The Worst President in history has been reelected

[CrotchetyGeezer]

"Obama did not win because he was black"

Yea, as if the Hussein would of ever even won the Dem Primaries in 2008 if he hadn't been. As if the thousands on blacks in urban districts in the blue states would of showed up in droves to vote for a white man.

It would also help the GOP if they stopped nominating moderates. McCain, Romney...its a joke to think either of these guys are "far right wingers".

Personally, I could care less if I am a minority in my opinions about abortion, illegals, unions, and the corrupt education system we have. I wouldn't change my opinion just because of the outcome of an election. Just because legions of idiots outnumber us slightly doesn't make them right. If women want to vote in liberals who will ruin our country with trillion dollar debts just to protect their "right" of abortion, then so be it, it will be our undoing as a nation.

If we as a nation are going to prioritize welfare, high taxes, trillion dollar deficits, abortion, high unemployment and weak foreign policy, then we aren't going to last long.

Well, the thing is, they THINK they outnumber us. They forget there are probably about 76.1 people who are between the age of 0-17. This nation has a population of approximately 311.6 people in the United States. The number of those who voted in this election was about 121.7 million. Subtract 76.1 million from the population of this country and you get about 235.5 million people who are 18 or over; old enough to vote. Subtract 121.7 million from the 235.5 million people who are old enough to vote and you get about 113.8 million people who didn't vote. And, since we can only guess as to how this 113.8 million people would have voted if they would have chosen to vote? I don't know as if anyone has a legitimate claim to say anyone outnumbers anyone else. We have no idea how that 113.8 million people who didn't vote would have voted if they would have voted and, we have no idea as to what their ideals are. We can only guess. However, since I think a good number out of that 113.8 million people who didn't vote, didn't do so because they weren't necessarily satisfied with the Republicans' choice for a presidential candidate (whether it be he is a Mormon, too moderate, whatever)? I think I can feel somewhat confident in presuming that a majority of them likely lean more towards the policies of conservatives. I mean, really, out of that 113.8 million people who didn't vote, how many were leftists who chose not to vote for Obama? I highly doubt very many.

The people who do not vote, do not exist...PERIOD

By not voting they forfeit their right to affect the political process. HOW they would have voted is irrelevant

That they did not vote does not take away from the fact that they're American citizens and it damn well is not irrelevant. And, it's certainly relevant in any claim some pathetic leftist might have that they think they're somehow some majority or, that they somehow outnumber someone. And, they affected the political process by not voting...dope. Additionally, that you think that if they don't vote, they don't exist? Oh I sure wish your chump-in-chief would have said that on the campaign trail. He probably did but, the mainstream leftist media ignored it. So does that mean, in your opinion, 113.8 million people in this country don't exist, they're irrelevant and, they deserve nothing? LOL! Come on, sound this message far and wide...and, LOUD, too. I dare you. You've certainly got an enormous set to be giving sermons about Romney's 47% comment after this.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

I don't think you are going to get any more votes if your narrative is that everyone that didn't vote your way is stupid...and yet that is the narrative the RW is going with. Yeah, that will serve ya'll well.

It is the same old 47% argument that doomed Romneys presidential ambitions. The general disdain of Republicans for those who are less fortunate. They are lazy, they are stupid, they are looking for handouts

and the funny thing is... in many of those dead red states, the folks who routinely vote republican ARE less fortunate... and lazy and stupid and routinely getting handouts themselves.

Yeah, but that's only those leftists who govern and live in the blue cities and counties, within that red state.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

It is the same old 47% argument that doomed Romneys presidential ambitions. The general disdain of Republicans for those who are less fortunate. They are lazy, they are stupid, they are looking for handouts

The irony is that Romney was quite correct when he made that statement. Liberals love hearing what they want to hear and don't like being told what they need to hear.

Actually he was far from correct. To call the working poor, retirees and veterans a bunch of leeches looking for a handout and having no personal responsibility was insulting and inaccurate

The election of your chump-in-chief proves you wrong.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

"Obama did not win because he was black"

Yea, as if the Hussein would of ever even won the Dem Primaries in 2008 if he hadn't been. As if the thousands on blacks in urban districts in the blue states would of showed up in droves to vote for a white man.

