What he's blabbering about is that your party has just lost, convincingly, to an unpopular president in the midst of a poor economy and unemployment hovering near 8%, and your response is to blame voters.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
What he's blabbering about is that your party has just lost, convincingly, to an unpopular president in the midst of a poor economy and unemployment hovering near 8%, and your response is to blame voters.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Incidentally, I didn't express this at the time but I just want to take this opportunity to say, yes! fuck yes! take that, you ignorant, hateful social regressive, jesus-freak hypocritical cunts
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
"For now, Mr. Romney has shown up at his campaign headquarters every day since the election, where he seems preoccupied with the futures of members of his campaign staff. He arranged for them to receive severance pay through the end of November.
His No. 1 priority, so far: establishing a system to organize the 400 résumés of those staff members whose paychecks will run out in 21 days."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/us...agewanted=2&hp
Hope is the denial of reality
Maybe his staff could use unemployment insurance like every other working stiff laid off and in-between jobs. Nah, that would put them in the 47% of moochers and slackers that have a victim and entitlement attitude.
Yeah, it's shameful that Romney is trying to find his staff jobs. Why so bitter at a candidate who didn't even win?
Hope is the denial of reality
What did for Romney is that Obama successfully managed to take Romney's greatest strength (his successful business background) - and turn it into a negative. His background is what would make him a good President, but instead of winning voters around as it should have they managed to spin it into an Achilles heel. Very good politics (for their side) but lets not hear anything from lefties about dirty tricks in the future.
How exactly does constitute a 'dirty trick' ?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Most runner ups do this. Considering at least part of it is coming out of federal funds. Its planned and paid for, no matter who wins. Funds that also paid for the "president elect" website Romney launched by accident
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
http://tribuneofthepeople.com/2012/1...a-happy-place/
stupid states voted for Romney, smarter states voted for Obama.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Rachel Maddow squeeing/gloating:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...36294#49736294
Is this just a one-sided take or was election day really that much more fun for Democrats all over the US??
It may mean that the US is slowly getting prepared for Loki's GOP.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Do we need to have another discussion about the ecological fallacy?http://tribuneofthepeople.com/2012/1...a-happy-place/
stupid states voted for Romney, smarter states voted for Obama.
Hope is the denial of reality
The ending was hella goodRachel Maddow squeeing/gloating:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...36294#49736294
Is this just a one-sided take or was election day really that much more fun for Democrats all over the US??
It may mean that the US is slowly getting prepared for Loki's GOP.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Remind me what is good about a quarter hour of hyperbole, pettiness, and stupidity? Oh, I forgot, you agree with it.The ending was hella good
Hope is the denial of reality
i was hoping we could talk about how the red states also get more of those government benefits they are morally against
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Yet another ecological fallacy. I see that the lack of knowledge of economics on this board is only surpassed by the lack of knowledge of elementary statistics.
Hope is the denial of reality
If it makes you feel better, she probably doesn't hold sway over nearly as many votes as Sean and Bill do
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
One voter is too many. She's a troll no less than Coulter, but without the foul language.
Hope is the denial of reality
Maybe that Plato guy had the right idea after all
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I don't know for sure but I have to think being president is nothing what-so-ever like being the CEO of a company. For example, as CEO Romney would hire and fire anyone he wanted. But as President, many of his appointments would have to be approved - or not - by Congress. As CEO if he wanted some policy implemented he only need decree it, but as President he would have to smooze congress. As CEO his number one responsibility was making a profit, but as President his number one responsibility ought to be .... what? Certainly not making money, but what phrase sums up the President's key responsibility? Safeguard the citizens of the United States - that covers defense, the economy, the safety net, the law, the environment, occupational safety, etc etc. And that one responsibility only costs money - there is no profit - and often there's not enough money available to do it all correctly. And he has only partial control over how much money he gets to get the job done.... It's so different from being a CEO I question whether his business experience is all the useful in performing as President.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I am pretty certain good CEO's would make lousy Presidents. Presidents need to know how to compromise and build coalitions, also they have surprisingly little control over the organization they are supposed to embody.
The best way of not getting things done as President is acting as if you are running the show on your own.
If anything made Romney a potential President it was his time as Governor of Mass.
Congratulations America
One can think of many reasons why a lawyer or a professor would make a bad president as well. Unfortunately, many of those reasons apply to Obama.
Hope is the denial of reality
On the flip side, Obama didn't try to use his experience as a lawyer or a professor as a main selling point, which Romney did (though it also got him a lot of criticism, or course).
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
What you describe is a dictator not a CEO. I don't know of any good CEO who can fire and hire as he pleases just because he pleases, can run the business through decrees and dictats and never needs to schmooze anyone etc, etc
And what the US needs now is someone who can balance the books. I see Obama is already trying to worm his way out of the fiscal cliff
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...ocked-by-loss/Mitt Romney's campaign got its first hint something was wrong on the afternoon of Election Day, when state campaign workers on the ground began reporting huge turnout in areas favorable to President Obama: northeastern Ohio, northern Virginia, central Florida and Miami-Dade.
Then came the early exit polls that also were favorable to the president.
