I know! So much butthurt!
War Man wrote:
Oh well, 4 more years of utter shit, disappointing. Oh and I am definitely not gonna vote for a Libertarian candidate at all for quite awhile, I was willing to vote for a Libertarian when it comes to the local and state levels and possibly vote libertarian nationally if I had to, but now I think I will adopt their stubbornness for not voting for Romney in all scenarios, I lost all my respect for them.
I'd like to give my thanks to the national(not local, national) tea party and Rand Paul for supporting Mark Neumann as our Republican candidate for Wisconsin Senate which helped result in Tommy Thompson winning instead of Eric Hovde, thanks for getting into the affairs of our local elections jackasses. Tommy Thompson spent his little cash on stupid "Tammy Baldwin is too liberal for Wisconsin" ads which didn't help him. Oh and Thompson is a moderate which makes him more winnable....
Thumbs up for Chris Christy hugging Obama before the elections, dumbass. Kiss your chances of being President goodbye because we won't vote for you as Republican candidate for President with what you did.
Romney should of been slightly more aggressive in his ads, by better explaining what he was gonna do and slam Obama on things like Benghazi. Mr Nice Guy that Republicans tend to play as in Presidential elections doesn't help them win.
On the bright side, Paul Ryan kept his seat, Republicans still have the House, and the Wisconsin state senate has been reclaimed by Republicans(so now we can get things done again in Wisconsin). If Obama wants to get things done, he has gotta reach out and compromise, otherwise his 4 years are almost worthless and a waste of time.
Yes, laugh at this post all you want guys, haha. I really don't care.
On a side note, Wisconsin is purple, not blue. Also, I enjoy Halo 4
I think they're asking to be made fun of when they're posting shit like that. Sure, have your opinion and it might be completely opposed to someone else, but having the attitude that you will shun someone simply because how they voted?? Geez, get a grip. I have a mate who voted and supports for the the current QLD government of which I am completely against, but I'm not going to ostracise him because of it, lol.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
"When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me."Spark wrote:
http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html?m=1
I believe we call this "the unhinging".
"If I meet a Democrat in my life from here on out, I will shun them immediately. I will spit on the ground in front of them, being careful not to spit in their general direction so that they can't charge me with some stupid little nuisance law. Then I'll tell them in no un-certain terms: "I do not associate with Democrats. You all are communist pigs, and I have nothing but utter disgust for you. Sir/Madam, you are scum of the earth." Then I'll turn and walk the other way."
ahahahahahahaha
War Man wrote:
Oh well, 4 more years of utter shit, disappointing. Oh and I am definitely not gonna vote for a Libertarian candidate at all for quite awhile, I was willing to vote for a Libertarian when it comes to the local and state levels and possibly vote libertarian nationally if I had to, but now I think I will adopt their stubbornness for not voting for Romney in all scenarios, I lost all my respect for them.
I'd like to give my thanks to the national(not local, national) tea party and Rand Paul for supporting Mark Neumann as our Republican candidate for Wisconsin Senate which helped result in Tommy Thompson winning instead of Eric Hovde, thanks for getting into the affairs of our local elections jackasses. Tommy Thompson spent his little cash on stupid "Tammy Baldwin is too liberal for Wisconsin" ads which didn't help him. Oh and Thompson is a moderate which makes him more winnable....
Thumbs up for Chris Christy hugging Obama before the elections, dumbass. Kiss your chances of being President goodbye because we won't vote for you as Republican candidate for President with what you did.
Romney should of been slightly more aggressive in his ads, by better explaining what he was gonna do and slam Obama on things like Benghazi. Mr Nice Guy that Republicans tend to play as in Presidential elections doesn't help them win.
On the bright side, Paul Ryan kept his seat, Republicans still have the House, and the Wisconsin state senate has been reclaimed by Republicans(so now we can get things done again in Wisconsin). If Obama wants to get things done, he has gotta reach out and compromise, otherwise his 4 years are almost worthless and a waste of time.
Yes, laugh at this post all you want guys, haha. I really don't care.
On a side note, Wisconsin is purple, not blue. Also, I enjoy Halo 4
See this is an absolutely ridiculous attitude. It's why bipartisanship is such a negative term, because ignorant twits like you take any sign of agreement or common decency towards 'the enemy' as something that first actually matters on a policy level and second as something to be abhorred. One of the biggest criticisms levelled against Obama was his apparent unwillingness to really work across party lines, (in fact you made the criticism later in your post,) now you're critical of Christy for hugging the guy and working with him to clean up a natural disaster. You know I guarantee that the last thing on Christy's mind when he worked with Obama was how it would make Mitt Romney's election campaign look. And while it may make him a bad Republican it makes him a good and responsible Governor.War Man wrote:
Thumbs up for Chris Christy hugging Obama before the elections, dumbass. Kiss your chances of being President goodbye because we won't vote for you as Republican candidate for President with what you did.
