|
Post by redleg on Nov 10, 2013 22:25:24 GMT -5
And the reason the public perceived the GOP as worse is because the US media is a propaganda outlet for the Democratic party. The blame others for your troubles approach exemplified by this assertion is dangerous. It discourages the introspection necessary for the GOP to actually figure out why it might be disliked by glibly dismissing it as an artifact of journalistic bias. The truth is there are certain aspects of GOP policy that simply aren't popular. By dismissing criticism as biased, the GOP prevents itself from ever realizing this. The 2008 transfer of power was inevitable because George W. Bush was, until the current officeholder, the worst president in my lifetime, and that includes Nixon and Carter. Just a really, really bad leader. to the weeks of stories about the kid who's hair Mitt Romney cut in High School And the dog, don't forget the dog. The thing is, those stories ARE relevant... because they give us insight into Romney's character. They suggested he was a bully and a man who lacked basic empathy - and he confirmed that by his casual dismissal of the 47% who he believed would never vote for him. While there might be aspects of the GOP platform that are not popular, much of that is due to propaganda as well. Since no one in the LR media is willing to explain anything the GOP wants to do, but instead simply calls them "terrorists", "hijackers", simply repeats that the Repubs are "holding a gun to their heads", no one knows what the GOP is standing for, what they want to do, or why. Only those that watch Fox News know anything at all about Republican policies.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 10, 2013 22:28:35 GMT -5
As I've said before, he was elected only because he was black. There is no other explanation for electing an unknown Chicago street thug,who had never held a job, no one knew, and had never accomplished anything at all. This post demonstrates the problem that I'm describing: the GOP does not understand that it is moving away from what mainstream America will accept. Until it does, there is more losing in its future. But, hey, as long as you all can stick to your principles, having actual political power doesn't matter that much, right? Obama got elected because Bush was a terrible president, McCain was seen as more of the same, and into the bargain was an old man with a dangerously dumb sidekick. America picked the guy they thought had fewer things wrong with him. If you are an indication of how the GOP thinks, you all need a few more presidential losses, until you learn. Remember the first rule of marketing: perception is reality. Which brings me to an answer to your next post: the GOP cannot articulate its positions well, or explain why they are better than what the Dems have to offer. I see two reasons for this: the GOP regards its philosophy as self-evidently superior, so much so that it does not feel it needs to explain why. Such opinions lead to disappointing election results. The other problem is that the Tea Party split the GOP. While I'd like to see a third party, the Tea Party has embraced some real head cases, and this has kept moderates (both independent moderates and Blue Dog Dems) at arm's length. Split as it is, without luring moderate Dems away, the GOP can only fail.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 10, 2013 22:29:57 GMT -5
And the reason the public perceived the GOP as worse is because the US media is a propaganda outlet for the Democratic party. And the dog, don't forget the dog. The thing is, those stories ARE relevant... because they give us insight into Romney's character. They suggested he was a bully and a man who lacked basic empathy - and he confirmed that by his casual dismissal of the 47% who he believed would never vote for him. No, they didn't. The story about the hair cut was a lie. Period. Even the alleged victim's family said it never happened. The story about the dog was a nonstory, except that the LR media made it into a story. Notice that they ignored The Puppet EATING dogs. And the 47% comment was taken so far out of context that it might as well have been made up from whole cloth. And notice that it's okay for Leftists to secretly tape, steal emails, hack websites, and do whatever they want, and no body even comments on it, but Repubs can't even tell the truth and get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 10, 2013 22:31:37 GMT -5
Some repub positions are not popular-that doesn't make those positions wrong. If we're to survive as a nation we will need to make hard choices-some of which will be painful and unpopular....but necessary. You're probably right. However, selling people hard positions is very difficult to do. What the Democrats did with Obamacare was sell the idea that someone ELSE would suffer. That this turned out to be a lie will, hopefully, bite them in the ass. We'll see. In general you can't sell hard positions in countries like this one until things get much, much worse than they are now. And then what happens, typically, is some kind of dictator arises. It won't though, because the LR media will lie, obfuscate, and cover up anything at all that even might be detrimental to The Puppet.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 10, 2013 22:32:14 GMT -5
Well, it didn't so much 'turn out to be a lie' as it was an obvious lie right from the start. This is why, when describing Obamacare, the Fair & Balanced media keep saying "I told you so" and the legacy media keep putting out news broadcasts brought to you by the word "unexpectedly." Yeah.....I dropped an apple today, and it "unexpectedly" fell to the floor...... To Obama and the legacy media, it would still be unexpected even if you threw it at the floor.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 10, 2013 22:36:25 GMT -5