But it wasn't until the polls closed that concern turned into alarm. They expected North Carolina to be called early. It wasn't. They expected Pennsylvania to be up in the air all night; it went early for the President.
After Ohio went for Mr. Obama, it was over, but senior advisers say no one could process it.
"We went into the evening confident we had a good path to victory," said one senior adviser. "I don't think there was one person who saw this coming."
They just couldn't believe they had been so wrong. And maybe they weren't: There was Karl Rove on Fox saying Ohio wasn't settled, so campaign aides decided to wait. They didn't want to have to withdraw their concession, like Al Gore did in 2000, and they thought maybe the suburbs of Columbus and Cincinnati, which hadn't been reported, could make a difference.
But then came Colorado for the president and Florida also was looking tougher than anyone had imagined.
"We just felt, 'where's our path?'" said a senior adviser. "There wasn't one."
Romney then said what they knew: it was over.
His personal assistant, Garrett Jackson, called his counterpart on Mr. Obama's staff, Marvin Nicholson. "Is your boss available?" Jackson asked.
Romney was stoic as he talked to the president, an aide said, but his wife Ann cried. Running mate Paul Ryan seemed genuinely shocked, the adviser said. Ryan's wife Janna also was shaken and cried softly.
"There's nothing worse than when you think you're going to win, and you don't," said another adviser. "It was like a sucker punch."
Their emotion was visible on their faces when they walked on stage after Romney finished his remarks, which Romney had hastily composed, knowing he had to say something.
Both wives looked stricken, and Ryan himself seemed grim. They all were thrust on that stage without understanding what had just happened.
"He was shellshocked," one adviser said of Romney.
Romney and his campaign had gone into the evening confident they had a good path to victory, for emotional and intellectual reasons. The huge and enthusiastic crowds in swing state after swing state in recent weeks - not only for Romney but also for Paul Ryan - bolstered what they believed intellectually: that Obama would not get the kind of turnout he had in 2008.
They thought intensity and enthusiasm were on their side this time - poll after poll showed Republicans were more motivated to vote than Democrats - and that would translate into votes for Romney.
As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect Republican enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on election night.
Those assumptions drove their campaign strategy: their internal polling showed them leading in key states, so they decided to make a play for a broad victory: go to places like Pennsylvania while also playing it safe in the last two weeks.
Those assessments were wrong.
They made three key miscalculations, in part because this race bucked historical trends:
1. They misread turnout. They expected it to be between 2004 and 2008 levels, with a plus-2 or plus-3 Democratic electorate, instead of plus-7 as it was in 2008. Their assumptions were wrong on both sides: The president's base turned out and Romney's did not. More African-Americans voted in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida than in 2008. And fewer Republicans did: Romney got just over 2 million fewer votes than John McCain.
2. Independents. State polls showed Romney winning big among independents. Historically, any candidate polling that well among independents wins. But as it turned out, many of those independents were former Republicans who now self-identify as independents. The state polls weren't oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans - there just weren't as many Republicans this time because they were calling themselves independents.
3. Undecided voters. The perception is they always break for the challenger, since people know the incumbent and would have decided already if they were backing him. Romney was counting on that trend to continue. Instead, exit polls show Mr. Obama won among people who made up their minds on Election Day and in the few days before the election. So maybe Romney, after running for six years, was in the same position as the incumbent.
The campaign before the election had expressed confidence in its calculations, and insisted the Obama campaign, with its own confidence and a completely different analysis, was wrong. In the end, it the other way around.
"They were right," a Romney campaign senior adviser said of the Obama campaign's assessments. "And if they were right, we lose."
Seems Romney and the Republicans genuinly thought they were going to win.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
A lot of smaller company CEOs need to be quite shrewd and borderline bullies in the industry in order to get ahead of the competion. Especially in regards to firing and hirings. Those they have to please or be pleasant towards are generally not the same people who work under them, and we saw how Romney thinks of those people wehn he mentioned his love for being in a position where he can fire people, and his more damaging 47% remark and later backpedalling.
----
How bad off was Mitt this election? Bush got a higher percentage of the Mormon vote.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 11-09-2012 at 08:09 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
CBS is wrong; their (Team Romney's) main mistake was not looking at poll aggregators who were saying for some time that Romney had no path to victory.
Bush also won the election. Not comparable.How bad off was Mitt this election? Bush got a higher percentage of the Mormon vote.
Hope is the denial of reality
If I read the CBS article right, what thy're saying is that the reason Romeny's team ignored what the mainstream polls were saying was because they thought they were skewed towards the democrats, for the reasons they gave. It's interesting that Lewkowksi's comments on election night before the results started coming in seems to mirror some of the attitudes at the highest levels of the Republican party. Does this strain of self-delusion affect the republican party as a whole?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Yes, the Lewk method of assuming that pollsters and statisticians are stupid.
Hope is the denial of reality
Group think's a bastard.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Yes, all part of the war against science. The first casualty is the inability of the GOP to use science to its advantage (to be fair Democratic pundits are equally stupid, but there are Democratic political operatives who are smart).
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote