• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama Won Because He Called Romney A 'Poopy Head': Grover Norquist

techs

techs

Lifer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/grover-norquist_n_2116219.html

Grover Norquist: Obama Won Because He Called Romney A 'Poopy Head'

Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans For Tax Reform, has a new theory about why President Barack Obama won -- he portrayed Mitt Romney as a "poopy head."

"The president was committed; elected on the basis that he was not Romney and Romney was a poopy head and you should vote against Romney and he won by two points," Norquist said on CBS' "This Morning" Monday. "But he didn't make the case that we should have higher taxes and higher spending, he kind of sounded like the opposite."

Host Norah O'Donnell pushed back. "Well, I'm not sure that's what the president called Mitt Romney, Grover," she said. "That's not the debate that was had ... he said very clearly throughout the debate that the wealthiest Americans should pay more and he won eight of the nine battleground states and Republicans failed to reclaim the White House or the Senate."

"What about the exit polls that show a broad support for raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. Are you wrong?" she asked.

Norquist pointed to negative advertising against former GOP nominee Mitt Romney.




This is the man who controls the Republican Parties tax policy🙄

At what point can we say the Republicans are having a meltdown?
 
Last edited:
techs said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/grover-norquist_n_2116219.html

Grover Norquist: Obama Won Because He Called Romney A 'Poopy Head'

Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans For Tax Reform, has a new theory about why President Barack Obama won -- he portrayed Mitt Romney as a "poopy head."

"The president was committed; elected on the basis that he was not Romney and Romney was a poopy head and you should vote against Romney and he won by two points," Norquist said on CBS' "This Morning" Monday. "But he didn't make the case that we should have higher taxes and higher spending, he kind of sounded like the opposite."

Host Norah O'Donnell pushed back. "Well, I'm not sure that's what the president called Mitt Romney, Grover," she said. "That's not the debate that was had ... he said very clearly throughout the debate that the wealthiest Americans should pay more and he won eight of the nine battleground states and Republicans failed to reclaim the White House or the Senate."

"What about the exit polls that show a broad support for raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. Are you wrong?" she asked.

Norquist pointed to negative advertising against former GOP nominee Mitt Romney.




This is the man who controls the Republican Parties tax policy🙄

At what point can we say the Republicans are having a meltdown?
Click to expand...

If any candidate, called the other a "poopy head" (Those exact words) in an interview or public, I would immediately vote for them. Because that would be amazing.
 
zinfamous said:
should such a discussion begin from arguing the legitimacy of why or why not one candidate called the other a "poopy head"?
Click to expand...
certainly felt like the most negative campaign ever to me (regardless of whatever retarded language Norquist wants to use).
 
loki8481 said:
certainly felt like the most negative campaign ever to me (regardless of whatever retarded language Norquist wants to use).
Click to expand...

Clearly, you're referring to the GOP primary campaign, right?

Oh, maybe you mean the GOP primary in 2000, where Rove robo-called South Carolinians with the blatant lie that McCain sired an illegitimate black Haitian child?

spare me the lack of perspective... 🙄
 
if i'd have known we weren't going to have a spidey meltdown and instead were only going to get all these techs threads i would have prayed that romney won.
 
dullard said:
Not sure what you meant. Republicans have had more electoral votes than Obama just got. But none have had as many actual votes.
Click to expand...

You mean popular votes? Bush had 62 million in 2004, Obama had 61 million in 2012. But Bush only had 286 electoral, Obama had 332.
 
zinfamous said:
Clearly, you're referring to the GOP primary campaign, right?

Oh, maybe you mean the GOP primary in 2000, where Rove robo-called South Carolinians with the blatant lie that McCain sired an illegitimate black Haitian child?

spare me the lack of perspective... 🙄
Click to expand...
in terms of pervasiveness? I feel pretty fine with my perspective.

talking with both liberals and conservatives, I always walked away with a total understanding of why they hated/feared the other guy, but not much for why they actually loved their candidate. I didn't feel that way in 2000, 2004, or 2008.
 
ElFenix said:
if i'd have known we weren't going to have a spidey meltdown and instead were only going to get all these techs threads i would have prayed that romney won.
Click to expand...

Same, these threads are all the same thing, "I hate romney and republicans"

It would make sense to just merge all his threads together
 
loki8481 said:
certainly felt like the most negative campaign ever to me (regardless of whatever retarded language Norquist wants to use).
Click to expand...

Actually, I heard several interviews on the radio with historical experts who said that while the campaigns were certainly negative, they were probably far from the most negative. They all hedged their opinions though, because campaign negativity is somewhat difficult to quantify.

zinfamous said:
Clearly, you're referring to the GOP primary campaign, right?

Oh, maybe you mean the GOP primary in 2000, where Rove robo-called South Carolinians with the blatant lie that McCain sired an illegitimate black Haitian child?

spare me the lack of perspective... 🙄
Click to expand...

Exactly, there have been some pretty brutal campaigns, and fairly recently too.
 
There aren't many people I hate more than Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. Their tears of sorrow bring me tears of joy.

If those two think they have it all figured out then why don't they run for president/vice president. That would probably be the biggest democrat landslide in history.
 
dullard said:
There is a point, but techs has already started multiple threads discussing that point. Time to move on.
Click to expand...


Since when is the first statement by arguably the most important person to the Republican Congress not news worthy?

We're days away from a fiscal cliff. The main issue of which is to increase taxes on the wealthiest or not.

Norgquist is the promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which was signed by 95% of all Republican Congressmen and all but one of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates,[5] to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate

What this guy has to say is big, big news. The fact he is doubling down and looks like he won't release any of his 95 percent of signees from the pledge is the kind of news that affects stock markets and potentates.
 
dullard said:
Your numbers are wrong. Bush in 2004: 62,040.610. Obama in 2012: 62,151,820 and still counting.
Click to expand...

^ And at least four major blue states haven't even reported all their precincts: CA's reported 71%, WA only 55%, Oregon 75% and NY 86%. That's another few hundred thousand, maybe half a million more votes, depending on whether the remaining counties are more conservative or not.
 
techs said:
Since when is the first statement by arguably the most important person to the Republican Congress not news worthy?

We're days away from a fiscal cliff. The main issue of which is to increase taxes on the wealthiest or not.

Norgquist is the promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which was signed by 95% of all Republican Congressmen and all but one of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates,[5] to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate

What this guy has to say is big, big news. The fact he is doubling down and looks like he won't release any of his 95 percent of signees from the pledge is the kind of news that affects stock markets and potentates.
Click to expand...
Norquist + Rove are claiming negativity and suppression won the election for Obama. I'll that I am saying is that for their statements to be true, Obama would have few votes. You can't have significantly suppressed votes and massive votes at the same time. Obama won due to lots of votes, not due to negativity. Unless you ate arguing that Romney's negativity got Obama more votes.

If it is news, put it in one of your other threads of the same topic. Plus none of what you just posted was in your OP.
 
Last edited:
dullard said:
Your numbers are wrong. Bush in 2004: 62,040.610. Obama in 2012: 62,151,820 and still counting.
Click to expand...

Ah ok. When I Googled I guess it was from a few days ago. I dont really care, because popular vote doesnt really matter 🙂 Obama won by a large margin for electoral.
 
bignateyk said:
There aren't many people I hate more than Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. Their tears of sorrow bring me tears of joy.

If those two think they have it all figured out then why don't they run for president/vice president. That would probably be the biggest democrat landslide in history.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:😀:thumbsup:😀:thumbsup:😀:thumbsup:😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top