Romney Dings Obama for 'Gifts' to Minority Voters - Yahoo! News
This dude is taking his election defeat very hard and looking for excuses.
1. First, calling Romney names like "Romneytard" reflect more on you as a poor sport.
So saying "Romneytard is a sore loser" is like saying "Sh*tface has a filthy mouth"
2. Secondly, it may not just be that issue per se, but it does represent related attitudes of depending on the govt or Democrat Party to "give them things." For example, one friend of mine was worried more about his civil liberties being under threat by the GOP. So he feels that the Democrat Party "gives him" representation. Never mind that he is supposed to get these civil rights directly from the Constitution, regardless of which person or party is in office. But no, he doesn't want to work for that or enforce that himself, but vote for someone else to "give him" this. So that is still VICTIM MENTALITY and exploiting the disempowered people for their votes, instead of empowering them to be independent and represent and enforce their OWN INTERESTS without relying on govt.
Sorry, but I went through this whole argument with this friend who doesn't directly fall into any of the other handout groups, but gave his vote to Obama out of DEPENDENCE instead of invoking Constitutional laws governing all of us and govt equally as independent types do. (I told him independent of what *I* believe and what partisan agenda or interests *I* have personally, the point of hiring someone for President is who is going to enforce the Constitution to represent all people EQUALLY, NOT push some partisan agenda that half the country doesn't relate to. That is NOT the job of the President. But we got nowhere because he is still so afraid of mean-spirited authoritarian types in the GOP pushing THEIR agenda, he felt he had to counter by voting for the opposite agenda. I know that two wrongs don't make a right, but in the meantime, that is what you have going on; people voting for agenda, regardless if this is Constitutional or not, in hopes of outnumbering the interests of others that are supposed to be protected too!)
3. Third, I would not trust the media to represent what everyone said individually. As a whole, yes I agree that together, all the comments people are making apply here and there.
The media tends to take certain sound bytes they can run with and focus on those. A lot more criticisms are being said across the board, and I look at what people are saying collectively and what they are correcting. I am not going to fault each person on each point. There was a lot of pushing at the polls for people to vote in large numbers and groups for Obama that are harder to do with independents and conservatives who don't depend on govt or on elected leaders to do the work they are going to do anyway outside of govt.
As long as the populations such a Black, Latino, Women etc. are divided along political lines, it is easier to amass the liberal votes together from people in all these groups who take a "dependent" approach to govt. Those who are independent types by their nature are going to be scattered, and not even support the same candidates. So of course you are going to be outnumbered. The only way to make fair policy representing and protecting interests equally would be to form a consensus on policy, that includes all people's views and interests, and actually solve the conflicts instead of abusing "fear of domination by the opposition" to exploit the voters and try to bully over and exclude others by majority rule.
When the conservatives do this to themselves or to others, it is equally wrong as it undermines the Constitutional principles that are supposed to represent and include all people equally. Not just protect the interests of the majority group, but all citizens together.
