just too precious for words

[Eric_8]

Simply because your side whined about, the Polls being skewed, that they were incorrect. When they weren't. When the polls were in your favor, you loved it. Against you, they were lies. Nate Silver was wrong in his assessment of his 538 blog, and yet, the President did better than what Nate Projected. Your side were calling Nate some homosexual, who couldn't count to five. He's been proven right. If the reverse were true, and Romney won, I wouldn't be whining. I would have accepted it, simply because I believe Romney to be a moderate, not a neo-con. But there is no winning with you guys. When facts are shown to you, you never refute the facts, just the source. So be in denial for another 4 years. By that time, you'll lose another election, because you're not willing to face the reality of demographics. And expect to lose in the midterms. Because that will happen, if your candidates keep talking like they did this time around. They Will Lose.

ASSUMING you're responding to me, you've quite literally not addressed a single topic I brought up. However, I will still respond to your points, no matter how canned they are.

1. I'm not sure who was actually deriding Nate's (Silver?) sexuality based on his poll predictions. Whoever did so is deplorable. There is no defense for that whatsoever.
2. Since Obama won, your potential reaction to Romney as President is moot. That said, given what I've seen you post here, leads me to believe exactly the opposite of what you stated. Again, while it's inconsequential, that quote hardly passes the BS test in my opinion.
3. Your fact argument is just about the definition of blinders brought on by shameless (or worse, unknowing) partisan bias. Liberals do the exact same thing! Do you know why? Because in our low information world, facts mean whatever a campaign can spin them to mean. To think this is a problem of only one party (conveniently not yours lol), is naievte (apologies, don't know how to insert the proper lettering) at its finest.
4. I still don't see what position I'm taking that is causing me to be in denial, please enlighten me.
5. In regards to demographics, I don't at all disagree with you. However, I don't think it has anything to do with simple skin tone/appearance/etc. It has to do with which ideology is more friendly to the "modern" (lazy, entitled, lack of accountability) American. Sadly, those values are absolutely going to sway more people to Obama's side. It's a lot easier to sell the idea of continued free stuff than it is to sell the idea (very necessary one at that) of reform.
6. To finish, I leave you with two requests. First, please direct your answer to what I've actually written should you so choose to respond. No circumvented answers are desired. Second, PLEASE tell me your rationale for your splendidly poor grammar and punctuation! I've taught 1st graders who, when confused, would simply throw commas into sentences at random points, and that is precisely what seems to be afoot in your posts.

 

[Eric_8]

There's a point where you lose the ability to react in a nice manner to things which should normally never be allowed. If using pejorative terms for any race or sexual orientations are considered banable offenses, calling someone a racist without cause should be too.

These are not funny little accusations, these are real attacks on a persons character.

I actually had a similar discussion with a moderator after getting warned for chastising a post from AM.

I take any attacks here with a grain of salt, primarily because none of these people know me, aside from the fact that I'm Conservative, or, around these parts, the devil. Also, I can only get so heated about being falsely attacked by a man who "flips his hair" at you while shaking his bum bum for all of LPSG to see.

Finally, I take into account the opinions of those with reason and character, as some here do, Liberals included. Since I won't tempt my fate with the moderators, I'll leave it to you to decide if Kayman would qualify as either a man of reason or character in my eyes.

 

[tamati]

Still not seen any valid reasons in this thread (or elsewhere) to hate O other than color.
It must be like voter fraud.....

 

[Tee&A]

I personally took no personal pleasure in the photos; I don't get my jollies from seeing someone's Grandmother lose control of her bladder because she thinks that now 'the blacks are going to take over'. I did, however, see the real frustration, the genuine denial, and the sheer disbelief in those faces--and I think that's a good thing. If your beliefs bring you the same results, you will not change. But if your beliefs fail you (so to speak), it causes you to analyze said beliefs and decide if they're really, truly worth your allegiance.

Some of the people in those photos will go to the grave believing that anyone who doesn't think the same way they do is either wrong, an idiot, and an abomination to our democracy. But there are some who will sit down, head in hands, and ask themselves if what they believe is actually the truth. That's something that can only happen with a trip to rock bottom or utter defeat--and something that causes people to put down the Kool-Aid.

