The one and only TBD Political Thread

[The Wiz]

Your bias is showing. There are a number of black Republicans who are currently rising stars in the party. I have no doubt that the Republicans will nominate a candidate of color.

Yours has been for about 4 pages now. What's your point? And it's not racists for a single group to like one thing over the other. If anything it would be discrimination.

[xsoldier54]

I was listening to some hard core Republican talking heads this morning lamenting the election and one had a very interesting point along these lines. He said that historically the Republican candidate got 60% of the white male vote and that was generally enough for victory. Romney also got 60% of the white male vote last night and it was nowhere near enough. His conclusion, and I agree in principle, was that if the Republican party keeps running candidates that appeal only to white male voters that they are destined to lose forever. It is not a while male dominated electorate anymore and the Republican party can either adapt or die.

Interesting that you should quote this because it speaks to exactly what I was pointing out in my original post. The fact that 93% of blacks and 78% of Hispanics voted for Obama is what swayed this election. This opinion has garnered me much ridicule, but I'm a big boy and I can take it. I did however find this quote from you to be rather troubling "And I will tell you that for every minority who voted for Obama mostly or even just because he's black, there are two rednecks who never graduated high school, still think he wasn't born here, probably think he's a Muslim, think he's trying to take their guns away, etc., etc. So believe me, it all balances out. Have you ever driven through a really rural part of the country with giant crosses on the side of the highway? People that have never really left the northeast don't realize just how much of this country is full of people I just described." I have lived all over the country as a member of the military as well as overseas and in Canada. All I can say is "Wow!" I hope you don't really believe that.

 

Yours has been for about 4 pages now. What's your point? And it's not racists for a single group to like one thing over the other. If anything it would be discrimination.

Show me any statement that I made that was biased? I am quoting actual exit poll statistics. These numbers are not my opinion, they are fact.

[section122]

60% 0f Americans believe abortion should not be permitted or available under stricter circumstances (CBS/NYT poll Jan '12)

 

50% of Americans support gay marriage (Gallup May '12)

 

55% of Americans are agaisnt affirmative action policies in college admissions. Only 24% favor it (Rasmussen 2/12).

 

"Republicans are closer to the national mood on affirmative action and whether the government should go deeper into debt to help the poor." (NYT 6/12)

 

61% of Americans favored the 2010 Arizona law which would allow officials and law enforcement officers can stop and verify people's immigration status. (6/12). 55% thought the main focus of the federal government should be stopping illegal immigrant inflow and increasing deportation as opposed to 42% favoring establishing legal residency (CNN/ORC 11/11). 80% of Americans oppose providing healthcare for illegal aliens (USNews/Rasmussen 6/12).

 

As you can see, many of the Republican ticket items mirror current public opinion. It's not really a "hate" ticket.

 

 

I thought that was the last election. Why do those people still feel unimprotant when their choice as President has been on the job for 4 years? And what exactly has he done for them to increase their sense of "importance"?

 

Whether they mirror public opinion or not it doesn't change the fact that the basis is hate. As for your second thought he hasn't increased there importance as much as he is the candidate where they thought they had a chance to be heard. Romney in public opinion caters to rich white guys. True or not perception is reality and minorities won't vote for someone who doesn't care about them.

[Orton's Arm]

Well, I'm nothing short of stunned at the Presidential election results. Stunned. To me it's impossible for any thinking person who pays attention to the very real and very large issues we face as a country to conclude that the current president is the better choice to lead this nation going forward. Our debt, our annual deficit, illegal immigration, a stagnant at best economy, oversubscribed and underfunded entitlements, a weakening international standing and a growing population of people not ready or willing to be self sufficient - all are staggering issues. The devil is in the details. The numbers tell the story. Bright and committed minds can solve these, yet our President has not presented one sound plan that can correct any of these issues. He speaks in lofty poll tested phrases and says nothing at the same time. He avoids the real numbers and does not have the courage to face these issues. Frankly, he is often less than honest and demonstrates this with regularity.

 

Today voters are the problem. Too few are informed and too few are willing take the time to study an issue and think about how it should be solved and who is best to solve it. Too many vote for candidates who will deliver small things to them individually at the expense of the big picture. Too many even when faced with the facts vote for the man or women who is part of the problem or not a part of the solution.

 

Who will solve our nation's issues, those now in Washington or the voters? I don't have faith in either one. Seriously, we are a nation committing suicide. No need to worry about me. It's most of you, my kids, my friends, neighbors and future generations that are screwed without a big change in direction soon on many things.

 

This.

[Delete This Account]

i missed the Brian Williams takedown on trumps' tweets. having read about it today, i found it quite amusing.

 

WIlliams said it appeared that Trump had "driven well past the last exit to relevance and veered into something closer to irresponsible."

 

jw

[The Wiz]

 

Show me any statement that I made that was biased? I am quoting actual exit poll statistics. These numbers are not my opinion, they are fact.

 

I never questioned the numbers but stating he won because he is black (and not based on his policies) is an opinion.

