If 93% of White People voted for Romney...

[Mac4Lyfe]

Black people will still vote Democrat until a lot of these left wing, fear mongering, hate filled, red necks leave the Republican party. Just looking at the responses today from these nuts prove my point. They think they are better than everyone else and minorities are here to be servants.

The Republican party should start by nominating someone who can relate to most Americans and not one born with a silver spoon.

can't wait to see what happens if the Republicans find a black candidate for 2016 and the Democrats go white

[ngates815]

Black people will still vote Democrat until a lot of these left wing, fear mongering, hate filled, red necks leave the Republican party. Just looking at the responses today from these nuts prove my point. They think they are better than everyone else and minorities are here to be servants.

The Republican party should start by nominating someone who can relate to most Americans and not one born with a silver spoon.

I thought we'd never be on the same page...Finally we agree on something!

[DStaXX]

can't wait to see what happens if the Republicans find a black candidate for 2016 and the Democrats go white

Will NEVER happen. See above post.

[Weems2k]

With everyone walking around like mindless zombies, looking down on their "dumbphones" 24/7, I see the IPhone as the next president in 2016.

[shari91]

can't wait to see what happens if the Republicans find a black candidate for 2016 and the Democrats go white

I don't think it would matter at all.

Until the Republicans realise that women are going to make or break elections they will never win.

[ngates815]

I don't think it would matter at all.

Until the Republicans realise that women are going to make or break elections they will never win.

That's why they shouldn't be allowed to vote! Along with the colored folk! Mexicans are ok though.

[opie1988]

Black people will still vote Democrat until a lot of these left wing, fear mongering, hate filled, red necks leave the Republican party. Just looking at the responses today from these nuts prove my point. They think they are better than everyone else and minorities are here to be servants.

The Republican party should start by nominating someone who can relate to most Americans and not one born with a silver spoon.

I think this post is both egregious and short sighted. Minorities can be much, much more than simply servants.

Gardeners, tile setters, brick layers are just a few options that come to mind.

[shari91]

That's why they shouldn't be allowed to vote! Along with the colored folk! Mexicans are ok though.

Thanks for this... my first laugh out loud moment of the morning!

[King Mayan]

I think this post is both egregious and short sighted. Minorities can be much, much more than simply servants.

Gardeners, tile setters, brick layers are just a few options that come to mind.

too bad those gardeners don't have Opie's dad bankrolling them..

They would be able to join fraternities while working a "full time job"

[DStaXX]

You guys are so mad.

[William Walters]

too bad those gardeners don't have Opie's dad bankrolling them..

They would be able to join fraternities while working a "full time job"

Kinger........don't try to tell me that Senor Kinger never provide you with a little help..........in the form of a gas powered edger, a new rake, or even a sweet set of pruners guy.

[SpeedPro]

Voting for someone because of his/her color is probably not going to give the results people desire. I ask myself when both candidates were the same color, which has been the case since 2008, why are people able to find another reason to vote for one of them...

[iQon]

Black guilt.

[King Mayan]

Kinger........don't try to tell me that Senor Kinger never provide you with a little help..........in the form of a gas powered edger, a new rake, or even a sweet set of pruners guy.

yeah he let me borrow pruners, but to get my ASS TO WORK!!

While your dad was cuddling and nurturing you into your mid20s, my dad was breaking child labor laws by the second..

Hey William, if your dad was running for president, you would be the first in line... Voting for that free shit..talk about hypocrisy..

[ngates815]

yeah he let me borrow pruners, but to get my ASS TO WORK!!

While your dad was cuddling and nurturing you into your mid20s, my dad was breaking child labor laws by the second..

Hey William, if your dad was running for president, you would be the first in line... Voting for that free shit..talk about hypocrisy..

I think you got william confused with ngates.
just sayin.

[GunShard]

I would have voted Ron Paul instead of Obama if the GOP nominated him.

I remember the Mccain and Palin tour where some members of the audience yelled the N word on why Obama shouldn't be president. Racist republicans exist.

[Vitooch]

You don't think there are idiots who voted for Romney. The majority of votes are made by misinformed voters.

[shari91]

You don't think there are idiots who voted for Romney. The majority of votes are made by misinformed voters.

Are you calling Ms Neel and the other Republicans who said they were also moving to Australia if Obama won idiots, Vitooch?

[Vitooch]

Amazing how 18 year old girls think they know what's better for the country than a Columbia/Harvard graduate.

[shari91]

Amazing how 18 year old girls think they know what's better for the country than a Columbia/Harvard graduate.

