Why is the MSM pushing this meme of Obama having to Compromise?

[Ausm]

You don't even have a clue why Romney Lost. Romney lost because of the Republican primary. His closest point to winning was after the first debate where he basically moved to the left of Obama on some issues. Your base is crazy and anyone who comes out of that primary will lose. Look it, Hermain Cain (9-9-9), Donald Trump (Mr. Birther), Santorum(believing everyone should go to college is elitist) etc. Who else would have won? Until you become a national party and beat back the cockroaches, you'll continue to lose national and state elections.

Here's a good article on it.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/mitt-romney-s-original-sin-20120920

^^^ Word! Rmoney went so far to the right he almost formed a complete circle.

 

[emperus]

It is like I am talking to a brick wall. What part of my side lost months ago didnt you understand? Are you really trying to debate me on something I have already agreed about?

You don't even understand what you're saying or your position.

My side lost when Romney was selected as the presidential nominee months ago..... My ideas havent lost, in fact much of my ideas saw quite a following in the primary season within the republican party. Turnout was double what it was in 08.
.

It wasn't Romney's selection. It was that he had to go through the Primary. The MA Romney might have won. The Romney who went through the primary could never have won. He had to change his positions esp. on health care which was his signature achievement in MA and thus became known as a liar. He had to argue against Birth control in health plans, had to defend himself on abortion for rape. My gosh.

The party is doomed because of the ideas that flourished in the primary. The ideas which you now seem to espouse. Please understand whatever point your trying to argue before arguing.

 

[fskimospy]

This is what we are going to hand our hat on why democrats didnt deliver a crushing defeat? Gerrymandering? Im not buying it given the large drop off in voter turnout for Obama compared to 08. If Obama energized the electorate like 08 democrats probably could have taken back the house regardless of gerrymandering.

The Republicans won their majority by an overall popular vote of about 51-45. This gave them a large majority. While all the totals aren't in yet, it is likely that the Democrats will have won the popular vote for the house as well. Just because the Democrats could have done better doesn't mean that the Republican majority wasn't saved by gerrymandering. I presume you wouldn't argue that people had voted for the status quo if the Democrats had taken the house.

 

[Zebo]

Jeez i dunno prolly something to do with all spending bills originate in republican controlled house?

 

[fskimospy]

Jeez i dunno prolly something to do with all spending bills originate in republican controlled house?

Not really relevant in practice. In the real world spending bills can originate in either house. In fact they almost always originate in both for any one bill.

 

[shira]

Since neither side has laid out a definitive plan yet how am I to define that?

It's pretty clear what the terms of any "compromise" worthy of the name will be:

Significant cuts, that affect both social programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) and defense.

Significant tax increases that are targeted at the wealthy.

 

[IGBT]

the moochers won. They don't have to compromise on anything. Just take /redistribute / tax / confiscate / nationalize / de industrialize all you want. Your low information supporters won't kick and scream until they are personally effected by liberal hostility.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That said I think it is hilarious you came back to gloat after Obama won.

That said you would still be partying had Romney won......
Also I think its funny how all you die hard republicans..well some of you are distancing yourself from Romney..lol..yeah right you knew everal months ago that Romney was not a good candidate.......hahahha you took one up the ole kazoo for your team..hahaaaa

 

[Genx87]

You don't even understand what you're saying or your position.



It wasn't Romney's selection. It was that he had to go through the Primary. The MA Romney might have won. The Romney who went through the primary could never have won. He had to change his positions esp. on health care which was his signature achievement in MA and thus became known as a liar. He had to argue against Birth control in health plans, had to defend himself on abortion for rape. My gosh.

The party is doomed because of the ideas that flourished in the primary. The ideas which you now seem to espouse. Please understand whatever point your trying to argue before arguing.

Please understand a lot of the ideas that flourished in the primaries are not mine. Holy christ do I have to spoon feed you now too?

 

[Genx87]

That said you would still be partying had Romney won......
Also I think its funny how all you die hard republicans..well some of you are distancing yourself from Romney..lol..yeah right you knew everal months ago that Romney was not a good candidate.......hahahha you took one up the ole kazoo for your team..hahaaaa

Hardly, I would probably gloat due to the level of arrogance displayed on this forum. But then reality would set in that we have another big govt douche at the helm steering us over a cliff.

 

[Ausm]

That said you would still be partying had Romney won......
Also I think its funny how all you die hard republicans..well some of you are distancing yourself from Romney..lol..yeah right you knew everal months ago that Romney was not a good candidate.......hahahha you took one up the ole kazoo for your team..hahaaaa

+1 Well said...the Rethuglican cartel in here never fails to impress!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The MOST important reason the President Obama needed to be elected is the potential retirement of 3 SCOTUS judges. We can FINALLY move the SCOTUS to the left. I used this argument to get many of my friends who were on the fence to vote BLUE.

Thats true. The Constitution won't withstand that, so perhaps we need to understand we're subjects and get the idea of protections out of the way now. Instead of that document being correctly read we'll be subject to one philosophy to rule then all. I can hardly wait.

 

[emperus]

Please understand a lot of the ideas that flourished in the primaries are not mine. Holy christ do I have to spoon feed you now too?

