The 2012 "Election" thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:46 pm

JackRiddler wrote:

- The present-day Republicans and right-wing ideology must wither away, and while it's clearly started, we're nowhere close to that. (Pop. vote: 50-50, again.)


Least now we got a final clear indication of what states NOT to live in, and how stuck the red states are. I mean this map says it all as to who or what America is

As of today

Image

Image

Is it a lack of fresh, coastal air? Why are these people so backwards? Is it because they're physically landlocked and it's stunting them emotionally? I don't get it anymore.
So many of the people who vote for these sickening right wingers are themselves poor or struggling working class. These GOP elite probably laugh about them at dinner parties
making all sorts of honey boo boo/walmart jokes



Luther Blissett wrote:Bill O'Reilly's ideological marriage to Stormfront is a chilling development, indeed.


Oh you saw the clip...man you gotta see the whole segment with him on(err, or don't) There's coming a time when O'reilly, Rush, etc will
no longer be able to play coy with their views. They're just going to be straight up using hardcore racial talking points, no coded wink and a nod language.
I can't imagine seeing these clowns becoming moderate. In their heart of hearts they hate with a virulent passion. Frightening to think how much
reach these guys have on tv and the radio no matter what venom they spit.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Luther Blissett » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:10 pm

JackRiddler wrote:
Luther Blissett wrote:So Jill Stein supposedly won more votes (as of 1am, 322,277 total) than any Green presidential candidate in history. I never thought she'd outperform Nader in 2000, but I suppose that's a matter of perspective. At the time, Nader seemed almost a mainstream choice, and most of my friends voted for him.


That is mistaken. Official results for 2000, Nader as Green candidate:

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

Bush 50,456,002 47.87% 271
Gore 50,999,897 48.38% 266
Nader 2,882,955 2.74%


I knew there was something wrong with that. Better alert Marnie Glickman!
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Luther Blissett » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:11 pm

bks wrote:
Luther Blissett wrote:Bill O'Reilly's ideological marriage to Stormfront is a chilling development, indeed.


I missed this (thankfully). But to what do you refer, Luther?


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2012/11/tonight-wasnt-first-time-bill-oreilly-worried-about-fate-white-establishment/58769/

Tonight Wasn't the First Time Bill O'Reilly Worried About the Fate of the 'White Establishment'

So far, Bill O'Reilly is in the lead for the Controversial Election Day Rant Award with his bold statements on Fox News about how "the white establishment is now the minority." O'Reilly was trying to make a point about our country's changing demographics and what that means. But it's hard not to make that kind of thing sound terrible racist. In fact, O'Reilly's statements sound even worse when you put them in context. "Obama wins because it's not a traditional America anymore. The white establishment is the minority," he said. "People want things."

This is a shocking thing to hear during primetime television, but it is not entirely out of character for O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly says racist things all the time. …


video at link.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby General Patton » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:18 pm

8bitagent wrote:
seemslikeadream wrote:
DrVolin wrote:
seemslikeadream wrote:LOSERS


Will the GOP become more moderate and inclusive?


The two branches of Republican thought are:

1.. Court Hispanics at all costs. They are the young vote, secure them. This has been one of the on-going projects for years and they have failed at it at every turn.

2. Become a party of white people, for white people. This is currently the minority opinion. Embrace racial tension. Bust up alliances between the LGBT/Feminist/Hispanic/Black communities as they are already bare threaded and constantly attacking each other. This isn't working terribly well as opinion polls show they are still much more cohesive than 5 or 10 years ago. The liberals have much more trouble from parasites that have risen up within their ranks to feed off of their paranoia and desire for gossip, who do a much better job of alienating them from each other than scheming conservatives ever could.

