Boo-freakin-hoo. Bain Capital. Koch Brothers. Sheldon Adelson. Rupert Murdock. Big Oil+Coal. Need I continue?
I’m not saying elections aren’t bought, but saying Americans sold their soul would be more accurate if they elected the representative of a moralistic, evangelical party. One could argue that mainstream Christians who voted for a Mormon sold their soul. This is especially true when the biggest right-wing talking point was the danger of increased taxes. Obama voters (especially Christians) were voting to protect the rights of gays, women, and immigrants. That’s a noble cause; a refusal to sell their soul.
I think your real concern is that the Tea Party is going the way of the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition. (And it is) People see the danger of a fundamentalist Christian government (aka Sharia by Jesus) and are rejecting Biblical rule more and more. Maybe it’s time you question why so many have rejected your values. Is it demons? Maybe it’s the simple but rare ability to respect people who are different.
You are spouting the cries of an activist victim who sees hate everywhere you turn. You think this was a response to gays, women, and immigrants, then I have to question your ability to analyze clearly. The President’s victory was bought with taxpayer money.
To expand on what I was saying on Facebook- I think you, and Republicans in general, are missing the bigger picture.
You want to claim that Obama bought the election with free cell phones and food stamps- but he got 50% of the popular vote. Did 50% of people in America get free cell phones? What is the percentage of voting age Americans on food stamps? The only way your contention even makes sense is if you claim that he gained significant popularity among middle class voters by giving freebies to the poor- which hardly seems like “buying” an election as much as being responsive to a growing sentiment of class solidarity among the electorate. Is that what you are saying?
Republicans are missing all the reasons that they lost an election against an incumbent who was poised for defeat. By your own words and analysis, Obama was Jimmy Carter- a President who resided over a failed economy and geopolitical discord. So why don’t we have a Reagan era landslide? Because he bought off people with cell phones?
I can tell you why Republicans lost this election, and will continue to lose elections for the foreseeable future. It is a story that had it’s seeds planted back in 1964, was consummated in 1979, exploited in 1992 and will continue to pay liberal dividends for years to come. You can blame Goldwater, Reagan and Clinton- or you can continue to claim that if we could just stop Democrats from giving out food stamps and cell phones, we would have a Republican monarchy.
I also think Obama did a good job at misleading people about Romney’s character and past. He was also able to get people to believe that being a success, like Romney, is a bad thing. They lied about him not paying taxes, but the story went away when certified summaries were released. He was able to convince simpletons that Big Bird and Binders, were more important than the economy, Benghazi, unemployment, the debt, the deficit, and the increase in the number of Americans in poverty on his watch. So yes, it is more than cell phones and food stamps. He preyed on a desperate ignorant public.
You think 50+% of the population is desperate and ignorant? Not a very rosy view of your fellow Americans, John.
Is it possible that, rather than being ignorant and desperate, they are simply well-meaning and at least as intelligent as you folk who just disagree with your opinions? Isn’t that at least as likely as saying half the population (the half that disagrees with you – whatever their knowledgeability levels are) is “ignorant…”? Do you see how that might come across as a sour grapes/emotional response to a simple electoral loss?
Being an anabaptist who leans pacifistic, I’m well-used to being a minority when it comes to elections. I’ve found that it is more reasonable and helpful to recognize those who disagree with me as just my brothers, my sisters, my neighbors, my fellow citizens who just have other ideas than I do, rather than making some claim as to their reasoning abilities.
Yes Dan, they are obviously people who refuse to consider the big picture and instead focus on small petty things, like free abortion, cell phones, food, housing. They view pointing out economic failure as racist. They view believing people should try to be successful independent of the government as hating the poor, which is code for hating blacks, which means you’re racist.
So, John, at a guess (based on what I’ve read here), I’d say that I’m more well-read and better-informed than you are on a variety of issues (not every issue, of course, but on many).
I don’t want “free abortion, cell phones, food or housing.” Nearly all the folk I know who voted for Obama could say the same thing.
Nor do we believe “people should try to be successful [and] independent of the gov’t” is equal to “hating the poor.” We (the folk I know who voted as I have), in fact, by and large ARE successful and independent of the gov’t.
So, in what specific sense am I/are we desperate or ignorant?
It sounds rather like you’re being just a bit petulant and emotional following your “side’s” losses yesterday. I AM sorry you didn’t get your way (sorry for you, not for us), but that happens sometimes in a free republic. Perhaps you need to take a time-out and take a deep breath and relax a bit? Come back when you’re feeling better?
