It's going to be Romney in a landslide.

props to him if that's the outcome. it'd be a huge upset.

BearyWhite;841998339 said:

---

props to him if that's the outcome. it'd be a huge upset.

---

It's no upset, it's been predicted for months. You need to change who you listen to or watch.

IMO, there are only two kinds of Democrats, the uniformed and the victim.

You appear to be the former.

Sonofoski;841998283 said:

---

It's going to be Romney in a landslide.

---

IF, Romney wins, it won't be a landslide.

A shining example of respect and tolerance. I'm glad you know exactly how other people think.

Sonofoski;841998796 said:

---

It's no upset, it's been predicted for months. You need to change who you listen to or watch.

IMO, there are only two kinds of Democrats, the uniformed and the victim.

You appear to be the former.

---

This will be a fun post to hang onto.
:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm

Landslide, huh?

NYCGOBEARS;841998836 said:

---

Landslide, huh?

---

You're just uninformed. :rollinglaugh:

Holmoephobic;841998853 said:

---

You're just uninformed. :rollinglaugh:

---

Grossly.

Sonofoski;841998283 said:

---

It's going to be Romney in a landslide.

---

Lulz.

sycasey;841998924 said:

---

Lulz.

---

He disappeared quickly, huh?

Sonofoski;841998796 said:

---

It's no upset, it's been predicted for months. You need to change who you listen to or watch.

IMO, there are only two kinds of Democrats, the uniformed and the victim.

You appear to be the former.

---

What's that hanging out of your mouth?

How long til he comes back?

Sonofoski;841998796 said:

---

BearyWhite;841998339 said:

---

Sonofoski;841998283 said:

---

It's going to be Romney in a landslide.

---

props to him if that's the outcome. it'd be a huge upset.

---

It's no upset, it's been predicted for months. You need to change who you listen to or watch.

IMO, there are only two kinds of Democrats, the uniformed and the victim.

You appear to be the former.

---

You know what makes me extra happy about Obama's victory? Posts like this.

I stay abreast of political news at "niche" sites -- yes, generally left-leaning (with some rightwing talk radio thrown in for good measure) -- but sites that do in-depth analysis using actual facts and explaining their actual reasoning. They report, I decide. Obama's been leading in most polls for most of the campaign, and a month or two ago some on the right came up with a response -- skewed polls! Apparently the pollsters, all hundreds of them, were over-skewing the polls to reflect Democratic turnout, and their raw data actually showed huge Romney leads. (Here's an example, a tea partier "unskewing" a single poll to show a Romney lead. Booya!)

Turns out the only people predicting Romney landslides -- the people you apparently listen to -- were Romney partisans. And they were wrong. The people I listen to and watch predicted the actual outcome, although I did think it would be a lot closer. I say I chose well in who I listen to, and you.. didn't. There's a third kind of Democrat -- the informed, also known as the victorious.

:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo

blungld;841998830 said:

---

A shining example of respect and tolerance. I'm glad you know exactly how other people think.

---

It looks like the uniformed of this country continue to be uniformed about what is really going on. They must be really looking forward to $20 trilliion in debt, four more years of $1 trilliion budget deficits, 8% unemployment, four more years of nothing getting done because we have the most devisive president in history, pitting groups of people one against another. Bi-partisianship to this president is Republicans giving in.

Every child under 18 in this country now owes over $200K in debt, a debt that is growing every day.

The country can survive four more years of Obama but can the country survive four more years of those who vote for him.

And the young women out there, just continue to vote with what's below your waist rather than what's between your ears.

This thread is a nice bit of comedy. Thx.

Let's just see, if he does come back, if his "excuse narrative" sounds at all uninformed or victimized.

And if he might concede:

A) It is possible for someone to decide to be a Democrat and NOT be a victim or uninformed: they may just have a different opinion.

B) If the economy improves the next four years then Obama is a good President and perhaps Democrats don't destroy economies.

Sonofoski;841999142 said:

---

It looks like the uniformed of this country continue to be uniformed about what is really going on. They must be really looking forward to $20 trilliion in debt, [blah blah blah]

---

Right, because Obama will again start his term with a big stimulus, to try to avoid the depression we're no longer headed for.

My advice for you?

Sonofoski;841998796 said:

---

You need to change who you listen to or watch.

---

Sonofoski;841999142 said:

---

It looks like the uniformed of this country continue to be uniformed about what is really going on. They must be really looking forward to $20 trilliion in debt, four more years of $1 trilliion budget deficits, 8% unemployment, four more years of nothing getting done because we have the most devisive president in history, pitting groups of people one against another. Bi-partisianship to this president is Republicans giving in.

Every child under 18 in this country now owes over $200K in debt, a debt that is growing every day.

