Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Post-Election Observations (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Post-Election Observations
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:

That is the real Romney, that is, he's a shape-shifter from way back. That's why he lost.

I don't think Romney lost because of Romney. He was, frankly, their best shot. I think anybody the GOP had run would have lost. They lost because their crazy ideologies are, for the moment, much scarier than the crazy ideologies on the other side, and they forgot to keep that under control. They ran a moderate, but it couldn't disguise the unpalatable (to the general public) undercurrents of their base.
I agree. The tea party lost this election. Barack Obama did not win it, and Romney did not lose it. Romney might have salvaged it if he'd played up the SSM issue, but he didn't, so to that extent he lost on his timidity.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

"Obama's original comment (that sequestration was Congresses idea) was in response to an assertion that he proposed to make the cuts that would be forced by sequestration."...

Well, he did propose the defense cuts.

I had an interesting discussion with a liberal friend yesterday. He ran unsuccessfully for my State House district (yes, I even voted for him). We compared expectations of the next four years, and he made a stunning statement regarding sequestration. It was Congress that he blamed for "arrogance and vanity" in holding national security/social spending hostage to Super Committee success in budget negotiations. The defense and domestic programs were clearly a Republican/Demoocratic dichotomy in his mind... until I mentioned this very point to him, at which time he lost his cookies. Barry is his hero, and it was obvious to him where the arrogance, and vanity would need to be laid if that indeed was the proper characterization.

The truth is that Obama is using the threat of defense cuts, described as catastrophic by analysts, to leverage concessions from Republicans. It is a bluff, and he said as much in the debate with the "it won't happen" quip, but the game only works if national security cuts were originally *his* idea. It is irresponsible given the stakes over which he now has no constitutional control.

"Do some (potential) lies matter more than others?"...

Of course; what do you imagine matters more in a president's behavior than preserving national security? These cuts embrace more than just the defense budget

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
National security should be one of the lowest priorities of our current President, IMO. We've got plenty.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Viking, I regret confronting you about your deleted post. It seemed unjustified at the time now it seems prescient.

Rissa, If you are going to address specific people please address their specific points. Despite what some people here believe, those who you perceive to be the opposition are not a hive mind. I did not intend to accuse you of having an attitude problem. If I implied it that was just clumsiness on my part while addressing Viking. I did mention “snap judgments” again in reply to Viking not so much as an accusation towards you. It is however true that you have not been here long. Your adversarial posting style did seem to be one typically taken by those more familiar with their “opponents”. Now however I can see you are spoiling for a fight. Nothing wrong with that. But if it even matters to you, know that I assumed this was not the case coming out the gate.

All I can say about your two friends is I think they are both tragically wrong. This is where I earn the label of insensitive lout. My only guess is that the ASL Interpreters waved about their middle fingers disproportionately during their coverage of the debates and stump speeches and your “personal referents” took away the wrong message.

I'm holding my opinion on the Benghazi incident. I will say that even if the president decided it was too dangerous for others to preform a rescue AND intentionally hid that from the public I would still have voted for him. Until I hear confirmation that he could have rescued the personnel, CHOSE not to, intentionally lied to the public, AND had no reason to do so other than political... Well I'm sitting on the side lines.

I'm also dense and wrong, as I demonstrate regularly. I was wrong to attempt to call out someone who looked to be starting a fight with you unprovoked. As you have supplied all the provocation others may require for a confrontation I'll bow out. Wandering into this line of fire has been... entertaining.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Viking is wrong to suggest that this is not a place where it's OK for non-Americans to criticize the US form of government.
I did not make that suggestion.

I find constructive criticism of the US helpful. I find angry agressive nonsensical rants about the US from immigrants living here personally offensive.

I don't speak for the forum, but it is better I not personally engage Rissa.