3. The double minority view embraces gay-marriage, human rights, new economic ideas and is closer to Libertarianism. Generally hated and/or ignored by actual Republicans. This is the only group that has actually appeals to Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, Females, Males and Young People (go dig up the demographics on the fringe sites) compared to other "conservatives". Many adherents believe in a magical being in the sky that solves problems with his transparent hand, versus liberals who insist human beings are too incompetent to wipe their own asses without government assistance.

Image
штрафбат вперед
User avatar
General Patton
 
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:28 pm

One thing I'd really like to see disappear is the "Red-Blue" color association, invented whole-cloth in Nov-Dec 2000 and now somehow no one ever seems to notice it, and it's even projected into the past. (Networks always switched colors for the incumbent regardless of party, thus: 1980 Reagan was blue (as challenger), 1984 Reagan was blue (as incumbent), 1988 Bush was red, 1992 Clinton was red (as challenger), 1996 Clinton was red (as incumbent), 2000 Gore was blue (as candidate of incumbent party). By this pattern, Bush was correctly red in 2004, but 2008 should have seen a switch of McCain (as candidate of incumbent party) to blue, at which point the psyop had become permanent to solidify the narrative of Democrat-Republican as an essential, natural "polarization" in the way that primary colors can be seen as essential, natural polarizations, with no other options acknowledged.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby compared2what? » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:29 pm

8bitagent wrote:
seemslikeadream wrote:
DrVolin wrote:
seemslikeadream wrote:LOSERS


Uh, I think some gloves might be coming off soon.



the gloves are off and they will fight among themselves until they lose the House....the republican party will never recover from this....they brought the crazies to the dance

the Greens have a huge opportunity here...there are many dems waiting to jump ship as soon as they don't have to work so hard to keep the vampires at bay...we stuck it out...combined effort to help the republicans destroy themselves.

Binyamin Netanyahu faces risk of 'payback' after Barack Obama victory
Israeli leader may be on the back foot over Iran and the Palestinians after apparently backing Romney for US president


While it is exciting to see the right wing crazies being chased out of town on all fronts, I;m feeling cautiously optimistic. As we know, the right has this regenerative, Terminator 2 like quality. Many top conservative analysts last night were saying this absolutely has to be the last election of this present incarnation of the GOP. That essentially the party is dead if it continues to run with the Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, Trump, Akin, etc type of buffoons making the loudest noise. The fact the right went so batshit right was good for two reasons: Massive gains for progressives in the senate and to some extent the house, and it shed light and flushed the rats out. Now the rat ship is sinking, and we'll see if they throw the rats out or the rats scurry to form their own even more extreme brand. Will the GOP become more moderate and inclusive?


Hard to say whether it'll be that or the reverse, given how crazy they are right now. But fwiw, I betcha serious efforts to actualize Chris Christie's game plan for being the GOP candidate with brand-refreshing populist appeal in 2016 are already in progress.

Oh, shoot. That reminds me. Hillary will be running in 2016, won't she?

...

I guess that it would then make more sense per my hypothesis if Obama's second-term priority was the domestic economy, with Israel-Palestine as a prize being held in reserve for her presidency, optimally.

Either way, the MIC/Sec Def Gates/Gulf State Elites/Major Banks could care less. Their agenda continues.


Always. They might have to make some tactical adjustments though. Because those conservative super-PACs really didn't get a lot of bang for the buck. I mean, congress? They probably would have won that anyway.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:35 pm

Screengrabs are worth a thousand words...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... ght/58766/

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image




I think I figured out what would really make the Republicans happy. A Delorean time machine so they can go back to the 1950's and live in their own strange fantasy world

Last edited by 8bitagent on Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby compared2what? » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:41 pm

justdrew wrote:concession speech 5min

http://www.youtube.com/politics

Obama may carry EVERY 'battleground' state

Mitt looks happy


Like a kid on the first day of summer vacation.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:54 pm

compared2what? wrote:Oh, shoot. That reminds me. Hillary will be running in 2016, won't she?


Just kill me now. Once they're in, these top-level political ops last forever. (Nixon, 1948-1972, plus an afterlife as intellecutal oracle for Machiavellian wankers.)

