Jump to content

Photo

Election Night Coverage (radio)


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#61 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,900 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:58 AM

When will it end though? By trying to kill the terrorists we are creating more of them. We are never going to just rid the Middle East of terrorists as long as we keep killing innocent civilians. At what point are the amount of lives lost and the trillions of dollars spent enough for us to finally decide we are just making things worse for ourselves?


If "it all comes crashing down" it would happen regardless of which major party won this election. Take your blinders off, both parties spend too much.


I realize that the Republican Party sadly has not been the party of fiscal conservatism, but the Tea Party movement has been trying to change that. Their efforts are the main reason why the Republicans have a House majority now. I believe that the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement need each other to thrive. The Republicans need conservative principles and policies, and the Tea Party would have a very rough go as a third party. Eventually, they may have to break free if establishment Republicans continue their grip on the party. I'm disappointed that John Boehner is still House speaker. It should be Paul Ryan.
  • 0

#62 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,281 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:39 AM

But if Obama pulls off the miracle and wins, I won't cry foul. I'll just call for the impeachment proceedings.


I was shocked that Obama won this election. I give a lot of credit to the boot-licking mainstream media, which has taken orders from the White House the last four years. It's a scandal.

Well that didn't take too long.

Still, it's a humiliating loss for the Republican Party, which needs to communicate the greatness of conservatism to Latinos, women, blacks. The effort needs to be much better. Having a dynamic, conservative presidential candidate is a must. Romney was all over the place in this campaign, and his "move to the center" in the last couple weeks of the campaign was blatant pandering. It's not to be respected, and people see right through it. The solution is not to move to the center. Move to the right, especially on fiscal issues.

Republicans are now 1 in 6 in the last few elections in terms of winning the popular vote. Quite frankly your advice is wrong. What they need is a strong center-right candidate that people can relate too that doesn't make disparaging remarks about those very minorities you are wishful about currying. Self deportation, binders full of women, the 47% comment, moving further to the right is not going to win you any more votes.

Boy, it's amazing that after billions of dollars spent in the campaign, we end up with exactly where we were before: Obama, Democrat Senate and Republican House. I don't envision a grand bargain ... maybe a patchwork deal just to avoid the "fiscal cliff." It doesn't even matter if they make a big deal ... the full implementation of Obamacare will sink us, and the debt will rise and rise. God help us if it all comes crashing down.

Obama and Harry Reid's olive branch after the election was such a crock after the dirty campaign that they ran. The Bain Capital ads that attacked Romney's character, Reid's unfounded accusation of Romney being a tax cheat ... those two can go fvck themselves. I have never seen anything like it. It made swiftboating look like a sea cruise.

And yet, more money was dumped into attacking Obama then Romney, 329million dollars went towards Obama opposition ads vs 97m for Romney (via opensecrets). Attack ads work, that's why they do them, and it's pretty funny to see you accuse the democrats playing dirty tactics and then not nick republicans for doing the same thing... only on a much grander scale.
  • 2

#63 David Puddy

David Puddy

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,301 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:50 PM

I realize that the Republican Party sadly has not been the party of fiscal conservatism, but the Tea Party movement has been trying to change that. Their efforts are the main reason why the Republicans have a House majority now. I believe that the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement need each other to thrive. The Republicans need conservative principles and policies, and the Tea Party would have a very rough go as a third party. Eventually, they may have to break free if establishment Republicans continue their grip on the party. I'm disappointed that John Boehner is still House speaker. It should be Paul Ryan.


The Tea Party's all-or-nothing hard line stance is what's hurting the Republican Party. The problem is similar to what the Dems had in the 70s and 80s... the extremism it takes to win the primary winds up hurting the candidate in the general election. To Tea Partiers, moderate Republicans are bigger enemies than Democrats, and they will do anything in their power to flush them out of the party.

The only way the Republican Party will survive is to ditch their draconian social platform. Fiscal conservatism isn't the problem (as much as the conservative echo chamber is framing this as an election of moochers vs. self-reliant Americans). The big problem is with social issues. All this "legitimate rape" stuff absolutely killed Romney with women. Hard-line immigration stances kill the party with hispanics. If the GOP could run a candidate who is not aggressively pro-life, who is not aggressively anti-gay, who is not at all anti-science, and shows some understand of women's issues (hot tip: birth control pills have more uses than just birth control), they might have a chance. But with the current TP/religious right base, that candidate would never win in the primaries.
  • 1
Posted Image

#64 ghdi

ghdi

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,393 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:01 PM

I was shocked that Obama won this election. I give a lot of credit to the boot-licking mainstream media, which has taken orders from the White House the last four years. It's a scandal.


LOL Still banging the "blame the media" drum. Blame your party for being behind the times and change that is occurring to this country's demographics. In 20 years, white people will be the largest minority!

