Why Romney Lost

Last Updated:

  1. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    That's nice, but I didn't see any of that quoted either. I also noticed that your new page is only a list of links to other blog posts. Same basic problem still. I'm not biting, sorry. But thanks for revealing that you do in fact have an agenda. ;)

    Nice try, but the URL* says "blog" not "column". The menu clearly states "Blogs & Columns" and not "blogs are columns". Case closed.

    I will not call you naive. Anybody who can fit four logical fallacies into seven words is anything but naive. :)


  2. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    You're right. That's because the Democrat PACs failed at fundraising. They tried. They just failed. The wealthy Democrat donors refused to donate. Many of them because they were disenchanted w/Obama. But you still didn't see any Democrats calling out the Democratic PACs.
  3. cjr72

    cjr72 Well-Known Member

    From the original page that I linked to if you go all the way down to the second sentence of the article the link is indeed there called Pinocchio Tracker that addresses what was quoted. My apologies for leaving it to others to understand the magic of a linked World Wide Web and not flattening and reproducing the entire Wapo Fact Checker site into a single forum post. ;)

    Perhaps we are getting a bit too pedantic here but Washington Post does indeed refer to Fact Checker as a column in the first sentence of this page. Anyhow this reminds me of posts I've read down the stretch by Romney supporters trying to dismiss Nate Silver's analysis of the polls with "YEAH BUT HE'S JUST A BLOGGER!!!!!!!!"
  4. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    *sigh* I think I'll be better off talking to brain-eating zombies. Brains...
  5. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't trust a source because it's a blog and not a real news source. It sounds like an ad hominem argument to me.
    dustwun77 and cjr72 like this.
  6. zuben el genub

    zuben el genub Well-Known Member

    A news source isn't necessarily impartial, either. Fox News/NBC (MS got out)

    Public TV probably comes the closest.
  7. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Agreed. Every source has it's bias. You've got to look at the actual facts being reported and see how well they jibe with other sources reporting on the same thing really.

    I guess my real objection is to the idea that one party/candidate (pick one) is a bastion of truth and integrity and the other is just a scuzzy slimebucket of lies. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Both parties are at fault for the mess we're in, but neither party can admit it for political reasons so they just lie through their teeth and blame the other guy.
  8. cjr72

    cjr72 Well-Known Member

    Nice to see someone gets the point. Reading (and comprehension), it's fundamental. :D
  9. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Why would someone study the US Constitution so much anyway? Are you a lawyer? As for the American way, it also entails rampant individualism, aint a fan.

    Yeah well US justices seems to be awfully partisan, its a bit ridiculous really. FDR didnt help with his idea of packing the Supreme Court back in the day.
  10. Rico ANDROID

    Rico ANDROID Well-Known Member

    There are plenty hypocrits in both parties and all specialized groups inbetween. The problem is theres no such thing as a "public servant". The arrogance however displays the most on the side of the republicans. Right now, all they have to do is agree for once and do something about this socalled "over the cliff" issue. I BETCHA the republicans will hornerilly hold out so to make taxes go up " just to get that man out of the whitehouse".

    And who are the ones that $3.00 more on a product will be effected the most? Not their phat @$$es.

    And they cant give you one good reason for not agreeing on some solution . LAWD knows what mess we would be facing if "romney" won.
  11. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I don't think I can go along with that. It's popular to bash Republicans, but both sides have put the country where we are and neither side will compromise. If either side compromises the other will immediately brand them as weak and pushovers. That's the problem. You have one side (pick one) coming out and proclaiming that we must do XYZ for the good of the country and why won't the other side cooperate. The second the other side starts cooperating, then the story is "Those limp wristed pansies have no moral fortitude. How can anyone support them? They won't stick to their guns."
  12. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    99%? Really? Obama could have probably tried harder to cut spending while keeping in place stimulus. Defence projects are still getting overfunded in many cases for example, while there is a massive deficit.

    Still, I think that its fair to say that liberals like the idea of helping everyone own their own home. Those on the left and right less so.
  13. zuben el genub

    zuben el genub Well-Known Member

    The stories about out of control spending fall into this category -
    Yes, spending might be out of control, but they conveniently forgot why. An when.At least the PACS did.

    I remember a quote from a Romney spot saying "this president can blame others for spending "(or something like that), so he did acknowledge that the problems might be inherited. Somewhat offhandedly, to be true.

    Btw- his quote about the 47% will likely be the top quote of the year.

    It's mostly the republicans who want government out of everything except women's lives. They love deregulation. Puts more people who work the system to line their pockets in the republican's corner.

    About women's lives - I've read a couple of articles about how our standard of living will go down unless people have more kids. We are geared to debt, merchandizing, and upselling. If there is no one to sell to - (You finish the sentence) I think most people are inherently greedy. Civil and responsible behavior limits quite a few of them to non-piggery.
  14. simonsimons34

    simonsimons34 Rom & Kernel Developer Developer

    Its crazy funny how people stick with their party no matter how bad the person running is . This goes to everyone. Not just Republicans. Not just Democrats.
  15. zuben el genub

    zuben el genub Well-Known Member

    Nope - I'm an Independent. I told one candidate I'd probably vote for the least horse's a$$ in the bunch.

