More fallout from election

[bkn...@conramp.net]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite

[Frank Ketchum]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:d767a8hbg364l8os1...@4ax.com...
> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
>

No mention of jobs, the economy or foreign policy. I guess those aren't
issues to who wrote this.

[BAR]

In article <d767a8hbg364l8os1...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...
>
> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite

"Even on comprehensive immigration reform -- a subject that some
Republicans (like George W. Bush) once supported, but most no longer do
-- 65% said most illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply
for legal status. (And since the election, GOP senators like Lindsey
Graham and John McCain are now signaling renewed support for
comprehensive immigration reform.)"


Most Republicans believe that the location that the illegal aliens
should place their applications for legal status is in their country of
origin.

[Carbon]

Perhaps like the majority of voters the writer of this piece believes
the Winner would do a better job in those areas than the Loser.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:25:08 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"

I guess someone may have asked other questions, but you just don't
want to address these. Figures.

[Frank Ketchum]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:u977a8168brtee21b...@4ax.com...

Come on Bobby, give me a break. The story just happens to be about the
particular issues where republicans lost and curiously absent from those
issues are jobs, the economy or foreign policy. You can't see through the
selective reporting here? Really? lol

Here is some post election fallout that you may want to get familiar with.
Expect to see lots more of this for the next four years.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/budget-deficit-rises-120-billion-october-190237736--business.html

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:37:48 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"

<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:

>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:u977a8168brtee21b...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:25:08 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>news:d767a8hbg364l8os1...@4ax.com...
>>>> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
>>>>
>>>
>>>No mention of jobs, the economy or foreign policy. I guess those aren't
>>>issues to who wrote this.
>>>
>> I guess someone may have asked other questions, but you just don't
>> want to address these. Figures.
>
>Come on Bobby, give me a break. The story just happens to be about the
>particular issues where republicans lost and curiously absent from those
>issues are jobs, the economy or foreign policy. You can't see through the
>selective reporting here? Really? lol

Selective or not they are issues that were discussed and you still
haven't addressed them.

>
>Here is some post election fallout that you may want to get familiar with.
>Expect to see lots more of this for the next four years.
>http://ca.news.yahoo.com/budget-deficit-rises-120-billion-october-190237736--business.html
>

Leaving to play golf, but will read and get back this afternoon.

BK

[Frank Ketchum]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:ocb7a8tqta7fkim30...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:37:48 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:u977a8168brtee21b...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:25:08 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:d767a8hbg364l8os1...@4ax.com...
>>>>> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No mention of jobs, the economy or foreign policy. I guess those aren't
>>>>issues to who wrote this.
>>>>
>>> I guess someone may have asked other questions, but you just don't
>>> want to address these. Figures.
>>
>>Come on Bobby, give me a break. The story just happens to be about the
>>particular issues where republicans lost and curiously absent from those
>>issues are jobs, the economy or foreign policy. You can't see through the
>>selective reporting here? Really? lol
>
> Selective or not they are issues that were discussed and you still
> haven't addressed them.

Oh, I am required to address them? I was unaware you had issued that order.

"59% said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases." I always
hear stats like this. Why is it then that the pro abort crowd would sooner
die than actually have abortion be a ballot issue? It should be a states
issue and who is it that won't allow that? Certainly not the pro life
crowd, they would love to have it up to a vote.

"a combined 60% said that tax rates should increase either for everyone or
for those making more than $250,000. Just 35% said the tax rates shouldn't
increase for anyone."
Raising tax rates on everyone or just on those making more than 250k is
quite a different issue don't you think? Why would they lump those together
in their analysis? Obama ran on the latter, so what is the percentage that
agree with Obama? Hmm, they don't say. Why is that? Why would they not
break out their results into all three possibilities?

"And by a 49%-to-46% margin, voters said that their states should legally
recognize same-sex marriage." Well, their wording here is awkward and
unclear. I think they mean 49% in favor and 46% opposed, but then they say
"margin". That would actually be a 3% margin. In any case, it's simply
another issue for the states. Put it on statewide ballots and let the chips
fall where they may. I'm fine with that.

"65% said most illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for

legal status" So what? Who said there should be no path to legal status?

>>Here is some post election fallout that you may want to get familiar with.
>>Expect to see lots more of this for the next four years.
>>http://ca.news.yahoo.com/budget-deficit-rises-120-billion-october-190237736--business.html
>>
> Leaving to play golf, but will read and get back this afternoon.

Dickhead. It's 25 degrees here.

[MNMikeW]

bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
>
That's their idea of crushed? LOL. But this is NBC.

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:37:48 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:

>Come on Bobby, give me a break. The story just happens to be about the
>particular issues where republicans lost and curiously absent from those
>issues are jobs, the economy or foreign policy. You can't see through the
>selective reporting here? Really? lol

Elections can be funny. For instance, the Republicans cannot
simultaneously campaign against the administration's failures with
Sandy and tell us that government is the problem, never the solution.

