obama was chosen by the bilderberg

[sp fan]

a long time you clueless sheep, keep being a sheep and ignore the real issues.

fuck you

[robertlouis]

And who chose Romney?

[Willie Escalade]

:dancing::dancing::party::party:

[Willie Escalade]

And keep ignoring the reality the demographics are changing.

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/11/07/ten-hard-lessons-from-tuesday/

1. America is diverse. Deal with it.
2. Don’t attempt illegal nonsense to subvert the democracy.
3. The electorate did not fall off a turnip truck.
4. Pandering to the “base” is perilous.
5. “Trust me” doesn’t get it done.
6. If you must pander, do not alienate large chunks of voters in the process.
7. The system self-corrects.
8. “We’ve got to fix that.”
9. Retail politics still matters.
10. Nate Silver is a freaking genius.

I'll add BELIEVE THE FACTS INSTEAD OF THE BULLSHIT FOX NEWS SPINS.

If the South wants to secede once again (and Texas legally can), I don't think The Union will stop them this time.

Cry me a river.

:violin

http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

[Prospero]

sp fan - your assertion is arguable and, frankly, ludicrous.

Your tone is unaccpetable.

[robertlouis]

And who chose Romney?

Still waiting for your answer.

It's just possible that you're an idiot, btw.

[hippifried]

a long time you clueless sheep, keep being a sheep and ignore the real issues.

fuck you

That you, Nino?

[broncofan]

Just read a little bit about the bilderberg. Very lame. Obama was chosen by millions of Americans. His rival was extremely well funded by Sheldon Adelson and super PACs funded by wealthy donors. The election was not a foregone conclusion but the outcome of dilligent work by those protecting the integrity of the electoral process, not to mention two great debate performances by the President.

Throw away this conspiracy nonsense. It will poison your soul.

[maxpower]

If the South wants to secede once again (and Texas legally can), I don't think The Union will stop them this time.


Houston, We Have A Solution - Andy Cobb - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCLz7XQOIOQ)


Olbermann's WTF Moment -- What if Texas secedes? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJvlzbU2GTU)

[trish]

Goodbye Texas, don't forget to take your crazy creationist textbooks and looneytoon libertarian crackpots with you.

[Ben]

Still waiting for your answer.

It's just possible that you're an idiot, btw.

sp pointed out in a previous post: "... there is no difference btw obama and rom. They are twins."
Well, very little difference.
America has never had a labor-based party. Unlike, say, England or Canada.
And another problem is: the Republican Party simply serve the super-rich and the Dems are moving in that direction.
Question is: Who does Obama serve? I mean, unless, say, there is a militant labor movement, well, nothing will change. Obama has to serve the powerful. And the labor movement is not powerful. Never really has been. (Yeah, it did make some waves in the 30s, 40s and 50s. But it didn't really have a big hold over the political and economic structure, as it were.)
And, again, this isn't a personal attack on Obama. I'm sure he is a nice person.
But he, like, say, any CEO, has to serve... a certain ownership class.
Plus I don't think Obama is one to rock the boat, as it were. That's his conservatism.
Certainly Europeans wouldn't view Obama as some kind of radical leftist, eh? Whereas a lot of Americans think he's some kind of "radical" socialist.
Anyway, America is very divided.
In the North-Eastern parts -- Massachusetts, Connecticut etc. -- it's fairly liberal.
Whereas in the deep South -- Mississippi, Alabama etc. -- it's very right-wing.
And this won't change.
Or if it does it'll take a long time.

[Stavros]

sp pointed out in a previous post: "... there is no difference btw obama and rom. They are twins."
Well, very little difference.
America has never had a labor-based party. Unlike, say, England or Canada.
And another problem is: the Republican Party simply serve the super-rich and the Dems are moving in that direction.
Question is: Who does Obama serve? I mean, unless, say, there is a militant labor movement, well, nothing will change. Obama has to serve the powerful. And the labor movement is not powerful. Never really has been. (Yeah, it did make some waves in the 30s, 40s and 50s. But it didn't really have a big hold over the political and economic structure, as it were.)
And, again, this isn't a personal attack on Obama. I'm sure he is a nice person.
But he, like, say, any CEO, has to serve... a certain ownership class.
Plus I don't think Obama is one to rock the boat, as it were. That's his conservatism.
Certainly Europeans wouldn't view Obama as some kind of radical leftist, eh? Whereas a lot of Americans think he's some kind of "radical" socialist.
Anyway, America is very divided.
In the North-Eastern parts -- Massachusetts, Connecticut etc. -- it's fairly liberal.
Whereas in the deep South -- Mississippi, Alabama etc. -- it's very right-wing.
And this won't change.
Or if it does it'll take a long time.