The part that makes me laugh is when anyone regardless of the party they support threaten to move countries if xxx wins. As if it's sooooo easy to just jump countries. Even more funny when it's a Republican considering they don't want people coming into the US but think other countries would just welcome them with open arms. Hypocrisy? Nah.

[borednaz]

I don't think it would matter at all.

Until the Republicans realise that women are going to make or break elections they will never win.

I'am a Republican, but that is really the most single dumb founding problem we face as a party. I don't know how can you spend one second outside and not see how important women voting is. I nearly fell out of my Chair laughing when CBS showed people across the Globe watching the Elections and Every Single Woman was Anti Romney. ..

The saddest part is I know other Republicans saw that and didn't pick up on the clues.. To best explain it my 58 year old mom & my 84 year old Grandma Voted for their very first time Simply to make Sure Romney didn't win.

[yisman]

The whole "I'm moving to another country" thing began here with the 2004 election, when a whole bunch of Hollywood people said they were leaving the country if Bush won. Of course, none of them lived up to their word.

[shari91]

I'am a Republican, but that is really the most single dumb founding problem we face as a party. I don't know how can you spend one second outside and not see how important women voting is. I nearly fell out of my Chair laughing when CBS showed people across the Globe watching the Elections and Every Single Woman was Anti Romney. ..

The saddest part is I know other Republicans saw that and didn't pick up on the clues.. To best explain it my 58 year old mom & my 84 year old Grandma Voted for their very first time Simply to make Sure Romney didn't win.

WOW about your mom and Grandma! For some reason many of these pundits like to point the finger at race and the minority vote while completely ignoring the fact that women are now the majority of voters. And those who do seem to consider women for a second somehow think all we care about is abortion when the number #1 reason women gave for voting Obama was economic. Of course those legitimate rape comments and anything threatening our right to choose were always going to be big factors too. But when women are the head of many households - single or partnered and are also the primary caregivers for many of the elderly, you can't hit their wallets. You don't threaten to take away affordable access to birth control and preventative screening, ditch after school programs, HeadStart and everything else that can make a huge difference to their lives and often those of their children. The Republican Party needs to give up on all of that stuff if they want to have a chance. Last year marked the first time that more non white babies were born in the US than white and almost half of all children under the age of 5 are not white. The median age of whites in America is now over 42 - mainly past child-bearing age - so very soon the demographics of the US are going to change dramatically. They need to forget about pandering to the white male because they're very soon going to be the minority whether anyone likes it or not. Focus on women of all races... that's how they're going to win.

[The Madcap]

I don't think it would matter at all.

Until the Republicans realise that women are going to make or break elections they will never win.

There's much to be said for this. Take away the female vote and the conservative candidate would have won every single Presidential election in history.

[Mac4Lyfe]

Nailed it...

Tony Robbins once said that woman controlled 90% of all household spending. He then went on to say that the remaining 10% was readily available.

Woman rule the roost.

WOW about your mom and Grandma! For some reason many of these pundits like to point the finger at race and the minority vote while completely ignoring the fact that women are now the majority of voters. And those who do seem to consider women for a second somehow think all we care about is abortion when the number #1 reason women gave for voting Obama was economic. Of course those legitimate rape comments and anything threatening our right to choose were always going to be big factors too. But when women are the head of many households - single or partnered and are also the primary caregivers for many of the elderly, you can't hit their wallets. You don't threaten to take away affordable access to birth control and preventative screening, ditch after school programs, HeadStart and everything else that can make a huge difference to their lives and often those of their children. The Republican Party needs to give up on all of that stuff if they want to have a chance. Last year marked the first time that more non white babies were born in the US than white and almost half of all children under the age of 5 are not white. The median age of whites in America is now over 42 - mainly past child-bearing age - so very soon the demographics of the US are going to change dramatically. They need to forget about pandering to the white male because they're very soon going to be the minority whether anyone likes it or not. Focus on women of all races... that's how they're going to win.

[The Madcap]

Well they are doing a shitty job of showing it. Less government but they want to tell woman what to do with their own bodies, tell you who you can marry, what you can smoke, give special tax breaks to corporations, etc.

A) abortion: protecting unborn children from state sponsored murder doesn't exactly equal more government. ( AND PS: Just so were clear, I don't really care about banning abortion, just saying, let's call it what it is.) Pro-choicers supporting abortion but hunting down parents who smoke in front of their children is a much starker conflict of principle than those who want less federal gov't but have shown a desire to protect innocent souls from tyrannical mothers more concerned about their own well-being than their child's right to live.

