What did Obama supporters actually win?

[T-Bone]

Well of course they get a......

http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

Although not a fan of the President, I do believe in honest criticism. The free phone program started in 1984 during the Reagan administration. At that time it was for subsidized landlines. In 2008 it was expanded (under Bush) to include cellphones. While the current administration has done nothing to curtail the program, they didn't invent or institute it.

The administration has given us plenty to criticize and disagree with. But by focusing on untrue or irrelevant issues (are you listening birthers?) we (conservatives) have marginalized our voice with the undecided middle. That's one of the big reasons the current administration was re-elected.

Hey, I was just answering one part of the thread's question...I don't care who started the program.

 

[T-Bone]

I don't believe the focus is on who started or who even expanded it. The focus should be on who is getting the credit for it and who is the one that is being expected to continue to give away a free ride.

On the contrary. Romney played the nice guy. He could have been combative and wasn't. In fact, Obama was the one who was combative... the man who focused on the "untrue or irrelevant issues".

AND HE GOT ELECTED. Your logic fails.

Remember "Romnesia"? How about "liar" and the "one point" plan? How the president's talk of "revenge"?

Could you cite the "untrue or irrelevant issues" about Romney that Obama focused on that got him elected? The fact is that he was no more or less dishonest than Romney. What got him re-elected was the 1/3 in the middle that is neither democrat or republican. Those people are the ones who don't want to be associated with extremist arguments. And, given the fact that the general make-up of our government didn't change at all, those are the ones who seem to be pretty happy with the way things are. Otherwise we would have seen a different result yesterday.

Face it, the 1/3 in the middle don't want to see time wasted on arguing over birth certificates or college transcripts. They want to see politicians working to make their lives better. Obama did a better job of selling that message than Romney. It wasn't enough to not be Obama, because the middle doesn't see him as the disaster that the far right has painted him to be.

So the "middle 1/3" are immoral idiots...what's your point?

 

[rsc2a]

So what are the differences?

Obama is a radical liberal that believes in social justice. When I say "social justice"... this would include the advancement of the poor and minorities regardless of merit and at the expense of those who who have proven themselves.
Obama is a radical liberal that refuses to compromise any part of his belief systems to embrace 48 percent of the electorate that voted against him
Obama is a radical liberal that added almost 6 trillion dollars of debt without any thought of its consequences
Obama is a radical liberal that will appoint radical liberal judges to the Supreme court.

Can you say that Romney is any of these?

Two ways I'm going to do this:

- Romney is a radical liberal that believes in social justice. When I say "social justice"... this would include the advancement of the poor and minorities regardless of merit and at the expense of those who who have proven themselves. In fact, he stated repeatedly that he would not raise taxes on the middle or lower class. He also refused to name a single social program he would cut while he did mention several he would increase funding on.
- Romney is a radical liberal that refuses to compromise any part of his belief systems to embrace 48 percent of the electorate that voted against him. He got less than 30% of the hispanic vote and women voted against him nearly 2 to 1 because they felt like he offered nothing to them.
- Romney is a radical liberal that added almost 6 trillion dollars of debt without any thought of its consequences. In fact, the budgets he proposed continued to rely on borrowed funds for years and years and years.
- Romney is a radical liberal that will appoint radical liberal judges to the Supreme court. They just happen to be a different flavor of "liberal" in that they would have the government regulate different things.

and

- Jesus is a radical that believes in social justice. When I say "social justice"... this would include the advancement of the poor and minorities regardless of merit and at the expense of those who who have proven themselves.
- Jesus is a radical that refuses to compromise any part of his belief systems to embrace 48 percent of the electorate that voted against him
- Jesus is a radical that would appoint radical liberal judges to the Supreme court.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]On the contrary. Romney played the nice guy. He could have been combative and wasn't. In fact, Obama was the one who was combative...AND HE GOT ELECTED...[/quote]

On this, I would agree with you.

[quote author=christundivided]...the man who focused on the "untrue or irrelevant issues". [/quote]

Which one? Because I saw a lot of this going on from both sides.

 

[wheatpenny]

Looks like the "anyone but Obama" strategy failed (for the same reason that the "anyone but Bush" strategy failed in 2004).  The other side seriously underestimated the incumbent (and his support base), and mistakenly thought that he was unpopular enough that anyone at all would be able to defeat him, so they foolishly let their guard down just enough for the incumbent to win.