And it's hard to campaign against Obama continuing the war when they
would do the same thing (and they don't want to mention bin Laden).

They can't campaign that the reason for our unemployment is because
Wall Street is doing poorly.

Now we all want less regulation for our own selves, so that's a
campaign issue - but we don't mind regulations that protect us from
others.

And a party that is unanimous that we don't have climate change tends
to have a hard time getting the majority to accept as being truthful.
(There are people in the left who are "true believers", that if we
would follow their rules, we will fix the climate change problems - we
all have our fantasies).

So it seems to be social issues that were being pushed at the swing
voters. But more and more of the swing voters don't feel threatened
by gay marriage. More and more of the swing voters believe everybody
should be insured. More and more of the swing voters believe
insurance should cover birth control.

I don't see those demographic choices reversing.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Dene]

On Nov 14, 7:12 am, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:

> >>http://ca.news.yahoo.com/budget-deficit-rises-120-billion-october-190...

>
> > Leaving to play golf, but will read and get back this afternoon.
>
> Dickhead.  It's 25 degrees here.

Frank!!

Given BK's age and length of service here, referring to him as
"dickhead" is inappropriate.

Might I suggest "Mr. Richard Cranium"??

Leaving for golf too. 50 degrees here. :-)

-Greg

[Frank Ketchum]

"Dene" <gds...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0132c5fd-48ba-4ec9...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

----------------------

Double-dickhead!

[MNMikeW]

Dang heat wave here today, 47. No golf though, headin to deer camp in
Wisc. tomorrow.

[Frank Ketchum]

"MNMikeW" <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:agijct...@mid.individual.net...

Our firearm season opens tomorrow, I will be in my blind. November 15th -
the only day you can hear the sun rise.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:12:05 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"

<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:

>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:ocb7a8tqta7fkim30...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:37:48 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>news:u977a8168brtee21b...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:25:08 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>>>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:d767a8hbg364l8os1...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No mention of jobs, the economy or foreign policy. I guess those aren't
>>>>>issues to who wrote this.
>>>>>
>>>> I guess someone may have asked other questions, but you just don't
>>>> want to address these. Figures.
>>>
>>>Come on Bobby, give me a break. The story just happens to be about the
>>>particular issues where republicans lost and curiously absent from those
>>>issues are jobs, the economy or foreign policy. You can't see through the
>>>selective reporting here? Really? lol
>>
>> Selective or not they are issues that were discussed and you still
>> haven't addressed them.
>
>Oh, I am required to address them? I was unaware you had issued that order.

No, not a requirement but you generally do. Don't give me that order
shit.

>
>"59% said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases." I always
>hear stats like this. Why is it then that the pro abort crowd would sooner
>die than actually have abortion be a ballot issue? It should be a states
>issue and who is it that won't allow that? Certainly not the pro life
>crowd, they would love to have it up to a vote.
>
>"a combined 60% said that tax rates should increase either for everyone or
>for those making more than $250,000. Just 35% said the tax rates shouldn't
>increase for anyone."
>Raising tax rates on everyone or just on those making more than 250k is
>quite a different issue don't you think? Why would they lump those together
>in their analysis? Obama ran on the latter, so what is the percentage that
>agree with Obama? Hmm, they don't say. Why is that? Why would they not
>break out their results into all three possibilities?
>
>"And by a 49%-to-46% margin, voters said that their states should legally
>recognize same-sex marriage." Well, their wording here is awkward and
>unclear. I think they mean 49% in favor and 46% opposed, but then they say
>"margin". That would actually be a 3% margin. In any case, it's simply
>another issue for the states. Put it on statewide ballots and let the chips
>fall where they may. I'm fine with that.
>
>"65% said most illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for
>legal status" So what? Who said there should be no path to legal status?
>
>
>
>
>>>Here is some post election fallout that you may want to get familiar with.
>>>Expect to see lots more of this for the next four years.
>>>http://ca.news.yahoo.com/budget-deficit-rises-120-billion-october-190237736--business.html

Yep...very important and we will be living with this for some time.

Here's another one for you.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/267641-poll-most-americans-would-blame-gop-for-fiscal-cliff-failure

>>>
>> Leaving to play golf, but will read and get back this afternoon.
>
>Dickhead. It's 25 degrees here.

53 degrees at 11am tee off. Short sleeves by third hole. Nothing but
sunshine.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Since the far right was SOOOOOO sure about winning everything it damn
sure was crushing.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

That's appropriate :-)

[BAR]

In article <pan.2012.11...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...

We have seen that the "winner" hasn't been able to fix the economy in
the previous four years and only idiots believe that giving him another
four years to "drive the economic car" is going to result in anything
other than a fatal accident.