[ November 10, 2012, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ann Coulter: Don't blame Romney

Ann Coulter has a very nice analysis from a Republican POV. BTW it's not a "the press had it out for us, they cheated!" piece. It's a very calm and reasonable essay.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The author of the article (and the crazy analysts on FOX) still can't believe that people prefer Democrats sometimes.
As in, the Democratic candidate for President has won the popular vote in 5 of the past 6 elections. Even in the newly elected House of Representatives, at least half a million more people have voted for Democratic candidates than Republicans, but due to gerrymandering (and a little bit of small state preference in the allocation of Congressional seats/voter), the result is that the Republicans have a majority of Congressional seats with a minority of voters. And, needless to say, not only do the Democrats have the majority of the Senate, but also more of the seats that represent larger shares of the population, while the 45 Republican Senate seats represent a fraction of the population that is less than 45% of the US.

I bring up this data not to protest how our electoral system works, but instead to focus on the level of ignorance inherent in those who believe that American voters won't prefer Democrats where the evidence in this day and age is overwhelming that in federal elections American voters prefer Democrats with more frequency than they prefer Republicans

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel c,

For purpose of argument, let's take your accusation at face value and assume that Obama should be tagged with blame for an inappropriate $1 trillion in military cuts from sequestration (I don't agree with those premises, but I will stipulate them for the following).

Romney lied about $7 trillion dollars. Where does that money come from? What if it does not emerge, if his $2 trillion in increased military spending would never happen, and an additional $5 trillion disappeared from government receipts due to his 20% tax cut across the board? On what basis are you confident that the additional $5 trillion in never-explained-by-Romney government cuts would not cut the military budget by more than the $1 trillion that you are asserting blame to Obama for?


What is the measure of quantification that you use to determine that an alleged lie/action by Obama amounting to $1 trillion is worse than an alleged lie by Romney amounting to $7 trillion?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Ann Coulter: Don't blame Romney

Ann Coulter has a very nice analysis from a Republican POV. BTW it's not a "the press had it out for us, they cheated!" piece. It's a very calm and reasonable essay.

Oh my gosh, I didn't know I'd ever agree with Ann Coulter's analysis of anything (not that I agree with her positions, only that her analysis is reasoned). Thanks for that. Her analogy to "hipsters not liking a band because it has fans" made me smile.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Ann Coulter: Don't blame Romney

Ann Coulter has a very nice analysis from a Republican POV. BTW it's not a "the press had it out for us, they cheated!" piece. It's a very calm and reasonable essay.

I am surprised to agree with you, and I've never before accused Coulter of being reasonable about anything. In fact, compared to most Obama supporters OR Obama foes foes I know in Vegas, she comes off like THE voice of reason here:

quote:
But I was wrong. Romney was the perfect candidate, and he was the president this country needed right now. It's less disheartening that a president who wrecked American health care, quadrupled gas prices, added $6 trillion to the national debt and gave us an 8 percent unemployment rate can squeak out re-election than that America will never have Romney as our president.
Wow. She liked Romney more than she hated Obama. If only more Americans could make their electoral choices based on principle and affinity rather than by hate and terror.

-----
edited to correct "affiliation" to "affinity" with thanks to JoshCrow.

[ November 10, 2012, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If only more Americans could make their electoral choices based on principle and affiliation rather than by hate and terror.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "affiliation" in this context?
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I like this candidate. He seems like a good person. When he speaks, I trust him."

In retrospect I should have said affinity rather than affiliation.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg and Donald D,

quote:
DonaldD makes the points I would; above and beyond that market-based activity, Rupert Murdoch has been proven to engage in illegal and unethical political manipulation. Since the behavior of News Corp media outlets have the same outside appearances in the UK and the US, and it is proven that they were engaging in inappropriate actions in a hidden way in the UK, you would need to have a pretty strong faith in Rupert Murdoch to believe that he was not acting similarly in the US.
A few observations. It is worth at least considering that, to whatever extent Murdoch has broken the law in wielding political influence, its possibly a sign that he has less power than other media moguls not more -- News Corp. not actually being owned by companies powerful enough to make the law, as are others.

Murdoch's influence among some politicians the UK is longstanding and well-known. I'm not sure he has had the same back-door access in the US. I know of no evidence of that. He may have more opportunity for influence in the UK, perhaps because there his influence is likely more print-based. British television is not the same regulatory territory as the US.