Ok now "Barry" is dictator material! Lol Well, given you obvious cluelessness, let's review. He's simply ignored bankruptcy laws, because they got in the way of him giving billions to his owners in the union. He's simply ignored immigration law, because he needed all those illegals voting for him in 2012. He simply "rewrote" the welfare law, despite the absolute prohibition written into the law itself, so he could buy more serfs votes. He unilaterally rewrote Puppettax, which he has no authority to do, as soon as he found out it was going to cost the Dems the Senate. So, what do you call an elected executive that simply ignores the law whenever he decides it's inconvenient?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 10, 2013 22:44:41 GMT -5
As I've said before, he was elected only because he was black. There is no other explanation for electing an unknown Chicago street thug,who had never held a job, no one knew, and had never accomplished anything at all. This post demonstrates the problem that I'm describing: the GOP does not understand that it is moving away from what mainstream America will accept. Until it does, there is more losing in its future. But, hey, as long as you all can stick to your principles, having actual political power doesn't matter that much, right? Obama got elected because Bush was a terrible president, McCain was seen as more of the same, and into the bargain was an old man with a dangerously dumb sidekick. America picked the guy they thought had fewer things wrong with him. If you are an indication of how the GOP thinks, you all need a few more presidential losses, until you learn. Remember the first rule of marketing: perception is reality. Which brings me to an answer to your next post: the GOP cannot articulate its positions well, or explain why they are better than what the Dems have to offer. I see two reasons for this: the GOP regards its philosophy as self-evidently superior, so much so that it does not feel it needs to explain why. Such opinions lead to disappointing election results. The other problem is that the Tea Party split the GOP. While I'd like to see a third party, the Tea Party has embraced some real head cases, and this has kept moderates (both independent moderates and Blue Dog Dems) at arm's length. Split as it is, without luring moderate Dems away, the GOP can only fail. No, you are just buying into the propaganda. Bush wasn't a great President, but he was average. He was no where near as bad as Carter. The LR media had spent 8 years painting him as Satan and 'your mother' all at the same time, and sold any opposition to The Puppet as racism. The only reason he was elected was because the Dems sent 500 lawyers to Alaska within hours of Palin's acceptance, and they bought or simply made up, as much dirt as they could find. I would much rather have Presidential losses, especially as long as they are as criminal, incompetent, and dictatorial as The Puppet, as long as the Repubs return to their priniciples and stick to them. The GOP is not allowed to articulate any principles. The LR media tells everyone else what the Repub principles are, and they are lying about them. When a national network "gives" an hour of airtime to pure propaganda about Puppettax, then refuses to allow a single rebuttal, there is no where for Repubs to turn.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 11, 2013 8:47:29 GMT -5
This post demonstrates the problem that I'm describing: the GOP does not understand that it is moving away from what mainstream America will accept. Until it does, there is more losing in its future. But, hey, as long as you all can stick to your principles, having actual political power doesn't matter that much, right? Obama got elected because Bush was a terrible president, McCain was seen as more of the same, and into the bargain was an old man with a dangerously dumb sidekick. America picked the guy they thought had fewer things wrong with him. If you are an indication of how the GOP thinks, you all need a few more presidential losses, until you learn. Remember the first rule of marketing: perception is reality. Which brings me to an answer to your next post: the GOP cannot articulate its positions well, or explain why they are better than what the Dems have to offer. I see two reasons for this: the GOP regards its philosophy as self-evidently superior, so much so that it does not feel it needs to explain why. Such opinions lead to disappointing election results. The other problem is that the Tea Party split the GOP. While I'd like to see a third party, the Tea Party has embraced some real head cases, and this has kept moderates (both independent moderates and Blue Dog Dems) at arm's length. Split as it is, without luring moderate Dems away, the GOP can only fail. No, you are just buying into the propaganda. Bush wasn't a great President, but he was average. He was no where near as bad as Carter. The LR media had spent 8 years painting him as Satan and 'your mother' all at the same time, and sold any opposition to The Puppet as racism. The only reason he was elected was because the Dems sent 500 lawyers to Alaska within hours of Palin's acceptance, and they bought or simply made up, as much dirt as they could find. I would much rather have Presidential losses, especially as long as they are as criminal, incompetent, and dictatorial as The Puppet, as long as the Repubs return to their priniciples and stick to them. The GOP is not allowed to articulate any principles. The LR media tells everyone else what the Repub principles are, and they are lying about them. When a national network "gives" an hour of airtime to pure propaganda about Puppettax, then refuses to allow a single rebuttal, there is no where for Repubs to turn. No, he's buying into reality. No one is sure what it is you buy into.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 11, 2013 9:07:35 GMT -5