Still, it's a humiliating loss for the Republican Party, which needs to communicate the greatness of conservatism to Latinos, women, blacks. The effort needs to be much better. Having a dynamic, conservative presidential candidate is a must. Romney was all over the place in this campaign, and his "move to the center" in the last couple weeks of the campaign was blatant pandering. It's not to be respected, and people see right through it. The solution is not to move to the center. Move to the right, especially on fiscal issues.


The solution is absolutely to move to the center, which is what the majority of pundits (including prominent conservatives) are saying post-election. Why don't you hard right automatons get this? Don't just look at the presidential race, look at house and senate races where hard right conservatism was smoked all around! The Tea Party took an absolute beating on Tuesday night. You throw Dick Lugar out in Indiana during the primaries who is/was the definition of a moderate for a Tea Party loon and a Democrat wins a traditionally red seat. Romney portrayed himself as a center-right candidate during the first debate and thats when he finally came alive in the polls. George W. Bush ran as a center-right candidate and won, albeit by the skin of his teeth. Far right and far left candidates do-not-win national elections. It may be enough to win a House seat in some random district, or maybe a senate seat depending on the political temperature at that time, but this has been proven over and over again since Goldwater that hard right won't win and if they do win, they get slammed shortly thereafter. The leading names already being thrown about for '16 are Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, NEITHER of which are "true" conservatives. Whatever the fvck that means.

The more the demographics change, the more left this country is going to go. Its exactly what happened in Western Europe in the 80s and 90s. White Conservatives are an aging breed. This election had a higher turnout of young voters and minorities than last time and its far more likely to keep trending in that direction than not. Something like 5000 Latinos turn 18 every month in this country and putting up Marco Rubio isn't going to win it for you. Its stunning that the GOP hasn't crested 40% in California in the last 2 elections.

the full implementation of Obamacare will sink us, and the debt will rise and rise. God help us if it all comes crashing down.


When it doesn't, will you admit you were wrong?

Obama and Harry Reid's olive branch after the election was such a crock after the dirty campaign that they ran. The Bain Capital ads that attacked Romney's character, Reid's unfounded accusation of Romney being a tax cheat ... those two can go fvck themselves. I have never seen anything like it. It made swiftboating look like a sea cruise.


And John Boehner's isn't? And Mitch McConnell's isn't? Karl Rove and Sheldon Adelson are bastions of integrity to you? Have you seen the Ohio Jeep ad that basically sunk Romney there in the last 2 weeks and how they got basically told off for blatantly lying about what they were presenting? They can ALL go fvck themselves. I still don't get where the right was in respect to Romney's taxes. All presidential candidates release tax returns dating back decades. Ryan released something like 10-15 years of them, yet Romney DIDNT. Its a known fact that he has offshore holdings and while there is nothing illegal about that, his refusal to be honest about them was galling. If it was the Democrat who was pulling that same stuff, it'd have been hammered to death.


And again as I stated during the primaries, Santorum would've been obliterated in this election. Obama would've gained close to if not more than 400 EV's. I find it absolutely hilarious that Romney did not win anywhere he has roots and fared worse than McCain in many respects and only minimally improved on McCain overall by the time it was over.
  • 2

#65 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,900 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:42 PM

GHDI, I disagree with the assumption that conservatism is DOA with Latinos and women. The key is to make the case without pandering and without compromising conservative principles, and overcoming the incorrect noise from the left and the media that conservatives are misogynists, racists, etc. Not easy. But they have to try.

To this point, the GOP has done a lousy job of selling it, and while tough talk on illegal immigration and "self-deportation" may have something to do with it, I think there is a bigger factor -- the failure of the GOP to demonstrate that it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for big business. I ask myself all the time what happened to the Tea Party's anti-corporatist message, besides endless bashing of Solyndra and other companies representing leftist causes? In my opinion, when the entire Tea Party platform gets attention (not just the entitlement state and 47% stuff), more people will find conservatism appealing. Unless that happens, people will reject the Republican Party, and I can't say I blame them. It's more an issue of fairness than anything else.

But I could be wrong. Just one man's opinion.
  • 0

#66 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,613 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:24 PM

No, his "move to the right" in the primaries was pandering. His "move to the center" in the last few weeks of the campaign was reversion to his actual views.

Do you really think a truly conservative candidate -- Santorum, say, since Gingrich is also a moderate who was forced to move right during the primaries -- would have been able to win this election?


The only chance Romney or any Republican nominee could have had is if Rubio were the VP candidate.

Otherwise, to paraphase Mad Dog Chris Russo, you gotta give Obama credit Mikey.

It's also way too early to call this as an indication of a shift in the electorate. Pundits who are paid to make profound announcements seem to fall into this trap after every election.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#67 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,613 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:28 PM

You're right, he didn't start the attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, but he has escalated them, and the amount of civilians being killed is just going to breed more terrorists.