It would also help the GOP if they stopped nominating moderates. McCain, Romney...its a joke to think either of these guys are "far right wingers".

Personally, I could care less if I am a minority in my opinions about abortion, illegals, unions, and the corrupt education system we have. I wouldn't change my opinion just because of the outcome of an election. Just because legions of idiots outnumber us slightly doesn't make them right. If women want to vote in liberals who will ruin our country with trillion dollar debts just to protect their "right" of abortion, then so be it, it will be our undoing as a nation.

If we as a nation are going to prioritize welfare, high taxes, trillion dollar deficits, abortion, high unemployment and weak foreign policy, then we aren't going to last long.

There is little question that Obama would have won in 2008 if he were a young, charismatic WHITE man. America was on a rampage against all Republicans at every political level. A grumpy, worn down John McCain with Sarah Palin as his running mate was not going to beat anyone

As to nominating moderates, you conservatives cannot even get one of your candidates through the Republican primary process, how do you think you can win a general election?

LOL, if Obama was white his name would be John Edwards. There is no way a white guy trying to sound like Martin Luther King Jr when he gives speeches would of been acceptable by anybody. Hillary would of won that primary and she's still be President to this day.

As for the Republican Primaries, I think they need to make changes in it. First, don't let non-registered Republicans vote in the Republican Primaries. Second, stop splitting the conservative vote among multiple candidates versus one moderate. Everyone knows the Republicans had terrible candidates this last year. If they would ever just nominate a leader who is a conservative they'd have a very good chance at winning. I would've taken Christie, Rubio, Jindal, or even Jeb Bush over any of the candidates of the 2012 primaries.

After the comments Jindal made today? I wouldn't vote for Jindal if someone held a gun to my head.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

No way. He should have abolished Congress and the Supremes. Ruled by decree. No need for another vote. The people spoke. If you don't like it, it's off to the FEMA Camps with thee. Wheee....

But I am glad to see someone with a sense of humor on the right.

He didn't want to make it that obvious. It's a slow and steady process, like Hitler did it. Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933 and it took him until 1939 before he had the full power he needed to get his minions to do his bidding for him and his people to support him in enormous numbers without question. He has to try to indoctrinate more people in order to reduce opposition. He hasn't quite achieved that task...yet. If he can get significantly less than half opposing him? That's when you look for it.

Not a big fan of history I see. FYI Hitler was made Dictator of Germany in 1933 soon after the his appointment as Chancellor.

The History Place - Rise of Hitler: The Reichstag Burns

The History Place - Rise of Hitler: Hitler Becomes Dictator of Germany

Nothing slow and steady about it.

Actually, I probably know more about a lot of history, especially World War II history, than you'll ever know. Whether or not he made himself dictator insofar as government institutions is irrelevant in winning over the everyday normal German citizen. And, these were the people I was referring to, who needed indoctrinated first. And, it wasn't until 1939 that he thought the German people were indoctrinated enough to begin his quest in invading other nations. Unlike today, 1930s Germany didn't enjoy the convenience of instant communication and the likelihood that a great number of Germans didn't even realize they were under a dictatorship is large. It took some time for him to secure the full support of the people either through their love of him or, more importantly, fear of him. Insofar as him establishing his dictatorship in government institutions, with government officials, with the elite, etc., then yes, it didn't take him that long. And, these aren't the phenomenon and people I was speaking of. I was speaking of the normal everyday German citizen, whether it be a worker in a factory or a farmer. He didn't just walk in, in 1933, with the full support of the normal everyday German citizen. He had to indoctrinate them into believing things like the Jews, and the Versailles Treaty, etc., were to blame for all their problems for example. And, he had to institute programs which produced the Volkswagen and build up the military, etc., to sully his popularity with the German people to the best extent he could.

 

[expatriate]

It is the same old 47% argument that doomed Romneys presidential ambitions. The general disdain of Republicans for those who are less fortunate. They are lazy, they are stupid, they are looking for handouts

and the funny thing is... in many of those dead red states, the folks who routinely vote republican ARE less fortunate... and lazy and stupid and routinely getting handouts themselves.