[metzelaars_lives]

I have a safe full of guns, I love guns! It is my God given right to protect myself and Family from the filth in this world.I hunt with my guns as well, so you are calling me a RACIST for owning guns?????

 

No I'm calling you a moron for being paranoid about Obama coming to get your guns when he's never even mentioned it. And also, owning guns is not your "God given right." That is one of the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. And why would I call you a racist for owning guns? And why am I even responding to you right now? I'm hanging up on you- prank caller, prank caller.

[Alphadawg7]

i missed the Brian Williams takedown on trumps' tweets. having read about it today, i found it quite amusing.

 

WIlliams said it appeared that Trump had "driven well past the last exit to relevance and veered into something closer to irresponsible."

 

jw

 

That was classic. Trumps ignorant rants on twitter about how Romney was winning the popular vote by a large margin and that the Electoral votes has the world laughing at us (solely because at the time, thats what supported his views) were hilarious, especially after he had to take them down when it became clear he was too stupid to realize that the west coast votes were not in, which were a very large population all expected to be heavy Obama. Obama won both the electoral and popular decisively, so I guess Trump has to go back to screaming for birth certificates again hahahahaha

[birdog1960]

Whether they mirror public opinion or not it doesn't change the fact that the basis is hate. As for your second thought he hasn't increased there importance as much as he is the candidate where they thought they had a chance to be heard. Romney in public opinion caters to rich white guys. True or not perception is reality and minorities won't vote for someone who doesn't care about them.

is it really just perception after his behind closed doors 47% comment? i think that's a legitimate reason for those below the median income level (disproportionately underepresented by white males) to mistrust him.

[xsoldier54]

I never questioned the numbers but stating he won because he is black (and not based on his policies) is an opinion.

That is my interpretation of the numbers. Could be wrong, but that is my assessment. And yes it is an opinion, but it is not based on any bias, just my interpretation of exit poll numbers.

[ALLEN1QB]

 

 

The market is reacting to the Euros version of Ben Bernanke saying things are going to get worse in Europe. Take 2 steps back from the ledge.

 

I think both sides have to do a better job of informing themselves and stop listening to the entertaining vitriol. Contrary to some views on this board, Democrats have not cornered the market on ignorance. It's not about us. It's about power. And there's $6B spent on yesterday's elections to prove it.

 

Bull crap! The market knows what four more years of obama means. Take a close look only thing up today is medical stocks becsuse of obama care. Stop drinking that msnbc kool aid!

[Orton's Arm]

I wasn't respopnding to anything you said. In fact, I refused to even open this thread until this morning. But just based on what you said, I have a guess as to where you were going. And I will tell you that for every minority who voted for Obama mostly or even just because he's black, there are two rednecks who never graduated high school, still think he wasn't born here, probably think he's a Muslim, think he's trying to take their guns away, etc., etc. So believe me, it all balances out. Have you ever driven through a really rural part of the country with giant crosses on the side of the highway? People that have never really left the northeast don't realize just how much of this country is full of people I just described. They're the reason Romney, probably a moderate, had to cater so far to the right during the primaries.

 

> still think he wasn't born here

 

During the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, a wealthy supporter of Hillary filed a lawsuit alleging that Obama was ineligible for office, not having been born in the U.S. The judge threw the case out, arguing that the man didn't have the right to file it. (As though it should have been no concern of that man whether his nation's president was constitutionally eligible for office.) The question of Obama's birth has not (to my knowledge) been subjected to in-depth critical scrutiny. In the absence of such scrutiny, it is erroneous to express full confidence he was born here.

 

> think he's trying to take their guns away

 

People in Western European nations often lack the right to own guns. In some cases, they are prosecuted for murder for defending themselves against those who have broken into their homes. If gun rights and self defense rights can be taken away in Europe, they can also be taken away here, by people who think the way that Western European politicians think.

 

There had been at least some discussion about using the aftermath of Operation Fast and Furious to justify new anti-gun legislation.

[Alphadawg7]

> still think he wasn't born here

 

During the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, a wealthy supporter of Hillary filed a lawsuit alleging that Obama was ineligible for office, not having been born in the U.S. The judge threw the case out, arguing that the man didn't have the right to file it. (As though it should have been no concern of that man whether his nation's president was constitutionally eligible for office.) The question of Obama's birth has not (to my knowledge) been subjected to in-depth critical scrutiny. In the absence of such scrutiny, it is erroneous to express full confidence he was born here.

 

First off, the relevance of where he is born literally has ZERO impact on his ability to lead a nation. Its a big deal only to those who oppose him for either racial reasons or political reasons solely for the purpose of putting who they want in, not because his birth place is relevant to how he governs.

 

Secondly, there has never been an AMERICAN president in the history of this country...why, because the ONLY AMERICANS that existed where exterminated by European WHITE men. This is country founded on diversity and freedoms, not white power. Facts are Obama was raised as an American regardless of where he was as an infant in which no human has any memory or experience of at that age to impact governing beliefs.