John is reverting to the same line of argument: “If you don’t agree with me, there is something wrong with you.” This sort of argument is why conservatives are having trouble. Perhaps the truth is that people who don’t agree with John are basically OK, they just don’t agree. I know it is hard for conservatives to accept that a different opinion is not a sign that “something is wrong”, but conservatives ought to consider that possibility. Maybe, just maybe, someone who is normal and rational voted for Obama. Maybe…
I’m not saying that the Democratic machine didn’t do a fantastic job of painting Romney as privileged and out of touch. They did a great job. That is what politics is about, boiling down substance into a soundbite catchy enough to stick. Romney is privileged, sure, but that doesn’t make him a bad person or a bad choice as President. How he uses that privilege does.
No one is “angry” or “sour” because Romney is rich. George Soros is rich. So is the Kennedy family. Stephen Bing, Jay Harris, and Fred Eychaner are all fabulously wealthy. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are two of the richest men alive. It is what you do with your money, not that you have it. You are right though that if you listened to Fox News every day that is what you would think Liberals were saying.
This election wasn’t about Big Bird or Binders- it was about whether Americans are willing to pay $2 per year to have public broadcasting, about whether we should really care about the glass ceiling or wait for someone else to be the agent of change. It was about whether we want to care about our fellow citizens or let them succeed or fail playing a game of loaded dice.
Until Republicans get over their ideological narcissism they are never going to make strides in the American electoral system. As I hinted in the comment above- this has to do with shifting a party so far to the right economically that anything that deviates from libertarian purity is “socialism” and so far right socially that we talk in terms of “destroying marriage” and “holocausts”. When you stand immovable on the furthest reaches of the political spectrum, you give your opponent room to occupy every other position on the middle and left. That is what Bill Clinton realized, and he moved the Democrats into the middle and pushed Republicans even further to the fringes.
You think you lost the election in a fog of lies and deceit, but you haven’t reflected long enough to see that people clearly rebuked economic Darwinism and social Orwellianism.
You needed George Romney and you nominated Mitt.
I am not sure what the images above mean. They seem to mean Obama won because people want welfare handouts. I just wanted to point out that Obama won 8 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US, according to Yahoo. The margin is very large. These folks don’t need or want welfare, and I’ll bet most of them are economically successful. John Barron needs to re-think why Obama won.
Religious, political, and social commentary through the filter of a conservative Christian worldview. I focus on addressing why critic's arguments against my views fail rather than the traditional positive case-making for the Christian worldview.
Sifting Reality 
Boo-freakin-hoo. Bain Capital. Koch Brothers. Sheldon Adelson. Rupert Murdock. Big Oil+Coal. Need I continue?
I’m not saying elections aren’t bought, but saying Americans sold their soul would be more accurate if they elected the representative of a moralistic, evangelical party. One could argue that mainstream Christians who voted for a Mormon sold their soul. This is especially true when the biggest right-wing talking point was the danger of increased taxes. Obama voters (especially Christians) were voting to protect the rights of gays, women, and immigrants. That’s a noble cause; a refusal to sell their soul.
I think your real concern is that the Tea Party is going the way of the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition. (And it is) People see the danger of a fundamentalist Christian government (aka Sharia by Jesus) and are rejecting Biblical rule more and more. Maybe it’s time you question why so many have rejected your values. Is it demons? Maybe it’s the simple but rare ability to respect people who are different.
Jason
You are spouting the cries of an activist victim who sees hate everywhere you turn. You think this was a response to gays, women, and immigrants, then I have to question your ability to analyze clearly. The President’s victory was bought with taxpayer money.
To expand on what I was saying on Facebook- I think you, and Republicans in general, are missing the bigger picture.
You want to claim that Obama bought the election with free cell phones and food stamps- but he got 50% of the popular vote. Did 50% of people in America get free cell phones? What is the percentage of voting age Americans on food stamps? The only way your contention even makes sense is if you claim that he gained significant popularity among middle class voters by giving freebies to the poor- which hardly seems like “buying” an election as much as being responsive to a growing sentiment of class solidarity among the electorate. Is that what you are saying?
Republicans are missing all the reasons that they lost an election against an incumbent who was poised for defeat. By your own words and analysis, Obama was Jimmy Carter- a President who resided over a failed economy and geopolitical discord. So why don’t we have a Reagan era landslide? Because he bought off people with cell phones?