 

[rsc2a]

Could you cite the "untrue or irrelevant issues" about Romney that Obama focused on that got him elected? The fact is that he was no more or less dishonest than Romney. What got him re-elected was the 1/3 in the middle that is neither democrat or republican. Those people are the ones who don't want to be associated with extremist arguments. And, given the fact that the general make-up of our government didn't change at all, those are the ones who seem to be pretty happy with the way things are. Otherwise we would have seen a different result yesterday.

Face it, the 1/3 in the middle don't want to see time wasted on arguing over birth certificates or college transcripts. They want to see politicians working to make their lives better. Obama did a better job of selling that message than Romney. It wasn't enough to not be Obama, because the middle doesn't see him as the disaster that the far right has painted him to be.

So the "middle 1/3" are immoral idiots...what's your point?

How in the world did you get that from sam's comments?

 

[Izdaari]

Romney was actually a pretty strong candidate, and he ran as well with white men and white married women as any Republican could expect. And he ran better with seniors than Republicans normally do.

But blacks, latinos and under-30's each constituted about 2% more of the electorate than Republicans were expecting. And Romney ran very poorly with all of them. He also ran poorly with single women. We didn't think the 2008 turnout model would repeat. But it did, and it seems to be the "new normal". That was what made the difference.

Republicans have been coasting for several elections now, relying on higher white turnout. It won't work anymore, the GOP must adapt or die. Time to re-evaluate the coalition.

Oh, and Sandy didn't help either. It stalled Romney's momentum, gave Obama a great chance to look presidential and bipartisan, and buried the Benghazi story.

 

[christundivided]

Could you cite the "untrue or irrelevant issues" about Romney that Obama focused on that got him elected?

Did you even pay attention to the race?

1. How about constantly bashing Romney for being a "rich guy"? that is supposedly out of touch with the common man?

Do you think this "irrelevant"? I certainly do?

Was it "untrue". Yes. It wasn't honest at all. In fact, is a lie.

2. How about "Romniesa"? Was that irrelevant? "Untrue".

I'm telling you Romney is a classy guy. After what the Obama campaign did to get reelected..... I would have never been as nice to Obama as Romney was in his concession speech.

The list could go on and on but just deal with these two.... would you?

The fact is that he was no more or less dishonest than Romney. What got him re-elected was the 1/3 in the middle that is neither democrat or republican. Those people are the ones who don't want to be associated with extremist arguments. And, given the fact that the general make-up of our government didn't change at all, those are the ones who seem to be pretty happy with the way things are. Otherwise we would have seen a different result yesterday.

Spoken like a true democrat that is trying to defend a horrible choice in voting for a moron that will never compromise. NEVER.

Face it, the 1/3 in the middle don't want to see time wasted on arguing over birth certificates or college transcripts. They want to see politicians working to make their lives better. Obama did a better job of selling that message than Romney. It wasn't enough to not be Obama, because the middle doesn't see him as the disaster that the far right has painted him to be.

So Obama made your life better the last 4 years. Pray tell.... Can you be specific on how you're doing better? I'm sure all of us would love to hear a success story.

Romney never said one thing about a "birth certicate". Romney never said one thing about "college transscripts". NEVER.

Now if you want to include everything that Romney supporters included in their argument..... By all means... PLAY IT FAIR. Include what OBAMA SUPPORTERS INCLUDED IN THEIR ARGUMENT.

 

[christundivided]

So what are the differences?

Obama is a radical liberal that believes in social justice. When I say "social justice"... this would include the advancement of the poor and minorities regardless of merit and at the expense of those who who have proven themselves.
Obama is a radical liberal that refuses to compromise any part of his belief systems to embrace 48 percent of the electorate that voted against him
Obama is a radical liberal that added almost 6 trillion dollars of debt without any thought of its consequences
Obama is a radical liberal that will appoint radical liberal judges to the Supreme court.

Can you say that Romney is any of these?

Two ways I'm going to do this:

- Romney is a radical liberal that believes in social justice. When I say "social justice"... this would include the advancement of the poor and minorities regardless of merit and at the expense of those who who have proven themselves. In fact, he stated repeatedly that he would not raise taxes on the middle or lower class. He also refused to name a single social program he would cut while he did mention several he would increase funding on.
- Romney is a radical liberal that refuses to compromise any part of his belief systems to embrace 48 percent of the electorate that voted against him. He got less than 30% of the hispanic vote and women voted against him nearly 2 to 1 because they felt like he offered nothing to them.
- Romney is a radical liberal that added almost 6 trillion dollars of debt without any thought of its consequences. In fact, the budgets he proposed continued to rely on borrowed funds for years and years and years.
- Romney is a radical liberal that will appoint radical liberal judges to the Supreme court. They just happen to be a different flavor of "liberal" in that they would have the government regulate different things.

