and therefore generally debase the winning conservative coalition base of the Republican Party.

http://conservapedia.com/Republican_in_name_o...

Rockefeller Republican

Rockefeller Republican (often termed "moderate Republican") refers to a faction of the United States Republican Party who hold moderate to liberal views on some issues similar to those of Nelson Rockefeller. The term largely fell out of use by the end of the twentieth century, and has been replaced by the terms "moderate Republican"[citation needed] and, pejoratively, "RINO" (Republican In Name Only). Modern Rockefeller Republicans are typically center-right, reject far-right policies, and are often, but not necessarily, culturally liberal. Many espouse government and private investments in environmentalism, healthcare and higher education as necessities for the nation's growth, in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller, Alexander Hamilton and Theodore Roosevelt.[citation needed] In general, Rockefeller Republicans oppose socialism and the redistribution of wealth while supporting some regulation of business and federal social programs in matters pertaining to the public good.[citation needed] They represent a diversity of views on foreign policy, but historically most were considered "hawks" against communism and strong supporters of American business abroad.[citation needed] Richard Nixon -- a moderate, establishment Republican within the Party's contemporary ideological framework -- founded the Environmental Protection Agency, cooled tensions with China and the Soviet Union, and in 1971 announced he was a Keynesian.[1] Rockefeller Republicans were very common in the New England, West Coast, and the Middle Atlantic States, where there historically existed larger "liberal" constituencies

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

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8259 Feb 10, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Nixon & G.W. Bush Were definitely liberals
I am sure Hitler is a liberal from where you are standing, eh?

Don't waste my time... it's worth considerable your than yours.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8260 Feb 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure Hitler is a liberal from where you are standing, eh?
Don't waste my time... it's worth considerable your than yours.
Hitler was to the Far Right and the people who associate themselves to the Right or Conservative dont like that to be pointed out.

Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Hitler and Germany: 1928-35

Hitler found his greatest support in traditionally conservative small towns. He campaigned with attacks on Marxism, making it clear that by Marxism he meant the Social Democrats.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8261 Feb 10, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Hitler was to the Far Right
but to the left of tea baggers.

TTTH.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8262 Feb 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
but to the left of tea baggers.
TTTH.
I dont care for the Tea Party either because of them being hypocritical of their Political positions on issues especially Social Security which is a Big Government Program and they say they are against Big Government but not against Social Security and I heard more than one say they dont want the Federal Government getting involved in their Social Security and that there told me that I dont think they Realize or understand our Federal Government that Social Security is a program controlled & administered by the Federal Government.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8263 Feb 10, 2013
As far as Nixon being a Liberal just check out his action and Laws he supported.
compare his record on the environment on Civil rights or anything else with Bill Clinton or any other president in the last 50 years.
Under which President was OSHA formed or which President formed the Environmental protection agency or who was President when Title IX was signed?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8264 Feb 10, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't teach anyone anything that is legal... or at least... desirable.
Wipe your chin, you are a mess.
Im still waiting for you to prove you are not a Liar. Show where I ever posted anything that can be considered bigoted.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8265 Feb 10, 2013
californio wrote:
As far as Nixon being a Liberal just check out his action and Laws he supported.
compare his record on the environment on Civil rights or anything else with Bill Clinton or any other president in the last 50 years.
Under which President was OSHA formed or which President formed the Environmental protection agency or who was President when Title IX was signed?
Exactly and why the Conservatives consider Nixon a Modern Liberal who was a promoter of Big Government & Control which Conservatives are against.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8266 Feb 10, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> Im still waiting for you to prove you are not a Liar.
I'm still waiting for you to wipe your chin or at least change that stained shirt from yesterday, BOY.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8267 Feb 10, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly and why the Conservatives consider Nixon .
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

It was the Democrat's secret plan, starting with making him Eisenhower's Vice President!

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 Trump's state visit should be scrapped, says Lo... 1 min Retribution 59
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 2 min jonjedi 5,717
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 min Julia 63,277
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min District 1 237,416
News Black History Month: Tim Scott on What His Elec... 4 min okimar 13
News Trump supporters cheer his combative stance wit... 5 min NoTrumpNow 302
News President Trump gets to day 32, won't have shor... 6 min Ex Senator Santpo... 15
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min RoxLo 1,496,780
News Fearing deportation, undocumented mother seeks ... 6 min Julia 165
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 11 min Julia 259,080
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 12 min Rico from East Lo... 412,723
More from around the web