Hey Actinanass
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
lol it is what it is.
I'm glad you put the last part in. If this was any other true conservative, this would of been lights out for B.O., but I had a funny suspicion about this campaign. Why do you think I wasn't talking a lot of shit like I usually do?
You are truly delusional. The so called "true conservatives" as you call them couldn't even win the republican primary.
You were talking shit because you absorbed all the bullshit Limbaugh and Fox put in your non think brain and thought it was gospel. I'm sure you had diarrhea just like Rove did when Ohio went President Obama's way. Dick Morris was wrong!
At some point you will have an epiphany and realize that the reason republicans are loosing is not the republican personalities you put up for president, it's the republican massage that is preventing your camp from winning the presidency!
Last edited:
Well, your side won, like my side won in 2000 and 2004.
Come on dude... so Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann... whom conservative voters regularly call true conservatives....they would have made it lights out for the Pres? The true conservatives didn't worry me at all, but Romney did because in his past life, he was a moderate. Trying to be a conservative was his downfall, and a true conservative would have done worse.
<s>Crossover</s><u>Smart</u>negro.
I'm so damn tired of SIDES.
Sides, sides everywhere sides,
blocking up the progress
wasting our time.
do this, can't do that
cause we on our sides.
And each side says
you gotta have a membership card
to be on our side.
This is the problem right here. In two Presidential cycles, the majority of American voters have rejected the conservative agenda and yet they still search for a "true" conservative. Go ahead, run Rick Santorum or Paul Ryan in 2016. See the results for Richard Mourdock to see how that will fare.
Then why did the republicans keep the house?
When did Ted Nugent make that statement T.O., sometime around last April 15th or so ???
If so, he's still got time . . .
source: Bloomberg
Republicans Win Congress as Democrats Get Most Votes
In the 1780s, Patrick Henry tried to shape Virginia’s House district lines to block James Madison from serving in the first U.S. Congress.
The grudge between the two men: Henry opposed the U.S. Constitution freshly written primarily by Madison. The gambit failed and Madison won his seat.
More than two centuries later, the politics of redistricting still are shaping Congress.
A majority of Americans disapprove of the Republicans in Congress, yet the odds remain in the party’s favor that it will retain control of the House. One big reason the Republicans have this edge: their district boundaries are drawn so carefully that the only votes that often matter come from fellow Republicans.
The 2010 elections, in which Republicans won the House majority and gained more than 700 state legislative seats across the nation, gave the party the upper-hand in the process of redistricting, the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional seats. The advantage helped them design safer partisan districts and maintain their House majority in 2012 -- even as they lost the presidential race by about 5 million votes. Also nationwide, Democratic House candidates combined to win about 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News.
“The Republican-created maps in most states set up a sort of seawall,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “As the decade goes on, people do shift party allegiances and move in and out of town, and so the effects erode a little bit, but it’s still a seawall and it’s still keeping some of the flood of 2010 in,” Levitt said.
Thwarting Obama
The election results mean House Republicans will have the power to block or demand amendments to President Barack Obama’s agenda.
That tension will be on display during the deficit reduction talks in coming months as Obama advocates a combination of spending cuts and new revenues. That position was favored by 67 percent of Americans in a CNN/Orc International poll conducted Nov. 16, two weeks after voters re-elected Obama. Republican House members last week unveiled a budget that would eliminate the deficit in 10 years by cutting $4.6 trillion and using no new tax revenue.
It’s a predicament presidents previously have faced. Before Obama, five of the last six elected presidents --Democrats and Republicans -- had a House controlled by the opposition party at some point during their tenure. President Jimmy Carter was the one who didn’t.
Rare Outcome
Still, it’s rare for one party to win more House seats while securing fewer votes than the other party. The last time it happened before 2012 was in 1996, when Democrats won the nationwide House vote by 43.6 million to 43.4 million as Republicans held their majority and Bill Clinton was re-elected president, according to the U.S. House Clerk’s office.