Sorry Ben, but I think you need to be aware of who the US electorate is that are casting votes. On this basis, the Republicans will need a candidte in 2016 who is female, Hispanic, possibly a Lesbian, if they are to have a chance of winning...more seriously, a conservative critic of Rush Lmbaugh and the diehards wonders if religion is in decline among the young voters who will also be crucial to 2016, thereby undermining what was once a strong bedrock of support among Republicans for candidates with 'Christian values'...

Link below the article including a graph and some photos

US election: Women are the new majority

By Kate Dailey BBC News Magazine, Washington
When Barack Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act, which supported equal pay for women, his detractors called it pandering (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/18/hudson-obama-pandering-to-women-falls-short/).
When Republican candidates were caught making clumsy statements about rape and abortion, their supporters called the ensuing uproar a "distraction" from the real issues (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/20/The-Desperate-Distraction-Defense-Democrats-Media-Eager-to-Change-the-Conversation).
But in this election, it became abundantly clear that women's issues are not fringe issues, and women are not a special interest group.
Instead it was women who cast the bulk of the votes this election - 53%, and women who proved the deciding factor, breaking in Barack Obama's favour by 11 percentage points.
At the same time, a historic number of female representative were elected, including the first openly gay senator (Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin), the first Asian-American female senator (Mazie Hirono, Hawaii) and the first female military veteran wounded in combat (Representative Tammy Duckworth, Illinois).
Massachusetts elected its first female senator, and New Hampshire will be the first state to send an all-female delegation to Congress.
Thanks to a surge of both female and minority candidates, white men will no longer constitute the majority of the Democratic House caucus.
In 1992, a similar boon for female candidates resulted in five new female senators, and ushered in something called "the year of the woman" - a label one of the women in question, Barbara Mikulski, a democratic representative from Maryland, found objectionable
"We're not a fad, a fancy, or a year," she said at the time. The label, she said, made it sound as if every other year was not a year for women.
Twenty years ago, that may have been true. But the display of female dominance in 2012 should not be viewed as a pink-hued blip in an otherwise uninterrupted line of male-dominated election results.
Instead, it represents a rapidly changing demographic that puts women in the majority while men - specifically older white men - are on the decline (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/us-usa-campaign-whites-idUSBRE89A07C20121011).
In 2007, unmarried women began to outnumber their married counterparts. (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/us-census-single-women-outnumber-married)
Today, those unmarried women make up a large percentage of what The Voter Participation Center calls the Rising American Electorate (RAE). That's how they describe unmarried women, people of colour, and young people - all of whom represent a broad swath of new voters in upcoming elections, and who came out for Obama in a big way during this election.
"Unmarried women are the largest component of this group, and are driving these [electoral] outcomes," says Gail L Kitch, chief operating officer of the Voter Participation Center. From 2010 to 2012, she said unmarried women added 8.3 million new eligible voters to their column, a 19% increase.



Men and women split between the candidates: overall, 55% of women voted for Mr Obama, 44% for Mr Romney. For men, 52% voted for Mr Romney and 45% for Mr Obama.
In 2008, Mr Obama gained a higher percentage of the male vote (49%) and a similar percentage of the female vote (56%).
However, there was a division between married and unmarried women: 53% of married women voted for the Republican candidate, while Mr Obama won unmarried women two-to-one: 67% to 31%.
Overall, women make up more of the electorate - 53% - slightly more than their share of the US population.