The country can survive four more years of Obama but can the country survive four more years of those who vote for him.

And the young women out there, just continue to vote with what's below your waist rather than what's between your ears.

---

Here's a prediction for you: in 4 years the deficit will have been reduced and unemployment will be back down to reasonable levels. And while I personally think Obama has done pretty well on the economy (given the circumstances when he arrived), this won't really be because of him -- it will be because the natural economic cycle will turn back upwards, as it always does.

Also, your comment about young women is offensive. Damn straight they should vote for who is more likely to protect their reproductive rights. Who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

So I ask again, following your blame logic, if the economy is better in 4 years will you agree that his policies were good and that you were wrong?

Or are you just an angry American determined to cling to cognitive dissidence?

Willing to go on record now with your even reasoned (well informed non-victim) position for 4 years from now?

blungld;841999203 said:

---

So I ask again, following your blame logic, if the economy is better in 4 years will you agree that his policies were good and that you were wrong?

Or are you just an angry American determined to cling to cognitive dissidence?

Willing to go on record now with your even reasoned (well informed non-victim) position for 4 years from now?

---

blungld,

Without any stimulus, the economy should grow at a 2.2% rate. In a real recovery out of a recession, the economy should have grown at between 4 and 5 percent. The latest figures show our economy growing at less than 2%.

We are in a slow growth economy and this president has done nothing but borrow money, increasing our national debt, putting more people on food stamps than any president in history.

For every job he says he created, there are 75 people on food stamps. You cannot expand the economy by government borrowing; Japan has proved it for years.

Nobody denies he inheirited a problem, but his policies have made it worse.

Obama is like a fictional guy running Macy's. He sees his store sales are lagging so he raises the prices on all his merchandise rather than lowering the prices to create more traffic, thus increasing sales revenue and bottom line profit.

Consumer spending is 70% of the economy. If you do not find a way to put more money in the hands of consumers, you cannot create demand. When you cannot create demand for goods and services, companies are not going to hire new employees. All these tax incentives Obama gives to corporations to hire new people are worthless if there is no need to hire them.

I will say this, history has proven that rarely does the national debt of a country get paid down. For every $ we spend, currently 0.42 cents goes to our debt. If and when interest rates go up, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Better hope our Federal Reserve Chairman doesn't change his policies.

Under this president, its going to get worse and no amount of tax increase is going to solve it.

BearyWhite;841999134 said:

---

You know what makes me extra happy about Obama's victory? Posts like this.

I stay abreast of political news at "niche" sites -- yes, generally left-leaning (with some rightwing talk radio thrown in for good measure) -- but sites that do in-depth analysis using actual facts and explaining their actual reasoning. They report, I decide. Obama's been leading in most polls for most of the campaign, and a month or two ago some on the right came up with a response -- skewed polls! Apparently the pollsters, all hundreds of them, were over-skewing the polls to reflect Democratic turnout, and their raw data actually showed huge Romney leads. (Here's an example, a tea partier "unskewing" a single poll to show a Romney lead. Booya!)

Turns out the only people predicting Romney landslides -- the people you apparently listen to -- were Romney partisans. And they were wrong. The people I listen to and watch predicted the actual outcome, although I did think it would be a lot closer. I say I chose well in who I listen to, and you.. didn't. There's a third kind of Democrat -- the informed, also known as the victorious.

:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo

---

Yep. Real prophetic, that was. :bravo

Also, your comment about young women is offensive. Damn straight they should vote for who is more likely to protect their reproductive rights. Who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

This war on women was a non-issue. No president can initiate an amendment to the constitution. Nobody was going to take away contraception or abortion. There are simply not the votes to do any of this. It was an issue made up by the media.


Taking this to the extreme, even if a Republican president stacked the Supreme Court to overturn RoeWade, the choice to have abortion would go to each individual state.

The real war on women is being unemployed.

Romney carried Tennessee handily. No surprise here; this state is redder than a schoolboy's backside after getting caught playing hooky in Singapore.

As a Democrat living in a largely Republican state, I'm surrounded by a lot of people who have expressed all kinds of vitriol towards the President. Some of it is justified, Most of it is not. But I am far more satisfied because my vote contributed to Obama getting re-elected, not Romney winning their state.

I'll admit that I was nervous about 8 CST last night when Romney was leading the electoral college, and was hoping that my friends on the West Coast could provide a good 1-2-3-4 punch as they always do. Thanks guys. :bravo

If you could see the faces of people here in Tennessee... I mean, wow. They are MAD.

Sonofoski;841999216 said:

---

Also, your comment about young women is offensive. Damn straight they should vote for who is more likely to protect their reproductive rights. Who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

This war on women was a non-issue. No president can initiate an amendment to the constitution. Nobody was going to take away contraception or abortion. There are simply not the votes to do any of this. It was an issue made up by the media.

