|
|
On November 11 2012 12:41 NicolBolas wrote:
Keep dreaming while your party sinks. Conservatives have always been wrong on social issues.
stopped reading right here. if you're not interested in actual discussion than I'm not going to read what you write, and will probably just use that one tool to ignore your posts.
|
then we shouldn't make it possible for them to be obstructionist in that way. you can only play the game you are given
|
On November 11 2012 12:43 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. Do not try to speak for all conservatives, I'm sure they don't all share your views. Large groups turned to Romney pure for issues like gay marriage. Your idea of compromise is getting whatever you want. I'm sorry but the party in power is supposed to get "most" of what they want, they are given that mandate by the people. Denying them that is obstruction.
1) the people voted in the House again.
2) I can speak for conservatives much better than you, or any other liberal.
3) we obviously have very different definitions of compromise. conservatives haven't gotten all that much lately.
|
On November 11 2012 12:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks. we don't need to get a majority, we just need to get more than we got. if Romney had picked up 10% more Hispanics and 3% more blacks, we would have won this thing by a landslide. (and I don't support picking candidates just for their skin color, but at the same time, a big complaint from liberals is that we're too white. well, highlighting the fact that there ARE successful, Republican conservatives who aren't white is not a bad thing, and isn't racist either.) Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. Not to mention this election cycle you would have needed to win the popular vote by at least 1.5%, probably more. hmm... lets see: 10% of Hispanics is 1.2 million. that would bring Romney up to about 59.7 million, and Barack down to 60.6 million. 5% of blacks is 780,000, which would give Romney about 60.5 million and bring Barack down to 50.9 million. that's getting very close to a win. so yes, 5% more blacks instead of 3%. You said landslide, now you have to revise your numbers just to make it a win. Why bother responding with this instead of accepting you were wrong on an irrelevant topic. and if the 3 million Republicans that stayed home would show up? that would make it a landslide even with the 3%. and I think they would have if Romney had been better at presenting himself, or if we had gone with someone like Huntsman.
lol what? This is the same stupid shit you were pulling in our last argument. Got called out? Add in some random non-sense.
If every republican that's ever died gets reborn and votes, it'd be an even bigger landslide. If every Canadian is given American citizenship votes republican, it'd be an ever bigger landslide. SO WHAT? You were wrong, deal with it.
|
On November 11 2012 12:46 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks. we don't need to get a majority, we just need to get more than we got. if Romney had picked up 10% more Hispanics and 3% more blacks, we would have won this thing by a landslide. (and I don't support picking candidates just for their skin color, but at the same time, a big complaint from liberals is that we're too white. well, highlighting the fact that there ARE successful, Republican conservatives who aren't white is not a bad thing, and isn't racist either.) Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. Not to mention this election cycle you would have needed to win the popular vote by at least 1.5%, probably more. hmm... lets see: 10% of Hispanics is 1.2 million. that would bring Romney up to about 59.7 million, and Barack down to 60.6 million. 5% of blacks is 780,000, which would give Romney about 60.5 million and bring Barack down to 50.9 million. that's getting very close to a win. so yes, 5% more blacks instead of 3%. You said landslide, now you have to revise your numbers just to make it a win. Why bother responding with this instead of accepting you were wrong on an irrelevant topic. and if the 3 million Republicans that stayed home would show up? that would make it a landslide even with the 3%. and I think they would have if Romney had been better at presenting himself, or if we had gone with someone like Huntsman. lol what? This is the same stupid shit you were pulling in our last argument. Got called out? Add in some random non-sense. If every republican that's ever died gets reborn and votes, it'd be an even bigger landslide. If every Canadian is given American citizenship votes republican, it'd be an ever bigger landslide. SO WHAT? You were wrong, deal with it.
why are you so insulting? let me quote you for a moment:
Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory.
yes it would have been, even with the 3%. so you were wrong too. but was I a dick about it? nope.
and it is not ridiculous to expect that 3 million Republicans who voted for McCain might have, just maybe, shown up this time if they thought their options were better.
edit: just wanted to highlight that you were, you know, wrong.
|
On November 11 2012 12:41 NicolBolas wrote:
I wasn't talking about just that point; I was talking about the entire paragraph. The stuff that makes it centrist is the "the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income" part. That is not a fiscal conservative position. So you're not just talking about shifting rhetoric; you're talking about an actual change in position.
