If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   If Romney loses   (politico.com) divider line 119
    More: Interesting, obama, United States elections, 2010, plutocrats, Democrat Party, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

5388 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Nov 2012 at 12:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



119 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-05 01:52:23 PM

randomjsa: For Republicans, the only thing harder than losing to Barack Obama might be explaining it.

That's not difficult to explain at all.

If we had an honest media nobody would think Romney wanted to kill GM, they would understand that Obama stepped in because, and only because, he wanted to help out his campaign contributors in the UAW. Nobody would be walking around bragging about how GM is alive because nobody ever proposed killing them off.

If we had an honest media people would understand that getting Bin Laden was years and years and years of work that stretched back to before Obama was even a senator. For all the running around screaming about the terrible things Obama 'inherited', he sure didn't seem to mind all the work he inherited and took credit for.

If we had an honest media Benghazi would be the lead story on every station even now. For all the whining about Fox covering it do you know what the difference would be if this was a Republican administration? Fox would still cover it and so would every other news station. What we know about Benghazi is absolutely damning even before you factor in the president jetting off to Vegas for a fund raiser in the wake of it.

Basically? If we had an honest media and entertainment industry Obama would not only not win reelection. He wouldn't even be running for reelection. He would, at best, be trying to convince us why he shouldn't resign before January.


Bullshiat. Those grapes were really just too sour the whole time, huh? Way to try and shift the blame for our own failings to everyone but ourselves.

I've voted Republican for 20 years, and shiat like this is a big part of why that ended this year and why I no longer consider myself a Republican. The party is clinging desperately to anachronistic and selfish values, and hating freedom even as it hypocritically tries to cloak itself in them. Freedom of religion being warped to mean you're free to live according to what evangelical Christians believe, and screw everyone else.

Well, I'm sick of that reality distortion field crap, and I won't be a party to it any more. If you want to mindlessly parrot the party's bullshiat crybaby rationalizations instead of accepting reality then you go ahead and do so. And enjoy your fade into irrelevance.

I'm going to be quite happy when Obama beats Romney tomorrow.
 
2012-11-05 01:58:15 PM

randomjsa: For Republicans, the only thing harder than losing to Barack Obama might be explaining it.

That's not difficult to explain at all.

If we had an honest media nobody would think Romney wanted to kill GM, they would understand that Obama stepped in because, and only because, he wanted to help out his campaign contributors in the UAW. Nobody would be walking around bragging about how GM is alive because nobody ever proposed killing them off.


But Romney was content for GM to go bankrupt.

If we had an honest media people would understand that getting Bin Laden was years and years and years of work that stretched back to before Obama was even a senator. For all the running around screaming about the terrible things Obama 'inherited', he sure didn't seem to mind all the work he inherited and took credit for.

But Obama hasn't been politicising the death of Osama bin Laden.

If we had an honest media Benghazi would be the lead story on every station even now. For all the whining about Fox covering it do you know what the difference would be if this was a Republican administration? Fox would still cover it and so would every other news station. What we know about Benghazi is absolutely damning even before you factor in the president jetting off to Vegas for a fund raiser in the wake of it.

I hear the word 'Benghazi' thrown around as if Obama made some decision he ought not have made, but I've yet to hear what he 'should' have done specifically. I hear a lot of people wishing the ends -- 'stop the deaths of these people', but who seem to have no understanding of the means they propose: 'Invade Libya' or use some form of time travel to allow for months of training for a pinpoint Special Forces strike on unknown targets in a hot zone, (on the assumption that if a hostage-holding area is attacked, for some reason the hostage holders will somehow forget to kill the hostages and will be incapable of inflicting casualties on the rescuing force). Warfare is not TV.

All I hear is 'Something should have been done!!!' It's silly.

Basically? If we had an honest media and entertainment industry Obama would not only not win reelection. He wouldn't even be running for reelection. He would, at best, be trying to convince us why he shouldn't resign before January.

Baffling.
 
