Mitt never had a chance

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Sadly, the American voters have made the choice to become a European style ultra liberal country. It is sad to see the demise of this country, as it has always existed.

Ultra Liberal? Thirty thousand drones above our heads and the all time heaviest weaponized largest domestic police force trained by genocide experts and you're worried about ruining the work ethic of youth or coddling the homeless miscreants perhaps.Of course I will concede that there is reason to inject the word (liberal) after all as it is certainty that the American electorate will be treated by the very liberal application of these democratizing weapons in relatively short order.


.
 
Last edited:

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Ahhh you just got to love the bipartisanship and calls for working together by the left. Their grace in victory.

Obama has a speech about unity and working together...

His followers are like...

"F*** that! I want to rub it in their faces."
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
As of 12:30am EST more than half of the Americans who voted disagree with you.

And as of 12:30 pm, about 3 million more agree with him. :lol: You gotta quote current news, Walter. If you're not careful pretty soon just going to be you and Teddy and a handful of others are going to be left on "the ship". (I have an ample supply of "reddies" already Walter, so won't be needing any)

The Republicans gave it their filthy best, and spent a trainload of money but Romney was unelectable.:roll:

Probably the sh*t that happens once you start favouring certain demographics. (And the richer they are the worse it gets).
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
The Republicans gave it their filthy best, and spent a trainload of money but Romney was unelectable.:roll:

Look at the popular vote........that shows just how wrong you are.

They did lose, but it was not because the American people rejected them wholesale..........Romney lost the popular vote by one half of one percent.....

And the Democrats spent wildly as well.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Look at the popular vote........that shows just how wrong you are.

They did lose, but it was not because the American people rejected them wholesale..........Romney lost the popular vote by one half of one percent.....

And the Democrats spent wildly as well.


I was under the impression that the Democrat campaign cost more than the Republican. Hmmm... time to dig for numbers, it's gotta be out there somewhere.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
And as of 12:30 pm, about 3 million more agree with him. :lol: You gotta quote current news, Walter. If you're not careful pretty soon just going to be you and Teddy and a handful of others are going to be left on "the ship". (I have an ample supply of "reddies" already Walter, so won't be needing any)

Did you read the last part of my post thoroughly, Walter? I DON'T need any more reds, got a piss pot full of them already. (Being all the same they are not really a "collectors item".) :lol:

James Buchanan was worse. Half the country left on his watch and he didnt lift a finger to try to stop it.

It's hilarious going back as far as L.B.J. every president (at the time) was the worst on record. I believe the historians actually give Warren G. Harding credit for being the absolute worst, and Buchanan nipping at his heels. "Silent Cal" wasn't a favourite either, but probably more for what he didn't do than anything nefarious. Grant was down there too, a better soldier (and drinker) than president.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I found Mitt Romney less and less repugnant as the campaign progressed.

The only Republican candidate who could have appealed to a wider group would have been Jon Huntsman. Hopefully he seeks the Presidency in 2016.

I predict Chris Christie becomes a Democrat...
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.

A couple of things "rotten in Denmark" here, #1. Governments aren't supposed to contribute to politicians and #2. The state of California contributed to both parties (the bastards are nuts, either that or too many people in the donation dept. so the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And this is the sh*t that ultimately controls the running of the country. Someone could make a good movie out of this! 8O

I found Mitt Romney less and less repugnant as the campaign progressed.

The only Republican candidate who could have appealed to a wider group would have been Jon Huntsman. Hopefully he seeks the Presidency in 2016.

I predict Chris Christie becomes a Democrat...

I'm not sure that there is a Republican candidate who should try very hard for 2016. From the sampling of supporters I've seen lately, a lot of them are scatter brained.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
I found Mitt Romney less and less repugnant as the campaign progressed.

The only Republican candidate who could have appealed to a wider group would have been Jon Huntsman. Hopefully he seeks the Presidency in 2016.

I predict Chris Christie becomes a Democrat...
Huntsman is a lefty.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Okay, so Mitt does come in as having spent the most. But seriously, they're so close.

So, one question though.... one part says 0 federal funds to either candidate, but then one of Obama's top contributors is the US gov. How's that work?
The Republicans, all the candidates, (The Red Team) overall spent more......... but for the presidency Obama spent more is the way I read it.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
What's up with Fla.? I suspect some hanky panky has been uncovered. They have a bigger percentage in with a bigger lead and smaller population than other states that were declared early. Something is rotten.

The Republicans, all the candidates, (The Red Team) overall spent more......... but for the presidency Obama spent more is the way I read it.

Lot of sh*t has got to change down there!
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
It's hilarious going back as far as L.B.J. every president (at the time) was the worst on record. I believe the historians actually give Warren G. Harding credit for being the absolute worst, and Buchanan nipping at his heels. "Silent Cal" wasn't a favourite either, but probably more for what he didn't do than anything nefarious. Grant was down there too, a better soldier (and drinker) than president.

Indeed. I thought of Harding a few hours after my last post. Glad someone else said it though.

P
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Okay, so Mitt does come in as having spent the most. But seriously, they're so close.

So, one question though.... one part says 0 federal funds to either candidate, but then one of Obama's top contributors is the US gov. How's that work?

That part is "criminal", unless they checked with the taxpayers first. But tell me why would the State of California contribute to both parties?