But what I've really wanted since the pictures on last page (no one gave me a pass to be a man guy, but I'm just going to plunge in now) was to express my totally animal view that Tammy Baldwin is hawt. Can't we have her run instead?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Luther Blissett » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:00 pm

Please allow me this cross-post, since the relevant conversation seems to be happening here, and we can probably let the "Fuck Romney" thread die now. (by the way, what are Romney's creepy retirement plans? We already know Ryan's.)

Luther Blissett wrote:
seemslikeadream wrote:
norton ash wrote:The Romney/Ryan candidacy is just getting too 'unbelievable.' I mean, McCain/Palin was a patsy ticket, but this is like 1919 Chicago White Sox bad.



All Koch Kings horses and all the Koch Kings men won't put Humpy GOP back together again

GOP Civil War Is Coming as Mitt Romney Campaign Flails in Video’s Wake
by Robert Shrum Sep 18, 2012 7:32 AM EDT
The video carping about government moochers may well have sealed it. Mitt Romney is going down, and the fight already is on for the future of the Republican Party. The battle will be bitter—and prolonged, says Robert
There is a civil war gathering in the Republican Party. It looks more and more like a dispirited and disappointed collection of factions, preparing to lay blame for a lost presidential election and to do battle to shape a new direction for the Grand Old Party.

Last week the view hardened that the Republican nominee was in close to terminal trouble. Having lost the summer as he let the Obama campaign define him, having lost the conventions when he let Clint Eastwood step all over his acceptance speech, Mitt Romney spectacularly lost his head on Sept. 11 during the mob attack on U.S. diplomats in Egypt and Libya. He came across as a low-life opportunist rushing to exploit a national tragedy in order to score political points and then doubling down on this venal dumbness with a smirking and contentious press conference. This week he may well have finished the job, with a video leaking of him referring to 47 percent of the electorate as government moochers.

Romney’s advisers have taken to bashing the press for covering the bad news, a near-certain sign of a losing campaign, as is the simultaneous effort to quarrel with the methodology of polls showing him trailing in the battleground states with almost no way of reaching 270 electoral votes. The surveys were largely in the field before Romney’s graceless and craven charge that the Obama administration sympathized with those who murdered the nation’s ambassador to Libya and three other Americans. More polls are on the way, and for Mitt the Knife, with his self-inflicted wounds, most of the numbers won’t be pretty.

John Heilemann, who knows a game change when he sees it, rendered a damning verdict in New York: “Romney … badly missed the mark.” Heilemann cited the array of GOP leaders, strategists, and commentators who declined to offer even faint support or instead outright rebuked their own candidate, on and off the record. He pointed to the broader narrative emerging in the media across the ideological spectrum: Romney is losing, knows he is losing, and is starting to panic.


There are the ritual caveats. The Republican standard-bearer could transform the race during the debates. Despite the Obama enterprise’s predictable and tactically savvy efforts to pump up the deflated expectations for his performance, Romney seems unlikely to morph into a latter day John F. Kennedy. It’s far more likely that he will be on the defensive about his false claims and his Medicare-shredding, Social Security–threatening, education-slashing, middle-class tax-raising policies, all designed to shower more money on those who already have the most.


Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney campaigns at Van Dyck Park in Fairfax, Va., Sept. 13, 2012. (Win McNamee / Getty Images)

In an America where the party of angry white men increasingly speaks for and to a permanent minority, it could take another defeat and maybe another before the GOP comes to its senses.
Moreover, you can’t run on the economy if you don’t have specific economic proposals—or won’t answer basic questions about a 59-point plan that, in critical areas, offers zero details. In the latest New York Times/CBS numbers, the president now leads where Romney had for months: which candidate would “do a better job handling the economy and unemployment?” If Romney doesn’t have the economy, what can he run on? Banning contraception? Or bankrupting the auto industry?