2012-11-05 02:00:20 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Even Obama says we are not in better shape than 4 years ago. How the hell is this even a contest?! Failure after failure after failure and the few things he did get done were really bad ideas! I'm not saying he's purposefully trying to hurt this country, but if he was I don't know what he would do differently! And he has a chance for a second term?!


Now post the rest of the sentence he was in the middle of, rather than cherry picking and taking things out of context.
 
2012-11-05 02:02:19 PM
If it were possible to DVR reality, I would be highly recommending that you all do so.

This is the last gasping grasp for power for the current incarnation of the GOP. When it fails, WHEN it fails, they'll fall back and regroup and I can promise you that the Establishment types have been conversing on this topic for weeks.

Unlike the propaganda-stuffed fools up front, the Establishment types in the back aren't stupid and can read the hard math. They knew what Nate Silver knows and they knew it a while back: Romney has no chance.

Right now, they're deciding where to go from here and I'm predicting a shucking off of the crazies and fringe idiots. The Establishment sorts 'know' that the GOP is doomed unless it starts reaching out to the Hispanic population.

In order to do so, they're going to have to completely abandon their anti-immigration stances and embrace the Hispanic population with both arms. Only by doing so will they hope to maintain any relevance past this election.

To embrace the crazy and the Tea Derpers will be to sign the death warrant of the GOP, and ensure a slow and inevitable decline into becoming a regional party, leaving the US as a Single Party nation.

I can only hope that if that 'does' happen, the Democrats split between the centrists and the leftists.
 
2012-11-05 02:04:08 PM
The article says:

So if Obama manages to defeat Mitt Romney on Tuesday, the Republican Party will have to go through a painful process of self-examination and internal debate in order to explain what went so badly wrong.

The debate won't just be fodder for political obsessives: It will also determine how Republicans approach governing next year and how the party campaigns in 2014, 2016 and beyond.


... but then doesn't suggest any kind of internal debate beyond 'not picking moderates' and blaming individual members of the party machinery.

That isn't really a 'painful process of self-examination and internal debate'.

Perhaps Politico really does know the Republican Party...
 
2012-11-05 02:25:56 PM
When Romney loses, we're going to have to declare
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-05 02:30:16 PM

Infernalist: If it were possible to DVR reality, I would be highly recommending that you all do so.

This is the last gasping grasp for power for the current incarnation of the GOP. When it fails, WHEN it fails, they'll fall back and regroup and I can promise you that the Establishment types have been conversing on this topic for weeks.

Unlike the propaganda-stuffed fools up front, the Establishment types in the back aren't stupid and can read the hard math. They knew what Nate Silver knows and they knew it a while back: Romney has no chance.

Right now, they're deciding where to go from here and I'm predicting a shucking off of the crazies and fringe idiots. The Establishment sorts 'know' that the GOP is doomed unless it starts reaching out to the Hispanic population.

In order to do so, they're going to have to completely abandon their anti-immigration stances and embrace the Hispanic population with both arms. Only by doing so will they hope to maintain any relevance past this election.

To embrace the crazy and the Tea Derpers will be to sign the death warrant of the GOP, and ensure a slow and inevitable decline into becoming a regional party, leaving the US as a Single Party nation.

I can only hope that if that 'does' happen, the Democrats split between the centrists and the leftists.



All of this is sensible. But unless the GOP make primary RULE changes, as to WHO can be on the GOP ballot, there is nothing to prevent the Rape and Palin-Americans from getting on the ballot.
The likelihood that these groups will ALLOW the GOP to control the ballots is close to impossible.
If they lose the GOP, then where will they go? They already tried the 3rd party route and didnt like what happened.
They Derp-Americans will cling to the GOP like a crazy EX who just wont go the fark away.
 
2012-11-05 02:30:23 PM

Buffalo77: I know you are broadcasting for the Democrat Bubble of Delusion, but could you tell me what you perceive in there to be the Republican party's core beliefs?

\ Have at it bubble boys


Which version do you want - what Republicans profess to believe in or what they actually believe in?
 
2012-11-05 03:18:50 PM
What you actually think they believe in.