    We don't give out our cell numbers, so candidates had no way to pester us. I was rather surprised not to find door to door since both parties were courting the independent voters. I wouldn't talk to any of them anyway. I can read and a lot of the time the written word is different from a campaigning volunteer. I prefer written.

    Anyway - here is a "scare" article on the other side of being a consumer society.
    The world of 2030: U.S. declines; food, water may be scarce | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

    I do know the Oglalla aquifer is being depleted faster than refilled. Colorado depends on snowmelt. If it doesn't snow - there's a problem. I've lived with water shortages and it's no fun.
  16. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    Not now; we have Reagan-era deregulation to thank for that.

    I got into television broadcasting while I was still in college, and so I took the unusual step of supplementing my electrical engineering course work by taking classes at a nearby college that trained people to be TV producers, directors and so forth. Not only did I get a more rounded education than I would have at IIT's Armour College of Engineering, I got to take a course that was all about FCC rule-making, its history and the reasons why America needs sober oversight of the Fourth Estate. Believe me, that was a real eye-opener, especially in light of the systematic dismantling of FCC regulation directly afterwards.

    I know all too well that the sheer expense of getting all of the licenses for a TV station, purchasing the equipment and hiring people competent to install and operate that equipment alone is so enormous that the onlt people who can afford to get into that kind of business are extremely wealthy ones. And without any regulatory body or public will to keep the "news" honest, it's only natural that the news media that can "shout the loudest" has become beholden to the extremely wealthy people who own and operate the stations and the networks behind them.

    Notice that this hegemony leaves only ten Watt college radio stations that reach only a few blocks as the only possible "liberal media". And IME, college stations don't do much news.

    No, FOX News (and I say that with a ten pound salt lick) is owned by Rupert Murdoch's media Empire, and NBC is owned by NBCUniversal. As for "MS", it's still MSNBC, CNBC and so forth.

    If you're trying to imply that MSNBC is in the same class as the FOX "News" cable channel, I couldn't agree less. First of all, MSNBC does hard news, and that news arm is as good as journalism in the US gets these days. The political commentary/opinion shows are presented as such on MSNBC, and MSNBC has never been seen giving any political party carte blanche access to their programming, as FOX has. What FOX has slapped the "News" label on does not meet the standard of journalism, but does fit the definition of propaganda closely.

    PBS NewsHour may or may not be "the closest". Considering that it is supported by large corporate donors and targeted at an upper class audience, on one hand it appears to be relatively neutral. OTOH its extremely limited scope of reporting and emphasis on feel-good news makes it biased in an entirely different way. I call it "ivory tower news" because of this bias. The people in my life who watch PBS NewsHour and receive little else for news tend to be well-off and disinterested in getting involved in social issues that their money can keep them insulated from.
  17. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    • Because that's what we do in this country.
    • Because it was a mandatory subject when I went to school.
    • To understand how the government works.
    • To give soon-to-be voters the basic skills needed to vote effectively.
    • Because the US Constitution is the platform on which all US law is built.
    • To be a better citizen and member of society.
    • To know enough to keep from being a criminal.
    • Curiosity.
    • Because passing a Constitution test used to be a requirement for matriculation.
    No, I'm an engineer.

    No, the American Way does not entail rampant individualism.

    He didn't? I disagree.

    First of all, FDR presided over the worst economic depression in the history of the United States. FDR had to make tough decisions and take bold actions to arrest and turn around this crippling economic situation. But he faced an old and conservative Supreme Court that had been packed by FDR's predecessors, the same people who caused the Great Depression and left it for FDR to repair.

    One very important point to remember is that FDR did no court-packing himself. What he did do was go to Congress and ask for legislation that could break the Supreme Court's dangerous meddling with the other two branches of government during a time of national crisis. FDR went strictly "by the book" by going to Congress. Another important thing to take note of is that FDR's bill failed in Congress.

    FDR led the US out of the great Depression, and later as a wartime President elevated America to being a world power. The first world power that was not built on conquest and imperialism. We all know how Germany dealt with the Great Depression (which was a worldwide crisis), and the tragic results of that decision. Bearing this in mind, IMHO FDR did a pretty darn good job, all things considered.
  18. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    I think I've found the problem here. You don't understand that the US government isn't a parliamentary system, which is understandable since your country is parliamentary, and that's probably all you've ever known. But the US government is not parliamentary; the executive branch is not intertwined with the legislature. President Obama is not the leader of the majority party in Congress, and therefore can't command Congress to do his bidding. President Obama can't dissolve the government if it doesn't obey him. And most importantly of all, the President of the United States of America has no power or obligation to legislate.

    I hope that helps you get that sorted.

    As for the annual budget deficit, the US government can operate that way. There's no law saying that the federal budget must be balanced, unlike in many of the states.

    Once more it looks like you aren't understanding how things work over here. I'm not blaming you, and intend no offense. I wish that more Americans took as much interest in their own government as you are taking in it.