 

[blazblue]

@Tamati: Ditto.

 

[sillystring]

5. In regards to demographics, I don't at all disagree with you. However, I don't think it has anything to do with simple skin tone/appearance/etc. It has to do with which ideology is more friendly to the "modern" (lazy, entitled, lack of accountability) American. Sadly, those values are absolutely going to sway more people to Obama's side. It's a lot easier to sell the idea of continued free stuff than it is to sell the idea (very necessary one at that) of reform.

When I talked about not painting swaths of the electorate with a wide brush, I meant this too and stated as such. This is a bad place to debate from, it doesn't get to a reality of why our President was reelected.

There's a very telling exit poll question which rings true with me and was only countered by the Mitt Romney I saw during the concession speech.

When asked "Which candidate do you believe truly cares about you" the response was something like 60% to 18% in favor of the President. That's HUGE.

There could be a thousand reasons why people answered that way, but what it says is trust was squarely in the President's corner even with looming economic issues.

 

[Eric_8]

Still not seen any valid reasons in this thread (or elsewhere) to hate O other than color.
It must be like voter fraud.....

A viewpoint seen completely through the eyes of a horrendously biased individual, of course.

I'm biased too, without a doubt, and by the same measure, I can't understand how anyone could be against requirements to vote (basic acumen of the subject, identification, etc). However, those beliefs quickly get one branded as a racist, extremist, Conservative here. It's all about one's beliefs and perceptions. I see no reason to believe that mine is wrong, even in light of Tuesday's results. America is definitely changing. Keeping that in mind, change is not always a good thing.

To sum up, the idea that non-Democrats hate Obama is a little out there. Granted, plenty of people do genuinely hate him, and plenty in that group do so solely because of his color. However, plenty of people simply dislike him. Is it in any way possible that those people dislike him because of his policies? Perhaps they simply do not coincide with their outlook on life.

Rhetorical question. God help you if you believe that question merits anything other than a resounding yes.

 

[Eric_8]

When I talked about not painting swaths of the electorate with a wide brush, I meant this too and stated as such. This is a bad place to debate from, it doesn't get to a reality of why our President was reelected.

There's a very telling exit poll question which rings true with me and was only countered by the Mitt Romney I saw during the concession speech.

When asked "Which candidate do you believe truly cares about you" the response was something like 60% to 18% in favor of the President. That's HUGE.

There could be a thousand reasons why people answered that way, but what it says is trust was squarely in the President's corner even with looming economic issues.

Apologies, I should have couched it by saying many instead of all, because I absolutely believe it to be the case, with people from all walks of life.

This whole likability/caring/lovey dovey garbage has no place in politics. Doing is all that matters to me. Put forth policies that bring the most benefit to America and her citizens. I don't care one bit about liking the President or "perceiving" that he cares about me. Neither man (Obama/Romney) has the time to care about me. Let's be real: there are 300+ million people in the US. To expect that a President should take the time to care about me, or believe that he actually does, would (in my eyes) mandate that he care about every other person at least as equally. To me, that would boil down to too much caring and not nearly enough doing. Do the job in the best way possible. That should be the ONLY mandate of any politician

 

[sillystring]

Apologies, I should have couched it by saying many instead of all, because I absolutely believe it to be the case, with people from all walks of life.

This whole likability/caring/lovey dovey garbage has no place in politics. Doing is all that matters to me. Put forth policies that bring the most benefit to America and her citizens. I don't care one bit about liking the President or "perceiving" that he cares about me. Neither man (Obama/Romney) has the time to care about me. Let's be real: there are 300+ million people in the US. To expect that a President should take the time to care about me, or believe that he actually does, would (in my eyes) mandate that he care about every other person at least as equally. To me, that would boil down to too much caring and not nearly enough doing. Do the job in the best way possible. That should be the ONLY mandate of any politician

The reason I posted that poll question is because it is a question posed to everyone. Even people who voted for Romney answered that question in the positive for the President.

Right now the President needs to tell all of us the tough decisions which will be made on either side of the aisle. Everyone's loopholes and everyone's entitlements. He should find a cabinet post for Romney like he did with Clinton and go to work on tightening the belt. He's the leader elect, and if he takes the right steps he will force the hand of the Republican congress and we will back away from both this fiscal and social cliff.