[BAR]

In article <0132c5fd-48ba-4ec9-9fd7-
9a988a...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, gds...@aol.com says...

Bobbie is man enough to receive what he gives. He is a dickhead.

[BAR]

In article <0oVos.45473$c16....@newsfe10.iad>, nos...@thanksanyway.com
says...

That is funny.

[BAR]

In article <e898a89h33544if64...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...

We didn't expect to win the Senate. It has always been an up hill
battle.

[Frank Ketchum]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:rs88a8le6maqa8pgi...@4ax.com...

Ha ha ha. Hilarious. What did you shoot?

[Frank Ketchum]

"BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2b0e032a...@news.giganews.com...

Whitetail hunting in Michigan is freaking crazy, you wouldn't even believe
it. 800,000 ish hunters will participate in the firearms hunt. This is a
bit down from 5-7 years ago when there was a little over 1.1 million.

Last year on opening morning I had a big bruiser 8 point busted by 8:15am,
just an hour after daylight. I doubt I will get that lucky two years in a
row.

[Don Kirkman]

I doubt "only idiots" believe that, but I know some idiots believe the
other guy could have done better.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Don Kirkman]

332 - 206? Maybe not crushing, but certainly disturbing for those who
still thought as late as Nov. 6 that they would make gains in both
houses and take the presidency.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[BAR]

In article <bv39a8hha8pu55a75...@4ax.com>, donsno2
@charter.net says...

You are neglecting the will of the people, 50.5% to 48.5%. Doesn't seem
like a blowout, mandate or landslide.

[BAR]

In article <no39a8dn5qsjf8p8e...@4ax.com>, donsno2
@charter.net says...

Enjoy your tax increases.

[William Clark]

In article <MPG.2b0e037f...@news.giganews.com>,

Yes, well you can't gerrymander Senate constituencies the way you can
House districts.

[William Clark]

In article <MPG.2b0eaf79...@news.giganews.com>,

BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

> In article <bv39a8hha8pu55a75...@4ax.com>, donsno2
> @charter.net says...
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:38:12 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <e898a89h33544if64...@4ax.com>,
> > >bkn...@conramp.net says...
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:13:45 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> > >> >> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got
> > >> >> -crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
> > >> >>
> > >> >That's their idea of crushed? LOL. But this is NBC.
> > >>
> > >> Since the far right was SOOOOOO sure about winning everything it damn
> > >> sure was crushing.
> > >
> > >We didn't expect to win the Senate. It has always been an up hill
> > >battle.
> >
> > 332 - 206? Maybe not crushing, but certainly disturbing for those who
> > still thought as late as Nov. 6 that they would make gains in both
> > houses and take the presidency.
>
> You are neglecting the will of the people, 50.5% to 48.5%. Doesn't seem
> like a blowout, mandate or landslide.

You might want to ask the Mitten that question - he was blown out of the
water.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:28:48 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"

One under my handicap....which will not be discussed.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:08:45 -0800, Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net>
wrote:

Ask Carl Rove if it was crushing. :-)

[Howard Brazee]

Even legislatures are into crazy conspiracy theories:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:52:58 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>> I doubt "only idiots" believe that, but I know some idiots believe the
>> other guy could have done better.
>
>Enjoy your tax increases.

TANSTAAFL. Republicans have never cut spending either, and we pay
one way or another.

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:51:56 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>You are neglecting the will of the people, 50.5% to 48.5%. Doesn't seem
>like a blowout, mandate or landslide.

GWB called his win a mandate.

[Lloyd]

In article <pl1aa8t6ubh1ea7ns...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> Even legislatures are into crazy conspiracy theories:
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing
> -united-nations-takeover

Here's a quote from that article that I found interesting :
It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was
forced out of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of
conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the
collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7.


So it was emceed by a nutter so nuts that even the tea party ousted him!
:)

[MNMikeW]

It is to the left. Unless the tables are turned of course.

[MNMikeW]

The Obamacare tax bomb, the "fiscal cliff", Benghazi coverup, Petreaus
disaster. And he's just getting started.

[MNMikeW]

The typical liberal meme. B b b b but, the other guy would have been
just as bad. I suppose when your guy is a proven failure, you have to
deflect somehow.

[MNMikeW]

Good luck Frank! Yes that sunrise on opener morning is almost magical.

[MNMikeW]

I have a couple of big boys running around that we saw a few times over
the archery season. Last seen two weeks ago. I'm hoping my sons can get
a crack at them.

[MNMikeW]

bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:12:05 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"

> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message

>> news:ocb7a8tqta7fkim30...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:37:48 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"

>>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:u977a8168brtee21b...@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:25:08 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>>>>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:d767a8hbg364l8os1...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No mention of jobs, the economy or foreign policy. I guess those aren't
>>>>>> issues to who wrote this.
>>>>>>

Must be the Obama voters polled.