 

Thirdly, there is no proof he wasnt born here in the first place, just republican gibberish trying to grasp at straws as they desperately try and seize power in a nation thats moved on from their white privileged views. If you can disqualify him then you dont have to be better than him or beat him.

 

Finally, and most importantly, I did not see ANY republicans B word about Schwarzenegger not being born here when he was elected governor of CA. They do not care he was not born here...why because he is a white republican. But they do care Obama was not, because hes not a white republican.

 

And people wonder why minorities have been moving more and more to the democratic side...has nothing to do with a minority deomcratic candidate and everything to do with the public stupidity the GOP keeps subjecting themselves too with idiots like O Reilly, Fox News, Trump, Romney, Todd Akin, etc.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Alphadawg7

[dwight in philly]

First off, the relevance of where he is born literally has ZERO impact on his ability to lead a nation. Its a big deal only to those who oppose him for either racial reasons or political reasons solely for the purpose of putting who they want in, not because his birth place is relevant to how he governs.

 

Secondly, there has never been an AMERICAN president in the history of this country...why, because the ONLY AMERICANS that existed where exterminated by European WHITE men. This is country founded on diversity and freedoms, not white power. Facts are Obama was raised as an American regardless of where he was as an infant in which no human has any memory or experience of at that age to impact governing beliefs.

 

Thirdly, there is no proof he wasnt born here in the first place, just republican gibberish trying to grasp at straws as they desperately try and seize power in a nation thats moved on from their white privileged views.

 

Finally, and most importantly, I did not see ANY republicans B word about Schwarzenegger not being born here when he was elected governor of CA. They do not care he was not born here...why because he is a white republican. But they do care Obama was not, because hes not a white republican.

 

And people wonder why minorities have been moving more and more to the democratic side...has nothing to do with a minority deomcratic candidate and everything to do with the public stupidity the GOP keeps subjecting themselves too with idiots like O Reilly, Fox News, Trump, Romney, Todd Akin, etc.

may have "zero impact" but he would be an illegitimate president.. lol.. you HAVE to be born in the USA to run for president..why do you think people are making an issue of it! i think it is stupid, but your premise that republicans are doing it because of race is wrong.why do you think people want him to release his college transcripts? rumor has it he applied to get in as a "foreign" student Edited November 7, 2012 by dwight in philly

[Alphadawg7]

may have "zero impact" but he would be an illegitimate president.. lol.. you HAVE to be born in the USA to run for president..why do you think people are making an issue of it! i think it is stupid, but your premise that republicans are doing it because of race is wrong.

 

Really? Did you hear republicans complaining Schwarzenegger wasnt born here? I didnt. It was a combination of being white and republican despite being one of the worst things to happen to CA since the last major earthquake. They complain about it because they cant beat Obama, so its the only way they can try and seize power. Has nothing to do with his ability as a President which already trumps that idiot Bush who was put into the white house despite not winning the election twice lol

Edited November 7, 2012 by Alphadawg7

[dwight in philly]

Really? Did you hear republicans complaining Schwarzenegger wasnt born here? I didnt. It was a combination of being white and republican despite being one of the worst things to happen to CA since the last major earthquake. They complain about it because they cant beat Obama, so its the only way they can try and seize power. Has nothing to do with his ability as a President which already trumps that idiot Bush who was put into the white house despite not winning the election twice lol

well, you do not have to be an american citizen to run for governor.. please.. stop the nonsense ..

[xsoldier54]

Really? Did you hear republicans complaining Schwarzenegger wasnt born here? I didnt. It was a combination of being white and republican despite being one of the worst things to happen to CA since the last major earthquake. They complain about it because they cant beat Obama, so its the only way they can try and seize power. Has nothing to do with his ability as a President which already trumps that idiot Bush who was put into the white house despite not winning the election twice lol

Did I miss something? When did Schwarzenegger run for President? You don't have to be born in the USA to run for Governor of Cal E Four Knee Ah, but you do have to be born in the U.S. to run for President. And your last statement really makes me feel better about some of the things you said to me earlier. Puts it all in perspective.

[yungmack]

 

 

Democrats seem like a lost cause for anyone who favors freedom over other values, like fairness. They used to stand for freedom. Their platform now is everything but freedom in every way imaginable. Unless all you care about is gay marriage, freedom lovers have two choices--one guy who will take away fewer freedoms and another guy who wants to give more of them back but has no shot of becoming president of his neighborhood association let alone the country.

This isn't a "biggie" criticism but you do realize that this part of your remarks is contradictory? If there's any characteristic of Dems that drives the GOPoH partisan nuts is the party's emphasis on "fairness over freedom." And that the Dems championing of gay rights is completely in accord with this emphasis on "fairness?"

[C.Biscuit97]

Are tools really trying to keep going with this whole Obama isn't born in America nonsense??? Get a life. Yes, Obama is a foreign born Muslim terrorist who went to Harvard Law School, became a Senate, got elected President twice, only to destroy America from inside the White House.