B) Gay Marriage: 1) From an elemental standpoint, marriage is a religious institution, not a gov't one. 2) Gov't laws that "reward" marriage are wholly founded from utilitarian principles that do not apply to individuals who cannot procreate 3) It really has nothing to with marriage. It's about freedom of association. Gay Marriage laws are designed with the intention of becoming stepping stones to prevent individuals from having the right to decide for themselves what constitutes homosexuality or the choice to protect themselves or their children from individuals whose sexual orientation creates problematic negativity in their lives. Resisting such laws = giving greater responsibility to the individual = more limited government. (PS: and it's not like gay marriage has really gone over that well in blue states. This issue deals with far more than politics/religion.)

3) Smoking: Do you see Obama in any rush to legalize weed federally? His DOJ looks like they aren't going to let Colorado or Washington just let their people start getting zooted for fun. Both parties have historically been anti-weed. The libertarian wing of the GOP is very much in favor of weed deregulation. You just don't hear them talk about it because they've got a shitload of more important things they are trying to deal with first.

4) Corporation tax-breaks: This trend was actually started by liberal politicians who instead of streamlining the tax-code for the sake of everyone decided they ("they" as in their re-election bids) would be better off granting special exemptions to their big business allies. The GOP called this for the bullshit it was and so instead of just allowing the Dems to keep on with their me-first-screw everybody else-crony-favoritism wrote these tax breaks into the law so everyone could take advantage of them and not just friends of liberal politicians. Besides, since when does less taxes not equal less government?

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty wrong with the GOP's platform and the way they sell their ideas, but when it comes to not being about less government these examples are a "shitty job of showing it."

Try again.

[Mac4Lyfe]

^^^ Maybe it's a shitty example to YOU but you are out of touch just like the Republican party. All those examples I gave you are why people think that Republicans are MORE government. Republicans want to tell you what you should do with your body/life. Your explanations doesn't change the fact that telling people how they should live and what is right/wrong is MORE government.

[gregm]

A) abortion: protecting unborn children from state sponsored murder doesn't exactly equal more government. ( AND PS: Just so were clear, I don't really care about banning abortion, just saying, let's call it what it is.) Pro-choicers supporting abortion but hunting down parents who smoke in front of their children is a much starker conflict of principle than those who want less federal gov't but have shown a desire to protect innocent souls from tyrannical mothers more concerned about their own well-being than their child's right to live.

B) Gay Marriage: 1) From an elemental standpoint, marriage is a religious institution, not a gov't one. 2) Gov't laws that "reward" marriage are wholly founded from utilitarian principles that do not apply to individuals who cannot procreate 3) It really has nothing to with marriage. It's about freedom of association. Gay Marriage laws are designed with the intention of becoming stepping stones to prevent individuals from having the right to decide for themselves what constitutes homosexuality or the choice to protect themselves or their children from individuals whose sexual orientation creates problematic negativity in their lives. Resisting such laws = giving greater responsibility to the individual = more limited government. (PS: and it's not like gay marriage has really gone over that well in blue states. This issue deals with far more than politics/religion.)

3) Smoking: Do you see Obama in any rush to legalize weed federally? His DOJ looks like they aren't going to let Colorado or Washington just let their people start getting zooted for fun. Both parties have historically been anti-weed. The libertarian wing of the GOP is very much in favor of weed deregulation. You just don't hear them talk about it because they've got a shitload of more important things they are trying to deal with first.

4) Corporation tax-breaks: This trend was actually started by liberal politicians who instead of streamlining the tax-code for the sake of everyone decided they ("they" as in their re-election bids) would be better off granting special exemptions to their big business allies. The GOP called this for the bullshit it was and so instead of just allowing the Dems to keep on with their me-first-screw everybody else-crony-favoritism wrote these tax breaks into the law so everyone could take advantage of them and not just friends of liberal politicians. Besides, since when does less taxes not equal less government?

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty wrong with the GOP's platform and the way they sell their ideas, but when it comes to not being about less government these examples are a "shitty job of showing it."

Try again.

You say "I really dont care about banning abortion" but use terms like protecting "unborn" children from "state sponsored murder" and protecting innocent souls from tyrannical mothers? That doesnt make any sense.