 

[balsary]

Apologies, I should have couched it by saying many instead of all, because I absolutely believe it to be the case, with people from all walks of life.

This whole likability/caring/lovey dovey garbage has no place in politics. Doing is all that matters to me. Put forth policies that bring the most benefit to America and her citizens. I don't care one bit about liking the President or "perceiving" that he cares about me. Neither man (Obama/Romney) has the time to care about me. Let's be real: there are 300+ million people in the US. To expect that a President should take the time to care about me, or believe that he actually does, would (in my eyes) mandate that he care about every other person at least as equally. To me, that would boil down to too much caring and not nearly enough doing. Do the job in the best way possible. That should be the ONLY mandate of any politician

I'd love to call you what you are but sadly the rules here don't allow that. Your post above is the stupidest thing I've read here, ever. "Put forth policies that bring the most benefit to America and her citizens. I don't care one bit about liking the President or "perceiving" that he cares about me." For a President to put forth policies that bring the most benefit to America and her citizens, he/she would have to care about America and her citizens. Guess what genius, or should I say son of genius, YOU are one of her citizens. Fortunately only 18% of America's citizens believes that Romney cares about them. It's not hard to understand. Romney is a snake and the majority of Americans can see it. I'd guess the majority of the first graders you've taught could see it. The sad thing is that you want a President that doesn't care about you and on Tuesday we were far too close to getting what you want, a President that doesn't care about you. A President that doesn't care about you, doesn't care about me. I for one am happy to have one that does care about me, and even though you disgust me, I'm happy that he cares about you.

 

[rogerg]

Still not seen any valid reasons in this thread (or elsewhere) to hate O other than color.
It must be like voter fraud.....

There is no reason to "hate" Obama or anyone. But he is a terrible president, and there are alot of reasons to believe that.

 

[rogerg]

The reason I posted that poll question is because it is a question posed to everyone. Even people who voted for Romney answered that question in the positive for the President.

Right now the President needs to tell all of us the tough decisions which will be made on either side of the aisle. Everyone's loopholes and everyone's entitlements. He should find a cabinet post for Romney like he did with Clinton and go to work on tightening the belt. He's the leader elect, and if he takes the right steps he will force the hand of the Republican congress and we will back away from both this fiscal and social cliff.

He just spent $1 Billion convincing the nation that Romney was a liar, a tax cheat, a snob, anti-black, anti-women, anti-gay, etc. (which of course were all lies). I dont think offering Him a Cabinet position would do much to help his own credibility.

 

[balsary]

I can give you several off the top of my head:

1) Obamacare
2) 23 million un or under-employed
3) 2% GDP growth
4) fast and furious
5) NSA leaks
6) NDAA
7) 47 million On food stamps (most in history)
8) Bengahzi
9) 6 trillion in new debt (most in history)
10) 4 straight years without a budget (most in history)
11) 4 straight 1+ trillion dollar deficits (most in history)

These are all valid reasons why someone would conclude that Obama hasn't done a good enough job and shouldn't be reelected.

I'm not going to try and tackle the entire list. Some of your points are valid, and obviously Obama hasn't been perfect. 9, 10, and 11 are great reasons, but essentially they are the same reason. Even worse, you put them at 9, 10, and 11. Those would have been my combined number one on the list. My biggest problem with your list is that Obamacare is at the top, and a lot of people I've talked to have that at the top of their Obama failure list as well. My question to you is, how is this a failure? It hasn't even gone into full effect yet. In ten years I could see this being a valid argument, if in fact Obamacare proves to be a failure. I'll admit that it could turn out to be a bad program, it's just sad that no Republican can admit that it could turn out to be a good program. What is wrong with everyone being insured while trying to reduce healthcare costs? Contrary to what Mitt said, the ER is not the most efficient way to provide healthcare, and people without insurance or the money to see a doctor have no other option. Who do you think picks up the tab? Besides that, it's not written in stone. If it proves to have aspects that don't work, they could certainly be amended in the future.