 

Congrats to Obama and the folks in PPP. They have another 4 years to root against the President of the USA.

[dwight in philly]

Are tools really trying to keep going with this whole Obama isn't born in America nonsense??? Get a life. Yes, Obama is a foreign born Muslim terrorist who went to Harvard Law School, became a Senate, got elected President twice, only to destroy America from inside the White House.

 

Congrats to Obama and the folks in PPP. They have another 4 years to root against the President of the USA.

huh??? point?

[Delete This Account]

The question of Obama's birth has not (to my knowledge) been subjected to in-depth critical scrutiny. In the absence of such scrutiny, it is erroneous to express full confidence he was born here.

 

i think this is a convenient way to suggest Obama's presidency is illegitimate. perhaps, some could have chosen to question whether Mitt was fit to be president given his family's background in Mexico. to say it hasn't been the subject of in-depth critical scrutiny overlooks the fact that it's been a subject that simply won't die, and constantly raised by those who seem to want to find loopholes that a Democrat has won back-to-back elections.

 

the longer this is questioned, the longer it will take for Americans -- all of them -- to confront real issues as opposed to made up ones, in my opinion.

 

People in Western European nations often lack the right to own guns. In some cases, they are prosecuted for murder for defending themselves against those who have broken into their homes. If gun rights and self defense rights can be taken away in Europe, they can also be taken away here, by people who think the way that Western European politicians think.

 

There had been at least some discussion about using the aftermath of Operation Fast and Furious to justify new anti-gun legislation.

 

and yet, there has not been one iota of proof that the Obama Administration has done anything to make it more difficult to own a gun in this country, despite those on the left who feel this could and should be a prime priority. i have difficulty understanding this Western European bogeyman thinking, too. they have canals in Amsterdam and in Venice, is that to say this may now become a trend in North America?

 

and why are Western European politicians the ones as being singled out for this type of thinking. i'd make a guess that the people that vote might have something to say about that, too, no?

 

just my 2 cents.

 

jw

[Alphadawg7]

well, you do not have to be an american citizen to run for governor.. please.. stop the nonsense ..

Did I miss something? When did Schwarzenegger run for President? You don't have to be born in the USA to run for Governor of Cal E Four Knee Ah, but you do have to be born in the U.S. to run for President. And your last statement really makes me feel better about some of the things you said to me earlier. Puts it all in perspective.

 

LMAO, when did I say you had to be an American citizen to run for governor? I said these idiots didn't care that Schwarzenegger wasn't born here, but they complain Obama wasn't and NOT just because its a rule. All kinds of republican ignorant fools are trying to claim that hes dangerous BECAUSE they allege he was not born here. But those same idiots didnt see Arnold as a danger governing one of the most important states, if not the most important state to this country, in CA while not being born in America.

 

IN FACT, there was a TON of republican out cry to AMEND the rule to allow for people born outside the USA just so that Arnold could be eligible to run for president after he was governor as they viewed him as someone who could be as big as Reagan initially. That was until he got himself kicked out of office for being literally a walking disaster.

 

Hmmmmm...so they support a non american governor, and before he blows it, they also begin talking about amending it so he could run for president...why? Because he was a white republican and it fit their agenda. Now that they are DESPERATELY grasping for a way to get back into power, they try and smear Obama and create allegations he is not born here and is some how dangerous because of that. Pathetic.

 

Sorry, I didnt read that book "Tactics for losers"

[C.Biscuit97]

LMAO, when did I say you had to be an American citizen to run for governor? I said these idiots didn't care that Schwarzenegger wasn't born here, but they complain Obama wasn't and NOT just because its a rule. All kinds of republican ignorant fools are trying to claim that hes dangerous BECAUSE they allege he was not born here. But those same idiots didnt see Arnold as a danger governing one of the most important states, if not the most important state to this country, in CA while not being born in America.

 

IN FACT, there was a TON of republican out cry to AMEND the rule to allow for people born outside the USA just so that Arnold could be eligible to run for president after he was governor as they viewed him as someone who could be as big as Reagan initially. That was until he got himself kicked out of office for being literally a walking disaster.

 

Hmmmmm...so they support a non american governor, and before he blows it, they also begin talking about amending it so he could run for president...why? Because he was a white republican and it fit their agenda. Now that they are DESPERATELY grasping for a way to get back into power, they try and smear Obama and create allegations he is not born here and is some how dangerous because of that. Pathetic.

 

Sorry, I didnt read that book "Tactics for losers"

 

Well said. 2 guys from the movie Predator became governor. When is it Carl Weathers' turn?

[dwight in philly]

LMAO, when did I say you had to be an American citizen to run for governor? I said these idiots didn't care that Schwarzenegger wasn't born here, but they complain Obama wasn't and NOT just because its a rule. All kinds of republican ignorant fools are trying to claim that hes dangerous BECAUSE they allege he was not born here. But those same idiots didnt see Arnold as a danger governing one of the most important states, if not the most important state to this country, in CA while not being born in America.