There is no greater mistake I have seen in politics than the way somes republicans manipulate the Christian right on issues like abortion, go back and really look at the history of the republican party over the last 30 years with abortion, look at Ronald Reagans record in California and the presidency on abortion. Reagan may have been a social conservative in speech but in practice he was not. He was a fiscal conservative. The republicans have got to get away from these social issues and concentrate on fiscal conservatism.

If the republican party really wanted abortion to be illegal it would have been by now, most republicans, like most americans, are fiscally conservative and pretty moderate on social issues even if the rhetoric doesn't always reflect that.

[Shaudius]

B) Gay Marriage: 1) From an elemental standpoint, marriage is a religious institution, not a gov't one.

There's nothing inherently religious about marriage on a fundamental level from the government's POV. Why do you think you can go get married at city hall? There's no requirement that you get married in a religious setting. There are benefits that come with marriage that are not religious based.

2) Gov't laws that "reward" marriage are wholly founded from utilitarian principles that do not apply to individuals who cannot procreate

Completely and utterly false. If this were true there would be no marriage benefits that were not associated with children. Sadly, there are tax benefits for filing jointly with a spouse. There are healthcare benefits for state and federal employees. If the whole basis of marriage rewards was based on couples who procreate they would only apply to those that do, they do not.

3) It really has nothing to with marriage. It's about freedom of association. Gay Marriage laws are designed with the intention of becoming stepping stones to prevent individuals from having the right to decide for themselves what constitutes homosexuality

What does even mean? Gay marriage laws prevent people from deciding what homosexuality is? Do you mean this in a philosophical sense? I'm pretty sure pretty much everyone agrees that homosexuality is having sexual feelings or relations with someone of the same sex.

or the choice to protect themselves or their children from individuals whose sexual orientation creates problematic negativity in their lives.

How does someone else's choice to have homosexual sex or marry someone of the same sex negatively effect your life. The answer is it doesn't, just like when someone gets straight married it has no effect on your life. This statement can't really be reconciled in my mind in any way that doesn't result in me thinking you're a bigot, which is actually pretty obvious from your whole post.

Resisting such laws = giving greater responsibility to the individual = more limited government. (PS: and it's not like gay marriage has really gone over that well in blue states. This issue deals with far more than politics/religion.)

How is allowing gay marriage more government? Marriage isn't government at all except in so much as marriages are recorded and benefits given. I don't understand this part of your incoherent rant so I'll just end with this, three blue states voted to allow gay marriage this election, and another voted to not ban it. As I heard on the radio today, the number of states you can now gay marry in = 8, the number of states you can marry your cousin = 25.

[teaserpleaser]

And anyone that says different on a forum is obviously black....I don't vote...And I normally don't care about anything political, but it's funny to see all the black folk voting for a black man...And you'll notice in 4 years that there will MOST LIKELY BE A SIGNIFICANT DROP IN BLACK VOTERS, if there is no black man running.

bullshit... there will be a clinton on the ticket and you know she will get the black vote on another note fukk you opie you prick and fukk texas bunch of trash in that state i tell yah. Funny how white people cant understand why blacks would back another black man when the other option is a smug rich asshole who doesnt give a damn about anybody who isnt wealthy backed by a party full of racists ... the choice was never in doubt did i mention the part about fukk opie and \*\*\*\*\*\* ass Texas?

[teaserpleaser]

Black people will still vote Democrat until a lot of these left wing, fear mongering, hate filled, red necks leave the Republican party. Just looking at the responses today from these nuts prove my point. They think they are better than everyone else and minorities are here to be servants.

The Republican party should start by nominating someone who can relate to most Americans and not one born with a silver spoon.

Bingo ...good luck to them if Ryan is the best they have vs clinton or hell even uncle joe. Good luck with that.

[ChalkyDog]

90% of blacks have always gone democrat.

WTF are you bitching about?

If the republicans didn't shit on one of the various demographics that aren't old white men, they would have won. Too fukkin myopic to realize white people wont carry a presidential election.

[No coincidences]

I don't think it would matter at all.

Until the Republicans realise that women are going to make or break elections they will never win.

Women and minorities. Republicans are stuck in 1984.

[The Madcap]

^^^ Maybe it's a shitty example to YOU but you are out of touch just like the Republican party. All those examples I gave you are why people think that Republicans are MORE government. Republicans want to tell you what you should do with your body/life. Your explanations doesn't change the fact that telling people how they should live and what is right/wrong is MORE government.