[ November 10, 2012, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is worth at least considering that, to whatever extent Murdoch has broken the law in wielding political influence, its possibly a sign that he has less power than other media moguls not more -- News Corp. not actually being owned by companies powerful enough to make the law, as are others.
Why? Why is it worth considering that? Is there any evidence to support the contention that US media moguls in the US other than Murdoch have engaged in similar behavior?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
Murdoch's influence among some politicians the UK is longstanding and well-known. I'm not sure he has had the same back-door access in the US. I know of no evidence of that. He may have more opportunity for influence in the UK, perhaps because there his influence is likely more print-based. British television is not the same regulatory territory as the US.

Karl Rove would have been one hell of an influence on a Republican administration, what with his roles as Fox News employee, consigliere in the Bush administration, back-door advisor to the Romney campaign, and dispenser of Koch money. The loss of that counted upon influence may explain his stunned reaction to Fox News calling Ohio for Obama.

[ November 11, 2012, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ann Coulter starts off wrong by saying
quote:
Every election predictor was wrong, except one...
She should have said every partisan Republican predictor, since independent (and Democratic) predictors were pretty accurate, perfectly so if you point at Nate, who said on the Colbert Report that basically all he does is add up the polls and divide to get the average. How un-Republican of him!

She uses facts for effect, and predictably (by Independent and Democratic standards [Wink] ) they don't have to be, you know, actual facts:
quote:
quadrupled gas prices,
In my world of simple math, they are less than double ($3.45) what they were when Bush left office ($1.85). Let's ignore that nobody was buying gas at that time because the economy was barely able to crawl on its knees.

No matter how I twist my head or look through a telescope, microscope or prism, I can't get to the place her mind must be in order to make the comment that:
quote:
Indeed, Romney is one of the best presidential candidates the Republicans have ever fielded.
This is true:
quote:
A little less time beating up our candidate in the primaries...
In fact, the ads put out against Romney by Gingrich and statements made by Santorum, Perry and Bachmann were far more vicious (and accurate) than anything Obama or his PACs said about him. For instance, did Obama say there are Venture capitalists and Vulture capitalists and Romney was the latter? Hint: No, it was Gingrich.

I also agree that:
quote:
Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock can be blamed on two very specific people: Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
But, don't ignore that they were supported by their Party up and until they blurted out those reprehensible comments. In other words, until they outed themselves they were fine and respectable Republicans who were solidly supported by Romney and the rest of the Republican establishment.

Are the Republicans capable of heeding her simple advice:
quote:
Don't blow it with purist showoffs next time, Republicans.
It doesn't look like it so far, but we'll have to see how the Rove brain replacements think about what America is and needs by their candidate picks in 2014 and 2016.

[ November 11, 2012, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Ann Coulter starts off wrong by saying
quote:
Every election predictor was wrong, except one...
She should have said every partisan Republican predictor, since independent (and Democratic) predictors were pretty accurate
I should point out that I thought this at first too before I realized she wasn't talking about polls. By "predictor" she meant things like "unemployment being above a certain number" and such. That's why she mentioned the only one that held was that an incumbent usually wins.

In effect, it's flattering to note that Obama won in circumstances that almost entirely bucked historical trends.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good points, especially that I didn't get the predictor thing right. She didn't try to make the case that Obama stole the election. For her, the article actually did show a fair amount of restraint.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Beware the absolutes - words like "every" or "all" - they're usually signs of hyperbole or poetic license.

As an example, total non-farm payroll employment expanded for 25 consecutive months prior to the election. That should realistically be considered an election predictor.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Beware the absolutes - words like "every" or "all" - they're usually signs of hyperbole or poetic license.

As an example, total non-farm payroll employment expanded for 25 consecutive months prior to the election. That should realistically be considered an election predictor.

Well, to be an election predictor you'd have to tie that idea to past elections. That fact taken by itself, while positive for an incumbent, is not itself predictive without election data - particularly in cases that aren't just a subset of incumbency.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The predictor people probably need a new set of predictor metrics, but I think the GOP lost the election because they lost sight of what the voters wanted. Women's issues were collectively important, as was immigration reform. People also seemed to want consistency in government priorities. Romney made the "severe conservative" case that people would far more prefer to pay less in taxes and give up some of the government support. That argument fails to persuade when you recognize that almost of half of people already don't pay any income tax. Cutting their rates doesn't fulfill that promise, not to mention that Romney was vague about how much of the tax cuts he was going to take back by limiting deductions.