[MNMikeW]

Motherjones is a nutter rag.

[Lloyd]

In article <agkjr9...@mid.individual.net>,

It very well may be, but the story is the story and when backed up with
a video of at least part of the event, hard to dispute.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Hilarious. If it you don't agree there's always an excuse. It's only
Obama voters being polled...LMAO

[MNMikeW]

Well, it naturally polled more Dems as usual. And this is a pretty much
BS poll anyway. The Dems blame congress, the Repubs blame Obama. Shocking.

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:38:08 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>The typical liberal meme. B b b b but, the other guy would have been
>just as bad. I suppose when your guy is a proven failure, you have to
>deflect somehow.

But it was moderates that were the swing voters.

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:50:18 -0600, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:

>Hilarious. If it you don't agree there's always an excuse. It's only
>Obama voters being polled...LMAO

The polls were biased - they counted more people who preferred Obama
than Romney. And not just the pre-election polls, but the one that
counted as well.

[Don Kirkman]

Californians just voted to increase taxes to avoid having schools and
other services cut even more deeply--a fate that was already on the
books. Seemed like a good idea to me and about 60% of the electorate.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:33:12 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:43:31 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:12:05 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>>>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Here's another one for you.
>>>>
>>>> http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/267641-poll-most-americans-would-blame-gop-for-fiscal-cliff-failure
>>>>>>>
>>> Must be the Obama voters polled.
>>
>> Hilarious. If it you don't agree there's always an excuse. It's only
>> Obama voters being polled...LMAO
>>
>Well, it naturally polled more Dems as usual.

>And this is a pretty much PBS poll anyway.

This was a Pew Research Center poll not funded by any political group.
What in hell do you know about them that tells you they polled more
Democrats? Always an excuse, but this one is really lame

>The Dems blame congress, the Repubs blame Obama. Shocking.

What's shocking is that you can't see a truth through those myopic
right-wing eyes. This poll wasn't funded by either party.

[MNMikeW]

We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. 60% of the
electorate does not seem to get this.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:09:57 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:50:18 -0600, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
>>Hilarious. If it you don't agree there's always an excuse. It's only
>>Obama voters being polled...LMAO
>
>
>The polls were biased - they counted more people who preferred Obama
>than Romney. And not just the pre-election polls, but the one that
>counted as well.

Funny how that worked out, huh?

[bkn...@conramp.net]

You're just smarter than the majority I guess.

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

Actually Romney lost by fewer than 300k votes in 5 states. And there is very good reason to suspect major voting fraud by democrats. Unless you can explain 50+ precincts in Philadelphia showing 100% votes for Obama, NOT one vote for Romney! And several precincts stupidly reported OVER 100% of their registered voter base had voted for Obama. Wow! Too stupid to avoid reporting that rampant cheating had gone on.

Larry

[Don Kirkman]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:14:46 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:

>
>

>Even legislatures are into crazy conspiracy theories:
>
>http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

Thanks for the laugh, Howard. :-) Better to laugh at them than take
them seriously. That's one reason I enjoy Bert so much.

Thanks to Lloyd for his addendum, also.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Don Kirkman]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:51:56 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>In article <bv39a8hha8pu55a75...@4ax.com>, donsno2
>@charter.net says...
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:38:12 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <e898a89h33544if64...@4ax.com>,
>> >bkn...@conramp.net says...
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:13:45 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>> >> >> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
>> >> >>
>> >> >That's their idea of crushed? LOL. But this is NBC.
>> >>
>> >> Since the far right was SOOOOOO sure about winning everything it damn
>> >> sure was crushing.
>> >
>> >We didn't expect to win the Senate. It has always been an up hill
>> >battle.
>>
>> 332 - 206? Maybe not crushing, but certainly disturbing for those who
>> still thought as late as Nov. 6 that they would make gains in both
>> houses and take the presidency.
>
>You are neglecting the will of the people, 50.5% to 48.5%. Doesn't seem
>like a blowout, mandate or landslide.

I said "maybe not crushing" so you can't tie that one ton me. I did
say, correctly, that it was certainly disturbing for the overconfident
losers.

Nevertheless, the majority still reflects the will of the people, and
you can't ignore a 3,000,000 popular vote gap. Romney couldn't even
beat McCain's record.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Don Kirkman]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:38:08 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

You seem to have missed or ignored that I was equating idiots and nuts
on both extremes. Your turn.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:34:47 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. 60% of the
>electorate does not seem to get this.

They are related. But when both parties increase spending (only
choosing their favored programs), picking one party over the other is
not solving that side of the problem.

[MNMikeW]

Must be. Though it is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain.

