Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 I am basing this post on the presumptive results, which are not official. I shall preface them by saying I am sickened. If I were not a patriotic American, I'd be heading north. Need I say more? The country has lost its appetite for work, thrift, achievement and excellence. One of the conservative commentators on Fox, however, suggested that Obama may be forced to moderate in order to (a) create a place in history; and ( out of lack of need to pander to his base. I can only hope that she is right. Given the narrowness of his victory and his apparent popular vote loss, he has no mandate. Zero, zip, nada. As some wise man said, "this too shall pass." From January 20, 1961 - January 20, 1981 we suffered some G-d-awful governance. Yet, we came roaring back to life. As a patriotic American, I can only hope. Your patriotic American. JBG Quote
scribblet Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Disagree. More like it rejected the Republican offering of a party controlled by religious nutjobs. Partly I think, but also because America is not the same as it used to be. There are many more groups who IMO are looking more to the gov`t for 'entitlements' and handouts, they are looking for more gov't funding etc. One of the reasons P.R. wants to be a 51st state, more handouts from the gov't. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Partly I think, but also because America is not the same as it used to be. There are many more groups who IMO are looking more to the gov`t for 'entitlements' and handouts, they are looking for more gov't funding etc. One of the reasons P.R. wants to be a 51st state, more handouts from the gov't. You mean brown people, yeah? Quote
Smallc Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 I'm not sure I really understand how conservatives have such trouble seeing that it isn't really about dependency on the government, or handouts. It's far more about creating a mixed system, much like we have here in Canada. There is the ability to make large amounts of money in relatively free open markets that are at the same time regulated to prevent destruction that we saw in 2008. There is also a relatively generous social safety net that is there to catch people who aren't able to succeed (and there are always people that aren't able or willing to succeed...pretending they're not there doesn't make it go away). Obama isn't a socialist, or a 'food stamp president'. He simply has a different vision than many American presidents have in the past, and at least on the social side, it looks a great deal like Canada (on the economic side, it looks like the Canada of the 90s, but, that wasn't so bad either). Quote
Pliny Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Welll....I can't seem to get out of my twilight zone stupor. Some here may think it the place of my permanent residence but nonetheless. In my view, this result was a vote for love of Government. It was a vote for the cult of personality. The final wall of freedom has fallen and the world has no more protection against Statism. Democracy, when voting becomes a vote for special interests, entitlements and privileges, surrenders freedom to the State. The fundamental transformation of America will continue.....we'll see how it turns out for Americans and the rest of the world. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
kimmy Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Governor Romney, Mormon or not, was remarkably successful given the popular vote count and certain demographic margins. For instance, Romney carried seniors despite aggressive plans for Medicare. Well, his aggressive plans wouldn't actually affect anybody who's already a senior. Social services, medicare, the changes were to be phased in in a way that current seniors were unchanged, but people who aren't seniors yet don't get the same benefits that today's seniors receive. So of course current seniors were probably fine with that. This was another urban vs. rural & sub-urban, youth vs. age battle based on county level results (lots more red). But big open counties don't get to vote, only citizens do. And they chose President Obama. It's easy to imagine somebody looking at the map and saying "look at all that red! How did Obama win?" -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
TimG Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) It's easy to imagine somebody looking at the map and saying "look at all that red! How did Obama win?"I was amused looking at the county level maps on some websites last night. Mostly red which small patches of blue in every state. Except the blue patches corresponded to the major population centers in the state. I wonder what the largest city that voted Republican. Dallas? Edited November 7, 2012 by TimG Quote
Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Welll....I can't seem to get out of my twilight zone stupor. Some here may think it the place of my permanent residence but nonetheless. In my view, this result was a vote for love of Government. It was a vote for the cult of personality. The final wall of freedom has fallen and the world has no more protection against Statism. Democracy, when voting becomes a vote for special interests, entitlements and privileges, surrenders freedom to the State. The fundamental transformation of America will continue.....we'll see how it turns out for Americans and the rest of the world. Quote
kimmy Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 So do the same people that think our FPTP system is BS think the same about the Electrical College? The pros and cons of the Electoral College system have been debated for a long time, by a lot of scholars. However, whatever your leanings, you have to have second thoughts about it when you see Florida, with over 8 million votes counted, and a difference of about 40,000 votes, and Obama will get 29 EC votes and Romney will get zero. I notice that Maine and Nebraska have split their electoral votes. Perhaps if other states are concerned with the winner-take-all aspect of it, they could look into something similar. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