Aggressive ads also have the risk of alienating people. Remember to really win an election you have to get the middle as well as the extreme, what the Republican Party should have learned with this election is that they need to do this more instead of going further to their own extremes. If Mitt was allowed to run as himself and how he was as Governor of Massachusetts I think he would have had a far better chance of winning. Instead he had to abandon all these values for fear it would scare off all the hard-set Republicans. In doing that he abandoned the votes of the many who are dissatisfied with Obama. Instead of promoting the message "I'm an attractive alternative President" he went for "Dissatisfied with Obama? Well it could be worse".War Man wrote:
Romney should of been slightly more aggressive in his ads, by better explaining what he was gonna do and slam Obama on things like Benghazi. Mr Nice Guy that Republicans tend to play as in Presidential elections doesn't help them win.
Mitt unquestionably should have been better at explaining what he was going to do. People kept telling him that during the campaign too. He was going up against an incumbent, he was already at a disadvantage in that people knew his opponent and how he would likely run things. They didn't know that about Mitt.
Obama has to reach out and compromise, yes. So do the Republicans. That's what compromise means. I hope both parties learned that people get sick of obstructionist politics. People want to see progress.War Man wrote:
On the bright side, Paul Ryan kept his seat, Republicans still have the House, and the Wisconsin state senate has been reclaimed by Republicans(so now we can get things done again in Wisconsin). If Obama wants to get things done, he has gotta reach out and compromise, otherwise his 4 years are almost worthless and a waste of time.
No-one's laughing. I would have if you started insisting that it was a draw.War Man wrote:
Yes, laugh at this post all you want guys, haha. I really don't care.
Schadenfreude at all the butthurt aside it's just an election result, and one that many on both sides saw coming anyway. What's funny in a tragic sort of way is that people are so distraught and angry and pouting and determined above anything else to not make things work out in their best interests. Look at Donald Trump's tantrum. Look at that Libertarian website urging people to disown any friends, family or colleagues they have that may not see the way they do. Look at Fox News' bawling. No-one should want to be these guys.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Too spammy or irritatingly offensive of an ad campaign DOES alienate voters. You're just preaching to your own choir and driving everyone else away. Republican politicians I would have normally supported in Washington state flooded Youtube with some of the most out-of-touch, pandering, patronizing ads I've ever seen.
We didn't need to hear Mitt Romney and folks attack Obama even more. We needed to hear what his plans were, if he had any.
We didn't need to hear Mitt Romney and folks attack Obama even more. We needed to hear what his plans were, if he had any.
Romney never did explain what loopholes his tax plan would have closed to allow a huge defense budget increase.
As Clinton said, the math didn't add up.
Romney and many other conservatives were hurt in that they appeared on FoxNews and had everyone hail them and claim how great they are. You don't want to explain your tax plan? That's ok, you're Republican so it must be good!
That detachment from reality meant the Romney campaign was always seeing their campaign through rose coloured glasses.
As Clinton said, the math didn't add up.
Romney and many other conservatives were hurt in that they appeared on FoxNews and had everyone hail them and claim how great they are. You don't want to explain your tax plan? That's ok, you're Republican so it must be good!
That detachment from reality meant the Romney campaign was always seeing their campaign through rose coloured glasses.
I only just saw this. I had to laugh at the prospect of republicans moving here because they hate the idea of things like universal healthcare and gay marriage!Ty wrote:
It's what happens when the ego is forcibly removed.
Edit: A lot of Americans about to move to New Zealand it seems. #movingtonewzealand is a hash tag on Twitter.
Let's be honest. Many in the GOP, not just the far right loonies, were calling for Obama's resignation before he even took office. Before 2009 actually. They were also calling for his failure before he even started to fail at anything. It's the boy who cried wolf syndrome.
Obamacare is socialised medicine with death panels!Spearhead wrote:
Let's be honest. Many in the GOP, not just the far right loonies, were calling for Obama's resignation before he even took office. Before 2009 actually. They were also calling for his failure before he even started to fail at anything. It's the boy who cried wolf syndrome.
Nevermind the fact it was conceptualized by The Heritage Foundation and Romney himself touted it within Mas.
the heritage wanted a single payer. that didn't pass the republicans in the house.AussieReaper wrote:
Nevermind the fact it was conceptualized by The Heritage Foundation and Romney himself touted it within Mas.
a wild facebook quote appears;
today I would like to offer my commiserations to all the hard working, educated Canadians out there. After all you will soon be swamped by all the "fair weather Americans" who said they were moving to Canada if Obama gets in.... luckily most of that lot probably aren't too sure where you are so I suggest hanging around the borders wearing sombreroes and speaking spanish.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
lol
Karl Rove wrote:
Good-bye $300,000,000
Again, though, without a consistent, non-partisan and in a perfect world automated system to draw electoral boundaries, it's extremely sketchy. The electoral collage might be dodgy, but at least it's systematic.FEOS wrote:
People live in those districts...otherwise, the districts would be much, much smaller.Reciprocity wrote:
if only acreage had the right to vote.the almighty wiki wrote:
As of the 2000 census:
Average population per district: 646,946 people
Area
District with the greatest area: Alaska At-large
District with the greatest area that comprises less than an entire state: Nevada's 2nd
District with the smallest area: New York's 15th[1]
Population
District with the most people: Montana At-large (905,316)
District with the fewest people: Wyoming At-large (495,304)Based on the county-by-county outcome, Utah didn't anyway.13urnzz wrote:
if you merged the two, then utah wouldn't have democratic representation.FEOS wrote:
I've been wondering how the election would've gone if our electoral system was proportional, based on congressional district.