[MNMikeW]

bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:33:12 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:43:31 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:12:05 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>>>>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Here's another one for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/267641-poll-most-americans-would-blame-gop-for-fiscal-cliff-failure
>>>>>>>>
>>>> Must be the Obama voters polled.
>>>
>>> Hilarious. If it you don't agree there's always an excuse. It's only
>>> Obama voters being polled...LMAO
>>>
>> Well, it naturally polled more Dems as usual.
>
>
>
>> And this is a pretty much PBS poll anyway.
>
> This was a Pew Research Center poll not funded by any political group.
> What in hell do you know about them that tells you they polled more
> Democrats? Always an excuse, but this one is really lame

Umm, they had a link to their methodology on the poll on the cite. Read
it for yourself.

>
>
>
>> The Dems blame congress, the Repubs blame Obama. Shocking.
>
> What's shocking is that you can't see a truth through those myopic
> right-wing eyes. This poll wasn't funded by either party.
>

Who funded the poll means nothing. This poll shows the R's blaming Obama
and the D's blaming the R's. Well DUH! Your myopic left-wing eyes seem
to need glasses. Rose colored of course.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

What does that have to do with it? You could be a genius and still
you have to elect our office holders, none of whom are trying to cut
costs. None.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

That's bullshit Mike. The poll shows that most Americans think that
the Republicans will be the ones to screw up if the fiscal cliff isn't
handled correctly. Why do you keep avoiding that fact? You're going
Bert on me.

[MNMikeW]

Well, all we keep hearing is that the Republicans have to accept Obama's
tax hikes of 1.6 trillion, double what Obama proposed in the 2011 debt
commission talks. Where are the spending cuts? We keep hearing his call
for a balance. Where is it?

[MNMikeW]

And when you break down this polling along party lines, its pretty
obvious it's one side blaming the other.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Who okays the spending, and the cuts? Who is he calling for a
balance?

[bkn...@conramp.net]

How is that different from any poll? Did you notice that a large
majority of Independents agreed that the Republicans would be to
blame?

[MNMikeW]

Obama has stated he will not sign a bill that is not "balanced". Nobody
seems to know what his version of balanced is. So far it's only tax
hikes we hear about.

[MNMikeW]

You claim to be independent aka moderate. Why do you blame the Repubs?

[William Clark]

In article <28c555a4-a2a5-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>,

"la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:18:30 AM UTC-8, William Clark wrote:
> > In article <MPG.2b0eaf79...@news.giganews.com>,
> >
> > BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <bv39a8hha8pu55a75...@4ax.com>, donsno2
> >
> > > @charter.net says...
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:38:12 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >In article <e898a89h33544if64...@4ax.com>,
> >
> > > > >bkn...@conramp.net says...
> >
> > > > >>
> >
> > > > >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:13:45 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>
> >
> > > > >> >bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> >
> > > > >> >> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/

> > > > >> >> news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got
> >
> > > > >> >> -crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
> >
> > > > >> >>
> >
> > > > >> >That's their idea of crushed? LOL. But this is NBC.
> >
> > > > >>
> >
> > > > >> Since the far right was SOOOOOO sure about winning everything it
> > > > >> damn
> >
> > > > >> sure was crushing.
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > > >We didn't expect to win the Senate. It has always been an up hill
> >
> > > > >battle.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > 332 - 206? Maybe not crushing, but certainly disturbing for those who
> >
> > > > still thought as late as Nov. 6 that they would make gains in both
> >
> > > > houses and take the presidency.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > You are neglecting the will of the people, 50.5% to 48.5%. Doesn't seem
> >
> > > like a blowout, mandate or landslide.
> >
> >
> >
> > You might want to ask the Mitten that question - he was blown out of the
> >
> > water.
>
> Actually Romney lost by fewer than 300k votes in 5 states. And there is very
> good reason to suspect major voting fraud by democrats. Unless you can
> explain 50+ precincts in Philadelphia showing 100% votes for Obama, NOT one
> vote for Romney! And several precincts stupidly reported OVER 100% of their
> registered voter base had voted for Obama. Wow! Too stupid to avoid
> reporting that rampant cheating had gone on.
>
> Larry

OF course, you have reliable cites for this nonsense, don't you?

I thought not.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

I haven't blamed anyone, just pointed out the poll to Frank.

[BAR]

In article <qpcaa8p66ev32r9rd...@4ax.com>, donsno2

Businesses have been leaving California for many years do to the adverse
economic climate the state has put itself into.

At least your property taxes won't go up.

[BAR]

In article <bkmaa81pnt4dvf4e1...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...

Harry Reid is the gate keeper to all legislation, he is the decider now.

[BAR]

In article <clark-8ABAC5....@news.eternal-september.org>,
cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> In article <MPG.2b0e037f...@news.giganews.com>,
> BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <e898a89h33544if64...@4ax.com>,
> > bkn...@conramp.net says...