    The buzzword "liberals" is synonymous with "the left". But even that is misleading because the US has no more left wing remaining. Over the last 30 years, Americans have gone from a healthy balance of left and right to one that's entirely right of center. The people who are called "liberals" or "leftist" are in fact centrist or somewhat right of center.

    Those who are called "the right" in the US are very far to the right. In addition, most of those who we call "the right" also have strong authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) beliefs. History has shown us that the combination of extreme right-wing and strongly authoritarian politics is a very dangerous combination.

    As far as home ownership goes, none of the political "sides" had any real interest in home ownership. George W. Bush said what he said because his masters wanted to make quick and easy profits by putting people deeply in debt. It was all a scam. If regular citizens tried that, they would go to prison.
  19. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    Correction: how some people do. Not all people.

    For example I belong to no political parties. When I turned 18 (the voting age) and had decisions to make, I pragmatically chose Ronald Reagan's promises with a "wait and see" attitude. When I discovered that Reagan and other Republicans have a nasty habit of lying, I rejected the entire Republican party. As time has passed, the Republicans have only given me more reason to reject them.

    Because the Republicans had betrayed my trust so egregiously, I decided to subscribe to no political party. It would have been foolish of me to rush into the arms of the Democratic party as a reaction. I was in no hurry to risk being "fooled twice" and didn't agree with many of the Democratic party's values. I believe in some of the principles that the Republicans advertise but never deliver. So that makes me a life-long independent.

    My belief in President Obama comes from my own impressions of him when I lived in Chicago. Although I never knew the man personally, I liked what he did locally. When he ran for the Illinois Senate I voted for him, and he didn't disappoint. Same thing when he ran for the US Senate.

    While I definitely saw the potential for Barack Obama becoming the first black President, I would have preferred it if he had racked up more political experience first. But when it became obvious that this was his time, I didn't hesitate to back him. And he didn't disappoint.

    So you see, my support for our President didn't come from party affiliation because I have none. It's not due to political leanings because I'm pretty balanced. It is because I had a front seat to watch Barack Obama's career unfold, and because I recognized a great potential.
  20. zuben el genub

    zuben el genub Well-Known Member

    I am not rich nor disinterested. I watch PBS as I think that movies, sitcoms, and the usual crap on commercial channels is stupid. I'm also too cheap to subscribe to cable. I'll only pay if I can get a la carte.

    What I don't like about conservatives is mostly related to science.
    Conservatives can be persuaded to care more about environmental issues when couched in terms of fending off threats to 'purity'

    It's this freaking purity that bothers me. Smacks to much of Naziism and racial purity.

    The human Genome is being sequenced, and most of us unless we are purely African, have some Neanderthal DNA. Doesn't bother me, but conservative scientists are disputing since that would upset the notion that Homo Sapiens was too smart to breed with Neanderthals, or they weren't human enough to crossbreed. Africans are exempt if they stayed in Africa and didn't migrate and come back. This bothers the purists as the only people with no Neanderthal DNA are black.

    Climate change, shortages, running out of oil, copper, you name it - nothing bothers them as long as they can make a profit.

    I worked in Radio Advertising. We did market to a lot of super conservative networks. But a lot of ads also went the other way if we had stations that supported the certain required demographic.

    I think we need regulation. Those fires in the garment industry in Bangladesh were caused by the same greed that dominates here (and some of the same companies). If our companies could get away with no regulations, they would. It was common in the beginning of the industrial age and is just as common now. People have totally forgotten about the "Robber Barons" and Tammany Hall.
    ElasticNinja likes this.
  21. Gmash

    Gmash Well-Known Member

    "Right to work" law due to be passed in Michigan today. Many are eager to return to the bad old days when workers had no rights, and that is the direction we are heading when profit trumps all.
    Speed Daemon likes this.
  22. zuben el genub

    zuben el genub Well-Known Member

    I remember too many union scandals and unions trying to force members to vote against conscience. Union higherups living high on the hog with members dues. We need a better way to get fairness in employment. Maybe a system where employees with a grievance could choose a law firm, or another to represent them.

    In other words, collective bargaining for all without a union but a representative selected by all employees, not a union slate. In that case, most employees, union or not, probably would pay a share of the costs for that service only. If all employees content - no payments.
  23. pastafarian

    pastafarian P√Ętes avec votre foie Moderator

    OK, this thread was closed briefly because it was getting personal. I know that this subject can get heated, but we ask that you attack the issues, not each other. If the thread turns to personal attacks, it will be closed permanently and those responsible may face repercussions. We would prefer that didn't happen. Discuss on!
    EarlyMon and lunatic59 like this.
  24. dustwun77

    dustwun77 Endeavor to Persevere :) Guide

    I don't believe the answers to our problem are MORE taxes and no real cuts in spending. Especially when our spending is so far out of control.

    Attached Files:

  25. dustwun77

    dustwun77 Endeavor to Persevere :) Guide

    It appears to me that there is actually some merit to the argument that if you lower the tax rate that you do increase revenue.

    I don't think we should raise taxes, I think we should keep them the same or even lower them and cut spending.

    Attached Files:

Share This Page