Republicans haven't given Obama much of a chance at all. I'm not one to say its due to racism, but I can't for the life of me remember another President that has received such blatant disrespect and opposition from the other party. It has to be based on something, and Obama's policies aren't anything that are too radical for the Democratic party. Republicans have simply refused to work with him. Compromise is give and take, but Republicans have refused to give. There could be hundreds of reasons for this but they all end with the same result, the further degradation of our nation.

 

[StormfrontFL]

He just spent $1 Billion convincing the nation that Romney was a liar, a tax cheat, a snob, anti-black, anti-women, anti-gay, etc. (which of course were all lies). I dont think offering Him a Cabinet position would do much to help his own credibility.

Prove they were all lies.

Romney Continues to Lie About Chrysler, Auto Industry - Peter Fenn (usnews.com)

Obama vs. Romney on LGBT issues | Gay News | Washington Blade - America's Leading Gay News Source

Snobby? Perhaps. Clueless and out of touch? Most likely
Mitt Romney Apparently Doesn’t Know What A Donut Is | Mediaite

 

[blazblue]

There is no reason to "hate" Obama or anyone. But he is a terrible president, and there are alot of reasons to believe that.

The majority of the country along with the rest of the world seemingly begs to differ.

 

[b.c.]

I think it safe to say that Obama's base of support, those who voted for him, cuts across many demographics. It included people of all ages, faiths, economic levels, gender identities, and races, and a WHOLE LOT of white people. And when the media made much of this "racial divide" in profiling Tuesday's election results I was admittedly somewhat dismayed, because it almost belies the fact that he has the support from a wide variety of folks.

On the other hand, facts are facts, and they do show that for whatever reason: differences in ideology, personal beliefs, whatever, Romney's support base was decidedly less..."varied". That is certainly NOT to say that they are all racists.

What CAN be said with a certain degree of validity is that there has been too much race based and bigoted rhetoric (too often from influential circles of the "most high") within the Republican party; ideas that too often become the basis of Republican policy and ideology. And rather than disavow it, they've often played upon it, fueling it to further their own political aims. Frankly, it's gotten pretty damned NASTY, at times even taking me aback, a person who's experienced the segregated South of the Sixties.

The bigoted characterizations of Obama, hateful name calling and characterization directed even at his wife, the questioning of his faith, all that "birther" bullshit.... Add to that this whole "voter fraud" fiasco where they sought to remove voters from rolls, but concentrated efforts in MINORITY districts (if race isn't a factor in your efforts, you'd treat every district the same, would you not?). Then you're caught off mike characterizing certain members of the citizenry as people sitting around waiting for entitlements, and you talk of making immigrants want to "self deport". The Republican Party did all that shit, not US.

So they need not get all defensive about it because THEY'VE embraced, condoned, and/or ignored hate based rhetoric, nor accuse us of racism because we took note it. It was what it WAS.

I've seen (awhile back) the news article Kayman linked, and sadly, the news media is right: racism is alive and well in America. It may not have been the sole factor determining a vote against (or even FOR) Obama, but that it would be, for many, a factor at all is disheartening.

It makes one wonder about the President's words Tuesday night, when he said this is not red states or blue states but UNITED states. One wonders whether that is just as much a pipe dream as that "dream" Dr. King spoke of almost FIFTY fucking years ago.

I think the jury's still out on that one.

 

[Bardox]

Who are the Romney people appealing to?

http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/image/35324594136

If there is a single image that personifies the republican party today it's this. lol

 

[Eric_8]

I'd love to call you what you are but sadly the rules here don't allow that. Your post above is the stupidest thing I've read here, ever. "Put forth policies that bring the most benefit to America and her citizens. I don't care one bit about liking the President or "perceiving" that he cares about me." For a President to put forth policies that bring the most benefit to America and her citizens, he/she would have to care about America and her citizens. Guess what genius, or should I say son of genius, YOU are one of her citizens. Fortunately only 18% of America's citizens believes that Romney cares about them. It's not hard to understand. Romney is a snake and the majority of Americans can see it. I'd guess the majority of the first graders you've taught could see it. The sad thing is that you want a President that doesn't care about you and on Tuesday we were far too close to getting what you want, a President that doesn't care about you. A President that doesn't care about you, doesn't care about me. I for one am happy to have one that does care about me, and even though you disgust me, I'm happy that he cares about you.