You really are pitiful. You asked how they are different and then give NO RESPONSE as to how they are actually the same. In fact.... your statements prove they are different.

- Jesus is a radical that believes in social justice. When I say "social justice"... this would include the advancement of the poor and minorities regardless of merit and at the expense of those who who have proven themselves.
- Jesus is a radical that refuses to compromise any part of his belief systems to embrace 48 percent of the electorate that voted against him
- Jesus is a radical that would appoint radical liberal judges to the Supreme court.

- Wrong. Jesus never taught such. Never. Prove it. I can list DOZENS of scriptures that prove you WRONG. I'm sure you know them. You just choose to ignore them.
- Wrong. Do you even remember that Christ died for the ungodly. Do you even remember Christ despised the shame brought upon him by the cross? Do you even know what "despise means? It was contrary to His divine nature to accept punishment for SIN. Did he even "know" the affects of SIN until he submitted Himself to the cross?
- Wrong. Jesus did appoint judges or do you even remember the scriptures? Ever read the book of "JUDGES"?????????? How about the Kings of Israel? Know anything about them?

Name one liberal Judge God appointed. Just one.

 

[christundivided]

Romney was actually a pretty strong candidate, and he ran as well with white men and white married women as any Republican could expect. And he ran better with seniors than Republicans normally do.

But blacks, latinos and under-30's each constituted about 2% more of the electorate than Republicans were expecting. And Romney ran very poorly with all of them. He also ran poorly with single women. We didn't think the 2008 turnout model would repeat. But it did, and it seems to be the "new normal". That was what made the difference.

Republicans have been coasting for several elections now, relying on higher white turnout. It won't work anymore, the GOP must adapt or die. Time to re-evaluate the coalition.

Oh, and Sandy didn't help either. It stalled Romney's momentum, gave Obama a great chance to look presidential and bipartisan, and buried the Benghazi story.

I hear you. I can accept this to some degree but the reason Romney lost was that Republicans did not vote. If 90 percent of Republicans had voted for Romney. He would be the next President. This is espically true in the states that nailed Romney's chances. Iowa and Colorado. If Romeny had won Iowa and Colorado.... we still wouldn't know who would be the next President.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]You really are pitiful. You asked how they are different and then give NO RESPONSE as to how they are actually the same. In fact.... your statements prove they are different.[/quote]

Did you even read what I wrote?

[quote author=christundivided]

- Jesus is a radical that believes in social justice. When I say "social justice"... this would include the advancement of the poor and minorities regardless of merit and at the expense of those who who have proven themselves.
- Jesus is a radical that refuses to compromise any part of his belief systems to embrace 48 percent of the electorate that voted against him
- Jesus is a radical that would appoint radical liberal judges to the Supreme court.

- Wrong. Jesus never taught such. Never. Prove it. I can list DOZENS of scriptures that prove you WRONG. I'm sure you know them. You just choose to ignore them.
- Wrong. Do you even remember that Christ died for the ungodly. Do you even remember Christ despised the shame brought upon him by the cross? Do you even know what "despise means? It was contrary to His divine nature to accept punishment for SIN. Did he even "know" the affects of SIN until he submitted Himself to the cross?
- Wrong. Jesus did appoint judges or do you even remember the scriptures? Ever read the book of "JUDGES"?????????? How about the Kings of Israel? Know anything about them?

Name one liberal Judge God appointed. Just one.[/quote]

1 - Jesus never taught we should care for the poor? Really? As far as Scripture, it never said we should care for the poor? I would absolutely love to see your "dozens" of Scripture references because they are non-existent. While you are at it, read about the gleaning laws, the first part of Isaiah, the entire book of Amos, parts of Jeremiah, the beatitudes, large selections in Paul's writings, and the book of James.

Also, isn't the entire point of the cross "the advancement of the poor and minorities regardless of merit and at the expense of those who who have proven themselves"?

2- Ahh...I forgot how well He got along with the Pharisees and Sadducees.