Or maybe exogenous events will ride to the rescue. But one of them, last week’s Federal Reserve decision to launch an open-ended third round of “quantitative easing,” helps the stock market and Obama in the short run and the unemployed over a longer term. The decision strengthens perceptions that the nation is on the right track, a sentiment already on the rise in the wake of Bill Clinton’s and President Obama’s convention speeches. Chasing another news cycle and the tale of his own flagging campaign, Romney promptly and predictably condemned the Fed for doing its statutory job, which is not only to control inflation but also to promote job creation and full employment. It was a transparent tic from a candidate who’s been rooting for a slowdown all along.

What else is left, another foreign crisis? First, that’s when Americans tend to rally around a president, especially one who’s demonstrated coolness, judgment, and a sure sense of command, which is exactly what Obama has done. He’s in an extraordinary position for a Democrat of holding a decided advantage on foreign policy, national security, and fighting terrorism. In contrast, Romney instinctively says the wrong thing, which frequently makes him look not only out of touch but out of his depth, unready for a job that demands the capacity to cope with unanticipated and potentially mortal dangers.

And Romney won’t make up lost ground by pursuing a makeover on daytime TV. Last week he told Kelly Ripa that he’s a “fan” of Snooki from Jersey Shore and likes to sleep wearing “as little as possible.” The latter elicits an image we didn’t need. The show was taped as the Middle East upheaval escalated. It wasn’t humanizing, but cringe-inducing. “Jersey Shore canceled—and Romney soon will be,” was the reaction of one Republican pro.

After the first debate, see if the doubts become a rout. One measure will be the conduct of the Republican super PACs. The corpulent moneybags of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson probably will continue to flow into the presidential ad wars; after all, Adelson stuck with Newt Gingrich as Gingrich struck out in the Republican primaries. But hardheaded operatives like Karl Rove could shift their resources to Senate and House contests. They’ll deny it even if they do it. And it wouldn’t be good news for Democrats; the possibility—or probability—is already worrying party officials.

Such a scenario also would set the stage for the GOP’s post-Romney civil war. The Tea Party Republicans who detest, or more accurately hate, this president will be maddened by his reelection. They will rage against it as illegitimate, stolen, un-American. You name it, they’ll say it. And they will tear at the GOP’s 2012 nominee as insufficiently conservative and insist that Republicans in the Senate and House block a second-term Obama at every turn.

A prudent party might venture at least a measure of cooperation and compromise, to prevent the standing of Republicans from collapsing as the economy moves back to prosperity. This is what smart GOP strategists will recommend. And it’s precisely what John Boehner will fear to do lest he lose his House speakership—or with hope, his minority leadership—to the lean and hungry Eric Cantor.

So with Romney consigned in 2013 to his four-car elevator mansion in La Jolla, Calif., the president may face daunting challenges to governing even as he once again reaches across the aisle. His mandate could prove momentary, which is what happened to Harry Truman, who achieved almost nothing domestically in the four years after his upset win in 1948. At least this time, the Supreme Court will be saved from a right-wing coup and health-care reform won’t be dispatched to extremist defenestration. And Democrats could hold the high ground for elections to come.

This outcome—in an Obama second term, in 2016, and campaigns beyond—will be magnified or modulated by the course of the irrepressible conflict between the Jeb Bush Republicans and the Paul Ryan Republicans. The two men represent very different paths. Bush stands for a tempered conservatism; he understands the impending demographic doom of a reactionary, anti-Hispanic Republican Party. He’s writing a book on immigration; as he said this summer: “Don’t just ... say immediately we must have controlled borders. Change the tone ... think we need a broader approach.” Ryan, on the other hand, champions a hardline approach on immigration, along with virtual repeal of the New Deal and the social progress of the 1960s.