No, you are just buying into the propaganda. Bush wasn't a great President, but he was average. He was no where near as bad as Carter. The LR media had spent 8 years painting him as Satan and 'your mother' all at the same time, and sold any opposition to The Puppet as racism. The only reason he was elected was because the Dems sent 500 lawyers to Alaska within hours of Palin's acceptance, and they bought or simply made up, as much dirt as they could find. I would much rather have Presidential losses, especially as long as they are as criminal, incompetent, and dictatorial as The Puppet, as long as the Repubs return to their priniciples and stick to them. The GOP is not allowed to articulate any principles. The LR media tells everyone else what the Repub principles are, and they are lying about them. When a national network "gives" an hour of airtime to pure propaganda about Puppettax, then refuses to allow a single rebuttal, there is no where for Repubs to turn. No, he's buying into reality. No one is sure what it is you buy into. Really? Let's recap. We had 2 candidates, one that had been in government for 30 years or more, had a real record that you could actually see and dissect, the other with nothing to his name as an accomplishment and who even had his records sequestered and a bevy of lawyers to make sure that no one could get to them. The second time, we had 2 candidates, one that had allegedly been President for 4 years, and a record of incompetence, corruption, cronyism, and dictatorial impulses. So, the first time, he won because he was black, and the LR media was complicit in hiding anything and everything negative about him, and complicit in spreading, even creating, lies, innuendo and mischaracterization about McCain. The second time, the media was full bore the propaganda arm of the DNC and The Puppet, and simply became the surrogate when The Puppet simply couldn't be bothered to campaign, lied about his first term, lied about Romney, and made sure that nothing derogatory was every allowed the light of day. Oh, and again painted anyone that opposed him as racist. So, we have low information, and low intelligence voters who get all their "news" from the LR media, and the LR media is firmly ensconced in the DNC, and you think it was because people actually thought it was because The Puppet was doing a good job?
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 11, 2013 9:20:50 GMT -5
No, he's buying into reality. No one is sure what it is you buy into. Really? Let's recap. We had 2 candidates, one that had been in government for 30 years or more, had a real record that you could actually see and dissect, the other with nothing to his name as an accomplishment and who even had his records sequestered and a bevy of lawyers to make sure that no one could get to them. The second time, we had 2 candidates, one that had allegedly been President for 4 years, and a record of incompetence, corruption, cronyism, and dictatorial impulses. So, the first time, he won because he was black, and the LR media was complicit in hiding anything and everything negative about him, and complicit in spreading, even creating, lies, innuendo and mischaracterization about McCain. The second time, the media was full bore the propaganda arm of the DNC and The Puppet, and simply became the surrogate when The Puppet simply couldn't be bothered to campaign, lied about his first term, lied about Romney, and made sure that nothing derogatory was every allowed the light of day. Oh, and again painted anyone that opposed him as racist. So, we have low information, and low intelligence voters who get all their "news" from the LR media, and the LR media is firmly ensconced in the DNC, and you think it was because people actually thought it was because The Puppet was doing a good job?No, I don't, and never said anything like that. You seem to be ignoring a basic fact. Neither McCain or Romney particularly fired up the Republican base. I didn't vote for either one because I couldn't trust them, McCain because he's too "mavericky" and Romney because he foisted Romneycare on his people. I can't possibly be the only American to have reached the decision that the Republican party isn't worth supporting.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 11, 2013 10:42:34 GMT -5
Really? Let's recap. We had 2 candidates, one that had been in government for 30 years or more, had a real record that you could actually see and dissect, the other with nothing to his name as an accomplishment and who even had his records sequestered and a bevy of lawyers to make sure that no one could get to them. The second time, we had 2 candidates, one that had allegedly been President for 4 years, and a record of incompetence, corruption, cronyism, and dictatorial impulses. So, the first time, he won because he was black, and the LR media was complicit in hiding anything and everything negative about him, and complicit in spreading, even creating, lies, innuendo and mischaracterization about McCain. The second time, the media was full bore the propaganda arm of the DNC and The Puppet, and simply became the surrogate when The Puppet simply couldn't be bothered to campaign, lied about his first term, lied about Romney, and made sure that nothing derogatory was every allowed the light of day. Oh, and again painted anyone that opposed him as racist. So, we have low information, and low intelligence voters who get all their "news" from the LR media, and the LR media is firmly ensconced in the DNC, and you think it was because people actually thought it was because The Puppet was doing a good job?No, I don't, and never said anything like that. You seem to be ignoring a basic fact. Neither McCain or Romney particularly fired up the Republican base. I didn't vote for either one because I couldn't trust them, McCain because he's too "mavericky" and Romney because he foisted Romneycare on his people. I can't possibly be the only American to have reached the decision that the Republican party isn't worth supporting. Sounds like you are also one of those who wants an extreme rightie instead of all these lefties in disguise we keep getting.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Nov 11, 2013 11:06:26 GMT -5
