|
|
On October 29 2012 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:
of all the problems in the world...
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. I don't think it's a big problem, other than the fact that our attorney general kinda is ignoring the whole "equal justice under the law" thing.
I just have a real problem with hypocrisy. Uncoincidentally, my favorite liberals and the ones that I enjoy reading are the ones who are entirely intellectually honest with themselves. It's a surprisingly rare quality, not that republicans are much better.
|
On October 29 2012 11:54 Zaqwert wrote:
So voting for Romney because he's white isn't racist? It's only racist if it's anti-black?
Favoring your own race over the other solely on the basis of race seems racist to me.
I hear black people say "Obama better understands the black community and will address my concerns and needs more." and everyone is fine with that, if a white guy said "I think Romney better understands whites and will address my concerns and needs more" that guy would be labeled a racist.
people who talk about white pride, white rights, etc. tend to overwhelmingly be racists.
http://www.reddit.com/r/whiterights
|
On October 29 2012 12:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 12:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 29 2012 11:54 Zaqwert wrote:
So voting for Romney because he's white isn't racist? It's only racist if it's anti-black?
Favoring your own race over the other solely on the basis of race seems racist to me.
I hear black people say "Obama better understands the black community and will address my concerns and needs more." and everyone is fine with that, if a white guy said "I think Romney better understands whites and will address my concerns and needs more" that guy would be labeled a racist. Don't forget that our current attorney general is on record saying that black on white racism isn't actually racism (ie, there is no such thing as reverse discrimination/racism). Awww, is someone afraid of Eric Holder? Let me guess, he's covering his own acts of racism brought about by the blame game of Fast and Furious? We shoulda known he's beet setting this whole thing up from the very beginning........
Actually, I more referring to the Black Panther thing (plus it is an actual quote by Holder).
Fast and Furious is simply a matter of perjury, incompetence, and possibly corruption.
|
On October 29 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote:I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. I don't think it's a big problem, other than the fact that our attorney general kinda is ignoring the whole "equal justice under the law" thing. I just have a real problem with hypocrisy. Uncoincidentally, my favorite liberals and the ones that I enjoy reading are the ones who are entirely intellectually honest with themselves. It's a surprisingly rare quality, not that republicans are much better.
"Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue"-La RocheFoucauld
|
On October 29 2012 12:30 sam!zdat wrote:
I only voted for jill stein because she's black
We both know that we voted for Jill Stein because she was a women, and we are guilty about oppressing them too.
Imagine if Michelle Obama ran for president.
|
oneofthem would like to oppress jill stein a little, I hear
|
I'm actually baffled as to why the Republicans don't win every election in a landslide.
The country is 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative, and most exit polls have not only confirmed this but shown that swing states have a similar composition.
With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have been running center-left candidates since 1968, the Republicans have been running center-right candidates for the same time period.
The problem is that the Republicans just seem to have such a hard time finding good candidates, I mean those stats at the top of my post look so good for Romney, but 70% of moderates and 25% of conservatives are voting Obama, and meanwhile Romney is only getting 5% of liberals.
The country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be, the Republicans just suck at finding candidates who appeal to conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates.
|
because GOP is so schizophrenic, even more so than Dems. Their primary is a farce
|
On October 29 2012 12:40 jalstar wrote:
I'm actually baffled as to why the Republicans don't win every election in a landslide.
The country is 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative, and most exit polls have not only confirmed this but shown that swing states have a similar composition.
With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have been running center-left candidates since 1968, the Republicans have been running center-right candidates for the same time period.
The problem is that the Republicans just seem to have such a hard time finding good candidates, I mean those stats at the top of my post look so good for Romney, but 70% of moderates and 25% of conservatives are voting Obama, and meanwhile Romney is only getting 5% of liberals.
The country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be, the Republicans just suck at finding candidates who appeal to conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates.
My theory is that Republicans are not good at finding and running candidates who are true conservatives and who can properly articulate conservatism to people.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I'd say the social conservative policies may have something to do with it.
|
On October 29 2012 12:40 jalstar wrote:
I'm actually baffled as to why the Republicans don't win every election in a landslide.
The country is 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative, and most exit polls have not only confirmed this but shown that swing states have a similar composition.
With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have been running center-left candidates since 1968, the Republicans have been running center-right candidates for the same time period.
The problem is that the Republicans just seem to have such a hard time finding good candidates, I mean those stats at the top of my post look so good for Romney, but 70% of moderates and 25% of conservatives are voting Obama, and meanwhile Romney is only getting 5% of liberals.
The country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be, the Republicans just suck at finding candidates who appeal to conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates.
Seems kind of silly to quote exit polls as "proof" of anything, but after you were like "this country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be", it became clear that you knew what you were looking for before you even found it.
|
On October 29 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote:I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. I don't think it's a big problem, other than the fact that our attorney general kinda is ignoring the whole "equal justice under the law" thing. I just have a real problem with hypocrisy. Uncoincidentally, my favorite liberals and the ones that I enjoy reading are the ones who are entirely intellectually honest with themselves. It's a surprisingly rare quality, not that republicans are much better.
Stupidity does not discriminate.
|
On October 29 2012 12:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 12:40 jalstar wrote:
I'm actually baffled as to why the Republicans don't win every election in a landslide.
The country is 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative, and most exit polls have not only confirmed this but shown that swing states have a similar composition.
With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have been running center-left candidates since 1968, the Republicans have been running center-right candidates for the same time period.
The problem is that the Republicans just seem to have such a hard time finding good candidates, I mean those stats at the top of my post look so good for Romney, but 70% of moderates and 25% of conservatives are voting Obama, and meanwhile Romney is only getting 5% of liberals.
The country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be, the Republicans just suck at finding candidates who appeal to conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates. Seems kind of silly to quote exit polls as "proof" of anything, but after you were like "this country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be", it became clear that you knew what you were looking for before you even found it.
not just exit polls, check any poll with breakdowns from this election.
also please tell me what i'm looking for lol
|
On October 29 2012 12:50 Souma wrote:
I'd say the social conservative policies may have something to do with it.
^^
I don't think you can be a social conservative and be able to articulate anything honestly and get votes.
|
On October 29 2012 12:56 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 12:52 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 12:40 jalstar wrote:
I'm actually baffled as to why the Republicans don't win every election in a landslide.
The country is 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative, and most exit polls have not only confirmed this but shown that swing states have a similar composition.
With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have been running center-left candidates since 1968, the Republicans have been running center-right candidates for the same time period.
The problem is that the Republicans just seem to have such a hard time finding good candidates, I mean those stats at the top of my post look so good for Romney, but 70% of moderates and 25% of conservatives are voting Obama, and meanwhile Romney is only getting 5% of liberals.
The country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be, the Republicans just suck at finding candidates who appeal to conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates. Seems kind of silly to quote exit polls as "proof" of anything, but after you were like "this country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be", it became clear that you knew what you were looking for before you even found it. not just exit polls, check any poll with breakdowns from this election. also please tell me what i'm looking for lol
There are fundamental problems with how party and identity politics play into the validity of self-identification polling; there are simply too many confounding factors that play into someones decision to self-identify their political leanings, especially come election time. Even the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are thrown around like pejorative bits of slander, though those who partake in these sorts of exchanges likely have absolutely no idea what they are actually talking about. In the end, it doesn't matter; these terms become politically charged and accordingly narrow. Thinking along those lines, amidst the fervor that is election cycle polarization the very truth-bearing consequence of political labeling becomes even more murky, as political ads take liberties with terminology, candidates make short-handed rhetorical plays at rallies, and the overall picture of "conservative" and "liberal" becomes yet another battleground for politicians to fight over. What I'm trying to say is that election cycle data does not necessarily lend itself to extrapolation, and for someone to indict only the liberal media as playing "pretend" reeks of partisan signposting.
|
On October 29 2012 13:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 12:56 jalstar wrote:On October 29 2012 12:52 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 12:40 jalstar wrote:
I'm actually baffled as to why the Republicans don't win every election in a landslide.
The country is 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative, and most exit polls have not only confirmed this but shown that swing states have a similar composition.
With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have been running center-left candidates since 1968, the Republicans have been running center-right candidates for the same time period.
The problem is that the Republicans just seem to have such a hard time finding good candidates, I mean those stats at the top of my post look so good for Romney, but 70% of moderates and 25% of conservatives are voting Obama, and meanwhile Romney is only getting 5% of liberals.
The country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be, the Republicans just suck at finding candidates who appeal to conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates. Seems kind of silly to quote exit polls as "proof" of anything, but after you were like "this country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be", it became clear that you knew what you were looking for before you even found it. not just exit polls, check any poll with breakdowns from this election. also please tell me what i'm looking for lol There are fundamental problems with how party and identity politics play into the validity of self-identification polling; there are simply too many confounding factors that play into someones decision to self-identify their political leanings, especially come election time. Even the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are thrown around like pejorative bits of slander, though those who partake in these sorts of exchanges likely have absolutely no idea what they are actually talking. Thinking along those lines, amidst the fervor that is election cycle polarization the very truth-bearing consequence of political labeling becomes even more murky, as political ads take liberties with terminology, candidates make short-handed rhetorical plays at rallies, and the overall picture of "conservative" and "liberal" becomes yet another battleground for politicians to fight over. What I'm trying to say is that election cycle data does not necessarily lend itself to extrapolation, and for someone to indict only the liberal media as playing "pretend" reeks of partisan signposting.
but i'm liberal.
|
On October 29 2012 12:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 12:40 jalstar wrote:
I'm actually baffled as to why the Republicans don't win every election in a landslide.
The country is 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative, and most exit polls have not only confirmed this but shown that swing states have a similar composition.
With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have been running center-left candidates since 1968, the Republicans have been running center-right candidates for the same time period.
The problem is that the Republicans just seem to have such a hard time finding good candidates, I mean those stats at the top of my post look so good for Romney, but 70% of moderates and 25% of conservatives are voting Obama, and meanwhile Romney is only getting 5% of liberals.
The country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be, the Republicans just suck at finding candidates who appeal to conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates. My theory is that Republicans are not good at finding and running candidates who are true conservatives and who can properly articulate conservatism to people.
I'm not conservative, but I agree with this. It wasn't until I heard someone (not a politician) describe what conservatism was about that I actually had any respect for conservatives. I used to think they were racists who hated poor people.
Turns out they actually have reasons for believing what they do.
|
On October 29 2012 13:10 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 13:08 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 12:56 jalstar wrote:On October 29 2012 12:52 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 12:40 jalstar wrote:
I'm actually baffled as to why the Republicans don't win every election in a landslide.
The country is 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative, and most exit polls have not only confirmed this but shown that swing states have a similar composition.
With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have been running center-left candidates since 1968, the Republicans have been running center-right candidates for the same time period.
The problem is that the Republicans just seem to have such a hard time finding good candidates, I mean those stats at the top of my post look so good for Romney, but 70% of moderates and 25% of conservatives are voting Obama, and meanwhile Romney is only getting 5% of liberals.
The country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be, the Republicans just suck at finding candidates who appeal to conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates. Seems kind of silly to quote exit polls as "proof" of anything, but after you were like "this country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be", it became clear that you knew what you were looking for before you even found it. not just exit polls, check any poll with breakdowns from this election. also please tell me what i'm looking for lol There are fundamental problems with how party and identity politics play into the validity of self-identification polling; there are simply too many confounding factors that play into someones decision to self-identify their political leanings, especially come election time. Even the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are thrown around like pejorative bits of slander, though those who partake in these sorts of exchanges likely have absolutely no idea what they are actually talking. Thinking along those lines, amidst the fervor that is election cycle polarization the very truth-bearing consequence of political labeling becomes even more murky, as political ads take liberties with terminology, candidates make short-handed rhetorical plays at rallies, and the overall picture of "conservative" and "liberal" becomes yet another battleground for politicians to fight over. What I'm trying to say is that election cycle data does not necessarily lend itself to extrapolation, and for someone to indict only the liberal media as playing "pretend" reeks of partisan signposting. but i'm liberal.
I never said you weren't  I'm simply suggesting that you may be looking in the wrong places for the wrong things.
|
I just want to let everybody know that I made my facebook status, "Hurricane Sandy has got to have something to do with Obama being a communist". A lot of people liked it, but only about half knew I was kidding.
|
I'm surprised the democrats ever have a competitive election. I mean the religious right is the core of the party. its what fires up the campaign and keeps it going in the hard times. Romney is a frigin Mormon and if you ask any religious person deep in the conservative base you'll find a lot of paranoia and distrust of mormans. but the democrats have never used that. They could peel off religious people from the republicans by showing how a lot of the religious people in the republican party make them look bad and are extremists. Hit the social part of the issues and get people thinking that the religious right is the part of hate and ignorance while the religious left is about love and caring for people like what Christ does in the bible instead of the old testimate stuff that the right does.
But no. we get Romney as a serious threat to be president, libs being hugely hostile and combatant twords religious issues and the republicans get to keep their base and not really have to give a shit about them because they know the libs won't know what to do about it to begin with.
No one wants to vote for romney its just that they'd rather have a red guy in the white house then a blue guy. Our political system sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