Redistricting is intended to ensure House members represent roughly equal size populations. Yet from the first Congress, party leaders began exploiting the map-making exercise by weakening the voting strength of some groups to gain partisan advantage, a practice known as gerrymandering.
Democrats aren’t immune from engaging in the political bloodsport of redistricting. With control of the process in Illinois, Democratic lawmakers from Obama’s home state approved a map on Memorial Day weekend in 2011 that led to the defeat of five Republicans in the 2012 elections.
State Legislatures
In most cases, state legislatures are charged with overseeing the redistricting process, which is done to reflect demographic shifts recorded in the census. The 435 U.S. House districts boundaries are adjusted based on population migration during the past decade.
Republican-controlled statehouses dominated redistricting that occurred after 2010 through a combination of planning and good fortune.
The party began preparing two years in advance of the 2010 elections by concentrating on candidate recruitment and fundraising. The Republican State Leadership Committee, which focuses on state legislative races, called its effort the Redistricting Majority Project, or REDMAP.
In the 2010 campaign, the Republican Governors Association outspent the Democratic Governors Association, $132 million to $65 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that tracks campaign giving. The Republican State Leadership Committee outspent the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, $21 million to $5 million.
Wave Election
Democrats also faced a political environment that had swung sharply Republican, partly due to a wave of public discontent over passage of Obama’s health-care law.
The same Republican surge that helped the party net more than 60 seats in the U.S. House -- the biggest gains by any party in 62 years -- swept in governors and state legislators.
“2010 was a really difficult year for there to be a Republican wave election,” said Michael Sargeant, the DLCC’s executive director.
The spending and timing paid off for the Republicans, as they won control of 57 legislative chambers, up from 36 before the 2010 elections, and increased their governorships to 29 from 23, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the wake of the 2012 elections, Republicans control 56 state legislative chambers and 30 governorships.
Impact Election
“You can spend hundreds of millions of dollars fighting over a couple dozen congressional districts over 10 years, or you can spend significantly less and impact the shape of those congressional elections over 10 years via state legislative elections,” said Chris Jankowski, the president of the Washington-based RSLC, referring to the Republican strategy heading into the 2010 vote. “It was a cost-effective analysis that truly bore out in reality.”
Once in office, technology made it easier for line-drawers to consolidate and further their partisan goals.
Map-making software is cheaper, more powerful and widely available, compared to a decade ago. State lawmakers can build databases with detailed voter registration figures, election results and population data to project campaign outcomes and demographic trends.
It may also be easier to predict voter preferences. Party- line voting is increasing: fewer than 30 districts backed the presidential candidate of one party and a House candidate of the opposite party in 2012, the lowest total in at least 90 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Map-Makers Gold
“If you’re a map-maker drawing lines, that’s just gold for you, because you can very reliably use partisan voting patterns in one election to predict what it might be in another, or much more so than you could before,” said Rob Richie, the executive director of FairVote, a Takoma Park, Maryland-based nonprofit that wants to change the redistricting process to reduce partisanship in Washington.
The 2012 results show how Republicans gerrymandered congressional lines to produce favorable outcomes even in states that lean Democratic.
In Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the clustering of Democrats in metropolitan areas made it easy for Republican line-drawers to pack them into a few districts while giving their own party more modest -- yet consistent -- advantages in the remaining ones.
North Carolina
In Pennsylvania, where Democratic votes are concentrated in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Republicans won 13 of 18 House seats while losing the statewide congressional vote, 2.8 million to 2.7 million. In North Carolina, Republicans drew three districts to be overwhelmingly Democratic and won nine of the other ten, even as House Democratic candidates won the statewide vote, 2.2 million to 2.1 million.
While drawing federal districts to their advantage, Republicans also created favorable state House maps to make it harder for Democrats to wrest control of the redistricting process in 2020. In Michigan, Republican candidates won most of the 110 state House seats despite winning 350,000 fewer votes than Democrats, said Sargeant.