Some elections are decided by hope and others by fear. Bush won in 2004 on fear and Obama in 2008 on hope. I think this time around people gave up much of their hope for Obama but feared Romney more. Both Obama and Boehner have conceded that new scenario. What McConnell thinks probably isn't nearly as important, but I don't expect him to be as obstructionist over the next four years.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with you Al, that Obama gave more people more of what they wanted. Not just promises this time either although there are plenty of those. He delivered on amnesty for illegals and "free" birth control. He allowed gays in the military, and nobody doubts his sincerity in promising to raise taxes on the wealthy. He played the race angle with brutal effectiveness. Basically he declared war on straight white men, with the rich ones first in his crosshairs. Given the invitation to pitch in and help such as with shovel ready jobs, this may be seen merely as being presented the opportunity to dig their own graves.

It's going to be interesting to watch what happens now. The thing I find particularly fascinating is the exuberence and confidence exuded by so many Obama supporters, and not the ones here but the ones I see other places on the internet such as the yahoo message boards. They flat out tell it like it is, that the white male has lost power now and will be kicked to the curb while the women and minorities take charge. So the fun thing about that is to watch what happens next. As before, results matter.

Within a few years we will see the results, and with no more room for excuses. You own it. Let's see what you do with it. If Mitt had won, he would have had a real heck of a time turning this ship around. I see Obama thinking that what he has been doing is working and pressing forward with it. Frankly, I have no idea where all of his supporters are getting their optimism.

One other screw in the works is that apparently many of the white males have raised their hands in surrender and are just going to let y'all have your turn. They intend to help as little as possible with what they see as the destruction of a formerly great nation. They don't see the point in pulling the trigger themselves, but no longer have the power to stop it from happening. They say they are tired of carrying everyone else and they'll just sit back, put their feet up, and make the minimum effort. They say they're goign to turtle up. Maybe this is just talk though; again we'll just have to see what happens. It promises to be interesting.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Beware the absolutes - words like "every" or "all" - they're usually signs of hyperbole or poetic license.

As an example, total non-farm payroll employment expanded for 25 consecutive months prior to the election. That should realistically be considered an election predictor.

Well, to be an election predictor you'd have to tie that idea to past elections. That fact taken by itself, while positive for an incumbent, is not itself predictive without election data - particularly in cases that aren't just a subset of incumbency.
My point is that there are any number of things that could be considered as predictors. Picking only a subset that advances one's argument isn't terribly convincing. To be frank, no single predictor, taken on its own, is anything more than a statistical coincidence.

If one is honest about what a "predictor" means, it would require that each predictor (factor) needs to be taken into consideration with all other factors in some form of model, leading to some statistical likelihood. That would require many more variables, and would need to be based on many, many more data sets, to be at all worthwhile.

Taking 3 or 4 such factors out of context is, outside of pure entertainment, fairly useless. Sure, political analysts need something they can easily grab onto in order to provide themselves with a steady income, I get that. But using the word "predictor" is giving a particular fact far more weight than it deserves.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Basically he declared war on straight white men, with the rich ones first in his crosshairs.
As a straight white man who probably could be considered rich, your notion that President Obama has declared war on me is delusional. Obama is representing my values and preferences in serving as the President of the United States.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They flat out tell it like it is, that the white male has lost power now and will be kicked to the curb while the women and minorities take charge.
This overly dramatic narrative of victimization is clearly fictional. Exactly what fraction of the white male population has been kicked to the curb? Is that your definition of what losing an election means, because if so, how do you justify all of those years of kicking non white males to the curb in those years when your party wins. Why are you so hung up on race and gender - some Americans will do a little better, some a little worse. White men are still the vast majority in Congress. And frankly, you probably don't like most of the white men who are Democrats in Congress anyhow. So why all the fuss?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So the fun thing about that is to watch what happens next. As before, results matter.