PLEASE tell me what you think of me. PM it if you must. I won't be offended. I enjoy honesty and intelligence. I know asking for both is too much, so please don't let the forum rules curtail your ability to be honest.

You're dreaming if you think wanting what's best for America means truly caring about American citizens. Do you think that the President would lose any sleep, or feel even the slightest remorse, if you were NOT a US citizen, or if you died/ceased to exist? Would your loved ones receive condolences from the President? No is the obvious answer. I accept that, which is exactly why I posited my post in that manner. Call me crazy, but that would be something I'd expect from someone that cares about me.

Romney, like Obama, like all politicians, "cares" about people when he needs to care about them. He's not a snake any more so than any man or woman in Washington. Since you fail to see that, and you are a far more evolved intellectual than myself, I have exclusive rights to a bridge in Brooklyn that I would love to talk to you about!

The only reasonable disagreement I would accept would be you telling me I'm reading the concept in too black and white a fashion. That would be perfectly fair (and probably accurate).

 

[balsary]

I think it safe to say that Obama's base of support, those who voted for him, cuts across many demographics. It included people of all ages, faiths, economic levels, gender identities, and races, and a WHOLE LOT of white people. And when the media made much of this "racial divide" in profiling Tuesday's election results I was admittedly somewhat dismayed, because it almost belies the fact that he has the support from a wide variety of folks.

On the other hand, facts are facts, and they do show that for whatever reason: differences in ideology, personal beliefs, whatever, Romney's support base was decidedly less..."varied". That is certainly NOT to say that they are all racists.

What CAN be said with a certain degree of validity is that there has been too much race based and bigoted rhetoric (too often from influential circles of the "most high") within the Republican party; ideas that too often become the basis of Republican policy and ideology. And rather than disavow it, they've often played upon it, fueling it to further their own political aims. Frankly, it's gotten pretty damned NASTY, at times even taking me aback, a person who's experienced the segregated South of the Sixties.

The bigoted characterizations of Obama, hateful name calling and characterization directed even at his wife, the questioning of his faith, all that "birther" bullshit.... Add to that this whole "voter fraud" fiasco where they sought to remove voters from rolls, but concentrated efforts in MINORITY districts (if race isn't a factor in your efforts, you'd treat every district the same, would you not?). Then you're caught off mike characterizing certain members of the citizenry as people sitting around waiting for entitlements, and you talk of making immigrants want to "self deport". The Republican Party did all that shit, not US.

So they need not get all defensive about it because THEY'VE embraced, condoned, and/or ignored hate based rhetoric, nor accuse us of racism because we took note it. It was what it WAS.

I've seen (awhile back) the news article Kayman linked, and sadly, the news media is right: racism is alive and well in America. It may not have been the sole factor determining a vote against (or even FOR) Obama, but that it would be, for many, a factor at all is disheartening.

It makes one wonder about the President's words Tuesday night, when he said this is not red states or blue states but UNITED states. One wonders whether that is just as much a pipe dream as that "dream" Dr. King spoke of almost FIFTY fucking years ago.

I think the jury's still out on that one.

Damn I wish I was this articulate.

 

[lovinglife]

I saw the link and some of the photos on another site. Something is seriously wrong with a number of white Americans. Their implicit or explicit racial animus against blacks and the first mixed race president is disturbing...

I just want to point out that "racist attitudes" from the surveys are not necessarily racism. The article says that the surveys asked participants about their opinions on how words "such as "friendly," "hardworking," "violent" and "lazy," described blacks, whites and Hispanics."

You would be surprised how many black people self-describe many blacks as lazy. Keep in mind that this is not ALL blacks, but many. This particular topic came into question in one of my classes (which has a significant amount of black people, probably half the class) and pretty much all of them would more closely relate lazy to blacks than hardworking. Is Obama lazy? Hell no. Are the blacks in my class lazy? Doubtful. Are there many in the general population that I interact with lazy? Yea.

It is a simple general idea that tends to hold true in most cases. I am not going to judge before I interact with the person, but it is a general statement.

EDIT: In regards to specific racism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-sNL3-WZUU