 

IN FACT, there was a TON of republican out cry to AMEND the rule to allow for people born outside the USA just so that Arnold could be eligible to run for president after he was governor as they viewed him as someone who could be as big as Reagan initially. That was until he got himself kicked out of office for being literally a walking disaster.

 

Hmmmmm...so they support a non american governor, and before he blows it, they also begin talking about amending it so he could run for president...why? Because he was a white republican and it fit their agenda. Now that they are DESPERATELY grasping for a way to get back into power, they try and smear Obama and create allegations he is not born here and is some how dangerous because of that. Pathetic.

 

Sorry, I didnt read that book "Tactics for losers"

nice dodge! seemed like you wanted to blame racists for questioning the obama birth issue..

[Heitz]

93% is my reply again. Find me any other group that voted 93% for any candidate.

 

For the record, African American vote percentages from several past elections:

 

1984 Walter Mondale 90% // Ronald Reagan 9%

1988 Michael Dukakis 90% // George H.W. Bush 10%

1992 Bill Clinton 83% // George H.W. Bush 10%

1996 Bill Clinton 84% // Bob Dole 12%

2000 Al Gore 90% // George W. Bush 9%

 

 

Hell Al Gore got 90% of the black vote and he's about the whitest robot guy out there!

 

So Obama didn't get 93% of the black vote because he's black, he got it because he's a Democrat, which is the point several people were making.

 

The question you should be asking is why do Republicans policies make blacks, Latinos, women, gays and, well, anyone that's not an older white guy, want to vote for the Dems?

[buffaloboyinATL]

Well, I'm nothing short of stunned at the Presidential election results. Stunned. To me it's impossible for any thinking person who pays attention to the very real and very large issues we face as a country to conclude that the current president is the better choice to lead this nation going forward. Our debt, our annual deficit, illegal immigration, a stagnant at best economy, oversubscribed and underfunded entitlements, a weakening international standing and a growing population of people not ready or willing to be self sufficient - all are staggering issues. The devil is in the details. The numbers tell the story. Bright and committed minds can solve these, yet our President has not presented one sound plan that can correct any of these issues. He speaks in lofty poll tested phrases and says nothing at the same time. He avoids the real numbers and does not have the courage to face these issues. Frankly, he is often less than honest and demonstrates this with regularity.

 

Today voters are the problem. Too few are informed and too few are willing take the time to study an issue and think about how it should be solved and who is best to solve it. Too many vote for candidates who will deliver small things to them individually at the expense of the big picture. Too many even when faced with the facts vote for the man or women who is part of the problem or not a part of the solution.

 

Who will solve our nation's issues, those now in Washington or the voters? I don't have faith in either one. Seriously, we are a nation committing suicide. No need to worry about me. It's most of you, my kids, my friends, neighbors and future generations that are screwed without a big change in direction soon on many things.

 

Well stated. I fear that many people voted based on the sound bites that the Obama campaign team is so adept at, and have no idea what they really signed up for. Prepare for dramatically increased capital gains taxes coming very soon. Prepare for corporations large and small to choose to no longer offer heathcare benefits to their employees because it is cheaper and easier to pay the fines. ( the government alternative will not be as great as many expect ). Prepare for small business owners cutting back or refusing to grow because of the dramatic increase in the taxes they will have to pay. (this will affect many more people than the Democrates have lead you to believe, not just the "wealthy" people making $250K+) Be prepared for what relaxed Immigration standards will do to this country. I am not sure why anyone who opposes Obama is automatically called a racist. There are many things to dislike in his politics that have nothing to do with the color of his skin.

[Alphadawg7]

For the record, African American vote percentages from several past elections:

 

1984 Walter Mondale 90% // Ronald Reagan 9%

1988 Michael Dukakis 90% // George H.W. Bush 10%

1992 Bill Clinton 83% // George H.W. Bush 10%

1996 Bill Clinton 84% // Bob Dole 12%

2000 Al Gore 90% // George W. Bush 9%

 

 

Hell Al Gore got 90% of the black vote and he's about the whitest robot guy out there!

 

So Obama didn't get 93% of the black vote because he's black, he got it because he's a Democrat, which is the point several people were making.

 

The question you should be asking is why do Republicans policies make blacks, Latinos, women, gays and, well, anyone that's not an older white guy, want to vote for the Dems?

 

"No wait, you make too much sense and use facts...that will never fly around here because its not fair and destroys my argument. Its only because he was black..." Signed xsoldier54 and his clan chapter.

[C.Biscuit97]

For the record, African American vote percentages from several past elections:

 

1984 Walter Mondale 90% // Ronald Reagan 9%

1988 Michael Dukakis 90% // George H.W. Bush 10%

1992 Bill Clinton 83% // George H.W. Bush 10%

1996 Bill Clinton 84% // Bob Dole 12%

2000 Al Gore 90% // George W. Bush 9%

 

 

Hell Al Gore got 90% of the black vote and he's about the whitest robot guy out there!

 

So Obama didn't get 93% of the black vote because he's black, he got it because he's a Democrat, which is the point several people were making.