There's nothing about being fiscally conservative that precludes someone from supporting a progressive tax code.
|
On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question.
That's the point: social conservative ideas are out of the question. They have been categorically rejected by history. The country as a whole does not want them.
If the Republican party wants to survive, then it needs to kick them to the curb.
On November 11 2012 12:43 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. Do not try to speak for all conservatives, I'm sure they don't all share your views. Large groups turned to Romney pure for issues like gay marriage. Your idea of compromise is getting whatever you want. I'm sorry but the party in power is supposed to get "most" of what they want, they are given that mandate by the people. Denying them that is obstruction.
I disagree. A bit. I disagree that 'is supposed to get "most" of what they want'
The way it's supposed to work is that the majority works with the minority and they build legislation together. The majority gets more out of the compromise, as they don't need much of the minority to get things done.
The problem is that the Republicans are willing to basically hold the system itself hostage. They're willing to use their power to say, "We want X, and nothing will happen at all until we get it." There's no dialog. No compromise. No reasonable, rational debate. No sense that any Republican will cross the isle for almost any issue.
When one side isn't willing to have negotiations in good faith, the system doesn't work.
|
On November 11 2012 12:50 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. That's the point: social conservative ideas are out of the question. They have been categorically rejected by history. The country as a whole does not want them. If the Republican party wants to survive, then it needs to kick them to the curb.
yeah we'll really do well by kicking out the majority of our base....
I can see why you're not a politician... lol
|
On November 11 2012 12:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:43 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. Do not try to speak for all conservatives, I'm sure they don't all share your views. Large groups turned to Romney pure for issues like gay marriage. Your idea of compromise is getting whatever you want. I'm sorry but the party in power is supposed to get "most" of what they want, they are given that mandate by the people. Denying them that is obstruction. 1) the people voted in the House again. 2) I can speak for conservatives much better than you, or any other liberal. 3) we obviously have very different definitions of compromise. conservatives haven't gotten all that much lately.
1)
R - 53,822,442 - 48.5%
D - 54,301,095 - 48.8%
2) You are pretty good at mirroring Republican talk radio and Fox News, but you're far outside of why most people vote Republican
3) Republicans have gotten a lot lately, it's just that what they got turned out to be full of shit. Debt ceiling crap, the individual mandate on health insurance (which was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation, of all places), and extended tax cuts for the top bracket. Doesn't take long to see that everything they've done in the name of "compromise" has hurt the U.S., and you somehow expect us to give them more control.
|
On November 11 2012 12:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:46 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks. we don't need to get a majority, we just need to get more than we got. if Romney had picked up 10% more Hispanics and 3% more blacks, we would have won this thing by a landslide. (and I don't support picking candidates just for their skin color, but at the same time, a big complaint from liberals is that we're too white. well, highlighting the fact that there ARE successful, Republican conservatives who aren't white is not a bad thing, and isn't racist either.) Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. Not to mention this election cycle you would have needed to win the popular vote by at least 1.5%, probably more. hmm... lets see: 10% of Hispanics is 1.2 million. that would bring Romney up to about 59.7 million, and Barack down to 60.6 million. 5% of blacks is 780,000, which would give Romney about 60.5 million and bring Barack down to 50.9 million. that's getting very close to a win. so yes, 5% more blacks instead of 3%. You said landslide, now you have to revise your numbers just to make it a win. Why bother responding with this instead of accepting you were wrong on an irrelevant topic. and if the 3 million Republicans that stayed home would show up? that would make it a landslide even with the 3%. and I think they would have if Romney had been better at presenting himself, or if we had gone with someone like Huntsman. lol what? This is the same stupid shit you were pulling in our last argument. Got called out? Add in some random non-sense. If every republican that's ever died gets reborn and votes, it'd be an even bigger landslide. If every Canadian is given American citizenship votes republican, it'd be an ever bigger landslide. SO WHAT? You were wrong, deal with it. why are you so insulting? let me quote you for a moment: yes it would have been, even with the 3%. so you were wrong too. but was I a dick about it? nope. and it is not ridiculous to expect that 3 million Republicans who voted for McCain might have, just maybe, shown up this time if they thought their options were better.
You: It would have been a landslide if we got 10% more latino 3% more black
Me: Wrong
You: Well, if we got 5% more black we would've won
Me: 5% just to win? I thought 3% for landslide
You: Well if we got the 3 million that stayed home, it would've been a landslide
Do you not see how ridiculous this is? I'm sorry I cannot talk to you properly, everything you say makes me cringe.
P.S. I was not wrong, I interpret 10% more as 70vs30 to 65vs35.
|
On November 11 2012 12:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:43 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. Do not try to speak for all conservatives, I'm sure they don't all share your views. Large groups turned to Romney pure for issues like gay marriage. Your idea of compromise is getting whatever you want. I'm sorry but the party in power is supposed to get "most" of what they want, they are given that mandate by the people. Denying them that is obstruction. 1) the people voted in the House again. 2) I can speak for conservatives much better than you, or any other liberal. 3) we obviously have very different definitions of compromise. conservatives haven't gotten all that much lately.
Bullshit. "Obamacare" was supposed to be single-payer. That died thanks to compromises with conservatives. Democrats bent over backwards to get that passed, completely neutering a bill that could have been game-changing in health care.
Trust me, if liberals and centrists really were getting everything they wanted, this would be a very different country.
|
If you don't like talking to him then stop talking to him. Theres a dozen other liberals that circle sc2 whenever he says something hes not going to be lonely in the slightest because of you.
|
On November 11 2012 12:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:50 NicolBolas wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. That's the point: social conservative ideas are out of the question. They have been categorically rejected by history. The country as a whole does not want them. If the Republican party wants to survive, then it needs to kick them to the curb. yeah we'll really do well by kicking out the majority of our base.... I can see why you're not a politician... lol
But progressively and increasingly, republicans will become the minority of the country if the GOP stays so stubborn, with the aide of certain demographic trends. Appeasing in-party values/stances is one thing... but if they can't get you the electoral college, then it's time to play ball and shift gears.
|
On November 11 2012 12:53 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:46 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks. we don't need to get a majority, we just need to get more than we got. if Romney had picked up 10% more Hispanics and 3% more blacks, we would have won this thing by a landslide. (and I don't support picking candidates just for their skin color, but at the same time, a big complaint from liberals is that we're too white. well, highlighting the fact that there ARE successful, Republican conservatives who aren't white is not a bad thing, and isn't racist either.) Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. Not to mention this election cycle you would have needed to win the popular vote by at least 1.5%, probably more. hmm... lets see: 10% of Hispanics is 1.2 million. that would bring Romney up to about 59.7 million, and Barack down to 60.6 million. 5% of blacks is 780,000, which would give Romney about 60.5 million and bring Barack down to 50.9 million. that's getting very close to a win. so yes, 5% more blacks instead of 3%. You said landslide, now you have to revise your numbers just to make it a win. Why bother responding with this instead of accepting you were wrong on an irrelevant topic. and if the 3 million Republicans that stayed home would show up? that would make it a landslide even with the 3%. and I think they would have if Romney had been better at presenting himself, or if we had gone with someone like Huntsman. lol what? This is the same stupid shit you were pulling in our last argument. Got called out? Add in some random non-sense. If every republican that's ever died gets reborn and votes, it'd be an even bigger landslide. If every Canadian is given American citizenship votes republican, it'd be an ever bigger landslide. SO WHAT? You were wrong, deal with it. why are you so insulting? let me quote you for a moment: Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. yes it would have been, even with the 3%. so you were wrong too. but was I a dick about it? nope. and it is not ridiculous to expect that 3 million Republicans who voted for McCain might have, just maybe, shown up this time if they thought their options were better. You: It would have been a landslide if we got 10% more latino 3% more black Me: Wrong You: Well, if we got 5% more black we would've won Me: 5% just to win? I thought 3% for landslide You: Well if we got the 3 million that stayed home, it would've been a landslide Do you not see how ridiculous this is? I'm sorry I cannot talk to you properly, everything you say makes me cringe.