“Clearly, the Republican gerrymander had a lot to do with it,” he said.
Politics and redistricting have been intertwined since the nation’s earliest days, as shown by the Henry-Madison feud outlined in a 2010 report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
‘Gerrymandering’ Origins
The practice of drawing party-friendly districts was given its common nickname -- gerrymandering -- in 1812. That’s when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill that redrew state senate districts unfavorable to his rivals, the Federalists. The shape of one district was said to resemble a salamander.
One of the most notable partisan battles over redistricting occurred in Texas in 2003, when Tom DeLay, then the U.S. House majority leader, engineered a rare mid-decade remap that so angered Democratic state legislators that most of them fled to Ardmore, Oklahoma, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, to prevent a quorum needed to pass the plan.
The House ethics committee admonished DeLay for his role in using the Federal Aviation Administration to obtain information on the whereabouts of absent Texas legislators. The rebuke one month before the 2004 election didn’t stop Republicans from gaining five House seats in Texas, offsetting a two-seat loss outside of the state and helping the party hold its chamber majority.
Democratic Gains
The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated part of the Texas map in 2006 and a federal court redrew it before that year’s midterm elections. Democrats then won two Texas seats from Republicans - - including the one DeLay had resigned from in mid-2006 -- and 30 nationwide to take control of the House.
While redistricting usually is a once-per-decade exercise, the Texas fight shows that brawls can surface at unexpected times.
In January, Republicans in the evenly divided Virginia Senate shoved through a new map on a party-line vote when a Democrat was absent to attend Obama’s inauguration. The map was blocked by the Republican House speaker on a procedural point.
“Virginia pointed out once again that the players who are involved in the process will try to game the system however they can, be they Republicans or Democrats,” said Kim Brace, the president of Election Data Services Inc., a political consulting firm in Manassas, Virginia.
Last edited:
"We have to face some truths.
We have to face some reality.
We are out numbered and we are losing ground.
This was not a glitch, this is the trend that happened last night.
This is the trend.
We are out numbered.
Whether you want to put in it terms of whether we have lost the
country or not, there is no other explanation."
- Rush Limpbaugh, Post 2012 Election Analysis
LOL! Keep on O'Reilly and the right wing. This type of thinking will make you politically irrelevant in 15 years!
<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5uqy5CBWjKw" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
Because you don't know the difference between presidential elections and local elections.
Upgrade specifically said that the population dismissed the conservative agenda. I simply said "then why did the republicans keep the house?".
It was a legit question.
If what Upgrade said was right, we would have a sweeping gun control bill already. Taxes would have been raised across the board.
BTW, don't patronize me que. I have nor time, or patience for dumb shit these days...
Last edited:
Seems to me, this
Because you don't know the difference between presidential elections and local elections.
is validated by this
and I stand by that.
Trust me, I wasn't patronizing.
I'm sorry if you're having a crappy day, week, month, year. It might be a good idea that you avoid bulletin boards and other social media sites during such times until you've acquired the time and patience to comprehend and tolerate view points different from yours.
source: Media Matters
Ted Nugent Doubles Down On Claim He Will Be "Dead Or In Jail" Because Of Gun Laws
Nugent's "Metaphor": "Would You Help Me Shoot Somebody?"
National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent made several inflammatory remarks about the Obama administration during an interview on NRA News, including doubling down on his previous claim that he will be "dead or in jail" if the president was reelected.
During an April 8 interview on NRA News, Nugent also accused the Obama administration of engaging in "jack-booted thuggery" and complained that not enough was done to stop the reelection of Obama, asking, "When I kick the door down in the enemy's camp, would you help me shoot somebody?" Nugent clarified that his reference to shooting people was "a metaphor" and that he's "not recommending shooting anybody."