Well you're absolutely right about one thing, those are reasons some people think that Republicans are more government. And I am out of touch with those who think so. But I don't mind, there are worse things to be than out of touch with people who don't know what the fukk they are talking about. Perhaps one day the GOP will figure out how to do a better job of finding enough of the dumber people within their own ranks to better stay in touch with the other idiots of the electorate.

And "telling" people what you should or shouldn't do with your life or what's right or wrong isn't more government, that's just the free exchange of ideas. I think you meant "legislating" what people should or shouldn't do with their lives by legally defining what's right/wrong. But then that doesn't make much sense either, because if that's what you meant you wouldn't have wrote it being that Democrats "tell" us how to live our lives far more often than Republicans do. You listed four examples, one of which (lower taxes) makes no damned sense whatsoever.
The other 3 examples could theoretically qualify, as resisting laws to legalize marijuana, abortions, or gay marriage potentially prevent certain Americans from making their own personal decisions in life, but.....you could just as easily argue that supporting such things removes the freedoms of others to make personal decisions within their own life. Even so, whatever, that's only four examples. Four fukking examples. And it's been the same damn four examples by these assholes going on 20 years. Meanwhile, every other fukking day liberals are stepping in "telling" us how to live our lives and what's right/wrong....

like I don't know...

can't play dodge ball in schools
can't keep score in little league games
can't sell lemonade to thirsty neighbors walking by
can't take a shower with enough water pressure to actually wash off caked-on mud
can't drink more than 16 ounces of soda at a time
can't smoke cigarettes in your own bar or home or car
can't decide how much to pay your employees
can't keep the fruits of your own labor without first getting permission from the dumbest people of society
can't give the fruits of your own labor to your children without first getting permission from the dumbest people of society
can't buy a gun when you might need it most
can't sell a gun to a neighbor you've known your whole life without first getting permission from someone who's never met the man
can't buy gas for a more reasonable price without checking to see if all the pigeons and turtles are cool with it first
can't live in the home you've lived in your whole life if some asshole decides he wants to build a strip mall in your back yard
can't decide how much to charge people living on your property for rent
can't shoot rabid animals on your property
can't dispose of dead rabid animals on your property
can't accidentally hurt someone's feelings unless they are cool with it and you don't have a lot of money
can't fire incompetent employees
can't decide what to teach your kids in school
can't watch football without some electronic yellow line for the dumbasses
can't run a small business out of our your own home
can't practice religion in schools you paid for/built (unless of course it's a foreign kid who's a siekh or a Muslim)
can't celebrate your national Heritage
can't leave your kids in the car while you run into the grocery store real quick to grab some toilet paper
can't decide what name to give your kids

and there's probably a million more. That's just a small sample off the top of my head.

Yes, every now and then the GOP might pass a law, or refuse to support a law, that inhibits personal behavior. No one's perfect. Gosh fukking darn. But saying the GOP isn't for limited government because of those relatively rare instances or your four other little examples would be like denying that Georgia Tech is a running team because they throw a 60 yard touchdown pass every now and then.

You shouldn't excuse other people's stupidity, in the end it only makes you more susceptible to it.

[No coincidences]

WOW about your mom and Grandma! For some reason many of these pundits like to point the finger at race and the minority vote while completely ignoring the fact that women are now the majority of voters. And those who do seem to consider women for a second somehow think all we care about is abortion when the number #1 reason women gave for voting Obama was economic. Of course those legitimate rape comments and anything threatening our right to choose were always going to be big factors too. But when women are the head of many households - single or partnered and are also the primary caregivers for many of the elderly, you can't hit their wallets. You don't threaten to take away affordable access to birth control and preventative screening, ditch after school programs, HeadStart and everything else that can make a huge difference to their lives and often those of their children. The Republican Party needs to give up on all of that stuff if they want to have a chance. Last year marked the first time that more non white babies were born in the US than white and almost half of all children under the age of 5 are not white. The median age of whites in America is now over 42 - mainly past child-bearing age - so very soon the demographics of the US are going to change dramatically. They need to forget about pandering to the white male because they're very soon going to be the minority whether anyone likes it or not. Focus on women of all races... that's how they're going to win.

Do you have regular conversations with older white men, shari? Because I do. And if you did, you wouldn't be surprised by the Republican party's delusion and lack of understanding when it comes to the evolution of the voting base in America. They're the most stubborn, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, arrogant people walking the planet Earth.

I listened to a few of these guys in my office pre-election really, truly, honestly discussing the "Romney in a landslide" angle to the results. They were stunned by what happened. I would almost feel sorry for them and how out of touch they are if it weren't for the fact that they deserve everything they get.