He ran a good campaign. No doubt the public saw him a better choice even with his record over the GOP's weak candidate. This was never in question the day after he bailed out the GM. Ohio rewarded him for this with a second term. Well played.

Well, he would have still won without Ohio.

And Mitt is partially to thank for Ohio with his Jeep fiasco.

But most importantly, Obama actually ran on and won on his record. Intersting...

(11-07-2012 12:27 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  He ran a good campaign. No doubt the public saw him a better choice even with his record over the GOP's weak candidate. This was never in question the day after he bailed out the GM. Ohio rewarded him for this with a second term. Well played.

That's basically what it came down to, along with a few other things. Romney also had the bad luck of having dumbasses in Senate races that he ended up being grouped with.

At the end of the day 'it is what it is'. Billions of dollars spent all around and we got the exact same results. They could've done this whole thing for free if that were the case.

Can you imagine waking up as Sheldon Adelson thinking, "I paid how much for what again?"

(11-07-2012 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well, he would have still won without Ohio.

And Mitt is partially to thank for Ohio with his Jeep fiasco.

But most importantly, Obama actually ran on and won on his record. Intersting...

he ran a smear campaign and got out the vote...he hid from his record. Ugliest campaign ever.Obama is a ttl pos.

Since he won on his record..

Are we finally going to get answers now for Fast and Furious along with Benghazi?

(11-07-2012 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well, he would have still won without Ohio.

And Mitt is partially to thank for Ohio with his Jeep fiasco.

But most importantly, Obama actually ran on and won on his record. Intersting...

That's not how I interpret that at all. Obama won because of the following:

1) Bailout of GM - that got him MI and OH. But the financial soundness of GM is still an issue floating out there that will come back to haunt us. If GM would have been allowed to go into bankruptcy protection, it would have been able to have restructured itself legally in accord with the laws on the books for bankruptcy filings. GM would have continued working under bankruptcy while it sorted out its messes because that would have been in the best interest of all parties affected. Yes, Obama "saved" Detroit; however, his solution is temporary at best. The voters were fooled by this and shame on Mitt for not explaining this more clearly.

2) Using Hurricane Sandy as a photo op to great advantage. We've seen very little news come out about how everything is going, what the president did, etc. etc. All we saw was that Obama posed for photos with Gov Christie, and Christie praised Obama for being there.

3) Obama went negative in a huge way in order to make the election a referendum on Romney as opposed to running on his record. Obama's record is sh!t. We know it, we've seen it. However, Obama expertly scared people into selecting the "devil you know" as opposed to the "devil you don't know". If he would have ran on his record and not have went negative like he did - Obama gets crushed.

(11-07-2012 12:48 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Since he won on his record..

Are we finally going to get answers now for Fast and Furious along with Benghazi?

You mean the answers or the answers you want?

(11-07-2012 01:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well, he would have still won without Ohio.

And Mitt is partially to thank for Ohio with his Jeep fiasco.

But most importantly, Obama actually ran on and won on his record. Intersting...

That's not how I interpret that at all. Obama won because of the following:

1) Bailout of GM - that got him MI and OH. But the financial soundness of GM is still an issue floating out there that will come back to haunt us. If GM would have been allowed to go into bankruptcy protection, it would have been able to have restructured itself legally in accord with the laws on the books for bankruptcy filings. GM would have continued working under bankruptcy while it sorted out its messes because that would have been in the best interest of all parties affected. Yes, Obama "saved" Detroit; however, his solution is temporary at best. The voters were fooled by this and shame on Mitt for not explaining this more clearly.

2) Using Hurricane Sandy as a photo op to great advantage. We've seen very little news come out about how everything is going, what the president did, etc. etc. All we saw was that Obama posed for photos with Gov Christie, and Christie praised Obama for being there.

3) Obama went negative in a huge way in order to make the election a referendum on Romney as opposed to running on his record. Obama's record is ****. We know it, we've seen it. However, Obama expertly scared people into selecting the "devil you know" as opposed to the "devil you don't know". If he would have ran on his record and not have went negative like he did - Obama gets crushed.

1.I don't care how many times you guys say it isn't true, the reality is GM was going to be liquidated. There was 1 opinion piece saying that GM is still in trouble.

2.Maybe there isn't much coming out of the Sandy aftermath is because there aren't thousands of people dying.

3. Romney allowed that to happen because he is who Obama portrayed him as.

Robert N, cite the source that stated GM was going to be liquidated. It would be nonsensical to do that. Despite its troubles, GM has a lot of viable assets that can still make good products. The creditors would not have allowed a liquidation since putting those assets to work would have given the creditors much more of their money back along with the interest owed. Liquidating would have provided pennies on the dollar for the debts owed. A bankruptcy restructuring would have been the best move by far.

Let's not make it sound like Romney and his SuperPACs didnt go negative either. Obama's just worked better.

(11-07-2012 01:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well, he would have still won without Ohio.

And Mitt is partially to thank for Ohio with his Jeep fiasco.

But most importantly, Obama actually ran on and won on his record. Intersting...

That's not how I interpret that at all. Obama won because of the following:

1) Bailout of GM - that got him MI and OH. But the financial soundness of GM is still an issue floating out there that will come back to haunt us. If GM would have been allowed to go into bankruptcy protection, it would have been able to have restructured itself legally in accord with the laws on the books for bankruptcy filings. GM would have continued working under bankruptcy while it sorted out its messes because that would have been in the best interest of all parties affected. Yes, Obama "saved" Detroit; however, his solution is temporary at best. The voters were fooled by this and shame on Mitt for not explaining this more clearly.