Yeah, but that's only those leftists who govern and live in the blue cities and counties, within that red state.

like these folks, no doubt.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y54rcz_L5Q4]Mississippi Rednecks that vote republican - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

Well, the thing is, they THINK they outnumber us. They forget there are probably about 76.1 people who are between the age of 0-17. This nation has a population of approximately 311.6 people in the United States. The number of those who voted in this election was about 121.7 million. Subtract 76.1 million from the population of this country and you get about 235.5 million people who are 18 or over; old enough to vote. Subtract 121.7 million from the 235.5 million people who are old enough to vote and you get about 113.8 million people who didn't vote. And, since we can only guess as to how this 113.8 million people would have voted if they would have chosen to vote? I don't know as if anyone has a legitimate claim to say anyone outnumbers anyone else. We have no idea how that 113.8 million people who didn't vote would have voted if they would have voted and, we have no idea as to what their ideals are. We can only guess. However, since I think a good number out of that 113.8 million people who didn't vote, didn't do so because they weren't necessarily satisfied with the Republicans' choice for a presidential candidate (whether it be he is a Mormon, too moderate, whatever)? I think I can feel somewhat confident in presuming that a majority of them likely lean more towards the policies of conservatives. I mean, really, out of that 113.8 million people who didn't vote, how many were leftists who chose not to vote for Obama? I highly doubt very many.

The people who do not vote, do not exist...PERIOD

By not voting they forfeit their right to affect the political process. HOW they would have voted is irrelevant

That they did not vote does not take away from the fact that they're American citizens and it damn well is not irrelevant. And, it's certainly relevant in any claim some pathetic leftist might have that they think they're somehow some majority or, that they somehow outnumber someone. And, they affected the political process by not voting...dope. Additionally, that you think that if they don't vote, they don't exist? Oh I sure wish your chump-in-chief would have said that on the campaign trail. He probably did but, the mainstream leftist media ignored it. So does that mean, in your opinion, 113.8 million people in this country don't exist, they're irrelevant and, they deserve nothing? LOL! Come on, sound this message far and wide...and, LOUD, too. I dare you. You've certainly got an enormous set to be giving sermons about Romney's 47% comment after this.

They are American citizens who have forfeited their right to participate in the selection of the political representatives who make decisions that affect their lives. In terms of the political process....They do not exist

To ponder how they would have voted or what impact they would have had in the past election is irrelevant. Those of us who take the trouble of actually voting get to make the decisions. Those who choose to sit on the sidelines do not exist in terms of the will of the people. Their will says let other people decide

 

[rightwinger]

The irony is that Romney was quite correct when he made that statement. Liberals love hearing what they want to hear and don't like being told what they need to hear.

Actually he was far from correct. To call the working poor, retirees and veterans a bunch of leeches looking for a handout and having no personal responsibility was insulting and inaccurate

The election of your chump-in-chief proves you wrong.

Evidently not

Our leader has once again demonstrated that he has the faith of the American people behind him

 

[House]

Actually he was far from correct. To call the working poor, retirees and veterans a bunch of leeches looking for a handout and having no personal responsibility was insulting and inaccurate

The election of your chump-in-chief proves you wrong.

Evidently not

Our leader has once again demonstrated that he has the faith of the American people behind him

Not entirely accurate. His election just demonstrated that as bad as Obama may be, the Republican candidate was even worse.

 

[Bern80]

Actually he was far from correct. To call the working poor, retirees and veterans a bunch of leeches looking for a handout and having no personal responsibility was insulting and inaccurate

The election of your chump-in-chief proves you wrong.

Evidently not

Our leader has once again demonstrated that he has the faith of the American people behind him

Again you overstate the popularity of Obama. There are about 240 million eligible voters in the U.S. Obama got 60.5 million of their votes. That's about 25%. Hardly a show of faith of the American people.

 

[rightwinger]

The election of your chump-in-chief proves you wrong.

Evidently not

Our leader has once again demonstrated that he has the faith of the American people behind him

Again you overstate the popularity of Obama. There are about 240 million eligible voters in the U.S. Obama got 60.5 million of their votes. That's about 25%. Hardly a show of faith of the American people.

Those who do not vote forfeit their right to have their candidate opinions considered.

