Will the GOP admit and then adapt to their loss?

[Giants41]

That depends on what criteria you're using. It's not the smartest, not the happiest, not the most free, not the healthiest. At some point you have to put down the big foam #1 finger and face the facts, America can't keep coasting on the accomplishments of previous generations. We are not the "greatest" country on earth anymore, not by any of the measurements I have listed.

It would look pretty bad if any party said "America is not the greatest country anymore" but of curiosity what in your opinion is the best?

[sulfuric]

When was it ever the greatest country on earth?

it was great in many ways, I am not sure if you are an American but there is a huge amount of ethnocentrism here. It was great in many ways, and Americans have been calling it the greatest country on earth for a very, very long time now. Personally I think there is so much criteria out there to make a country great or less than great that it is impossible to determine what country is the "Greatest" overall.

[Howdyho]

it was great in many ways, I am not sure if you are an American but there is a huge amount of ethnocentrism here. It was great in many ways, and Americans have been calling it the greatest country on earth for a very, very long time now. Personally I think there is so much criteria out there to make a country great or less than great that it is impossible to determine what country is the "Greatest" overall.

Honestly if you keep calling yourself the greatest country on earth, when you aren't, that makes you less than the greatest country on earth. It makes you a country oh self-centered hypocrites staring at your own navel.

[Itisamuh]

The party is fine. It's the idiotic direction the voters are taking that's ruining things. Liberals are the bane of the country.

[Quetzl]

The party is fine. It's the idiotic direction the voters are taking that's ruining things. Liberals are the bane of the country.

For what reason?

Idiotic is also an interesting choice of words, considering that more educated people tend to be more liberal.

[tantojutsu]

The party is fine. It's the idiotic direction the voters are taking that's ruining things. Liberals are the bane of the country.

Reality has a well known liberal bias. Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your bubble.

[sulfuric]

It would look pretty bad if any party said "America is not the greatest country anymore" but of curiosity what in your opinion is the best?

Oh of course, there are many things you have to say to even have a chance at holding office. One is that America is the greatest country on the face of the earth, the other is that you believe in God.

In my Opinion Sweden is the best country to live in. It's one of the most neutral countries (no wars to worry about or waste revenue on). One of the least religious places on the planet, so no dogma to worry about and society is free thinking. High social and economic equality, socialized medicine, the education system is better than America, paid vacations and pregnancy leave from work for both parents. The list is very long and promising

Honestly if you keep calling yourself the greatest country on earth, when you aren't, that makes you less than the greatest country on earth. It makes you a country oh self-centered hypocrites staring at your own navel.

I could not agree with you more, nevertheless I am simply telling you something Americans do. I have known for a very long time that America is falling behind in nearly every single category.

[Howdyho]

The party is fine. It's the idiotic direction the voters are taking that's ruining things. Liberals are the bane of the country.

Sometimes I wonder do you actually know what the word means.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 01:01 AM ----------

Oh of course, there are many things you have to say to even have a chance at holding office. One is that America is the greatest country on the face of the earth, the other is that you believe in God.

In my Opinion Sweden is the best country to live in. It's one of the most neutral countries (no wars to worry about or waste revenue on). One of the least religious places on the planet, so no dogma to worry about and society is free thinking. High social and economic equality, socialized medicine, the education system is better than America, paid vacations and pregnancy leave from work for both parents. The list is very long and promising




I could not agree with you more, nevertheless I am simply telling you something Americans do. I have known for a very long time that America is falling behind in nearly every single category.

Honestly in my opinion it's hard to call america the greatest country in the world just by observing how your politics have divided your people and how people take it personally and actually hate people based on their political view. And by the way I meant no offense by my previous post.

[Luftmangle]

It seems that the republican party has been in denial for a very long time on a number of issues. Denial about education, denial about America no longer being the "greatest country on earth", America being a Christian nation (it isn't), Denial about evolution, Global warming, the age of the planet, and a plethora of other scientific issues.

Watching the GOP play the blame game and scapegoat everything from the hurricaine, to Romney being a weak candidate, to America full of black and latino voters who "want free shit" has made me realize that they are still in denial. Do you guys think the republican party will admit that they lost based on their ideas being out of touch with the country and change their platform to be more inclusive instead of exclusive? Or will they continue business as usual and further alienate women voters by promising laws limiting their control of their bodies, pressing more de-regulation of banks and big business, and further pursuing their losing platform of 2012?

They didn't lose on ideas.

They lost on the candidate and his specific "life experience".

Four years ago, if McCain hadn't picked that idiot Sara Palin he as a Republican would have been President.

The GOP doesn't need to change their ideas, and neither do the Democrats. Both of their ideas haven't changed that much.

Losing a Presidential election isn't that drastic of a thing.

You had two terms of George Bush, and you will have two terms of Barack Obama.

[Howdyho]

They didn't lose on ideas.

They lost on the candidate and his specific "life experience".

Four years ago, if McCain hadn't picked that idiot Sara Palin he as a Republican would have been President.