> > >
> > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:13:45 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >bkn...@conramp.net wrote:

> > > >> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-cr

> > > >> ushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
> > > >>
> > > >That's their idea of crushed? LOL. But this is NBC.
> > >
> > > Since the far right was SOOOOOO sure about winning everything it damn
> > > sure was crushing.
> >
> > We didn't expect to win the Senate. It has always been an up hill
> > battle.
>

> Yes, well you can't gerrymander Senate constituencies the way you can
> House districts.

Repeal the 17th amendment.

[MNMikeW]

Actually I think it was 400,000 some votes in four states.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/333167/407000-votes-four-states-away-presidency

[BAR]

In article <lloydparsons-6C21...@news.eternal-
september.org>, lloydp...@me.com says...
>
> In article <pl1aa8t6ubh1ea7ns...@4ax.com>,

> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > Even legislatures are into crazy conspiracy theories:
> >
> > http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing
> > -united-nations-takeover
>

> Here's a quote from that article that I found interesting :
> It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was
> forced out of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of
> conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the
> collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7.
>
>
> So it was emceed by a nutter so nuts that even the tea party ousted him!
> :)

May be he can team up with Van Jones, the communist 911 truther.

[BAR]

In article <lloydparsons-3EA7...@news.eternal-
september.org>, lloydp...@me.com says...
>
> In article <agkjr9...@mid.individual.net>,
> MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> > Lloyd wrote:
> > > In article <pl1aa8t6ubh1ea7ns...@4ax.com>,
> > > Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Even legislatures are into crazy conspiracy theories:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-brief
> > >> ing
> > >> -united-nations-takeover
> > >
> > > Here's a quote from that article that I found interesting :
> > > It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was
> > > forced out of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of
> > > conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the
> > > collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7.
> > >
> > >
> > > So it was emceed by a nutter so nuts that even the tea party ousted him!
> > > :)
> > >

> > Motherjones is a nutter rag.
>
> It very well may be, but the story is the story and when backed up with
> a video of at least part of the event, hard to dispute.

We will have to remember that the content of the article is important
and not the distributer of the article.

Thanks

[BAR]

In article <0u1aa8hj8lhghlh2b...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...

>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:51:56 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>

> >You are neglecting the will of the people, 50.5% to 48.5%. Doesn't seem
> >like a blowout, mandate or landslide.
>

> GWB called his win a mandate.

He had a wider margin than Obama.

[BAR]

In article <6qdaa8h0tc19vr4r4...@4ax.com>, donsno2

Obama couldn't match his 2008 take at the polls. This means that about
6,000,000 people stayed at home rather than vote for Obama a second
time.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

I don't think so.


Bush 50.74% Kerry 48.27% 2.47%

Obama 50.5% Romney 47.9% 2.6%




Bush 47.87%

[Don Kirkman]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:34:47 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>Don Kirkman wrote:

>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:52:58 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <no39a8dn5qsjf8p8e...@4ax.com>, donsno2
>>> @charter.net says...
>>>>

>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:31:51 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <pan.2012.11...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:25:08 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>>>> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:d767a8hbg364l8os1...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too?lite
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No mention of jobs, the economy or foreign policy. I guess those
>>>>>>> aren't issues to who wrote this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps like the majority of voters the writer of this piece believes
>>>>>> the Winner would do a better job in those areas than the Loser.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have seen that the "winner" hasn't been able to fix the economy in
>>>>> the previous four years and only idiots believe that giving him another
>>>>> four years to "drive the economic car" is going to result in anything
>>>>> other than a fatal accident.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt "only idiots" believe that, but I know some idiots believe the
>>>> other guy could have done better.
>>>
>>> Enjoy your tax increases.
>>
>> Californians just voted to increase taxes to avoid having schools and
>> other services cut even more deeply--a fate that was already on the
>> books. Seemed like a good idea to me and about 60% of the electorate.
>>
>We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. 60% of the
>electorate does not seem to get this.

Californians decided they didn't want to cut a week or two more off
the already shortened K-12 school year, lose even more police and fire
personnel, or raise tuition once again on what used to be a
tuition-free system for the state funded colleges--the state has
traditionally recognized the importance of a well-educated
electorate.. Tuition has not only been levied but has climbed up near
to the costs at private colleges. All of those cuts were already
written into the 2013 budget and heading for enforcement unless that
new taxes were approved. Even with the new taxes LA County is
stopping holding trials in about a dozen courthouses, which now will
only be used for administrative office space for community-linked
services.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Carbon]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:15:47 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:52:58 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt "only idiots" believe that, but I know some idiots believe
>>> the other guy could have done better.
>>
>> Enjoy your tax increases.
>

> TANSTAAFL. Republicans have never cut spending either, and we pay
> one way or another.