Remember the Republican party is not monolithic, you can't say they are bible thumpers because a minority of the party is. It would be as dishonest as me saying all democrats are black or liberal or gay or pro choice - each party has their factions.
 
2012-11-05 03:43:58 PM
This election was Obama's to lose, and what does the GOP do?

Threw up a batch of retreads and crazy people.

Then they wonder why they lost?
 
2012-11-05 03:53:55 PM

Buffalo77: What you actually think they believe in.

Remember the Republican party is not monolithic, you can't say they are bible thumpers because a minority of the party is. It would be as dishonest as me saying all democrats are black or liberal or gay or pro choice - each party has their factions.


It's not dishonest at all to portray the republican party as bible thumpers as that's exactly who is setting the party's agenda. That's why this year I finally renounced my republican party membership. I just couldn't stand the inmates being in charge of the asylum any more - and by definition representing ME.
 
2012-11-05 03:56:57 PM

Cletus C.: Hey Politico. Please point to the one who would have done better. Second from right? Uh, maybe. But isn't he Mormon?

[i.i.com.com image 620x350]



www.esquire.com

This guy. You know...the one who never led in the polls, not even once, during the entire GOP primary. The fact that even Donald Trump had momentum at one point, while Huntsman never did, should make conservatives really take a good long look at themselves. But, it won't.
 
2012-11-05 04:19:54 PM

Buffalo77: What you actually think they believe in.

Remember the Republican party is not monolithic, you can't say they are bible thumpers because a minority of the party is. It would be as dishonest as me saying all democrats are black or liberal or gay or pro choice - each party has their factions.


Not monolithic? No, they're not monolithic. They just go along with whatever the nutjobs in your party tell them to go along with.

I could list a whole shiat load of things, like how the GOP touts that they're the party of fiscal responsibility but in reality they spend more than Democrats do, or how they hate government except when it comes to forcing people to do what conservatives want people to do. Blah blah blah. Everyone's heard it all before. Like that kind of thing is really going to change your mind.

I used to be a hard-core Republican; pro-life, xenophobic, anti-gay, pro-business, anti-welfare, all that jazz. Then I learned that my girlfriend was pregnant, and I suddenly understood how incredibly scary it was to be faced with that decision, that potential responsibility at such an early age, and even though we didn't go down the abortion route I could sympathize with the people that couldn't deal with being a parent at certain times in their lives. I lost my job and was out of work for six months and I learned how important it was for big government to be there to ensure that my kids and I didn't starve to death. I learned that my cousin, who I really looked up to, was gay, and through that I realized that gays weren't this scary "other" to demean and belittle.

In short, I was a Republican conservative, but then I stopped being so goddamn ignorant of the world around me.
 
2012-11-05 04:23:53 PM

I Browse: Cletus C.: Hey Politico. Please point to the one who would have done better. Second from right? Uh, maybe. But isn't he Mormon?

[i.i.com.com image 620x350]


[www.esquire.com image 614x375]

This guy. You know...the one who never led in the polls, not even once, during the entire GOP primary. The fact that even Donald Trump had momentum at one point, while Huntsman never did, should make conservatives really take a good long look at themselves. But, it won't.


Can we stop calling them conservatives? They are not.
They are fiscally irresponsible. period.
They are socially repressive. period.
They are morally bankrupt, win at all cost.
They hate women, minorities and GLBTA.
They are greedy.
They are ignorant or dishonest.

But conservative? I think not.

/so no, they wont learn anything from this loss. The REAL candidates did not run this cycle.
/prepare for the super candidates to emerge in mid november or december.
/but there is NO WAY that the GOP will change its platform toward the center by 2016.
/Now for the DEMs to come up with a real candidate to follow after President Obama
 
2012-11-05 04:24:26 PM

I_C_Weener: Somacandra: The National Butthurt Service for the United States has issued an Epic Butthurt Watch for the following sites on the internet: Worldnetdaily, National Review, Hot Air, Stormfront, Newsmax, The Blaze, Free Republic, RedState and Powerline. This Watch is in effect from 7pm Tuesday, November 6 until Midnight. Remember a Watch means that conditions are favorable for Epic Butthurt, associated Derpstorms and Floorhumper Freakouts. While severe butthurt may not be immediately threatening, citizens are advised to listen carefully to Fark.com's Politics tab, listening for later statements and possible warnings.