Obama won by 3 million votes and is the popular choice to be our President

 

[dblack]

The election of your chump-in-chief proves you wrong.

Evidently not

Our leader has once again demonstrated that he has the faith of the American people behind him

Again you overstate the popularity of Obama. There are about 240 million eligible voters in the U.S. Obama got 60.5 million of their votes. That's about 25%. Hardly a show of faith of the American people.

It's even worse than that when you consider the portion of the that 60.5 million who were voting "against" Romney - and not "for" Obama. I suspect it would be a rather large chunk.

 

[BlindBoo]

He didn't want to make it that obvious. It's a slow and steady process, like Hitler did it. Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933 and it took him until 1939 before he had the full power he needed to get his minions to do his bidding for him and his people to support him in enormous numbers without question. He has to try to indoctrinate more people in order to reduce opposition. He hasn't quite achieved that task...yet. If he can get significantly less than half opposing him? That's when you look for it.

Not a big fan of history I see. FYI Hitler was made Dictator of Germany in 1933 soon after the his appointment as Chancellor.

The History Place - Rise of Hitler: The Reichstag Burns

The History Place - Rise of Hitler: Hitler Becomes Dictator of Germany

Nothing slow and steady about it.

Actually, I probably know more about a lot of history, especially World War II history, than you'll ever know. Whether or not he made himself dictator insofar as government institutions is irrelevant in winning over the everyday normal German citizen. And, these were the people I was referring to, who needed indoctrinated first. And, it wasn't until 1939 that he thought the German people were indoctrinated enough to begin his quest in invading other nations. Unlike today, 1930s Germany didn't enjoy the convenience of instant communication and the likelihood that a great number of Germans didn't even realize they were under a dictatorship is large. It took some time for him to secure the full support of the people either through their love of him or, more importantly, fear of him. Insofar as him establishing his dictatorship in government institutions, with government officials, with the elite, etc., then yes, it didn't take him that long. And, these aren't the phenomenon and people I was speaking of. I was speaking of the normal everyday German citizen, whether it be a worker in a factory or a farmer. He didn't just walk in, in 1933, with the full support of the normal everyday German citizen. He had to indoctrinate them into believing things like the Jews, and the Versailles Treaty, etc., were to blame for all their problems for example. And, he had to institute programs which produced the Volkswagen and build up the military, etc., to sully his popularity with the German people to the best extent he could.

Of course it's relevent, once he was in control he began consolidating his power. Then before the end of 1933 he withdrew from the League and began ignoring the Treaty of Versailles. Then on 1st March, 1936, three German battalions marched into the Rhineland. France and Brittan did nothing, well they whined quite a bit but.....

Your attempt to compare the two is simply not historically accurate and quite disingenuous.

 

[rightwinger]

The election of your chump-in-chief proves you wrong.

Evidently not

Our leader has once again demonstrated that he has the faith of the American people behind him

Again you overstate the popularity of Obama. There are about 240 million eligible voters in the U.S. Obama got 60.5 million of their votes. That's about 25%. Hardly a show of faith of the American people.

If we had counted the votes of those who did not vote last Tuesday, Obama would have won 180 million votes

Proving once again that Obama had a mandate

 

[Bern80]

Evidently not

Our leader has once again demonstrated that he has the faith of the American people behind him

Again you overstate the popularity of Obama. There are about 240 million eligible voters in the U.S. Obama got 60.5 million of their votes. That's about 25%. Hardly a show of faith of the American people.

Those who do not vote forfeit their right to have their candidate opinions considered.

Obama won by 3 million votes and is the popular choice to be our President

You really don't want to be honest about the numbers do you? We wouldn't want to have to deal with actual facts that show your guy is not nearly as popular with people as you claim would we? First you tried to claim overwhelming support because he won by 24% of the electoral vote, which is not an accurate gauge of opinion. Your trying to cling to this notion that Obama has the support of the bulk of the nation. He just plain doesn't. The fact is he received just 25% of eligible and was elected by less than 20% of the population. He won by a mere 1.3% of those eligible voters. I don't see how any can claim with low numbers like that that Obama is somehow hugely popular with Americans

 

[BlindBoo]

Again you overstate the popularity of Obama. There are about 240 million eligible voters in the U.S. Obama got 60.5 million of their votes. That's about 25%. Hardly a show of faith of the American people.