These women made up 23% of the electorate this year, and they broke overwhelmingly for Obama, 67-31. (Married women preferred Romney 53-46.)
Mitt Romney, to his credit, tried to tap into the power of female votes during the campaign by promising that a strong economy would mean better wages for women and more opportunity for female advancement.
It wasn't enough. Women, says the pollster Norm Ornstein, are just as concerned with the economy as men. But their view of the economy tends to be more complex - they want both a robust employment rate and a strong social safety net if things go wrong.
"They worry the Republicans want to shred that," Ornstein says.
Women are also more likely to see issues like health care and reproductive choice as part of the economic discussion, not distractions from the "real issues."
"Birth control is only a social issue if you never have to pay for it," says Jess McIntosh, a spokesperson for EMILY's List, a group dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.
She said in the past two years, their donor rolls have increased from 400,000 to two million in the past two years, spurred on in part by obtuse comments about rape, abortion and birth control made by prominent Republicans.
The Republicans lost at least two seemingly safe Senate seats this year, when Todd Akin mouthed off about how "legitimate rape (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19326666)" could prevent pregnancy and Richard Mourdock made a poorly-received argument (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20054737) that pregnancy from rape was God's plan. Both saw their polls drop soon after. (Joe Walsh, who lost to Duckworth, had also made controversial statements (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/19/tea-party-illinois-rep-joe-walsh-one-ups-akin-s-legitimate-rape.html)).
The statements - and the national attention they received - damaged the Republican brand nationally. To make matters worse, Mourdock was the only candidate for whom Mitt Romney filmed a commercial, while vice-presidential running mate Paul Ryan came under fire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/paul-ryan-abortion_n_2035051.html) for his aggressively pro-life record in Congress.
"The fact that you had Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock and [vice presidential candidate] Paul Ryan, that showed voters across the country the difference between the parties' agendas," says McIntosh.
It's important to note that Mourdock didn't lose to a women's rights icon, but to Joe Donnolly, who helped Paul Ryan draft the "forcible rape" bill (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/ind-dem-donnelly-walks-careful-line-on-abortion/).
Women aren't going to the polls agitating for feminist crusaders. (In 2009, only about a quarter of women polled by CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965224.html) called themselves feminist). But they have a hard time ignoring it when male politicians seem to be speaking out of turn about reproductive health.
"For women, it's about disrespect," says Ornstein.
It would be reductive to treat female voters as a monolith - clearly, married and unmarried women vote much differently, as Kitch notes. But both she and Ornstein agree that on the whole, women tend to tilt towards more progressive candidates.
That doesn't mean that women are unwinnable for Republicans. Considering how fast women are entering the voting pool, there should be plenty of chances for conservatives to pad their ranks if they can hone their message.
"The fact is, what people do is respond to candidates who are speaking to the issues that matter to them," says Kitch. At the end of the day, most voters all want a leader who can address the economy, education, gas prices and security.
"It's all the same issues," she says. "But it's how you talk about it that matters."
Republicans will have to learn how to talk to women in a way that resonates, and - regarding rape and sexual health - when to keep their opinions to themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20231337

[Willie Escalade]

Max Power, that's a GREAT post. Sarcastic, yes...but DEFINITELY factual!

[hippifried]

If the South wants to secede once again (and Texas legally can), I don't think The Union will stop them this time.

Sorry Willie, but Texas can't "legally" secede any more than any other State can. Regardless of the blatherings of some Texans who think Texas is an independent nation that can do as it pleases, there's this pesky US Constitution that says they can't.

[Willie Escalade]

Sorry Willie, but Texas can't "legally" secede any more than any other State can. Regardless of the blatherings of some Texans who think Texas is an independent nation that can do as it pleases, there's this pesky US Constitution that says they can't.

I'd love to see them try. Then when the United States' superior armed forces invades the Republic, then what? :dancing:

Damn I'm loving this. Where are the haters? Believe me, if Obama had lost, his many supporters on this site would NOT be silent.

[fred41]

I'd love to see them try. Then when the United States' superior armed forces invades the Republic, then what? :dancing:

Damn I'm loving this. Where are the haters? Believe me, if Obama had lost, his many supporters on this site would NOT be silent.

No hate here...I'm a Republican for the most part, but there's nothing for me to hate.
I thought it was a pretty good race after all. The election was fairly suspenseful (I love that up to the last minute election map stuff!) and pretty close to the end. After all was said and done, I don't even feel there were any villains between the two candidates (all punditry aside).
Congratulations have to go to President Obama, he and his staff ran a masterful campaign towards the end.
If Romney had won I don't think it would have been as awful as many of you seemed to think, but on that we will have a difference of opinion...(and anyway...we will never find out).
I look forward to New York City's next mayoral election...that's a little more important to me personally.