That is the thing these true believers keep skipping over. Maybe, if
even just once, the Republicans actually managed to control their own
spending while in office, I might take them seriously when they start
ranting about deficits. They're a bunch of hypocrites.

[BAR]

In article <db0ba8p4en671mmq1...@4ax.com>, donsno2

Don't blame the rest of the country for your fiscal mess. We weren't
paying a city manager $800,000 per year.

[William Clark]

In article <aglaqh...@mid.individual.net>,

MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

> William Clark wrote:
> > In article <28c555a4-a2a5-4a1c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >

. . .snip, snip . .

> >>>
> >>> You might want to ask the Mitten that question - he was blown out of the
> >>>
> >>> water.
> >>
> >> Actually Romney lost by fewer than 300k votes in 5 states. And there is
> >> very
> >> good reason to suspect major voting fraud by democrats. Unless you can
> >> explain 50+ precincts in Philadelphia showing 100% votes for Obama, NOT
> >> one
> >> vote for Romney! And several precincts stupidly reported OVER 100% of
> >> their
> >> registered voter base had voted for Obama. Wow! Too stupid to avoid
> >> reporting that rampant cheating had gone on.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> > OF course, you have reliable cites for this nonsense, don't you?
> >
> > I thought not.
> >
> Actually I think it was 400,000 some votes in four states.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/333167/407000-votes-four-states-aw
> ay-presidency

No, it's the "rampant cheating" crap I was asking for poof of.

[William Clark]

In article <MPG.2b0f479d...@news.giganews.com>,

And over 2,000,000 people who voted for McCain couldn't bring themselves
to vote for the Mitten. How embarrassing.

However, when you hear him whine like a five year old about "gifts",
it's really no surprise.

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:13:49 -0600, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:

>Who okays the spending, and the cuts? Who is he calling for a
>balance?

What I'd like to see is getting rid of welfare to Europe. Europe can
afford its own defense, we don't need to have our military in Europe
defending it from its enemies. (If it wants, it can pay us to do
the job).

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[William Clark]

In article <s69ba8luqnuvvdc29...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:13:49 -0600, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
> >Who okays the spending, and the cuts? Who is he calling for a
> >balance?
>
> What I'd like to see is getting rid of welfare to Europe. Europe can
> afford its own defense, we don't need to have our military in Europe
> defending it from its enemies. (If it wants, it can pay us to do
> the job).

It is not "defending Europe", it is the US wanting to have forward bases
close to the Soviet Union, from which it can fight a proxy war over
someone else's country. If that was not the overwhelming motivation,
they would just not be there. The Europeans certainly don't consider
that they need defending in the 21st century.

[BAR]

In article <s69ba8luqnuvvdc29...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...

>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:13:49 -0600, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
> >Who okays the spending, and the cuts? Who is he calling for a
> >balance?
>
> What I'd like to see is getting rid of welfare to Europe. Europe can
> afford its own defense, we don't need to have our military in Europe
> defending it from its enemies. (If it wants, it can pay us to do
> the job).

And we can stop giving welfare to Africa and the middle-east and Asia.

[BAR]

In article <clark-BDDDBD....@newsfeed.aioe.org>,
cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...

It was defending Europe and those isles off the northern coast of
France. The bigger islands, not the smaller ones.

We left after WWI and you had to call us again to finish WWII. After
WWII we decided that we were not going to give up the ground we had
taken. If we gave it up we would have had to turn the wold of the
British Isles into a staging base again for the liberation of Europe for
a third time in less than 75 years.

[William Clark]

In article <MPG.2b0f7c12...@news.giganews.com>,

Really? Too bad it took you two years and the Battle of Britain before
you woke up then.

It is self interest, pure and simple.

[Moderate]

They are incapable of defending themselves. Except for the Germans of course

[Don Kirkman]

I've told you before that you don't know anything about what's going
on in California. We've taken prudent steps toward curing our fiscal
and political problems by voting for financial reform and
redistricting How's Maryland doing these days? It was great for my
family when the Lords Baltimore were running the place. :-)

The city manager in question was part of a clique that ran a very
corrupt small city--they set their own salaries and bonuses and threw
(not "through") out ballots cast by the few hundred city residents. It
had absolutely nothing to do with state affairs, and the city manager
and the others are on their way to a long time away from home.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Don Kirkman]

I don't believe your claimed numbers, but AAR 3,000,000 more did vote
for Obama than for Romney. That's a more meaningful comparison.
Romney also got fewer than McCain, didn't he, if you want a historical
comparison?
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Don Kirkman]

I keep telling you that you don't know anything about California. We
just raised taxes on companies that live outside but operate in
California. We closed some loopholes and fixed some faulty language
that let them escape taxes that their competitors inside California
were paying.

FYI, the fact is that fewer companies have been leaving California
than outsiders like you like to believe. And it's not all about
taxes, either.