 

The question you should be asking is why do Republicans policies make blacks, Latinos, women, gays and, well, anyone that's not an older white guy, want to vote for the Dems?

 

What I love about America is it so diverse. At the Democrat National convention, it was a melting pot. At the RNC, it is Hitler's wet dream. There are some very good Republican leaders. But loud idiots like Coutler make them all look bad. They need to get with the times. And as a Roman Catholic, I think religion should be separate from politics.

[birdog1960]

i think this is a convenient way to suggest Obama's presidency is illegitimate. perhaps, some could have chosen to question whether Mitt was fit to be president given his family's background in Mexico. to say it hasn't been the subject of in-depth critical scrutiny overlooks the fact that it's been a subject that simply won't die, and constantly raised by those who seem to want to find loopholes that a Democrat has won back-to-back elections.

 

the longer this is questioned, the longer it will take for Americans -- all of them -- to confront real issues as opposed to made up ones, in my opinion.

 

 

 

and yet, there has not been one iota of proof that the Obama Administration has done anything to make it more difficult to own a gun in this country, despite those on the left who feel this could and should be a prime priority. i have difficulty understanding this Western European bogeyman thinking, too. they have canals in Amsterdam and in Venice, is that to say this may now become a trend in North America?

 

and why are Western European politicians the ones as being singled out for this type of thinking. i'd make a guess that the people that vote might have something to say about that, too, no?

 

just my 2 cents.

 

jw

the mexico/immigrant thing just amazed me. romney somehow made a positive out of his grandfather going to mexico so he could practice polygamy. then made it sound like they were returning to the US for political asylum and were everyday "immigrants". and the dems left it alone (i think there should have been multiple pac ads on it but turns out it wasn't needed). but on harp the republicans about this "birther" issue. it's really no wonder why they're losing with a constituency like this.

Edited November 7, 2012 by birdog1960

[Alphadawg7]

What I love about America is it so diverse. At the Democrat National convention, it was a melting pot. At the RNC, it is Hitler's wet dream. There are some very good Republican leaders. But loud idiots like Coutler make them all look bad. They need to get with the times. And as a Roman Catholic, I think religion should be separate from politics.

 

Very true on all accounts. That was my biggest fear about Romney...his anti everything position due to his radical religious beliefs. I mean its pretty telling that he didnt even win his home state. Religion has no place in politics, yet he sighted his religion every step of the way to validate his stances that are archaic views like gay marriage. Not only should it not be involved in governing, but its supposed to be the rule...separation of church and state.

[dwight in philly]

What I love about America is it so diverse. At the Democrat National convention, it was a melting pot. At the RNC, it is Hitler's wet dream. There are some very good Republican leaders. But loud idiots like Coutler make them all look bad. They need to get with the times. And as a Roman Catholic, I think religion should be separate from politics.

yea, bill maher, he "gets it".. ann coulter is just a "idiot".. for crissakes! you serious? convenient for you to label. Edited November 7, 2012 by dwight in philly

[C.Biscuit97]

Very true on all accounts. That was my biggest fear about Romney...his anti everything position due to his radical religious beliefs. I mean its pretty telling that he didnt even win his home state. Religion has no place in politics, yet he sighted his religion every step of the way to validate his stances that are archaic views like gay marriage. Not only should it not be involved in governing, but its supposed to be the rule...separation of church and state.

 

Good points. I've very religious but it speaks to the double talk out of Republicans (Dems do it too). They want less goverment yet want to have a say in marriage and birth control?

 

And more telling is Romney didn't win his home state, the one he governed, or the one his Vice President is from.

[dwight in philly]

Very true on all accounts. That was my biggest fear about Romney...his anti everything position due to his radical religious beliefs. I mean its pretty telling that he didnt even win his home state. Religion has no place in politics, yet he sighted his religion every step of the way to validate his stances that are archaic views like gay marriage. Not only should it not be involved in governing, but its supposed to be the rule...separation of church and state.

who really cares about gay marriage? i worry for my children, grandchildren and the debt this guy has run up.. BUT.. i will beat you to it: IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT!

[Orton's Arm]

First off, the relevance of where he is born literally has ZERO impact on his ability to lead a nation. Its a big deal only to those who oppose him for either racial reasons or political reasons solely for the purpose of putting who they want in, not because his birth place is relevant to how he governs.

 

Secondly, there has never been an AMERICAN president in the history of this country...why, because the ONLY AMERICANS that existed where exterminated by European WHITE men. This is country founded on diversity and freedoms, not white power. Facts are Obama was raised as an American regardless of where he was as an infant in which no human has any memory or experience of at that age to impact governing beliefs.

 

Thirdly, there is no proof he wasnt born here in the first place, just republican gibberish trying to grasp at straws as they desperately try and seize power in a nation thats moved on from their white privileged views. If you can disqualify him then you dont have to be better than him or beat him.