3- For you to try to base your claim in the kings of Israel is amusing. There were kings of all stripes and flavors.

lib

 

[samspade]

Could you cite the "untrue or irrelevant issues" about Romney that Obama focused on that got him elected?

Did you even pay attention to the race?

1. How about constantly bashing Romney for being a "rich guy"? that is supposedly out of touch with the common man?

Do you think this "irrelevant"? I certainly do?

Was it "untrue". Yes. It wasn't honest at all. In fact, is a lie.

2. How about "Romniesa"? Was that irrelevant? "Untrue".

I'm telling you Romney is a classy guy. After what the Obama campaign did to get reelected..... I would have never been as nice to Obama as Romney was in his concession speech.

The list could go on and on but just deal with these two.... would you?

The fact is that he was no more or less dishonest than Romney. What got him re-elected was the 1/3 in the middle that is neither democrat or republican. Those people are the ones who don't want to be associated with extremist arguments. And, given the fact that the general make-up of our government didn't change at all, those are the ones who seem to be pretty happy with the way things are. Otherwise we would have seen a different result yesterday.

Spoken like a true democrat that is trying to defend a horrible choice in voting for a moron that will never compromise. NEVER.

Face it, the 1/3 in the middle don't want to see time wasted on arguing over birth certificates or college transcripts. They want to see politicians working to make their lives better. Obama did a better job of selling that message than Romney. It wasn't enough to not be Obama, because the middle doesn't see him as the disaster that the far right has painted him to be.

So Obama made your life better the last 4 years. Pray tell.... Can you be specific on how you're doing better? I'm sure all of us would love to hear a success story.

Romney never said one thing about a "birth certicate". Romney never said one thing about "college transscripts". NEVER.

Now if you want to include everything that Romney supporters included in their argument..... By all means... PLAY IT FAIR. Include what OBAMA SUPPORTERS INCLUDED IN THEIR ARGUMENT.

I would argue that, to a lot of voters, Romney's socio-economic status did matter. While I don't agree, a lot of people feel that someone born into great wealth can't identify with their day to day struggles. Instead of running from the label, perhaps he should have embraced it (since it is true) and pointed out all the advantages that it would have given him as president in dealing with the huge corporation that is our federal government.

I assume from your posts that you're a young man with great passion for your country. That's why you seem to read things into posts that aren't there. I never said I was a democrat. I never said I voted for the president. I just pointed out that Romney lost the undecided middle and theorized that a lot of those people were turned off by the inane attacks from the far right over Obama's birth certificate, college transcripts, muslim religion, etc.

To clarify: I never said I was better off now than 4 years ago. I said that Obama did a better job of convincing the undecided voters that they are. Do I believe I am? No. Do I think our country is? No. Do I think Obama is leading us in the wrong direction? Absolutely. Do I think this spells the end of the United States? Not necessarily.

And here is where I think we really disagree. You seem to believe that Obama is evil incarnate. I don't. I think he is a misguided individual with a different world view than me. That may make him wrong, but it doesn't make him satan. Frankly, the biggest problem with politics right now (IMO) is this idea that some politicians or parties are always right while others are always wrong. That is a very immature viewpoint and won't allow our leaders to work together to solve anything. Someone cited Reagan earlier as a great leader, and he was. But if you go back and look at history, you'll see that his greatness came from his ability to hold firm where he needed to but compromise where he could. No one in Washington seems to have that ability anymore. Obama has not been a good president because he's been unwilling to compromise. Congress has been equally worthless for the same reason. And they are that way because we, the voters, won't allow them the freedom to work together.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=samspade]And here is where I think we really disagree. You seem to believe that Obama is evil incarnate. I don't. I think he is a misguided individual with a different world view than me. That may make him wrong, but it doesn't make him satan.[/quote]

+1

 

[Castor Muscular]

What did Obama supporters win?  Everything, I hope. 

I hope the GOP rubber stamps absolutely everything the Dems/Marxists put forward.  Raise taxes as high as they want.  Raise the debt ceiling as high as they want.  Want to make the price of electricity skyrocket?  Be my guest!  Kill coal plants with regulations, go ahead.  Force us to use green energy.  Take over health care completely.  Let the death panels reign!  Gay marriage everywhere.  Free abortions with no parental consent.  Anyone who wants food stamps and welfare get's them.  No work requirements.  Free money for Obama's campaign contributors.  Justice?  Who needs it?  Let Eric Holder decide what justice means. 