>At least your property taxes won't go up.

And that, of course, is the root cause of our financial problem. The
election shows that there are other ways to finance state operations
until the abysmal Prop. 13 is finally killed. Property is badly
undertaxed because Prop. 13 built in an annual cap of two percent
growth in evaluation during those boom years.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[BAR]

In article <clark-838753....@news.eternal-september.org>,
cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...

We thought you could handle the Huns yourself. But, we found out that
the British Huns were not as good at war as the German Huns.

[BAR]

In article <450da8lt34ggncggu...@4ax.com>, donsno2

Saint Mary's city is still there but, the rest of the State is full of
communists, socialists and an infestation of nanny stater's.

> The city manager in question was part of a clique that ran a very
> corrupt small city--they set their own salaries and bonuses and threw
> (not "through") out ballots cast by the few hundred city residents. It
> had absolutely nothing to do with state affairs, and the city manager
> and the others are on their way to a long time away from home.

It is a prime example of one-party rule. Get used to more of it.

[BAR]

In article <nf1da8l0cge0nt984...@4ax.com>, donsno2

2008 Obama 69,456,89

2012 Obama 63,204,940

Like I said 6,000,000 fewer people voted for Obama in 2012 than did in
2008.

[BAR]

In article <rn0da81ds5fj2hkq4...@4ax.com>, donsno2

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/opinion/la-oe-cox-malanga-
california-business-20111114

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/california-economy-slips-
behind-brazil_n_1203254.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31923599

> FYI, the fact is that fewer companies have been leaving California
> than outsiders like you like to believe. And it's not all about
> taxes, either.

The exodus may have gone from a torrential food to just a flood.

A company I worked for 14 years ago made the decision to move out of the
bay area while the silicon valley explosion what at its zenith.

> >At least your property taxes won't go up.
>
> And that, of course, is the root cause of our financial problem. The
> election shows that there are other ways to finance state operations
> until the abysmal Prop. 13 is finally killed. Property is badly
> undertaxed because Prop. 13 built in an annual cap of two percent
> growth in evaluation during those boom years.

You can't be all things to all people. You can't keep raising taxes
because pretty soon you have people paying more each year for their
house in taxes than they did when they bought it.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

You're correct that fewer people voted for Obama this election, but
your numbers aren't what I've seen. The reports I've seen were about
66 million in '08.

AT any rate it points out just how badly Romney was viewed. A lot of
those millions voted for him and he still couldn't beat Obama.

[BAR]

In article <1ojda8t5drri1394m...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...

Check your sources again, it was about 69.5 million.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/popular-
vote.html

> AT any rate it points out just how badly Romney was viewed. A lot of
> those millions voted for him and he still couldn't beat Obama.

How is that, 50.5% to 48.5% doesn't show a wide margin?

[bkn...@conramp.net]

That's at odds with what I've seen, but it's of no importance.

>> AT any rate it points out just how badly Romney was viewed. A lot of
>> those millions voted for him and he still couldn't beat Obama.
>
>How is that, 50.5% to 48.5% doesn't show a wide margin?

Think. I'll make this as simple as possible for you. It has nothing
to do with the margin.

Obama won with less votes than he received in '08. Of the 6 million
who didn't vote for him this time there had to be many who voted for
Romney...making it even a worse defeat for him. If the six million
DID vote for Obama again it would have been a terrific landslide
because Romney would have had less than the amount he received.

I know it's difficult for you, but re-read it until you understand it.

[BAR]

In article <o5lda8ltg2e4q3rji...@4ax.com>,

bkn...@conramp.net says...
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:03:49 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1ojda8t5drri1394m...@4ax.com>,
> >bkn...@conramp.net says...
> >>
> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:15:12 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >> You're correct that fewer people voted for Obama this election, but
> >> your numbers aren't what I've seen. The reports I've seen were about
> >> 66 million in '08.
> >
> >Check your sources again, it was about 69.5 million.
> >
> >http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/popular-
> >vote.html
> >
>
> That's at odds with what I've seen, but it's of no importance.

You are questioning the veracity of the US Archives data?

>
> >> AT any rate it points out just how badly Romney was viewed. A lot of
> >> those millions voted for him and he still couldn't beat Obama.
> >
> >How is that, 50.5% to 48.5% doesn't show a wide margin?
>
> Think. I'll make this as simple as possible for you. It has nothing
> to do with the margin.

It doesn't matter how you try and frame it, Obama barely won the popular
vote.

> Obama won with less votes than he received in '08. Of the 6 million
> who didn't vote for him this time there had to be many who voted for
> Romney...making it even a worse defeat for him.

You have no proof to support your argument.

If the six million
> DID vote for Obama again it would have been a terrific landslide
> because Romney would have had less than the amount he received.

But, they didn't vote for Obama again. The only question is why?