The GOP doesn't need to change their ideas, and neither do the Democrats. Both of their ideas haven't changed that much.

Losing a Presidential election isn't that drastic of a thing.

You had two terms of George Bush, and you will have two terms of Barack Obama.

From what I saw more dumb people liked palin and voted for McCain than smart people avoided him and Palin.

[sulfuric]

They didn't lose on ideas.

Really? Because I am pretty sure you lost a huge majority of the female vote on birth control and abortion issues alone. You're the exact reason I made this thread[COLOR="red"]

Honestly in my opinion it's hard to call america the greatest country in the world just by observing how your politics have divided your people and how people take it personally and actually hate people based on their political view. And by the way I meant no offense by my previous post.

I took no offense I just didn't want you to associate me with the point I was making, I am not one of those people. Unfortunately our two political parties are wholly divided. It's not as simple as "ok so we disagree on that" because the republican (religious motivated) party is literally trying to legally impose its religious beliefs, morals, and ideals on the American people. At that point, I begin to hate anyone who puts their religious belief above their country and above their fellow man who does not hold that belief.

[Someudontno]

I think that they will. At the very least, I think that the Tea Party will split off from the Republican party and nominate their own candidates, like Rick Sanctorum or whatever his name was.

[Luftmangle]

Really? Because I am pretty sure you lost a huge majority of the female vote on birth control and abortion issues alone. You're the exact reason I made this thread

Actually I am not affliated with the Republican Party.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and Gary Johnson in 2012.

I would have voted for McCain in 2008 sans Palin,

If there hadn't been Gary Johnson on the ballot I would have written in Ron Paul, or voted Obama.

People generally vote the person not the party for President.

Historical data reflects that.

Your premise isn't valid.

[sulfuric]

People generally vote the person not the party for President.

And what is the person, if not what they stand for? I think people vote for a mix of things, but foremost would be their ideas

[gg1161]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/tpAOwJvTOio

While there are plenty of different types of voters, a good chunk of them do fall into the same category as the woman in the video, and "want free shit".

[Giants41]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/tpAOwJvTOio

While there are plenty of different types of voters, a good chunk of them do fall into the same category as the woman in the video, and "want free shit".

Yeah pretty sad. So dumb.

[sulfuric]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/tpAOwJvTOio

While there are plenty of different types of voters, a good chunk of them do fall into the same category as the woman in the video, and "want free shit".

No numbers posted, no evidence given. "Good chunk" estimation effectively means nothing.

[Luftmangle]

And what is the person, if not what they stand for? I think people vote for a mix of things, but foremost would be their ideas

A person is life experience and the general likability of that individual.

Look at Ronald Reagan. You really think he would have won the huge margins he did when he ran for President solely on his ideas and not his personal likability?

Whether he would have been Republican or Democrat he would have had the same numbers.

You have to also factor in the campaigns the candidates ran while running for the Presidency.

In the 2000 election Al Gore was much more qualified, experienced and able to run the country than George Bush. Eight years of economic growth under Clinton and Gore, couldn't ask for a better gift as a VP running for President.

Al Gore ran a terrible campaign, and he personally wasn't able to connect with voters. Some how to my disgust Bush was. I never understood. I thought he was just some silver spoon rich kid playing cowboy, but whatevs.

This election cycle you had Obama, born to a poor single woman who achieved and prospered when he had a gigantic hurdle to over come. Then you had Romney, born to a rich and connected family, whose parent's paid for his entire college education, living expanses, and then bought him a house when he graduated.


It is pretty easy to see who most people would rather have as President based on those two contrasting life journeys.

**weird, I have no idea why the above is in red....

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 01:33 AM ----------

http://www.youtube.com/embed/tpAOwJvTOio

While there are plenty of different types of voters, a good chunk of them do fall into the same category as the woman in the video, and "want free shit".

The problem with that woman is Obama isn't giving these people anything that they wouldn't have been able to get under a Republican President.

"Obama phones" are programs started under a different Presidency so low income citizens could have telephone service.

[sulfuric]

This election cycle you had Obama, born to a poor single woman who achieved and prospered when he had a gigantic hurdle to over come. Then you had Romney, born to a rich and connected family, whose parent's paid for his entire college education, living expanses, and then bought him a house when he graduated.


It is pretty easy to see who most people would rather have as President based on those two contrasting life journeys.

You do know that there was a very large group of people who picked Romney because "he is a successful businessman". Paid no attention to why he was successful, it just attracted them to him. I don't follow your reasoning

[Luftmangle]

You do know that there was a very large group of people who picked Romney because "he is a successful businessman". Paid no attention to why he was successful, it just attracted them to him. I don't follow your reasoning

Those people who picked Romney because "he is a successful businessman" picked him for his business acumen and not his politics though.

Your premise is the GOP lost because their "message and ideas" didn't resonate with a changing voting demographic and therefore should adapt and change their "message and idea" in order to remain relevant.

I simply disagree with you and say it was the candidates themselves that win or lose elections and not their politics.