I can tell you why Republicans lost this election, and will continue to lose elections for the foreseeable future. It is a story that had it’s seeds planted back in 1964, was consummated in 1979, exploited in 1992 and will continue to pay liberal dividends for years to come. You can blame Goldwater, Reagan and Clinton- or you can continue to claim that if we could just stop Democrats from giving out food stamps and cell phones, we would have a Republican monarchy.
george
I also think Obama did a good job at misleading people about Romney’s character and past. He was also able to get people to believe that being a success, like Romney, is a bad thing. They lied about him not paying taxes, but the story went away when certified summaries were released. He was able to convince simpletons that Big Bird and Binders, were more important than the economy, Benghazi, unemployment, the debt, the deficit, and the increase in the number of Americans in poverty on his watch. So yes, it is more than cell phones and food stamps. He preyed on a desperate ignorant public.
You think 50+% of the population is desperate and ignorant? Not a very rosy view of your fellow Americans, John.
Is it possible that, rather than being ignorant and desperate, they are simply well-meaning and at least as intelligent as you folk who just disagree with your opinions? Isn’t that at least as likely as saying half the population (the half that disagrees with you – whatever their knowledgeability levels are) is “ignorant…”? Do you see how that might come across as a sour grapes/emotional response to a simple electoral loss?
Being an anabaptist who leans pacifistic, I’m well-used to being a minority when it comes to elections. I’ve found that it is more reasonable and helpful to recognize those who disagree with me as just my brothers, my sisters, my neighbors, my fellow citizens who just have other ideas than I do, rather than making some claim as to their reasoning abilities.
Yes Dan, they are obviously people who refuse to consider the big picture and instead focus on small petty things, like free abortion, cell phones, food, housing. They view pointing out economic failure as racist. They view believing people should try to be successful independent of the government as hating the poor, which is code for hating blacks, which means you’re racist.
yes, Dan, they are desperate and ignorant.
So, John, at a guess (based on what I’ve read here), I’d say that I’m more well-read and better-informed than you are on a variety of issues (not every issue, of course, but on many).
I don’t want “free abortion, cell phones, food or housing.” Nearly all the folk I know who voted for Obama could say the same thing.
Nor do we believe “people should try to be successful [and] independent of the gov’t” is equal to “hating the poor.” We (the folk I know who voted as I have), in fact, by and large ARE successful and independent of the gov’t.
So, in what specific sense am I/are we desperate or ignorant?
It sounds rather like you’re being just a bit petulant and emotional following your “side’s” losses yesterday. I AM sorry you didn’t get your way (sorry for you, not for us), but that happens sometimes in a free republic. Perhaps you need to take a time-out and take a deep breath and relax a bit? Come back when you’re feeling better?
John is reverting to the same line of argument: “If you don’t agree with me, there is something wrong with you.” This sort of argument is why conservatives are having trouble. Perhaps the truth is that people who don’t agree with John are basically OK, they just don’t agree. I know it is hard for conservatives to accept that a different opinion is not a sign that “something is wrong”, but conservatives ought to consider that possibility. Maybe, just maybe, someone who is normal and rational voted for Obama. Maybe…
I’m not saying that the Democratic machine didn’t do a fantastic job of painting Romney as privileged and out of touch. They did a great job. That is what politics is about, boiling down substance into a soundbite catchy enough to stick. Romney is privileged, sure, but that doesn’t make him a bad person or a bad choice as President. How he uses that privilege does.
No one is “angry” or “sour” because Romney is rich. George Soros is rich. So is the Kennedy family. Stephen Bing, Jay Harris, and Fred Eychaner are all fabulously wealthy. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are two of the richest men alive. It is what you do with your money, not that you have it. You are right though that if you listened to Fox News every day that is what you would think Liberals were saying.
This election wasn’t about Big Bird or Binders- it was about whether Americans are willing to pay $2 per year to have public broadcasting, about whether we should really care about the glass ceiling or wait for someone else to be the agent of change. It was about whether we want to care about our fellow citizens or let them succeed or fail playing a game of loaded dice.
Until Republicans get over their ideological narcissism they are never going to make strides in the American electoral system. As I hinted in the comment above- this has to do with shifting a party so far to the right economically that anything that deviates from libertarian purity is “socialism” and so far right socially that we talk in terms of “destroying marriage” and “holocausts”. When you stand immovable on the furthest reaches of the political spectrum, you give your opponent room to occupy every other position on the middle and left. That is what Bill Clinton realized, and he moved the Democrats into the middle and pushed Republicans even further to the fringes.
You think you lost the election in a fog of lies and deceit, but you haven’t reflected long enough to see that people clearly rebuked economic Darwinism and social Orwellianism.
You needed George Romney and you nominated Mitt.
I am not sure what the images above mean. They seem to mean Obama won because people want welfare handouts. I just wanted to point out that Obama won 8 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US, according to Yahoo. The margin is very large. These folks don’t need or want welfare, and I’ll bet most of them are economically successful. John Barron needs to re-think why Obama won.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-wins-8-10-wealthiest-154837437.html