Bush’s attitude—I’ll borrow from his father and call it “a kinder, gentler” conservatism—could be broadly acceptable in the country, even if his brother George was all but anathema at the 2012 Republican convention. Ryan is out of step with the majority of Americans not only on immigration but on his budget plans and across a wide range of domestic policy. If Romney goes down, then Bush, the practical choice, and Ryan, likely to be lionized on the right, will be the 2016 front-runners for each faction of the GOP. Meanwhile, Republicans on Capitol Hill will have to determine whether to be modestly practical—or relentlessly ideological.

Which way will this civil war go?

Undoubtedly it will be bitter. The true believers will fulminate that they were tricked by the establishment into accepting Romney, John McCain, and free-spending, big-government fellow traveler George W. Bush. The Tea Partiers are a minority in America but almost certainly a majority in what could become a smaller and smaller Republican Party. And the GOP’s experience in California suggests that one beating, or even several, may not yield a GOP self-correction but a dug-in revanchism. The state party’s response has been to lurch rightward. The result, as McCain’s chief 2008 strategist Steve Schmidt predicts, is that Republicans could soon become “the third party” in the nation’s largest state—behind Democrats and independents.

In an America where the party of angry white men increasingly speaks for and to a permanent minority, it could take another defeat and maybe another before the GOP comes to its senses. Surely Romney himself would have been better off in the general election if he had defended his Massachusetts health-care reform and sounded occasional notes of pragmatism and compassion. But then, of course, he never would have been the nominee. He could even have let us assume he wore pajamas to bed. Now hovering over his apparently desperate march toward a concession speech is the specter of Republicans fighting their protracted civil war. Someday, somehow, someone will do for the conservative side of our politics what Bill Clinton did as the progressive who brought Democrats back to the mainstream. But post-2012, maybe even Ryan won’t be pure enough; it could be full-Santorum ahead.


I'd like to discuss the future of the front-facing, public identity of the GOP and build off of this gem that seemslikeadream posted a couple of months ago.

Consciously subjecting myself to the mainstream spectacle last night, including Fox News which was highly telling / entertaining, I started seeing many pundits calling for the GOP to "double-down" on conservative values, saying that Romney was too moderate a candidate. Ask my liberal friends, and they would tell you that the dreams of rich, racist old white men are unequivocally over, and that the party must begin to moderate themselves. Other "third ways" include: softening on social issues but hardening for corporatism and core conservative values of governing; going autocratic, theocratic, but more smiley, happy, cult-like; pump-faking a "worker's party," disturbingly fascist, etc. etc.

I think that most here accept that there is a dissonance between the public persona and the party machinery, but that the personality of the message has real effects on the American voter. The electorate is still changing, becoming more atheistic, open, communicative, egalitarian, especially in the traditionally-conservative parts of the country that are close to urban centers and throughout the upper midwest.

While Chris Christie might represent one direction for the party (socially moderate, pragmatic, fiscally conservative, corporatist, patriarchal, a bully — essentially organized crime paraded as politics), and I believe he does have a long future and will lead one branch of revanchist republicanism, I don't think that this will represent the primary thrust of the GOP. We already see plenty of conservatives painting him as some sort of traitor or "other."

I think that the main thrust — and the approach that will be more "populist" — will be a marriage of the old tea party with traditional, proto-, or neofascism, with real power behind it. Despite representing far less of the popular opinion, I think we should be wary of attempts to establish this kind of direction by force. All told, the directives of the Koch Brothers, Ken Lewis, Dimon, Kristol, etc have been pretty feeble thus far and we know they are capable of much, much worse, and much more overt power-grabbing.