cybercoma Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 No doubt some in the truther/Tea wing of the Republican party were hoping they could point to the popular vote to undermine the legitimacy of Obama's victory. But President Obama is also winning the popular vote by over 1 million votes at this moment. In short, "scoreboard". -k Scoreboard: New Hampshire: Where Romney has a summer home and is consider a home state away from his home state goes to Obama. Michigan: Romney's birth state where his father was a popular governor goes to Obama. Wisconsin: Where Paul Ryan was expected to make gains goes to Obama. Massachusetts: Where Romney was elected governor goes to Obama. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 The problem I have with the Electoral College is that it's Winner take all for the entire state. At least with FPTP the result takes into consideration of individual ridings. Since each Electoral College vote is representative of a congressional seat you could easily have the race run district by district instead of State by State. Assuming each district that voted for a Republican would have also voted for Romney, that would mean Romney would have won under this scenario. Not saying I want this system because Romney would have won, I'm just saying it would be a better reflection of the different regions of each state and across the nation. Then you would have Districts that hold 10% of the population in a state having an equal vote to districts that hold 0.5% of the population. Doesn't sound like a good idea at all. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Funny how when blacks or Latinos vote as a block, it's all about entitlement and special interests. But when white men do it (as they did with Romney), well, that's just Freedom, baby! Quote
cybercoma Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) The pros and cons of the Electoral College system have been debated for a long time, by a lot of scholars. However, whatever your leanings, you have to have second thoughts about it when you see Florida, with over 8 million votes counted, and a difference of about 40,000 votes, and Obama will get 29 EC votes and Romney will get zero. I notice that Maine and Nebraska have split their electoral votes. Perhaps if other states are concerned with the winner-take-all aspect of it, they could look into something similar. -k That certainly is bull. They really should divide it up by the percentage. Rightly it should be 15 ECVs for Obama and 14 ECVs for Romney. Edited November 7, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Funny how when blacks or Latinos vote as a block, it's all about entitlement and special interests. But when white men do it (as they did with Romney), well, that's just Freedom, baby! That's because blacks and latinos are lazy freeloaders that don't want to work and just want government handouts. At least I think that's what I'm supposed to believe when I start putting the conservatives arguments together. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 That's because blacks and latinos are lazy freeloaders that don't want to work and just want government handouts. At least I think that's what I'm supposed to believe when I start putting the conservatives arguments together. You forgot to mention that blacks and Latinos who voted for Obama are the real racists. Gotta love the G.O.P: "You darkies are all a bunch of lazy freeloaders: why aren't you voting for us?" Quote
Smallc Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 That's because blacks and latinos are lazy freeloaders that don't want to work and just want government handouts. At least I think that's what I'm supposed to believe when I start putting the conservatives arguments together. Don't forget about single women. Quote
-TSS- Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 When Obama passed the 270-mark he was trailing Romney in the popular vote. Fortunately, Obama passed Romney in the popular vote too. Otherwise it would have been a very lame mandate to govern the country. Quote
sharkman Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Funny how when blacks or Latinos vote as a block, it's all about entitlement and special interests. But when white men do it (as they did with Romney), well, that's just Freedom, baby! I think it depends on what or who a block is voting for. Quote
TimG Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 When Obama passed the 270-mark he was trailing Romney in the popular vote. Fortunately, Obama passed Romney in the popular vote too. Otherwise it would have been a very lame mandate to govern the country.There was never any doubt that he would win the popular given that Obama's support is on the west coast where as Romney is strong in the middle. Quote
Smallc Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 I think it depends on what or who a block is voting for. So if they're voting for a black Democrat, then they're racist? Quote
Boges Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Then you would have Districts that hold 10% of the population in a state having an equal vote to districts that hold 0.5% of the population. Doesn't sound like a good idea at all. The districts are based on population. In fact unlike in Canada, a state can lose districts if its population goes down. A purely popular vote result doesn't take into the consideration of different geographical regions. Quote
sharkman Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 So if they're voting for a black Democrat, then they're racist? Obama is offerring more entitlements, these groups are voting for free money and sticking it to the rich. How is that racist? Quote
Smallc Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Obama is offerring more entitlements, these groups are voting for free money and sticking it to the rich. How is that racist? I don't know. I don't think it is (I also don't agree with your premise, so...). Quote
Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 Obama is offerring more entitlements, these groups are voting for free money and sticking it to the rich. What entitlements is Obama offering that aren't already around? What free money are you talking about? How is that racist? Ask your fellow travelers on the right who are making those accusations. Quote
Pliny Posted November 7, 2012 Report Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Funny how when blacks or Latinos vote as a block, it's all about entitlement and special interests. But when white men do it (as they did with Romney), well, that's just Freedom, baby! Blacks and Latinos didn't all vote Democrat. And whites didn't all vote for Romney. Those are not the demographics. The demographics are takers and providers. Takers voted Democrat and providers voted Romney, be they white, black or latino. I suppose, as a true left-winger, you are just doing your job to keep the race card alive. Edited November 7, 2012 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.