Wait? Are you talking about the guy elected twice to president? It must give you a great deal of satisfaction to know that at least twice in your life a majority of the American people thought as you did/do.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 11, 2013 11:08:56 GMT -5
No, I don't, and never said anything like that. You seem to be ignoring a basic fact. Neither McCain or Romney particularly fired up the Republican base. I didn't vote for either one because I couldn't trust them, McCain because he's too "mavericky" and Romney because he foisted Romneycare on his people. I can't possibly be the only American to have reached the decision that the Republican party isn't worth supporting. Sounds like you are also one of those who wants an extreme rightie instead of all these lefties in disguise we keep getting. I don't want an "extreme" anything. As a matter of political reality, extremists, particularly those on the right, won't win elections decided by independents, which is every national election. Here's another political reality. Presidential contests are largely beauty contests. Winners project an illusion that they're less ugly than their opponent. Wanna know what I see as the "ugly" in Republican politics? Their over reliance on "social conservatism." Social conservatism sells to social conservatives and few other people. As abhorrent as I might find the notion of abortion or gay marriage, neither are burning issues with the American people, nor are they priorities of government. What I think can win for Republicans is someone who can clearly articulate fiscal conservatism goals, someone who can be a straight shooter with the American people, and yes, someone charismatic. There was a time I thought a Chris Christie could serve the role. As he moved closer to his recent election, it seems that his personal integrity took a back seat to his political instincts, to the point I'm not sure what kind of president he'd be.
|
|
|
Post by shutout on Nov 11, 2013 11:36:14 GMT -5
Wait? Are you talking about the guy elected twice to president? Awesome! Go get you some! Everyone hates him!!!! What does Bush have to do with this?
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 11, 2013 11:48:20 GMT -5
Sounds like you are also one of those who wants an extreme rightie instead of all these lefties in disguise we keep getting. I don't want an "extreme" anything. As a matter of political reality, extremists, particularly those on the right, won't win elections decided by independents, which is every national election. Here's another political reality. Presidential contests are largely beauty contests. Winners project an illusion that they're less ugly than their opponent. Wanna know what I see as the "ugly" in Republican politics? Their over reliance on "social conservatism." Social conservatism sells to social conservatives and few other people. As abhorrent as I might find the notion of abortion or gay marriage, neither are burning issues with the American people, nor are they priorities of government. What I think can win for Republicans is someone who can clearly articulate fiscal conservatism goals, someone who can be a straight shooter with the American people, and yes, someone charismatic. There was a time I thought a Chris Christie could serve the role. As he moved closer to his recent election, it seems that his personal integrity took a back seat to his political instincts, to the point I'm not sure what kind of president he'd be. You are describing a tea party candidate, not of course the media portrayal of them. The media calls anyone fiscally conservative an extremist.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 11, 2013 12:04:10 GMT -5
I don't want an "extreme" anything. As a matter of political reality, extremists, particularly those on the right, won't win elections decided by independents, which is every national election. Here's another political reality. Presidential contests are largely beauty contests. Winners project an illusion that they're less ugly than their opponent. Wanna know what I see as the "ugly" in Republican politics? Their over reliance on "social conservatism." Social conservatism sells to social conservatives and few other people. As abhorrent as I might find the notion of abortion or gay marriage, neither are burning issues with the American people, nor are they priorities of government. What I think can win for Republicans is someone who can clearly articulate fiscal conservatism goals, someone who can be a straight shooter with the American people, and yes, someone charismatic. There was a time I thought a Chris Christie could serve the role. As he moved closer to his recent election, it seems that his personal integrity took a back seat to his political instincts, to the point I'm not sure what kind of president he'd be. You are describing a tea party candidate, not of course the media portrayal of them. The media calls anyone fiscally conservative an extremist. Really? The "tea party" itself doesn't really know what it wants to be either. There is what I call the Glenn Beck wing that is fruitier than a nut cake - Sarah Palin lives there - then you have the Ted Cruzs and the Jeff Amashes - people that I think can do good things if they were to focus on smaller issues and develop a consistent strategy on how to achieve them. We didn't get into this mess in gigantic leaps - I like Thomas Sowell's analogy of the frog in the pot of boiling water - and it's politically impossible to be impatient about digging us out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 12:50:35 GMT -5
Introspection is wonderful! Great thread. Stay focused my fellow Americans. You guys can pull yourselves out your political malaise. I keep saying we need a strong viable Conservative party.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 12:51:53 GMT -5
Wait? Are you talking about the guy elected twice to president? It must give you a great deal of satisfaction to know that at least twice in your life a majority of the American people thought as you did/do. Actually, not really!