Within a few years we will see the results, and with no more room for excuses. You own it.

Amen. That's why the results of an 8 year Republican-led march to disaster in this country under President George W. Bush were still in the minds of the majority of voters. So I hope we will see the Republicans let Obama and the Democrats own it, by enabling them to implement the Democratic policy prescriptions designed to address the problem. Given the resounding Democratic support demonstrated by the majority of American voters for President, Senate, and the House of Representatives, I have some hope that at least about ~20 Republican Congressman will break ranks with their party and enable action to be taken.

Judgement on Democrats and Republicans will be made by focusing on the actions of Democrats and Republicans. If the Republicans again pursue a path to intentionally undermine the economy because they believe it will be politically advantageous to them (as with the debt crisis actions in 2011), they will earn a share of the blame.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"He played the race angle with brutal effectiveness. Basically he declared war on straight white men..."

Uh, wha??

"They flat out tell it like it is, that the white male has lost power now and will be kicked to the curb while the women and minorities take charge."

Who cares what wingnuts, dimwits and numbskulls think. Those categories are not political, those people are more like football fans whose chests swell with unearned pride when their team wins. [Speaking of which, you *have* to watch the replay of Roundtree's last second hail-mary catch in yesterday's Michigan-Northwestern game. WE ARE #1 (middle finger raised) HAHAHHAHAHAHA -- ahem, not speaking for myself, of course, as I believe all teams deserve a chance to win and the outcome of games should not be used as an excuse to brand one side as "losers", even though those sorry asses had it in their hands and blew it.]

"Frankly, I have no idea where all of his supporters are getting their optimism."

Partly because the role of the President is way overstated. The recession is over, the economy has been coming back and will continue to come back over the next 12-18 months. At that time you will be moved to declare that Obama is some kind of magician to have pulled it off despite his pathetic policies [Wink] .

"One other screw in the works is that apparently many of the white males have raised their hands in surrender and are just going to let y'all have your turn. They intend to help as little as possible with what they see as the destruction of a formerly great nation."

This *is* a sorry lament. There's no reason to think that the course the country takes isn't the natural outcome of "white man's policies" over the past 75 years that tried to marginalize people "not like us" and game the economic system for their own benefit. You're living in a movie-like world where you get to choose what scenes you want displayed in front of you. Wake up and smell the tacos, they've been cooking for a long time...

If you want to blame anybody (and I can tell you do), pick on the Mexicans, Indians and Chinese who have undercut the manufacturing base of the US economic system. We will have to redefine the American economic model and the "franchise" on which we base our version of the capitalist system in order to stay on top of the heap.

I'll suggest lowering the costs of commodity necessities like utilities (like energy) is a really good place to start, buying local instead of from a chain is better, even if you pay more but buy fewer things. That way your money helps other Americans more and those pesky other countries less. My mantra is: make it here, buy it here, use less of it.

[ November 11, 2012, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The good thing about being pessimistic is that when you're wrong it's a pleasant surprise. I wonder if the whites in South Africa were as optimistic as y'all.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

I'm not sure what country is your model for what happens when the minorities take over vowing their votes will be revenge and then they carry out their redistributionist plans, but South Africa is the model that I see as most relevant. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised, but I doubt it.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"when the minorities take over vowing their votes will be revenge "

Is that what you think has happened here? Good Lord.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The essential historical nature of the United States is one in which minorities take over: German, Italian, Swedish, Irish, Polish, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Hispanic, African American, etc. And at every point there traditionally have been racists (or the equivalent term for bigots who focus on religion independent of race) who assert that these minorities pose a threat to all that is good and worthy in the U.S. Eventually, the racists get over it, or turn their hate to some new group, and the old group that used to be so threatening just turn in to regular old Americans.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So now us white male Democrats need to start voting Republican or we will be victims of genocide?

Why the hell didn't they tell me before the election! [Eek!]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Bush won in 2004 on fear and Obama in 2008 on hope. I think this time around people gave up much of their hope for Obama but feared Romney more.

Because Obama's team brainwashed them to. Obama won on fear in 2012, to a far greater extent than Bush could have been said to have won on fear in 2004.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've seen it said. Payback time. Karma is a b... And again as Obama himself said, revenge.