Then by definition it seems, any military action one takes will "breed more terrorists" since it's a virtual impossibility that civilians won't get killed in the process.

In any event, the evidence suggests the contrary. Thanks to the efforts of both administrations, the leadership of al Qaeda has been decimated, and we're clearly dealing with the B or even C team at this point. To the extent there are increased attacks, it's a product of opening new theaters of war where US citizens and soldiers are vulnerable, see Libya.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#68 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,777 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:57 PM

The Tea Party's all-or-nothing hard line stance is what's hurting the Republican Party. The problem is similar to what the Dems had in the 70s and 80s... the extremism it takes to win the primary winds up hurting the candidate in the general election. To Tea Partiers, moderate Republicans are bigger enemies than Democrats, and they will do anything in their power to flush them out of the party.

The only way the Republican Party will survive is to ditch their draconian social platform. Fiscal conservatism isn't the problem (as much as the conservative echo chamber is framing this as an election of moochers vs. self-reliant Americans). The big problem is with social issues. All this "legitimate rape" stuff absolutely killed Romney with women. Hard-line immigration stances kill the party with hispanics. If the GOP could run a candidate who is not aggressively pro-life, who is not aggressively anti-gay, who is not at all anti-science, and shows some understand of women's issues (hot tip: birth control pills have more uses than just birth control), they might have a chance. But with the current TP/religious right base, that candidate would never win in the primaries.

I was going to say pretty much the same thing. They claim to be in favor of small government, but they are all about big government when it comes to social issues. If they had a more libertarian stance, being fiscally conservative with less government interference in people's personal lives, I think they would wipe the floor with the Democrats.


Then by definition it seems, any military action one takes will "breed more terrorists" since it's a virtual impossibility that civilians won't get killed in the process.

Of course you're not going to have military action without civilian casualties, but the drone strikes are too prone to collateral damage and the practice of double-tapping or double-striking is questionable at best.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ikes/index.html

Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of "double-striking" a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.
It also highlights harm "beyond death and physical injury," publishing accounts of psychological trauma experienced by people living in Pakistan's tribal northwest region, who it says hear drones hover 24 hours a day.

...


"This shows that drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies," said Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith.
"Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups. Yet there is no end in sight, and nowhere the ordinary men, women and children of North West Pakistan can go to feel safe."



In any event, the evidence suggests the contrary. Thanks to the efforts of both administrations, the leadership of al Qaeda has been decimated, and we're clearly dealing with the B or even C team at this point. To the extent there are increased attacks, it's a product of opening new theaters of war where US citizens and soldiers are vulnerable, see Libya.

Then what are we still doing there?

Edited by devilsfan26, 09 November 2012 - 02:58 PM.

  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#69 David Puddy

David Puddy

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,301 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:56 PM

You want to see a state-level example of TP legislators being voted in en masse and thrown out just as quickly, look at NH. The state legislature swung from 216-174 (D-R) in 2008 to 102-298 in 2010. This year, it's back to Democratic control 217-177 (with 5 races yet to be decided).

NH voters realized what a mess they caused by electing hard line TPers, who in turn chose a despotic, my way or the highway, speaker who ostracized all moderate Republicans. This is the legislature that passed a law to allow concealed carry in the state house (eventually one of the TP legislators dropped his gun on the state house floor... oops!). This is the house speaker who had a member of his party yell "Sieg Heil!" at him on the house floor. This is the house speaker who took an aisle seat away from a Republican former police officer with a disability because he didn't vote in lockstep. That's the kind of behavior you get when the Tea Party gets into power.
  • 0
Posted Image

#70 mouse

mouse

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,494 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:32 PM

When will it end though? By trying to kill the terrorists we are creating more of them. We are never going to just rid the Middle East of terrorists as long as we keep killing innocent civilians. At what point are the amount of lives lost and the trillions of dollars spent enough for us to finally decide we are just making things worse for ourselves?


This scares me without question, but I think if we need to be at war in that region, drone strikes are the way to go. They're safer for American soldiers, which, cold though it may sound, is who we need to care about in war, and effective. I think we go too far. A lot of what you said about Pakistan is terrifying, not only because innocent people are having their lives disrupted by fear and violence (the exact methodology of terrorists, by the way), but because these attacks will breed hatred and anger, emotions a charismatic piece of sh!t like Bin Laden can use to make people fly planes into buildings. I think moderation is necssary -- get out of the area if they aren't a huge threat to us. I thought we did a good job in Libya -- we joined a worldwide effort, without spending too much time trying to fix someone else's problems. We're not going to change Pakistan. If people there aren't attacking us, we shouldn't be there anymore. And attacking first responders in a war that is not on a country, but on a few people (terrorists) in that country, who do not claim to be fighting on behalf of the country, is unacceptable. My 1 half assed defense is that we aren't in the situation room and we don't know everything the people in there do, nor do we want to. When we elect a commander in chief, we are trusting him/her to make tough decisions using information we will probably never see. I still think Obama's wrong, but I don't rule out the possibility that information could come out that would change my mind.
  • 0