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Nov 11, 2013 13:31:56 GMT -5
I keep saying we need a strong viable Conservative party. Apparently when it comes to posting on this site you don't.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 11, 2013 13:36:06 GMT -5
I keep saying we need a strong viable Conservative party. Apparently when it comes to posting on this site you don't. No I knock the thinking that weakens the conservative view. Despite what some think they do not have a lock on what being conservative consists of.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 12, 2013 23:03:04 GMT -5
Really? Let's recap. We had 2 candidates, one that had been in government for 30 years or more, had a real record that you could actually see and dissect, the other with nothing to his name as an accomplishment and who even had his records sequestered and a bevy of lawyers to make sure that no one could get to them. The second time, we had 2 candidates, one that had allegedly been President for 4 years, and a record of incompetence, corruption, cronyism, and dictatorial impulses. So, the first time, he won because he was black, and the LR media was complicit in hiding anything and everything negative about him, and complicit in spreading, even creating, lies, innuendo and mischaracterization about McCain. The second time, the media was full bore the propaganda arm of the DNC and The Puppet, and simply became the surrogate when The Puppet simply couldn't be bothered to campaign, lied about his first term, lied about Romney, and made sure that nothing derogatory was every allowed the light of day. Oh, and again painted anyone that opposed him as racist. So, we have low information, and low intelligence voters who get all their "news" from the LR media, and the LR media is firmly ensconced in the DNC, and you think it was because people actually thought it was because The Puppet was doing a good job?No, I don't, and never said anything like that. You seem to be ignoring a basic fact. Neither McCain or Romney particularly fired up the Republican base. I didn't vote for either one because I couldn't trust them, McCain because he's too "mavericky" and Romney because he foisted Romneycare on his people. I can't possibly be the only American to have reached the decision that the Republican party isn't worth supporting. That is absolutely true. And the second biggest reason for The Puppet's second win was because so many cast a "protest vote" by not bothering to vote at all. The Tea Party is the only hope the Repubs have at redeeming themselves and getting people to vote for them again. Romney wasn't my favorite choice, but he was far better than The Puppet. And as he said multiple times, Romneycare was enacted in a state. It's legal in a state. It's not legal, moral or ethical at the Federal level.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 12, 2013 23:05:53 GMT -5
Sounds like you are also one of those who wants an extreme rightie instead of all these lefties in disguise we keep getting. I don't want an "extreme" anything. As a matter of political reality, extremists, particularly those on the right, won't win elections decided by independents, which is every national election. Here's another political reality. Presidential contests are largely beauty contests. Winners project an illusion that they're less ugly than their opponent. Wanna know what I see as the "ugly" in Republican politics? Their over reliance on "social conservatism." Social conservatism sells to social conservatives and few other people. As abhorrent as I might find the notion of abortion or gay marriage, neither are burning issues with the American people, nor are they priorities of government. What I think can win for Republicans is someone who can clearly articulate fiscal conservatism goals, someone who can be a straight shooter with the American people, and yes, someone charismatic. There was a time I thought a Chris Christie could serve the role. As he moved closer to his recent election, it seems that his personal integrity took a back seat to his political instincts, to the point I'm not sure what kind of president he'd be. Conservatives, when they run as conservatives, nearly always win. There are far more conservatives than the LR media wants anyone to know.
|
|