Those who do not vote forfeit their right to have their candidate opinions considered.

Obama won by 3 million votes and is the popular choice to be our President

You really don't want to be honest about the numbers do you? We wouldn't want to have to deal with actual facts that show your guy is not nearly as popular with people as you claim would we? First you tried to claim overwhelming support because he won by 24% of the electoral vote, which is not an accurate gauge of opinion. Your trying to cling to this notion that Obama has the support of the bulk of the nation. He just plain doesn't. The fact is he received just 25% of eligible and was elected by less than 20% of the population. He won by a mere 1.3% of those eligible voters. I don't see how any can claim with low numbers like that that Obama is somehow hugely popular with Americans

Such has been the case with all US elections at least since 68. Fact is the President is popular with everyone except angry white males.

 

[House]

Again you overstate the popularity of Obama. There are about 240 million eligible voters in the U.S. Obama got 60.5 million of their votes. That's about 25%. Hardly a show of faith of the American people.

Those who do not vote forfeit their right to have their candidate opinions considered.

Obama won by 3 million votes and is the popular choice to be our President

You really don't want to be honest about the numbers do you? We wouldn't want to have to deal with actual facts that show your guy is not nearly as popular with people as you claim would we? First you tried to claim overwhelming support because he won by 24% of the electoral vote, which is not an accurate gauge of opinion. Your trying to cling to this notion that Obama has the support of the bulk of the nation. He just plain doesn't. The fact is he received just 25% of eligible and was elected by less than 20% of the population. He won by a mere 1.3% of those eligible voters. I don't see how any can claim with low numbers like that that Obama is somehow hugely popular with Americans

And as unpopular as he may be, Romney is hated even worse.

 

[Bern80]

Evidently not

Our leader has once again demonstrated that he has the faith of the American people behind him

Again you overstate the popularity of Obama. There are about 240 million eligible voters in the U.S. Obama got 60.5 million of their votes. That's about 25%. Hardly a show of faith of the American people.

If we had counted the votes of those who did not vote last Tuesday, Obama would have won 180 million votes

Proving once again that Obama had a mandate

your numbers don't add up. There are 240 million, give or take, eligible voters. 118 million of them voted for one candidate or the other. That's a difference of 122 million. You're only 58 million off. The second problem is your assuming for whatever nonsensical reason that those 122 million would go to Obama.

 

[Bern80]

Those who do not vote forfeit their right to have their candidate opinions considered.

Obama won by 3 million votes and is the popular choice to be our President

You really don't want to be honest about the numbers do you? We wouldn't want to have to deal with actual facts that show your guy is not nearly as popular with people as you claim would we? First you tried to claim overwhelming support because he won by 24% of the electoral vote, which is not an accurate gauge of opinion. Your trying to cling to this notion that Obama has the support of the bulk of the nation. He just plain doesn't. The fact is he received just 25% of eligible and was elected by less than 20% of the population. He won by a mere 1.3% of those eligible voters. I don't see how any can claim with low numbers like that that Obama is somehow hugely popular with Americans

And as unpopular as he may be, Romney is hated even worse.

You can claim that all you want, but the true difference is statistically meaningless such that to claim Romney is disliked significantly more or in a way that means anything is simply not true.

 

[House]

You really don't want to be honest about the numbers do you? We wouldn't want to have to deal with actual facts that show your guy is not nearly as popular with people as you claim would we? First you tried to claim overwhelming support because he won by 24% of the electoral vote, which is not an accurate gauge of opinion. Your trying to cling to this notion that Obama has the support of the bulk of the nation. He just plain doesn't. The fact is he received just 25% of eligible and was elected by less than 20% of the population. He won by a mere 1.3% of those eligible voters. I don't see how any can claim with low numbers like that that Obama is somehow hugely popular with Americans

And as unpopular as he may be, Romney is hated even worse.

You can claim that all you want, but the true difference is statistically meaningless such that to claim Romney is disliked significantly more or in a way that means anything is simply not true.

Eyes wide shut, hoss.