Geographic results (by county)
Congressional districts
Would be interesting to see a merging of these two, with the corresponding elector count. Only a handful of states would've been "all in" for either candidate.
makes sense, if you*re a republican in utah.
And I'm talking about changing up electoral vote distribution methodology, not how representatives are elected. It would have zero impact on any race but the presidency.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It's impossible not to enjoy the schadenfreude in watching the Fox reaction to crushing reality. They live in their own universe for so long I imagine events like the other night's election must be like being pulled out of The Matrix.13urnzz wrote:
Karl Rove wrote:
Good-bye $300,000,000
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
actually fox news is best troll in the world. I doubt rupert murdoch really gives a shit who wins, just so he can squeeze more profit.Ty wrote:
It's impossible not to enjoy the schadenfreude in watching the Fox reaction to crushing reality. They live in their own universe for so long I imagine events like the other night's election must be like being pulled out of The Matrix.13urnzz wrote:
Karl Rove wrote:
Good-bye $300,000,000
Cybargs, you've obviously never seen his Twitter messages.
Stop showing your ignorance.
Stop showing your ignorance.
People complain about gerrymandering, but the fact is that urban areas are mostly democrat, rural areas are mostly republican. It's based on population, so you can't really get away from that, regardless of how you draw the boundaries.Spark wrote:
Again, though, without a consistent, non-partisan and in a perfect world automated system to draw electoral boundaries, it's extremely sketchy. The electoral collage might be dodgy, but at least it's systematic.
Also, that's what courts are for when people challenge the district boundaries.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The more hate he gets, the more ratings he gets, the more money he has.AussieReaper wrote:
Cybargs, you've obviously never seen his Twitter messages.
Stop showing your ignorance.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/40306 … siness.htm
Fox ratings have benefited massively from the Obama Presidency. The channel's conservative hard-line rhetoric and the continuous attacks on thePresident conveyed large part of the Republican audience that can't stand Obama and his 'socialist' policies...
In the last quarter shares of Murdoch's media conglomerate company News Corp. raised 2.4 per cent, Murdoch reported in an earnings call with analysts earlier this week.
Last edited by Cybargs (2012-11-08 20:58:28)
He didn't want to get into "hypotheticals."AussieReaper wrote:
Romney never did explain what loopholes his tax plan would have closed to allow a huge defense budget increase.
As Clinton said, the math didn't add up.
Romney and many other conservatives were hurt in that they appeared on FoxNews and had everyone hail them and claim how great they are. You don't want to explain your tax plan? That's ok, you're Republican so it must be good!
That detachment from reality meant the Romney campaign was always seeing their campaign through rose coloured glasses.
yeah. the courts have seen quite a few challenges to redistricting.FEOS wrote:
Also, that's what courts are for when people challenge the district boundaries.
did any judges appear on your ballot (i am assuming you did your civic duty and voted)? do you believe there is legislation from the bench? because in nearly 50 years of living in an urban jungle (California) and a rural paradise (Utah) i've personally witnessed zero challenges.
can you exactly cite any?
My understanding is that when all is said and done, Democrats will have more votes for the HoR than the Republicans. Wouldn't be a problem if it were a small majority for the Republicans, but this is not. This is a pretty solid majority and it suggests to me - though I haven't done the numbers - that it would take a pretty strong popular vote towards the Democrats for the House to become "even".FEOS wrote:
People complain about gerrymandering, but the fact is that urban areas are mostly democrat, rural areas are mostly republican. It's based on population, so you can't really get away from that, regardless of how you draw the boundaries.Spark wrote:
Again, though, without a consistent, non-partisan and in a perfect world automated system to draw electoral boundaries, it's extremely sketchy. The electoral collage might be dodgy, but at least it's systematic.
Also, that's what courts are for when people challenge the district boundaries.
I mean, it's a question of being representative. If you have a 50-50 split but distributed so one side wins a handful of seats by huge margins but the other side wins many more seats by small margins - so despite it being evenly divided, one side has a significant leg-up - is that representative?
Fair point about the courts, but I still think the best way to do it would be to take politicians out of the process entirely.
Last edited by Spark (2012-11-08 21:44:47)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Funny how lots of head judicial leaders have to be elected or selected. Just look at the supreme court, highly politicized. And people vote for sherrifs as well, wtf is up with that.
two-thirds of oregon is one district because nobody lives there but fucking mormons too dumb to move to idaho and half-starved cows. they're lucky to get any vote.FEOS wrote:
People live in those districts...otherwise, the districts would be much, much smaller.