I just hope they are as nice to the whites as the whites were nice to them. Oh wait a minute...

One form it will take is a reinstitution and escalation of affirmative action policies which further lock white males out of many job markets and industries especially in the government sector. Postal worker jobs, for instance. I wonder if the EEOC ever conducted a study of anti-white racism at the EEOC itself.

Well anyway, I'm calling it. Goodness knows I've been wrong many times before. Sometimes by pointing something out and freaking out about it, people can prevent it from happening. All we can do now is wait and see.

I see a new amnesty program in the works with Senator Grahamnesty himself offering the bipartisan support. After that happens, the floodgates open and it's over for the Republican Party. Probably already was only a matter of time after Reagan made his biggest mistake back then.

You know I actually don't like to get all racist about this stuff, but perhaps y'all aren't traveling in the same circles that I am which is why you don't see it. No, I'm not hanging out with a bunch of racists, quite the opposite, and they are very open and honest about what's going to happen next and they promise it's not going to be good for people who look like me. I don't even see Obama doing or saying anything to make the white men feel comfortable about what's coming next. If anything, he keeps threatening.

If there are some examples out there of victorious minorities trying to comfort and reassure anxious and fearful whites I'd like to see it.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I consider myself an economic pessimist, and even still I'll take you up on that bet/call, cherry, if only you can be more clear about what you specifically expect will go wrong for "whites" over the next few years. Go ahead and make some real predictions for 4 years out.

I hope you do better than all the predictions that were made in 2008. Those are still in the logs too, and they're rather embarrassing now (kinda like those folks who thought Nate Silver's predictions were nutty, and Rasmussen had it right all along).

[ November 11, 2012, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Pete:] "Obama won on fear in 2012, to a far greater extent than Bush could have been said to have won on fear in 2004."

There's a difference between saying that your should be afraid of the other guy and explaining why the other guy is dangerous. Obama did the latter, with quite a bit of help from Romney.

[Cherry:] "If there are some examples out there of victorious minorities trying to comfort and reassure anxious and fearful whites I'd like to see it."

I suggest you try a different echo chamber. The one I'm in suggests that this will be a good period for everybody, less tension, more opportunity, better economic climate. White folks I know are *happy* with the outcome of the election.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
The good thing about being pessimistic is that when you're wrong it's a pleasant surprise. I wonder if the whites in South Africa were as optimistic as y'all.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

I'm not sure what country is your model for what happens when the minorities take over vowing their votes will be revenge and then they carry out their redistributionist plans, but South Africa is the model that I see as most relevant. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised, but I doubt it.

How is the Boer situation in South Africa comparable to Obama being re-elected? Personally I see that situation as being a bit more comparable to israel/palestine (still not even remotely the same, but at least I can see a few more parallels). Are you predicting a genocide in the US, if so how soon?

[ November 11, 2012, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: LinuxFreakus ]

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, to be fair race is all but irrelivent where we're at. Being an urban area and a college town. Move out to a rural area which is predominantly white and I'm sure the *happy* factor decreases.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, white folks who live in places where there are no minorities are fearful, and white folks who live in more diversely populated areas--who presumably know some "minorities"--are not? Hmm.

Also, there was a pretty huge difference in the "female" vote for the two candidates. I guess women are minorities too? Boy, straight white men really are outnumbered! (of course, by that measure, they always have been)

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a story you tell yourself to feel strong and empowered. Any Republican who makes less than $50,000 voted *against* their self-interest. Playing the victim that being a white man in our society is a liability is a weak man's defense. But if it's a strong man who holds to his principles, what principles are white men defending that are under attack?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, white folks who live in places where there are no minorities are fearful, and white folks who live in more diversely populated areas--who presumably know some "minorities"--are not? Hmm.
It goes the other way too. In areas with NO "white folk" the white folk are probably the boogyman to minorities more so than in areas of diversity.

Then it shifts to "rich folk" and the people in power ignoring what is important to us. We all need someone "other" to vent our frustration on apparently.

[ November 11, 2012, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1