2) Using Hurricane Sandy as a photo op to great advantage. We've seen very little news come out about how everything is going, what the president did, etc. etc. All we saw was that Obama posed for photos with Gov Christie, and Christie praised Obama for being there.

3) Obama went negative in a huge way in order to make the election a referendum on Romney as opposed to running on his record. Obama's record is ****. We know it, we've seen it. However, Obama expertly scared people into selecting the "devil you know" as opposed to the "devil you don't know". If he would have ran on his record and not have went negative like he did - Obama gets crushed.

I think its simpler than that. We have reached the tipping point where a large enough segment of the population believes they receive more from government than they pay into government. Worse yet, because of the way the population is distributed, electorial college system magnifies the current small advantage that democrats have in the poular vote. The coalition of states that a democrate can assemble to win a presidencey are far more numerous than the number of coalition that a republican can assemble. The demographic population trends will only exacerbate this issue.

Essentially, the country is slowly moving toward semi-socialist model under what wil effectively be single party control. Europes present is our future.

(11-07-2012 01:35 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Let's not make it sound like Romney and his SuperPACs didnt go negative either. Obama's just worked better.

That's true. Obama's crew all knew which buttons to push and how to push them.

(11-07-2012 01:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 01:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well, he would have still won without Ohio.

And Mitt is partially to thank for Ohio with his Jeep fiasco.

But most importantly, Obama actually ran on and won on his record. Intersting...

That's not how I interpret that at all. Obama won because of the following:

1) Bailout of GM - that got him MI and OH. But the financial soundness of GM is still an issue floating out there that will come back to haunt us. If GM would have been allowed to go into bankruptcy protection, it would have been able to have restructured itself legally in accord with the laws on the books for bankruptcy filings. GM would have continued working under bankruptcy while it sorted out its messes because that would have been in the best interest of all parties affected. Yes, Obama "saved" Detroit; however, his solution is temporary at best. The voters were fooled by this and shame on Mitt for not explaining this more clearly.

2) Using Hurricane Sandy as a photo op to great advantage. We've seen very little news come out about how everything is going, what the president did, etc. etc. All we saw was that Obama posed for photos with Gov Christie, and Christie praised Obama for being there.

3) Obama went negative in a huge way in order to make the election a referendum on Romney as opposed to running on his record. Obama's record is ****. We know it, we've seen it. However, Obama expertly scared people into selecting the "devil you know" as opposed to the "devil you don't know". If he would have ran on his record and not have went negative like he did - Obama gets crushed.

I think its simpler than that. We have reached the tipping point where a large enough segment of the population believes they receive more from government than they pay into government. Worse yet, because of the way the population is distributed, electorial college system magnifies the current small advantage that democrats have in the poular vote. The coalition of states that a democrate can assemble to win a presidencey are far more numerous than the number of coalition that a republican can assemble. The demographic population trends will only exacerbate this issue.

Essentially, the country is slowly moving toward semi-socialist model under what wil effectively be single party control. Europes present is our future.

Well, to be fair, both parties are down for single party control and a bigger gov't. The difference is where it's going to be bigger.

(11-07-2012 01:54 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 01:35 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Let's not make it sound like Romney and his SuperPACs didnt go negative either. Obama's just worked better.

That's true. Obama's crew all knew which buttons to push and how to push them.

yup. Plouffe and Axelrod's experience in national campaigns truly helped. They ran a masterful campaign especially buying ad time 6 months ahead of time at reduced rates from Romney was able to get 5 months later.

(11-07-2012 01:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 12:48 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Since he won on his record..

Are we finally going to get answers now for Fast and Furious along with Benghazi?

You mean the answers or the answers you want?

I want the damn truth. I don't want anymore of the youtube video BS. Come clean. Be honest. That earns respect quicker.

(11-07-2012 02:12 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 01:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 12:48 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Since he won on his record..

Are we finally going to get answers now for Fast and Furious along with Benghazi?

You mean the answers or the answers you want?

I want the damn truth. I don't want anymore of the youtube video BS. Come clean. Be honest. That earns respect quicker.

The truth is mistakes were made in both cases and the parties involved have learned from them. There is no conspiracy and there is no coverup. When you are involved in dealing with ridding the world of bad people, sometimes bad things happen to you in return.

(11-07-2012 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 02:12 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 01:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 12:48 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Since he won on his record..

Are we finally going to get answers now for Fast and Furious along with Benghazi?

You mean the answers or the answers you want?

I want the damn truth. I don't want anymore of the youtube video BS. Come clean. Be honest. That earns respect quicker.

The truth is mistakes were made in both cases and the parties involved have learned from them. There is no conspiracy and there is no coverup. When you are involved in dealing with ridding the world of bad people, sometimes bad things happen to you in return.

If it were only that simple.. Lives were lost and you can't consider them as merely as mistakes. We as a nation need closure and need to know what happened. Not that it was a mistake and bad things happen.

He needs to man up and come clean on every single detail.

Those people can't speak for themselves. Those with the intel will have to.

Don't put words in my mouth please!

Yes, mistakes made lead to peoples deaths. I never implied otherwise. Although there is no conclusive evidence that a F&F weapon is what killed the agent, only that F&F weapons were found at the scene.

(11-07-2012 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Don't put words in my mouth please!

Yes, mistakes made lead to peoples deaths. I never implied otherwise. Although there is no conclusive evidence that a F&F weapon is what killed the agent, only that F&F weapons were found at the scene.

Didn't mean to, but go back and read what you said, it's kinda like you were brushing it off like it was dirt on your shoes.