lol, you just ignored that you were wrong when you said it wouldn't give us the win. 10% of Hispanics and 3% of blacks, without anything else, would have given us the popular vote win.
dude, just stop being so insulting. I overestimated, and you underestimated. not a big deal.
|
Completely irrelevent but CNN has now projected that Obama wins Flordia.
|
On November 11 2012 12:57 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:50 NicolBolas wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. That's the point: social conservative ideas are out of the question. They have been categorically rejected by history. The country as a whole does not want them. If the Republican party wants to survive, then it needs to kick them to the curb. yeah we'll really do well by kicking out the majority of our base.... I can see why you're not a politician... lol But progressively and increasingly, republicans will become the minority of the country if the GOP stays so stubborn. Appeasing in-party values/stances is one thing... but if they can't get you the electoral college, then it's time to play ball and shift gears.
I agree with that 100%. we need to shift gears and we need to do it right now.
however, the poster I was quoting seems to suggest that we drop over 30 million voters for..... IDK what he thinks we would get in return but apparently it will help us win...
|
On November 11 2012 12:58 Adreme wrote:
Completely irrelevent but CNN has now projected that Obama wins Flordia.
Another win for Nate Silver!
|
|
|
On November 11 2012 12:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:53 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:46 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks. we don't need to get a majority, we just need to get more than we got. if Romney had picked up 10% more Hispanics and 3% more blacks, we would have won this thing by a landslide. (and I don't support picking candidates just for their skin color, but at the same time, a big complaint from liberals is that we're too white. well, highlighting the fact that there ARE successful, Republican conservatives who aren't white is not a bad thing, and isn't racist either.) Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. Not to mention this election cycle you would have needed to win the popular vote by at least 1.5%, probably more. hmm... lets see: 10% of Hispanics is 1.2 million. that would bring Romney up to about 59.7 million, and Barack down to 60.6 million. 5% of blacks is 780,000, which would give Romney about 60.5 million and bring Barack down to 50.9 million. that's getting very close to a win. so yes, 5% more blacks instead of 3%. You said landslide, now you have to revise your numbers just to make it a win. Why bother responding with this instead of accepting you were wrong on an irrelevant topic. and if the 3 million Republicans that stayed home would show up? that would make it a landslide even with the 3%. and I think they would have if Romney had been better at presenting himself, or if we had gone with someone like Huntsman. lol what? This is the same stupid shit you were pulling in our last argument. Got called out? Add in some random non-sense. If every republican that's ever died gets reborn and votes, it'd be an even bigger landslide. If every Canadian is given American citizenship votes republican, it'd be an ever bigger landslide. SO WHAT? You were wrong, deal with it. why are you so insulting? let me quote you for a moment: Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. yes it would have been, even with the 3%. so you were wrong too. but was I a dick about it? nope. and it is not ridiculous to expect that 3 million Republicans who voted for McCain might have, just maybe, shown up this time if they thought their options were better. You: It would have been a landslide if we got 10% more latino 3% more black Me: Wrong You: Well, if we got 5% more black we would've won Me: 5% just to win? I thought 3% for landslide You: Well if we got the 3 million that stayed home, it would've been a landslide Do you not see how ridiculous this is? I'm sorry I cannot talk to you properly, everything you say makes me cringe. lol, you just ignored that you were wrong when you said it wouldn't give us the win. 10% of Hispanics and 3% of blacks, without anything else, would have given us the popular vote win. dude, just stop being so insulting. I overestimated, and you underestimated. not a big deal bra.
Don't care who's wrong, pointing out that you have no idea how to argue properly, you just change the argument every time someone say's you're wrong.
I'm sorry you find me insulting, I find you insulting, stop being insulting.
|
well, yes, I do change my argument when I find out I'm wrong... sorry?
if I'm being insulting I apologize, I'll try to tone it down a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
296
89
83
660
188
91
EPT