Please, spoon feed me. You seem like the type that will take all sides of every issue. So, I'll give you a chance to explain.

 

[Ausm]

Hardly, I would probably gloat due to the level of arrogance displayed on this forum. But then reality would set in that we have another big govt douche at the helm steering us over a cliff.

My hypocrisy meter needs recalibration after this diatribe....

 

[Tom]

Yes go with that. That will end well for democrats in 2014. If The republicans are willing to meet halfway and Obama does nothing. Kiss the senate good bye in 2014.

Obama has been willing to compromise all along.

The truth is the Republican controlled House has not compromised with the Republicans in the Senate, let alone Obama.

 

[Tom]

Thats true. The Constitution won't withstand that, so perhaps we need to understand we're subjects and get the idea of protections out of the way now. Instead of that document being correctly read we'll be subject to one philosophy to rule then all. I can hardly wait.

You mean like the way the Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and decided themselves who would win the 2000 Presidential election ?

The Constitution SPECIFICALLY gives that authority to the House of Representatives, what the Supreme Court did in that case was treasonous.

Of course there is no actual constituency for protecting the Constitution, amongst Republicans. What they care about is winning and power, they use the Constitution as just another buzzword, ie death taxes, in their propaganda campaign.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You mean like the way the Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and decided themselves who would win the 2000 Presidential election ?

The Constitution SPECIFICALLY gives that authority to the House of Representatives, what the Supreme Court did in that case was treasonous.

Of course there is no actual constituency for protecting the Constitution, amongst Republicans. What they care about is winning and power, they use the Constitution as just another buzzword, ie death taxes, in their propaganda campaign.

There was nothing that required the election go to the House. It was not a tie in the EC as is what is dictated by the Constitution.

 

[Agent11]

Consider this:

Immediately after the election Boehner called for compromise, yet in the same breath said that he would not raise taxes.

That is not compromise.

These Republicans are the epitome of irresponsible. Eisenhower would have chased them all out of town.

 

[fskimospy]

Please understand a lot of the ideas that flourished in the primaries are not mine. Holy christ do I have to spoon feed you now too?

By the way, I found the numbers now. Democrats won the National house popular vote (narrowly) after losing it by almost 7 points in 2010. That's a 7 point swing, which I think we would all agree is pretty large. How does that square with voting for the status quo?

Republicans controlled the majority of state houses for redistricting, and it paid off. Take Pennsylvania for example. That state went for Obama by 6 points. Know how many democrats it sent to Congress out of its 18 seats? 4. Does that sound like an accurate portrait of the voters preference?

Don't let gerrymandering obscure the results.

 

[ElFenix]

the thread title is misuse of the word 'meme.' it should be 'notion.'

 

[hal2kilo]

Why would he have to convince the house to work with him when this Election was clearly a mandate? If I was Boner, I would be worried about my job security.

He more worried about the shiv that Cantor going to stick him with.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You mean like the way the Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and decided themselves who would win the 2000 Presidential election ?

The Constitution SPECIFICALLY gives that authority to the House of Representatives, what the Supreme Court did in that case was treasonous.

Of course there is no actual constituency for protecting the Constitution, amongst Republicans. What they care about is winning and power, they use the Constitution as just another buzzword, ie death taxes, in their propaganda campaign.

Ahh, so the motivation is revenge, and if our collective nose is cut off by further abuse of the Constitution so be it. Thats an honest perspective. I do note that of all the abuses you pick the election, but citizens no longer have protections to be secure in there person as warrants are no longer required, an Obama supported and strengthened fact as is the fact that your President with support of your party backed the NDAA. But I suppose that because reps would lock up citizens without due process based on accusation you can to. Thats trivial. Your party losing is worse than that. I appreciate open hatred, it's a natural state of man.

 

[hal2kilo]

Thats true. The Constitution won't withstand that, so perhaps we need to understand we're subjects and get the idea of protections out of the way now. Instead of that document being correctly read we'll be subject to one philosophy to rule then all. I can hardly wait.

Yea right. Corporations are people too my friend.

 

[irishScott]

LMAO! yeah riiiiiight! Your party got bitch slapped twice now and if you don't understand that this is a mandate then there is really no hope for you or your party.

Yeah, it's a mandate for compromise. You do know that Obama won by much less of the popular vote this time right?

But go ahead and fap to your "mandate" of fewer supporters than last time.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mas-diverse-base-of-support.html?ref=politics

 

[glenn1]

Consider this:

Immediately after the election Boehner called for compromise, yet in the same breath said that he would not raise taxes.

That is not compromise.

These Republicans are the epitome of irresponsible. Eisenhower would have chased them all out of town.

Winning the Presidency doesn't mean you get or should expect Congress to rubber stamp your proposals like a Soviet Politboro. Compromise also doesn't mean you preemptively cede your bargaining position before negotiation. Continuing the 70" vs 50" TV example, the final compromise might be 69" but you can hardly expect the GOP to start from that point. Like I said in another post, pressing your advantage to the maximum and not allowing your component some small victory to save face with ensures there will be no cooperation when the advantage is not as much in your favor.