But then again — is any of it really necessary? My Facebook feed was disappointing, to say the least. I have one friend — articulate, law school grad, graf writer — post a pretty long screed about how this election has left him feeling quite empty. I know from my friendship with him that he'd side much more closely with me if "victory" were more realistic. Everyone else is over the moon, implying that this election represents an unimaginable progressive victory, and that we'll never have to worry about anything ever again. I asked Facebook if the Obama Administration will go back to any of the 2008 campaign promises on climate change that were all broken, or if that's something we're not talking about anymore. The response was typical — he most definitely will, he just needed time and the reelection. Yet the same machinations keep trudging on — environmentally, economically, politically — but people still feel comfortable "enough" to ignore them.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Luther Blissett » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:01 pm

The top five of the six-richest counties in the country went for Obama:

Loudoun County, Virginia: Obama 51.6%, Romney 47.2%

Falls Church, Virginia: Obama 69.1%, Romney 29.6%

Fairfax, Virginia: Obama 57.3%, Romney 41.1%

Los Alamos, New Mexico: Obama 48.7%, Romney 45.0%

Howard, Maryland: Obama 59.5%, Romney 38.3%

Hunterdon, New Jersey: Obama 40.0%, Romney 58.9%
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby chump » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:12 pm

Image

Slad! That's me! Can I use that for my avatar?

Every four years I find myself getting all hopped up about which butthead is gonna get elected President. Every time, there are really only a democrat or a republican to choose from - - and they both suck! The only reason I pay attention at all is because the phone is ringing, ringing, ringing, those non-stop insipid commercials and flyers, wavy hairs waving, those stupid yard signs, my wife watches it and everyone and their brother are yapping on the edge of their seat! And so in my own 'special' way I try and figure it out, but can never really tell who is gonna win. Not since Clinton... Not really! Not me!

Though I suppose stolen elections are as old as elections themselves: Taminy Hall, Landslide Lyndon and Box 13, the dead people who swept JFK into office, Choicepoint for Bush... After 2000, we get to read on the Internet how the election was stolen - while it's being stolen! So what! Both candidates were obviously given a pass by the media, and I get the feeling that we've just witnessed the anti-climatic final scene once again. Bravo!

I thought Romney was maybe gonna win because (around here) the Romney people were sure trying a lot harder, and, maybe, he had more money and better cheaters. Maybe Romney simply lost the election because his personna is that of a slick corporate raider; while Obama has somehow maintained that baby faced freshness that swept him into office. You can get away with murder with a face like that. I noticed that Romney didn't seem too depressed at his concession speech. He looked happy indeed! The good part for us is that we don't have to be subjected to his whiny, insincere, religious rhetoric for the next four years. Or his sidekick Studmuffins either! Thanks for that! Frankly, O'bama's smoothe personna was the lesser of two evils (in my mind... Again.) Now he doesn't face re-election... Hope and change, baby, hope and change.
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:39 pm

If well known right wing personalities like Ted Nugent are saying this sort of shit...

In this clip, Ted Nugent calls Obama a "piece of shit", holds up a rifle and says Obama should suck on this. Seriously



Here, he says he'll be dead or in jail if Obama wins


...lord knows what the St---f----, white nationalist, patriot militia, lone wolf types are saying or thinking...

I had heard Nugent made crazy comments, but this was just shocking to see and hear.
Again, if "celebrities" are saying this sort of stuff...good lord.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby American Dream » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:50 pm

8bitagent wrote:...lord knows what the St---f----, white nationalist, patriot militia, lone wolf types are saying or thinking...

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby yathrib » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:57 pm

You're definitely barking up the wrong tree WRT Tammy Baldwin, unless you're one of those exceedingly confident men who thinks "lesbian" means "You can watch, and maybe join us in the middle" rather than "Your services are no longer required."

JackRiddler wrote:
compared2what? wrote:Oh, shoot. That reminds me. Hillary will be running in 2016, won't she?


Just kill me now. Once they're in, these top-level political ops last forever. (Nixon, 1948-1972, plus an afterlife as intellecutal oracle for Machiavellian wankers.)

But what I've really wanted since the pictures on last page (no one gave me a pass to be a man guy, but I'm just going to plunge in now) was to express my totally animal view that Tammy Baldwin is hawt. Can't we have her run instead?
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst that justice prevail.

If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 158 guests