I want the GOP to be the party of "Yes, Dear, whatever you say dear.  No, we do NOT stand for any of this, we're just accepting the fact that this is what the people voted for.  Now eat it."

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=samspade]And here is where I think we really disagree. You seem to believe that Obama is evil incarnate. I don't. I think he is a misguided individual with a different world view than me. That may make him wrong, but it doesn't make him satan.

+1
[/quote]

Sam claims I read too much in what he said and then claims I believe Obama is satan.... There you go. You and rsca +1 one another to your hearts content.

I don't believe he is satan. I do believe is doing satan's work. He is not alone. Some "baptist" are as well. Some "christians" are as well.

Obama is a at best a mediocre intellect that believes he is smarter than anyone else.

 

[christundivided]

What did Obama supporters win?  Everything, I hope. 

I hope the GOP rubber stamps absolutely everything the Dems/Marxists put forward.  Raise taxes as high as they want.  Raise the debt ceiling as high as they want.  Want to make the price of electricity skyrocket?  Be my guest!  Kill coal plants with regulations, go ahead.  Force us to use green energy.  Take over health care completely.  Let the death panels reign!  Gay marriage everywhere.  Free abortions with no parental consent.  Anyone who wants food stamps and welfare get's them.  No work requirements.  Free money for Obama's campaign contributors.  Justice?  Who needs it?  Let Eric Holder decide what justice means. 

I want the GOP to be the party of "Yes, Dear, whatever you say dear.  No, we do NOT stand for any of this, we're just accepting the fact that this is what the people voted for.  Now eat it."

I agree completely. Give them everything they want. In fact, don't even read the bills. Just let the senate and Obama pass anything they want.

Who will they blame when it call comes crashing down?

 

[christundivided]

Someone cited Reagan earlier as a great leader, and he was. But if you go back and look at history, you'll see that his greatness came from his ability to hold firm where he needed to but compromise where he could. No one in Washington seems to have that ability anymore. Obama has not been a good president because he's been unwilling to compromise. Congress has been equally worthless for the same reason. And they are that way because we, the voters, won't allow them the freedom to work together.

and you greatly misunderstand me.

I can't see how in the world anyone wouldn't believe that Romney wouldn't compromise. He would. That is why I supported him.

Oh well. Its just another liberal tard running the country again. He'll never be considered a great President. Never.

 

[samspade]

Someone cited Reagan earlier as a great leader, and he was. But if you go back and look at history, you'll see that his greatness came from his ability to hold firm where he needed to but compromise where he could. No one in Washington seems to have that ability anymore. Obama has not been a good president because he's been unwilling to compromise. Congress has been equally worthless for the same reason. And they are that way because we, the voters, won't allow them the freedom to work together.

and you greatly misunderstand me.

I apologize for misunderstanding/overstating what you believe.

[/quote]
I can't see how in the world anyone wouldn't believe that Romney wouldn't compromise. He would. That is why I supported him.

Oh well. Its just another liberal tard running the country again. He'll never be considered a great President. Never.
[/quote]

I never said Romney wouldn't compromise. That's why I voted for him also. And as to the bolded part of your statement, we are in complete agreement on that.

 

[The Real Bob]

[quote author=christundivided]Four more years of what?

Unity

[quote author=Timothy]economic growth, and the creation of jobs.[/quote]

Please tell me you're joking.



We get -

- four more years of war mongering
- four more years of our civil rights being trampled on
- four more years of government interference in religion
- four more years of corporate welfare
- four more years of deficits
- four more years of sanctioned torture, murder of American citizens, and drone strikes
- four more years of manipulation via taxes
- four more years of government intrusion into my doctor appt
- four more years of federal government intrusion into my kids' school
- four more years of a failed war on drugs
- four more years of partisan politics
- four more years of big government

...in summary, we get four more years of what we would have gotten even if Romney had been elected.
[/quote]

Actually, we get 4 more years of OBama doing whatever he wants via Executive orders by-passing the legislative branch and the US Constitution because there is no-one in the legislative branch with the b***s  to impeach the b*****d.

 

[brianb]

Relative to the 2008 election Obama lost a very significant number of voters. Some of them voted for Romney and other candidates (and all the other candidates put together didn't even garner 5% of the votes) but I believe there were a significant number that were undecided or didn't vote at all.