Nugent told a gathered crowd at the NRA's annual meeting in April 2012 that, "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year. Why are you laughing? Do you think that's funny? That's not funny at all. I'm serious as a heart attack." He concluded his remarks with a call for the audience to "ride into that battlefield and chop [Democrats] heads off in November."
Nugent, who is also a columnist for birther website WND, brought up those past comments after NRA News host Cam Edwards falsely claimed that proposed background check legislation would make it so "any time somebody went to your ranch and you loaned them a gun to do some hunting or to do some plinking that would be a five year felony." According to Nugent, those who laughed at him for saying that "if this America-hater, if this freedom-hater, if this enemy of America becomes the president again I'll either be dead or in jail" were ignoring the threat of "draconian felonies":
<IFRAME height=360 src="http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2013/04/09/29713/nranews-camandcompany-20130409-nugent1" frameBorder=0 width=480 scrolling=no allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>
Furthermore, the legislation would allow an individual to temporarily transfer a firearm to another individual without a check so long as the firearm does not leave the transferor's "home or curtilage."
Nugent used the NRA News interview as an opportunity to make more inflammatory statements about the Obama administration.
Warning of government firearm confiscation, Nugent suggested that the federal government was engaged in "jack-booted thuggery," a term used in the infamous 1995 comparison by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre between federal law enforcement agents and Nazi stormtroopers:
<IFRAME height=360 src="http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2013/04/09/29714/nranews-camandcompany-20130409-nugent2" frameBorder=0 width=480 scrolling=no allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>
<IFRAME height=360 src="http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2013/04/09/29715/nranews-camandcompany-20130409-nugent3" frameBorder=0 width=480 scrolling=no allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>
Ted Nugent Doubles Down On Claim He Will Be "Dead Or In Jail" Because Of Gun Laws
Nugent's "Metaphor": "Would You Help Me Shoot Somebody?"
National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent made several inflammatory remarks about the Obama administration during an interview on NRA News, including doubling down on his previous claim that he will be "dead or in jail" if the president was reelected.
During an April 8 interview on NRA News, Nugent also accused the Obama administration of engaging in "jack-booted thuggery" and complained that not enough was done to stop the reelection of Obama, asking, "When I kick the door down in the enemy's camp, would you help me shoot somebody?" Nugent clarified that his reference to shooting people was "a metaphor" and that he's "not recommending shooting anybody."
Nugent told a gathered crowd at the NRA's annual meeting in April 2012 that, "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year. Why are you laughing? Do you think that's funny? That's not funny at all. I'm serious as a heart attack." He concluded his remarks with a call for the audience to "ride into that battlefield and chop [Democrats] heads off in November."
Nugent, who is also a columnist for birther website WND, brought up those past comments after NRA News host Cam Edwards falsely claimed that proposed background check legislation would make it so "any time somebody went to your ranch and you loaned them a gun to do some hunting or to do some plinking that would be a five year felony." According to Nugent, those who laughed at him for saying that "if this America-hater, if this freedom-hater, if this enemy of America becomes the president again I'll either be dead or in jail" were ignoring the threat of "draconian felonies":
<IFRAME height=360 src="http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2013/04/09/29713/nranews-camandcompany-20130409-nugent1" frameBorder=0 width=480 scrolling=no allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>
EDWARDS: You look at what is going on now with the U.S. Senate. They still don't have the votes for the so-called universal background check bill and that's a very good thing because this bill is awful. I mean we might as well call this the Ban Ted Nugent Act of 2013. Do you realize, Ted, that under the language right now, any time somebody went to your ranch and you loaned them a gun to do some hunting or to do some plinking that would be a five year felony?
NUGENT: Sure. Well that's why. I mean come on. And I know that the moderates, by the way if you are a moderate we'd like to thank you for standing up for nothing. If you're a moderate I suppose you would have been playing poker while Davy Crockett was on the wall of the Alamo. It's time to take a side.
