Can You Say Electoral Slaughter?

[Synthaholic]

The term "electoral slaughter" is meaningless.

It has nothing to do with who won. My argument is more a commentary on the state of mind of the sheep who insist on finding meaningless terms to inflate the margin by which a politician wins an election.

This election was by all reasonable measures a pretty close race but for some reason some of you people need it to sound like it was a "slaughter"

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind.

Not really. Romney spent about a billion dollars to try to topple Obama...

And failed epically. He also let the Dems gain 7 House seats and two senate seats in a time when they should have lost ground

The GOP is fundementally broken at this point. If it couldn't win an election under these circumstances, what circumstances could they possibly win an election under?

Let me repeat

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind

Yes. We get it.

You're a Libertarian, or a Constitution Party nut, or some other Non-Republican. Because you're much too cool to be a Republican.

Yet you constantly defend the Republican Party and their actions and their values.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let me repeat

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind

There's a lot of things you don't get, but it's probably because of your inability to process data.

By all rights, the Democrats should have taken a bath this year.

7.9% unemployment and $4.00 gasoline, they should have won the presidency, taken enough of the 23 Democratic Senate Seats that were up to take the senate (They only needed three) and gained seats in the House after the criminal level of gerrymandering.

Instead. They lost every swing state except NC, which they barely won.

The Democrats retained 22 of their 23 seats while picking up 3 of 10 Republican seats.

And knocked off a handful of House members.

Not because the voters are sheep, but because, frankly, unless you are a billionaire douchebag, the REpublicans offered NOTHING to vote for.

So tell me why do you need to use inflated meaningless terms like "electoral slaughter"?

I have tried to explain to you why the phrase means nothing and yet you still cling to it. I am discussing the semantics here not the election. but you can't seem to understand that

I really don't give a shit why the repugnantcans lost or the dimwitcraps won as I didn't vote for a corrupt asshole from either party.

So now couples who make 250K a year are billionaire douchebags?

Man you really are a group thinker aren't you?

 

[editec]

The POTUS does NOT have a mandate.

In order for him to have authority (that's what a mandate is, after all) he'd have to control Congress.

He doesn't.

 

[JoeB131]

Let me repeat

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind

There's a lot of things you don't get, but it's probably because of your inability to process data.

By all rights, the Democrats should have taken a bath this year.

7.9% unemployment and $4.00 gasoline, they should have won the presidency, taken enough of the 23 Democratic Senate Seats that were up to take the senate (They only needed three) and gained seats in the House after the criminal level of gerrymandering.

Instead. They lost every swing state except NC, which they barely won.

The Democrats retained 22 of their 23 seats while picking up 3 of 10 Republican seats.

And knocked off a handful of House members.

Not because the voters are sheep, but because, frankly, unless you are a billionaire douchebag, the REpublicans offered NOTHING to vote for.

So tell me why do you need to use inflated meaningless terms like "electoral slaughter"?

I have tried to explain to you why the phrase means nothing and yet you still cling to it. I am discussing the semantics here not the election. but you can't seem to understand that

I really don't give a shit why the repugnantcans lost or the dimwitcraps won as I didn't vote for a corrupt asshole from either party.

So now couples who make 250K a year are billionaire douchebags?

Man you really are a group thinker aren't you?

If you are making 250K, you are doing fine and shouldn't whine about paying your taxes.

But please go off and do your third party crazy, the grown ups are talking. I guess when you are in the less than 1% range, whatever is going on at the top doesn't look like a slaughter one way or the other.

Here's the thing, I've voted Republican most of my life, until my last company showed me whose side they were on and it wasn't mine. Until the GOP gets right with working folks, women and minorties, they are going to keep losing elections and drifting into electoral oblivion.

I don't see this as a good thing. Having grown up in a one=party city (Chicago), having one party just makes people complacent.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not really. Romney spent about a billion dollars to try to topple Obama...

And failed epically. He also let the Dems gain 7 House seats and two senate seats in a time when they should have lost ground

The GOP is fundementally broken at this point. If it couldn't win an election under these circumstances, what circumstances could they possibly win an election under?

Let me repeat

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind

Yes. We get it.

You're a Libertarian, or a Constitution Party nut, or some other Non-Republican. Because you're much too cool to be a Republican.

Yet you constantly defend the Republican Party and their actions and their values.

All right, sheep I challenge you to find a post where I have defended the repugnantcans.

I won't hold my breath.

And I do not belong to any political party because I unlike you would prefer to think for myself.

 

[rightwinger]

The POTUS does NOT have a mandate.

In order for him to have authority (that's what a mandate is, after all) he'd have to control Congress.

He doesn't.

The concept of a mandate is irrelevant

Obama had a mandate in 2008 and Republicans still voted against everything he did. So other than gloating about election results, whether you have a mandate or not is useless

 

[Skull Pilot]

There's a lot of things you don't get, but it's probably because of your inability to process data.

By all rights, the Democrats should have taken a bath this year.

7.9% unemployment and $4.00 gasoline, they should have won the presidency, taken enough of the 23 Democratic Senate Seats that were up to take the senate (They only needed three) and gained seats in the House after the criminal level of gerrymandering.

Instead. They lost every swing state except NC, which they barely won.

The Democrats retained 22 of their 23 seats while picking up 3 of 10 Republican seats.

And knocked off a handful of House members.

Not because the voters are sheep, but because, frankly, unless you are a billionaire douchebag, the REpublicans offered NOTHING to vote for.

So tell me why do you need to use inflated meaningless terms like "electoral slaughter"?