 

Finally, and most importantly, I did not see ANY republicans B word about Schwarzenegger not being born here when he was elected governor of CA. They do not care he was not born here...why because he is a white republican. But they do care Obama was not, because hes not a white republican.

 

And people wonder why minorities have been moving more and more to the democratic side...has nothing to do with a minority deomcratic candidate and everything to do with the public stupidity the GOP keeps subjecting themselves too with idiots like O Reilly, Fox News, Trump, Romney, Todd Akin, etc.

 

> First off, the relevance of where he is born literally has ZERO impact on his ability to lead a nation.

 

Perhaps. But the U.S. Constitution states that in order to be eligible for president, you must have been born in America.

 

> Secondly, there has never been an AMERICAN president in the history of this country...why, because

> the ONLY AMERICANS that existed where exterminated by European WHITE men.

 

We seem to have drifted a little from the main subject. But for whatever it's worth, "exterminate and replace" was a fairly common strategy once upon a time, among both whites and non-whites. The Aztec tribe, for example, would fight against other American Indian tribes. If victorious, they would exterminate large numbers of their defeated foes. It was a standard-issue "exterminate and replace" strategy, with religious overtones of human sacrifice.

 

> Thirdly, there is no proof he wasnt born here in the first place . . .

 

Again, the question hasn't been subjected to an in-depth critical examination. We simply don't know whether it's legal for him to be president.

 

> Finally, and most importantly, I did not see ANY republicans B word about Schwarzenegger not being born here when he was elected governor of CA.

 

That's because it's legal to be a governor even if you were born in another country. However, Schwarzenegger is ineligible to run for president.

 

> This is country founded on diversity and freedoms, not white power.

 

This country was not founded on "diversity." "Diversity" is a made-up value used to justify a whole host of new leftist policies, including the 1964 Immigration and Naturalization Act.

 

Back in the 1600s, the Pilgrims felt England had become too corrupt; and so moved to Holland. However, their children began learning Dutch, and began absorbing at least a little of Holland's corruption. Wanting to get away from that, the Pilgrims moved here, to America. The objective--at least for the Northern colonies--was to be a "city on a hill" and a "light to the nations." The idea was to build a community with a high degree of moral purity--hence the name "Puritan." In the South, colonies were founded so that younger sons of nobles could have lands of their own. (Typically, the eldest son of a noble inherited most or all of his land.)

 

> And people wonder why minorities have been moving more and more to the democratic side. . . .

 

It's a straightforward proposition. Step 1: Democrats open the floodgates to large numbers of new immigrants. Most of these are from Third World nations. Step 2: These immigrants often bring with them many of the same beliefs and expectations which caused their nations to become part of the Third World in the first place. Step 3: The immigrants vote Democrat. Step 4: Democrats create new legislation which moves the U.S. ever-closer to Third World status. Step 5: rinse and repeat. I don't see how Republicans--or any other group--can break this cycle, or prevent the U.S. from eventually being absorbed into the Third World.

[C.Biscuit97]

who really cares about gay marriage? i worry for my children, grandchildren and the debt this guy has run up.. BUT.. i will beat you to it: IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT!

 

Good point. No Obama=no debt. I agree that this Muslim terrorist is destroying this country single handedly. He inherited a country in such great shape and is running it into the ground. The way he let Bin Laden run free. Or the way he destroyed GM. If Romeny would have won, boom, no debt. It's really that simple.

[yungmack]

This thread was actually a pretty good read this morning with lots of fairly well-thought out comments, even in disagreement. Some got a little nasty but, what the heck, this TBD!

 

Here are a few of my reactions:

 

1) As someone who makes a living investing, the drop in the stock market is most likely a mixed bag of reasons, most prominent of which is the situation in the EuroZone, especially the banks. And Obama's reelection probably plays into that as he might grow a pair of balls and actually go after the criminal elements on Wall Street, especially as the Money Bags abandoned him in favor of Romney in the election. And the amount of oil and natural gas being produced in the US is depressing prices in the world market. There are other things going on too but Obama's reelection is just one factor and not the most important;

 

2) You don't have to be American born to run for any office other than the presidency. However, in the wake of Schwarzenegger's election in California, there was a strong effort by Republicans to amend the Constitution to permit him to run for president;

 

3) African Americans voted in overwhelming numbers for Obama. They also voted in overwhelming numbers for every WHITE Democratic presidential nominee over the last 50 years. Is that racist? Doesn't seem like it to me. Did many of them vote for Obama because he's black? Without a doubt. Though I was too young to vote for JFK, I remember that election very well. And Kennedy got an overwhelming percentage of the Catholic vote including a huge number of Catholic Republicans. Did they vote for him because he was a Catholic? Without a doubt. Is that "racist? I don't know;

 

4) Chester A Arthur was elected president even though he was most likely born in Canada. And yes, it was an issue at the time;

 

5) George Romney ran for the presidential nomination even though he was born in Mexico and was thus not qualified. I don't remember anyone raising that as an issue. However, I don't think there is any record of him officially becoming an American citizen after moving here from Mexico. And even though his son Willard was born in Detroit and thus a citizen by birth, he might therefore be the son of an illegal alien, which puts him in an awkward position when he opposes a "path to citizenship" for other illegal aliens who also have American-born children. And when they're deported, they have to take those American kids with them. Maybe Willard can "self-deport."