That's why I said almost a year ago, Cam, and people recoiled in horror. And I know it caught a lot of my friends off guard, when I said if this America-hater, if this freedom-hater, if this enemy of America becomes the president again I'll either be dead or in jail. And remember when I was on the stage with you and some people chuckled?
EDWARDS: Yup.
NUGENT: So we find humor in a disastrous statement from a guy who is on the frontlines, who has been in the frontlines of the war against gun ownership for at least forty-plus years. So it's funny that I might be dead or in jail. And that is so indicative of how callous and disconnected some are, because you are talking about arbitrary, punitive, capricious draconian felonies.
Edwards' characterization of the proposal to expand background checks is incorrect. While the legislation would require a criminal background check on almost all gun sales, there would be exemptions to the requirement, including gifts between family members and firearms loaned for lawful hunting or target shooting purposes.NUGENT: Sure. Well that's why. I mean come on. And I know that the moderates, by the way if you are a moderate we'd like to thank you for standing up for nothing. If you're a moderate I suppose you would have been playing poker while Davy Crockett was on the wall of the Alamo. It's time to take a side.
That's why I said almost a year ago, Cam, and people recoiled in horror. And I know it caught a lot of my friends off guard, when I said if this America-hater, if this freedom-hater, if this enemy of America becomes the president again I'll either be dead or in jail. And remember when I was on the stage with you and some people chuckled?
EDWARDS: Yup.
NUGENT: So we find humor in a disastrous statement from a guy who is on the frontlines, who has been in the frontlines of the war against gun ownership for at least forty-plus years. So it's funny that I might be dead or in jail. And that is so indicative of how callous and disconnected some are, because you are talking about arbitrary, punitive, capricious draconian felonies.
Furthermore, the legislation would allow an individual to temporarily transfer a firearm to another individual without a check so long as the firearm does not leave the transferor's "home or curtilage."
Nugent used the NRA News interview as an opportunity to make more inflammatory statements about the Obama administration.
Warning of government firearm confiscation, Nugent suggested that the federal government was engaged in "jack-booted thuggery," a term used in the infamous 1995 comparison by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre between federal law enforcement agents and Nazi stormtroopers:
<IFRAME height=360 src="http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2013/04/09/29714/nranews-camandcompany-20130409-nugent2" frameBorder=0 width=480 scrolling=no allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>
A lot of people, Cam, I'm afraid, listen to the outrageous examples, the freedom-stomping and jack-booted thuggery. And they wince a bit and they furrow their brow and they shake their heads. But then they still don't do anything.
Nugent also blamed the reelection of President Obama, who he refers to as the "Chicago gangster, ACORN rip-off scam-artist-in-chief," on the alleged silence of Obama's critics. He went on to ask, "When I kick the door down in the enemy's camp, would you help me shoot somebody?"
<IFRAME height=360 src="http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2013/04/09/29715/nranews-camandcompany-20130409-nugent3" frameBorder=0 width=480 scrolling=no allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>
NUGENT: The left dominates the public discourse. And here we are, with the Chicago gangster, ACORN rip-off scam-artist-in-chief because we, who know better, were silent. I suppose we were being tolerant and moderate. And the Nugent guy, well he's a radical. And again, it's not about me. I don't want a pat on the back. I don't need one. I don't seek one. It's inconsequential.
But when I kick the door down to the enemy's camp, would you help me shoot somebody? Just help me clear the room. And again, that's a metaphor ladies and gentleman, I'm not recommending shooting anybody. It's a metaphor of how to counterpunch the enemy if someone is willing to be on the frontline.
But when I kick the door down to the enemy's camp, would you help me shoot somebody? Just help me clear the room. And again, that's a metaphor ladies and gentleman, I'm not recommending shooting anybody. It's a metaphor of how to counterpunch the enemy if someone is willing to be on the frontline.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LORVfnFtcH0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