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

 

sguq.jpg


#71 mouse

mouse

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,494 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:36 PM

In response to some of the tea party stuff, I absolutely disagree that they could fix the republican party. I'm liberal -- left of Obama, but I would have considered voting for Huntsman because he's a smart, fair, moderate guy whom I think would make good decisions for the country. Not just his half of the country. I was scared of Santorum's platform, and I want nothing to do with Paul do to his views on social issues. I think most moderates would be even more likely to vote for a guy like Huntsman, but Santorum, Paul, Bachman, and Perry made more noise in the primaries because of the effect the far right has on the party. Romney managed to pander to that demographic while convincing moderates that he was less extreme. It won him the primary, but made him seem like a lier come the national election. If the Tea Party quiets down, Romney can run on his own platform and a guy like Huntsman isn't a light weight.
  • 1

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

 

sguq.jpg


#72 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,382 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:31 PM

I was shocked that Obama won this election. I give a lot of credit to the boot-licking mainstream media, which has taken orders from the White House the last four years. It's a scandal.

Still, it's a humiliating loss for the Republican Party, which needs to communicate the greatness of conservatism to Latinos, women, blacks. The effort needs to be much better. Having a dynamic, conservative presidential candidate is a must. Romney was all over the place in this campaign, and his "move to the center" in the last couple weeks of the campaign was blatant pandering. It's not to be respected, and people see right through it. The solution is not to move to the center. Move to the right, especially on fiscal issues.
.
Boy, it's amazing that after billions of dollars spent in the campaign, we end up with exactly where we were before: Obama, Democrat Senate and Republican House. I don't envision a grand bargain ... maybe a patchwork deal just to avoid the "fiscal cliff." It doesn't even matter if they make a big deal ... the full implementation of Obamacare will sink us, and the debt will rise and rise. God help us if it all comes crashing down.

Obama and Harry Reid's olive branch after the election was such a crock after the dirty campaign that they ran. The Bain Capital ads that attacked Romney's character, Reid's unfounded accusation of Romney being a tax cheat ... those two can go fvck themselves. I have never seen anything like it. It made swiftboating look like a sea cruise.

Yup. Well said.
  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia

#73 oofrostonoo

oofrostonoo

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,464 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:39 PM

I was shocked that Obama won this election. I give a lot of credit to the boot-licking mainstream media, which has taken orders from the White House the last four years. It's a scandal.

Obama and Harry Reid's olive branch after the election was such a crock after the dirty campaign that they ran. The Bain Capital ads that attacked Romney's character, Reid's unfounded accusation of Romney being a tax cheat ... those two can go fvck themselves. I have never seen anything like it. It made swiftboating look like a sea cruise.



You were really shocked? Honest question... were you mostly watching FoxNews and reading Drudge for your information? If so I guess I can see why you would be shocked. Drudge constantly cherry picked the most favorable outlying polls as evidence of a Romney lead. This is not a great way to be well informed.

The FACT is that Obama led in almost every swing state poll for the entire campaign... even after the first debate. The data is online, you can look it up!



And the Bain Capital attacks were started in the primaries by other Republicans!

Sheldon Adelson financed a 30 minute documentary when he was supporting Newt that covered ROMNEY's time at Bain, and how he was a corporate raider. Then he dumped tens of millions to support Romney once Newt dropped out... Who swift boated who?

I can't wrap my brain around this delusion.

Edited by oofrostonoo, 10 November 2012 - 02:40 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#74 Devils Pride 26

Devils Pride 26

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,981 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:51 PM

The Tea Party's all-or-nothing hard line stance is what's hurting the Republican Party. The problem is similar to what the Dems had in the 70s and 80s... the extremism it takes to win the primary winds up hurting the candidate in the general election. To Tea Partiers, moderate Republicans are bigger enemies than Democrats, and they will do anything in their power to flush them out of the party.

The only way the Republican Party will survive is to ditch their draconian social platform. Fiscal conservatism isn't the problem (as much as the conservative echo chamber is framing this as an election of moochers vs. self-reliant Americans). The big problem is with social issues. All this "legitimate rape" stuff absolutely killed Romney with women. Hard-line immigration stances kill the party with hispanics. If the GOP could run a candidate who is not aggressively pro-life, who is not aggressively anti-gay, who is not at all anti-science, and shows some understand of women's issues (hot tip: birth control pills have more uses than just birth control), they might have a chance. But with the current TP/religious right base, that candidate would never win in the primaries.

Lost power again, just skimmed through everything but I agree with this 100%.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users