[Alphadawg7]

This thread was actually a pretty good read this morning with lots of fairly well-thought out comments, even in disagreement. Some got a little nasty but, what the heck, this TBD!

 

Here are a few of my reactions:

 

1) As someone who makes a living investing, the drop in the stock market is most likely a mixed bag of reasons, most prominent of which is the situation in the EuroZone, especially the banks. And Obama's reelection probably plays into that as he might grow a pair of balls and actually go after the criminal elements on Wall Street, especially as the Money Bags abandoned him in favor of Romney in the election. And the amount of oil and natural gas being produced in the US is depressing prices in the world market. There are other things going on too but Obama's reelection is just one factor and not the most important;

 

2) You don't have to be American born to run for any office other than the presidency. However, in the wake of Schwarzenegger's election in California, there was a strong effort by Republicans to amend the Constitution to permit him to run for president;

 

3) African Americans voted in overwhelming numbers for Obama. They also voted in overwhelming numbers for every WHITE Democratic presidential nominee over the last 50 years. Is that racist? Doesn't seem like it to me. Did many of them vote for Obama because he's black? Without a doubt. Though I was too young to vote for JFK, I remember that election very well. And Kennedy got an overwhelming percentage of the Catholic vote including a huge number of Catholic Republicans. Did they vote for him because he was a Catholic? Without a doubt. Is that "racist? I don't know;

 

4) Chester A Arthur was elected president even though he was most likely born in Canada. And yes, it was an issue at the time;

 

5) George Romney ran for the presidential nomination even though he was born in Mexico and was thus not qualified. I don't remember anyone raising that as an issue. However, I don't think there is any record of him officially becoming an American citizen after moving here from Mexico. And even though his son Willard was born in Detroit and thus a citizen by birth, he might therefore be the son of an illegal alien, which puts him in an awkward position when he opposes a "path to citizenship" for other illegal aliens who also have American-born children. And when they're deported, they have to take those American kids with them. Maybe Willard can "self-deport."

 

I rather enjoyed this post...nice job and well said

Edited November 7, 2012 by Alphadawg7

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

> Thirdly, there is no proof he wasnt born here in the first place . . .

 

Again, the question hasn't been subjected to an in-depth critical examination. We simply don't know whether it's legal for him to be president.

 

> And people wonder why minorities have been moving more and more to the democratic side. . . .

 

It's a straightforward proposition. Step 1: Democrats open the floodgates to large numbers of new immigrants. Most of these are from Third World nations. Step 2: These immigrants often bring with them many of the same beliefs and expectations which caused their nations to become part of the Third World in the first place. Step 3: The immigrants vote Democrat. Step 4: Democrats create new legislation which moves the U.S. ever-closer to Third World status. Step 5: rinse and repeat. I don't see how Republicans--or any other group--can break this cycle, or prevent the U.S. from eventually being absorbed into the Third World.

I'm curious, that long-form birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii was what? A forgery? A head fake by the WH? Not in-depth enough for you?

 

about that third-world thing...

 

did you consider that maybe those immigrants left their third-world country to come to the USA because it's radically different and better (opportunities) than where they came from and they don't want it to ever look like what they left behind, things like culture and food aside? And maybe, they choose to be democratic because they don't identify with the platform that they hear or at least believe to be true about the GOP? And that immigration thing, ya, where do I sign up to join a party that wants to deport us?

 

Your circular logic is interesting, but IMO, far from reality.

[xsoldier54]

"No wait, you make too much sense and use facts...that will never fly around here because its not fair and destroys my argument. Its only because he was black..." Signed xsoldier54 and his clan chapter.

I have already previously acknowledged that Black voters historically vote largely in a block. Your ridiculous remarks about Schwartzenegger and about me being part of the clan have rendered you no longer worthy of my time. You are not capable of comprehending my line of thought. Not your fault, you were born that way. Edited November 7, 2012 by xsoldier54

[section122]

The question you should be asking is why do Republicans policies make blacks, Latinos, women, gays and, well, anyone that's not an older white guy, want to vote for the Dems?

 

I have asked this question multiple times in this thread and once in the shout box. I'm still waiting for my answer.

 

who really cares about gay marriage? i worry for my children, grandchildren and the debt this guy has run up.. BUT.. i will beat you to it: IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT!

Well as long as you know that

 

Seriously though, I think everyone is in agreement (or should be) that Obama inherited an absolute mess of a country. To think he could solve all of the issues facing our nation in one term is ludicrous. Now he has an opportunity to really do work as he doesn't have to worry about re-election. I am excited to think of the possibilities of what he can accomplish. Meanwhile Republicans are running around saying the world will end because he has 4 more years. If we can survive 8 years of Bush we certainly can survive 8 years of Obama.