[broncofan]

I always thought Ben was a little bit eccentric, but I think it's a bit more than that after watching him defend the moronic ravings of the original poster. It does not matter how many times posters point out to him the significant policy differences between Obama and Republicans, as a matter of faith he will make a conclusory statement that says the opposite and post a video of someone else speaking. Of course, he could summarize what the person says in text but that would subject their ideas to rebuttal and wouldn't cow others by using the endorsement of some obscure talking head. Often he will assert Democrats and Republicans are the same because neither supports those positions he thinks are ideal.

Yes Ben, Obama and Romney are the same except where they take different policy positions on bank regulation, auto industry bailouts, civil rights legislation like Lily Ledbetter, taxation, health care, immigration policy etc. I am certain if you offer a response it will be to say that Obama's response to the fiscal crisis was not optimal or that he bailed out banks rather than let the economy go belly up. This does nothing to minimize the differences that exist.

Oh yeah, do you think Obama was chosen by the Bilderberg? Or did the public vote for him, because you seem to be defending the original poster? Let me summarize what I interpret as the original poster's position from the little profanity laced blip at the top of the first page. He is saying this was a shadow election, that our leaders were chosen by powerful figures and that the ballots cast by millions were of no import. Are you supporting this tripe because you like his attitude or because you believe what he's saying?

I'm sure you're a good-natured person but quite frankly I don't have much respect for those who support such preposterous ideas based on some pathetic anti-establishment solidarity. If you don't like what I say, blame my ghostwriters at the bilderberg.

[broncofan]

sp pointed out in a previous post: "... there is no difference btw obama and rom. They are twins."
.
He only wrote one post on this thread. It's not the one you're quoting.

[trish]

I always thought Ben was a little bit eccentric, but I think it's a bit more than that after watching him defend the moronic ravings of the original poster. It does not matter how many times posters point out to him the significant policy differences between Obama and Republicans, as a matter of faith he will make a conclusory statement that says the opposite and post a video of someone else speaking. Of course, he could summarize what the person says in text but that would subject their ideas to rebuttal and wouldn't cow others by using the endorsement of some obscure talking head. Often he will assert Democrats and Republicans are the same because neither supports those positions he thinks are ideal.

Yes Ben, Obama and Romney are the same except where they take different policy positions on bank regulation, auto industry bailouts, civil rights legislation like Lily Ledbetter, taxation, health care, immigration policy etc. I am certain if you offer a response it will be to say that Obama's response to the fiscal crisis was not optimal or that he bailed out banks rather than let the economy go belly up. This does nothing to minimize the differences that exist.

Oh yeah, do you think Obama was chosen by the Bilderberg? Or did the public vote for him, because you seem to be defending the original poster? Let me summarize what I interpret as the original poster's position from the little profanity laced blip at the top of the first page. He is saying this was a shadow election, that our leaders were chosen by powerful figures and that the ballots cast by millions were of no import. Are you supporting this tripe because you like his attitude or because you believe what he's saying?

I'm sure you're a good-natured person but quite frankly I don't have much respect for those who support such preposterous ideas based on some pathetic anti-establishment solidarity. If you don't like what I say, blame my ghostwriters at the bilderberg.

Obama and Romney are alike because neither is a radical leftest.
They're alike because both have a position on equal pay for equal work.
They both have a position on how long we should stay in Afghanistan.
They both have a position on trickle down economics.
Obama and Romney are alike in that neither is Ron Paul.
I really don't see how you are so blind to their similarities.

(Actually I just wanted an excuse to quote your excellent post).

[robertlouis]

Sorry Willie, but Texas can't "legally" secede any more than any other State can. Regardless of the blatherings of some Texans who think Texas is an independent nation that can do as it pleases, there's this pesky US Constitution that says they can't.

After the last unpleasantness in the 1830s, I don't think Mexico want them back either.....

[tsHoneyhung]

Barrak Obama, John f Kennedy and Licoln are and will always be icons of American history, and world heros. The pillars of strength, civil rights and humanity.

Myself an immigrant from Kenya just like Obama's father, today i am proud and happy to say as an American-Canadian immigrant, i am glad the world is a better place, for all those who made America a great country, Irish, Jewish, Indian, Chinese, Russian, African immigrants who have built this great nation of dreams, have paved the way for me.

God bless the child thats got his own.

[Stavros]

Spare a thought (and a prayer of course) for Austin, and Keep Austin Weird...