---

It was an issue brought up by Republican politicians themselves. Not Romney specifically, but as the Republican nominee he had to find some way to deal with it, and he didn't.

sycasey;841999231 said:

---

It was an issue brought up by Republican politicians themselves. Not Romney specifically, but as the Republican nominee he had to find some way to deal with it, and he didn't.

---

It was originally brought up by George Stepanoplos in the Republican debate. He asked Romney about contraception and Romney was dumbfounded that he even asked it because no one in the Republican Party was even talking about it; to the Republican's it was always the economy.

Sonofoski;841999234 said:

---

It was originally brought up by George Stepanoplos in the Republican debate. He asked Romney about contraception and Romney was dumbfounded that he even asked it because no one in the Republican Party was even talking about it; to the Republican's it was always the economy.

---

Seriously? I guess you missed the entire Sandra Fluke controversy? And the comments by Todd Akin and the like?

The Republicans (not Romney specifically, but the party in general) dug their own graves on this issue by opening their own mouths. The media did not force them to make asses of themselves.

Oops!

sycasey;841999245 said:

---

Seriously? I guess you missed the entire Sandra Fluke controversy? And the comments by Todd Akin and the like?

The Republicans (not Romney specifically, but the party in general) dug their own graves on this issue by opening their own mouths. The media did not force them to make asses of themselves.

---

The Sandra Fluke controversy happened after George Stepanlopous asked the question, not before. Are we talking about what could actually happen if a Republican got in the White House or some stupid comment made by a candidate? I'm talking about legislation, real things not some women asking for free contraception.

The Republican Party never talked about taking away any woman's rights with new laws.

Sonofoski;841999142 said:

---

It looks like the uniformed of this country continue to be uniformed about what is really going on. They must be really looking forward to $20 trilliion in debt, four more years of $1 trilliion budget deficits, 8% unemployment, four more years of nothing getting done because we have the most devisive president in history, pitting groups of people one against another. Bi-partisianship to this president is Republicans giving in.

Every child under 18 in this country now owes over $200K in debt, a debt that is growing every day.

The country can survive four more years of Obama but can the country survive four more years of those who vote for him.

And the young women out there, just continue to vote with what's below your waist rather than what's between your ears.

---

It looks like you make a horrible prediction and then made a rash of excuses instead of admitting you were wrong. How typical.

Sonofoski;841999257 said:

---

The Sandra Fluke controversy happened after George Stepanlopous asked the question, not before. Are we talking about what could actually happen if a Republican got in the White House or some stupid comment made by a candidate? I'm talking about legislation, real things not some women asking for free contraception.

The Republican Party never talked about taking away any woman's rights with new laws.

---

You do realize that the President of the United States appoints Justices to the Supreme Court right? You do realize that Roe v. Wade could be overturned with a conservative majority right?
You do realize that many women rely on advise and education from planned parenthood right?
It's not a mystery as to why Romney lost the female vote by 8 points.

Holmoephobic;841999267 said:

---

You do realize that the President of the United States appoints Justices to the Supreme Court right? You do realize that Roe v. Wade could be overturned with a conservative majority right?
You do realize that many women rely on advise and education from planned parenthood right?
It's not a mystery as to why Romney lost the female vote by 8 points.

---

Even if a president packed the Supreme Court with justices who would overturn RoeWade, the right to abortion would revert to the states; women would not lose the choice to have an abortion.

No president is going to get a justice appointed whose sole mission is to overturn RoeWade. It certainly was not going to be Romney.

Some people vote based on fear and not reality.

Sonofoski;841999298 said:

---

Even if a president packed the Supreme Court with justices who would overturn RoeWade, the right to abortion would revert to the states; women would not lose the choice to have an abortion.

No president is going to get a justice appointed whose sole mission is to overturn RoeWade. It certainly was not going to be Romney.

Some people vote based on fear and not reality.

---

I couldn't agree more. The reality that Romney would win in a landslide was a laughable one and one that you STILL haven't fessed up to.
It must be tough being uninformed, out of touch and unable to swallow your pride.

Holmoephobic;841999327 said:

---

I couldn't agree more. The reality that Romney would win in a landslide was a laughable one and one that you STILL haven't fessed up to.
It must be tough being uninformed, out of touch and unable to swallow your pride.

---

I must be tough to not read my post last night when I did own up.

Further, posters like you who don't respond when your questions get answered and refuted don't deserve a response.

I would put you definitely in the category of UNINFORMED.

Sonofoski;841998283 said:

---

It's going to be Romney in a landslide.

---

If you're so wrong about something so certain, what other things are you wrong about?
How about...... everything?

Hint: there is nothing wrong with the reality, only your perception of it.