I have tried to explain to you why the phrase means nothing and yet you still cling to it. I am discussing the semantics here not the election. but you can't seem to understand that

I really don't give a shit why the repugnantcans lost or the dimwitcraps won as I didn't vote for a corrupt asshole from either party.

So now couples who make 250K a year are billionaire douchebags?

Man you really are a group thinker aren't you?

If you are making 250K, you are doing fine and shouldn't whine about paying your taxes.

But please go off and do your third party crazy, the grown ups are talking. I guess when you are in the less than 1% range, whatever is going on at the top doesn't look like a slaughter one way or the other.

Here's the thing, I've voted Republican most of my life, until my last company showed me whose side they were on and it wasn't mine. Until the GOP gets right with working folks, women and minorties, they are going to keep losing elections and drifting into electoral oblivion.

I don't see this as a good thing. Having grown up in a one=party city (Chicago), having one party just makes people complacent.

Hey ass wipe I pay my fucking taxes and I don't think I should pay more because I worked harder and risked more than most people. And I certainly don't think that anyone with an income should be exempt from income taxes.

And just so you know no political party is on your side all they care about is winning elections and they'll promise anyone anything to do it.

Until you start thinking for yourself and voting for people who do the same you are part of the problem.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The POTUS does NOT have a mandate.

In order for him to have authority (that's what a mandate is, after all) he'd have to control Congress.

He doesn't.

The concept of a mandate is irrelevant

Obama had a mandate in 2008 and Republicans still voted against everything he did. So other than gloating about election results, whether you have a mandate or not is useless

Bam Bam owned the House and Senate for 2 years and still whined about obstructionism.

Explain that one.

 

[Synthaholic]

The POTUS does NOT have a mandate.

In order for him to have authority (that's what a mandate is, after all) he'd have to control Congress.

He doesn't.

The concept of a mandate is irrelevant

Obama had a mandate in 2008 and Republicans still voted against everything he did. So other than gloating about election results, whether you have a mandate or not is useless

Bam Bam owned the House and Senate for 2 years and still whined about obstructionism.

Explain that one.

No he didn't. Unless 53 days is now 2 years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The concept of a mandate is irrelevant

Obama had a mandate in 2008 and Republicans still voted against everything he did. So other than gloating about election results, whether you have a mandate or not is useless

Bam Bam owned the House and Senate for 2 years and still whined about obstructionism.

Explain that one.

No he didn't. Unless 53 days is now 2 years.

How long did the dimwitcraps have the majority in both the house and senate?

Bammy got sworn in in 2009 they lost the majority in the house in the 2010 mid terms those reps were sworn in in 2011

that is not 53 days.

 

[rightwinger]

The POTUS does NOT have a mandate.

In order for him to have authority (that's what a mandate is, after all) he'd have to control Congress.

He doesn't.

The concept of a mandate is irrelevant

Obama had a mandate in 2008 and Republicans still voted against everything he did. So other than gloating about election results, whether you have a mandate or not is useless

Bam Bam owned the House and Senate for 2 years and still whined about obstructionism.

Explain that one.

Not quite

It worked out to be slightly more than two months when he had 60% of the vote in the Senate. From that point onward, Republicans set filibuster records

Yes ...thats obstructionism

 

[Skull Pilot]

The concept of a mandate is irrelevant

Obama had a mandate in 2008 and Republicans still voted against everything he did. So other than gloating about election results, whether you have a mandate or not is useless

Bam Bam owned the House and Senate for 2 years and still whined about obstructionism.

Explain that one.

Not quite

It worked out to be slightly more than two months when he had 60% of the vote in the Senate. From that point onward, Republicans set filibuster records

Yes ...thats obstructionism

Filibusters can be beaten, they have been in the past so why couldn't the dimwits do it?

I didn't mention a super majority did I? The dims owned the congress and they couldn't get anything done.

They were ineffective period and they want to blame it on anyone and everyone else.

 

[rightwinger]

Bam Bam owned the House and Senate for 2 years and still whined about obstructionism.

Explain that one.

Not quite

It worked out to be slightly more than two months when he had 60% of the vote in the Senate. From that point onward, Republicans set filibuster records

Yes ...thats obstructionism

Filibusters can be beaten, they have been in the past so why couldn't the dimwits do it?

I didn't mention a super majority did I? The dims owned the congress and they couldn't get anything done.

They were ineffective period and they want to blame it on anyone and everyone else.

Filibusters could be beaten when you actually had to filibuster. Now you can just nod your head and 60% kicks in

Thankfully, Obama eventually learned to tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves and started maximizing the use of executive orders

Gotta do something to fight Republican obstructionism

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not quite

It worked out to be slightly more than two months when he had 60% of the vote in the Senate. From that point onward, Republicans set filibuster records

Yes ...thats obstructionism

Filibusters can be beaten, they have been in the past so why couldn't the dimwits do it?

I didn't mention a super majority did I? The dims owned the congress and they couldn't get anything done.

They were ineffective period and they want to blame it on anyone and everyone else.

Filibusters could be beaten when you actually had to filibuster. Now you can just nod your head and 60% kicks in

Thankfully, Obama eventually learned to tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves and started maximizing the use of executive orders

Gotta do something to fight Republican obstructionism

And he still couldn't close gitmo and you still blame that on everyone else.

It's pathetic really.

I personally don't want the leader of the country whining about others not playing nice but it seems to be OK with you

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Not too many progressive adolescent imbeciles crying about changes needed to the electoral college this year eh ?

 

[rightwinger]

Not too many progressive adolescent imbeciles crying about changes needed to the electoral college this year eh ?

Actually, I would support a nationwide popular vote. One man/one vote regardless of what state you are in

But it is a pipedream. Abandoning the Electoral College would take a Constitutional amendment and the smaller population states would block it