I think the last place one should be on election night is the Fark Politics page.


I'm not sure I'll understand half the links, but I'm probably gonna try if I haz teh interwebs. It sounds fun.
 
2012-11-05 04:25:22 PM

Lando Lincoln: Buffalo77: What you actually think they believe in.

Remember the Republican party is not monolithic, you can't say they are bible thumpers because a minority of the party is. It would be as dishonest as me saying all democrats are black or liberal or gay or pro choice - each party has their factions.

Not monolithic? No, they're not monolithic. They just go along with whatever the nutjobs in your party tell them to go along with.

I could list a whole shiat load of things, like how the GOP touts that they're the party of fiscal responsibility but in reality they spend more than Democrats do, or how they hate government except when it comes to forcing people to do what conservatives want people to do. Blah blah blah. Everyone's heard it all before. Like that kind of thing is really going to change your mind.

I used to be a hard-core Republican; pro-life, xenophobic, anti-gay, pro-business, anti-welfare, all that jazz. Then I learned that my girlfriend was pregnant, and I suddenly understood how incredibly scary it was to be faced with that decision, that potential responsibility at such an early age, and even though we didn't go down the abortion route I could sympathize with the people that couldn't deal with being a parent at certain times in their lives. I lost my job and was out of work for six months and I learned how important it was for big government to be there to ensure that my kids and I didn't starve to death. I learned that my cousin, who I really looked up to, was gay, and through that I realized that gays weren't this scary "other" to demean and belittle.

In short, I was a Republican conservative, but then I stopped being so goddamn ignorant of the world around me.


REALLY? because CSB. And now to get the rest of the voting population to grow up.
How do you force a blind man to see?
 
2012-11-05 04:35:46 PM

namatad: /so no, they wont learn anything from this loss. The REAL candidates did not run this cycle.


Mitt Romney is a real candidate, just one from his church, not his party.
 
2012-11-05 06:01:34 PM

I Browse: Cletus C.: Hey Politico. Please point to the one who would have done better. Second from right? Uh, maybe. But isn't he Mormon?

[i.i.com.com image 620x350]


[www.esquire.com image 614x375]

This guy. You know...the one who never led in the polls, not even once, during the entire GOP primary. The fact that even Donald Trump had momentum at one point, while Huntsman never did, should make conservatives really take a good long look at themselves. But, it won't.


Bah. I voted for Huntsman in the primary.

Not that he really had a chance, because he: 1) served as 0bama's ambassador to China, 2) acknowledged the validity of evolution and global warming, and 3) spoke a furrin' langige (Mandarin)

How are these deal killers for a Presidential candidate, when it is widely acknowledged that the rise of China as a regional and global power is likely to be the greatest geopolitical challenge for the USA this century? Sadly, I understand why the science thing would be a significant drawback for the base.

Well, there's always 2016...
 
2012-11-05 11:38:23 PM

Parthenogenetic:

Bah. I voted for Huntsman in the primary.

Not that he really had a chance, because he: 1) served as 0bama's ambassador to China



That's what sunk him. I'm not sure if it was political gamesmanship on Obama's part or what...but having Huntsman affiliated with his administration (even though he'd also served GOP admins) effectively eliminated him from getting the nomination. That, and the fact that Huntsman refused to go negative like the others.

Some of us on the Left actually liked Huntsman. We disagreed with his policies, but compared to the rest of the field, he seemed like the smartest and most reasonable GOP candidate we'd seen in years. And that's another thing that killed his chances. I remember during the primary, I read a comment on HuffPo from a conservative that basically said this:

"I don't know much about Huntsman, but if the libs like him...I don't trust him."

So, yeah.
 
Displayed 19 of 119 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report