Thread: Obama won re election

Originally Posted by JackofDiamonds

What does it say about people that they would rather flee due to a loss rather than stick around and fight for their beliefs? iduno...

Well, is it running away or running toward? I.e. escape or hope?

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Well, is it running away or running toward? I.e. escape or hope?

Honestly iduno, I have never really had a head for politics. But that video said all those folks are going to run to Canada cuz they didn't get the president they wanted. If I was going to Canada it would be for vacation, not for fear of the future of my homeland.

Makes me want to buy the republican party a beer, pat each one on the back and say "it'll be okay". Faith men, just take a breath and have faith.

As I posted earlier:
"America will be just fine. I've been hearing the same "gloom and doom" crap about every newly-elected president since Nixon, and America's still here.
The American people have spoken. Deal."
America regularly re-invents itself. Sometimes these changes are adaptive, other times not so much. The passage of time usually leads to a superior perspective from which to evaluate those changes. In short, it provides job security for historians!

I'm distressed about it. I don't see how the economy can support the things he wants to do. I also think that 9-11 was a game changer and it requires us to maintain a strong defense, which I think Obama will weaken in order to fund other things.

Before the election it appeared to me that Romney was going to win and since his defeat the "experts" have said that he played not to lose rather than to win after the debates. There was also discussion that perhaps a younger and perhaps minority candidate like Marco Rubio would have been better able to compete for the voters that put Obama over the top.

What I think has gridlocked government in my lifetime is the conflict between taking care of the people (services while at the same time respecting one's core values) and taking care of the country as a whole (growing the economy and national defense). We need a strong president we can trust who can strike the right balance. Those kind of people don't come along very often.

I was hopeful Romney could win this time around because I really thought we needed a business and jobs emphasis in order to handle the economic challenges we're facing.

California --
No doubt, Obama faces daunting challenges. However, it is not reasonable to put it all in the lap of one person. Such an enterprise as you validly point out is really the responsibility of Congress. Unfortunately, the art of compromise was last seen there during World War 2. Oh, it was present for a little while in the mid-60s, but I think that was a blip on the radar.
Every administration inherits the wreckage and detritus of all of his predecessors. The next person to occupy the White House will have to deal with Obama's failures, missteps, and unfinished programmes.
I do wish him well, as I would if Romney had won. Besides, his wife is hot!

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Hence the term "broad historical persepective" has absolutely no value.

Explain...

Originally Posted by honedright

Explain...

Ok, I'll teach. I'm doing so in the spirit of fostering understanding, not to pick on anyone.
Your original statement: "What I find troubling is youth and immigrants without broad historical perspective and fueled by a "Me" "What I want now" attitude..."
Your use of the term "broad historical perspective" may seem all-encompassing, but it lacks clear delineation. It cannot be quantified. It cannot be reliably and validly measured. It cannot be experimentally supported or refuted. What may seem wide-ranging to one may in actuality be a rather limited comprehension and/or application to another.
You further stated that "relativity tips the cart" (or something to that effect, yes?). Relativity means that there is no absolute standard between and among all things. Thus, my statement "broad historical perspective has absolutely no value" is applicable.
My B.S. is in history and psychology. Compared to most saloon patrons, I do possess what you call "broad historical perspective." For example, I can trace the origins and formation of republican political theory to the ancient Greeks. Most people can't. I can detail, describe, and explain the causalities and effects of the Enlightenment on the formation of the United States Constitution. Most people can't do this either. Compared to my father (professor emeritus of history and poly sci), there's no comparison -- he can blow me away quite easily. He's just that good!
I hope this helps you understand my perspective. Again, I did this to help others gain some understanding.
We still pals?

Originally Posted by Bruno

"If a child is born from rape, then that was God's plan"
"If a woman is raped, abortion is not necessary because a woman's body has ways of dealing with that"
"47% of the Americans are freeloaders"

I'm sure there are more.
Not only do he and the republican party officials alienate significant groups of voters, but a large number of moderates in any demographic look at those insults and say 'Dude... really..!?'

I forgot one of the worst:
Obama's mom was porn star, claims DVD sent to swing-state voters

And
Bill Armistead, chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, urged voters to see "Dreams From My Real Father," calling it "absolutely frightening" and "factual."
"I've seen it," Armistead told a gathering of conservative women in Fairhope last Wednesday. "I've verified that it's factual, all of it," he added.

Read more: Obama's mom was porn star, claims DVD sent to swing-state voters

You just don't bring people's mothers into the fight. Dragging family though the mud is not done. That is low. Even if it was true (unlikely) it is not relevant. Sending out DVDs is beyond the pale.

And then you get a Republican bigwig jumping on that train, and he is NOT kicked out of the republican party, or denounced by the rest of the party and the republican candidates.

I think "broad historical perspective" as used does have value. The context provides some definition.

An idea was expressed; I was able to understand it.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCajun

Before the election it appeared to me that Romney was going to win and since his defeat the "experts" have said that he played not to lose rather than to win after the debates.

I think that was clear pretty early on. The first in-depth articles I read on Romney's past experiences made it perfectly clear that above everything he is very cautious, very private, and very flexible. Of these what troubled me most was the private part - at the end of both of his big public services in the Olympics and as a governor he had huge amount of records with details on what happened destroyed.

But out of everybody who ran in the republican primary he was the most qualified, and as we know 'you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want'. In the bigger scheme of things I still think Romney did a lot of really good things for the republican party - for one they dropped the anti-education, anti-intellectual, and anti-smart rhetoric that came with Sarah Palin. It'd have really been a shame if the party ended in a race towards dumb populism.