[Official Thread] OBAMA WINS RE-ELECTION

[Skgoa]

Of course. He can't risk being nailed down on anything that would be a problem in the general election.

[Dalton]

They're saving it up for the general. To go on an offensive right now would be detrimental; since Mitt is the presumptive nominee, it's pretty safe to scale back a bit and save it for the end of the summer. He has plenty of proxies making the national media rounds to speak for him; of course some of them I doubt he wants (Ted Nugent) but for the most part they likely have a nice polished dossier of canned answers just so he stays in the media narrative. Primary season is still going on and Santorum hasn't yet endorsed anyone, so he won't fall off the radar since he has plenty of opportunities now for copypasta victory speeches.

[Dalton]

Ron Paul still holding on. He's winning most MN delegates and invoked 1920 Harding nom.

[Dalton]

Romney wins CT, RI

[Dalton]

Romney took DE as well. Newtie, oh Newtie, where are you?

[Dalton]

Took PA as well. Probably will take NY as well. I think it's safe to say Romney is the likely nominee.

[Dalton]

Clean sweep for Romney tonight.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Well it's not like anyone else is really trying any more. Newt is a non issue and has been dead for months now.
And Paul... Well Paul is Paul (points and laughs)
Really at this point the only "news" I am excited about waiting for is to see what Santorum will do with his delegates.

[Dalton]

At this point he will endorse Romney and try to unify the fractured base.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yeah, Gingrich just dropped and is planning to get on the Romney train. Meanwhile, Santorum is meeting with Romney in May to talk things out, but refuses to say that he'll endorse him. Despite claims that there isn't going to be dealings and they are just having a conversation, I think Santorum is going to make Romney pay through the nose for his endorsement.

[Dalton]

Yeah, Gingrich just dropped and is planning to get on the Romney train. Meanwhile, Santorum is meeting with Romney in May to talk things out, but refuses to say that he'll endorse him. Despite claims that there isn't going to be dealings and they are just having a conversation, I think Santorum is going to make Romney pay through the nose for his endorsement.

Veep guarantee maybe?

[Gil Hamilton]

I think Santorum isn't looking to get on board with that. His whole primary campaign seems to be stumping for 2016, rather than 2012. Even one of the last speeches he did referenced how Reagan lost the primary and took the GOP down in the process, only for him to get the presidency four years later. If he decides to run with Romney, Romney will either manage to win, at which point Santorum is sidelined for eight years, or he'll lose, which means that he'll have been on the losing team and that will make it harder for him in 2016.

I suspect that Santorum is interested more in talking about being a prominent, but unattached, member of Romney's campaign, to keep him public and in the media, in addition to keeping Romney conservative. Like just about everyone else, now that Romney has clinched the nomination, Santorum will join the metaphoric crowd at the GOP dock that is wishing the Romney ship good luck while carefully not being on the ship itself, so that when the Obama whale eventually crushes Romney, they "fought the good fight", but still are good for 2016. Rubio, Christie, and Jeb Bush are already in the crowd, going "Yeah, Romney, whoo!... Be his running mate? Oh god no!"

[SirNitram]

Paul's stopped the campaigning. He's not stopped the 'take over delegate choosing' operation, and there remains no signs of what he's going to do with them. Ron Paul is also on the 'Draft Candidate' list for Billionaire's Select.. I mean, America Elects, but with their primary process suspended from lack of support, that remains a boondoggle.

[UnderAGreySky]

Speaking of billionaires' select:

Americans Elect without a nominee

Americans Elect, the deep-pocketed nonprofit group that set out to nominate a centrist third-party presidential ticket, admitted early Tuesday that its ballyhooed online nominating process had failed.

The group had qualified for the general election ballot in 27 states, and had generated concern among Democrats and Republicans alike that it could wreak havoc on a close election between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

But just after a midnight deadline Monday, the group acknowledged that its complicated online nominating process had failed to generate sufficient interest to push any of the candidates who had declared an interest in its nomination over the threshold in its rules.

“Because of this, under the rules that AE delegates ratified, the primary process would end today,” said the group’s Kahlil Byrd in a statement issued at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday. He seemed to leave the door open for proceeding outside the original process, however, adding, “There is, however, an almost universal desire among delegates, leadership and millions of Americans who have supported AE to see a credible candidate emerge from this process.”

Also, on an even funnier note:

7 Very Bad Predictions About Americans Elect

1. Thomas Friedman

Write it down: Americans Elect. What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in. Watch out.

[Alferd Packer]

Mittens won the two primaries yesterday, of course. But rather noteworthy is that 30% of Republicans in each primary did not vote for him, instead spreading their votes out over Frothy, Newt, or Paul--who have all dropped out at this point. People know he's going to be the nominee and yet they still refuse to vote for him. This puts Mittens in a bind; he's going to have to continue to say nutshit things to court conservatives, and every statement he makes is going to be fuel for the Obama campaign. Kind of a Catch-22.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Mittens won the two primaries yesterday, of course. But rather noteworthy is that 30% of Republicans in each primary did not vote for him, instead spreading their votes out over Frothy, Newt, or Paul--who have all dropped out at this point. People know he's going to be the nominee and yet they still refuse to vote for him. This puts Mittens in a bind; he's going to have to continue to say nutshit things to court conservatives, and every statement he makes is going to be fuel for the Obama campaign. Kind of a Catch-22.

Quite the opposite I think... They KNOW he will be the nominee no matter what at this point, so who vote for him unto they know they "HAVE" to vote for him.
I think they still don't like him, but they will hold their nose and vote him for him come Nov.

[WmLambert]

The main story is the overall strategy. Since Carville and Begalla codified the Democrat idea to divide and conquer, all effort is made to turn similar, but slightly different conservatives into rival factions. The Classical Liberals see Boehner and Romney as powers-that-be, elites who they have been told are no different than Obama in their desire for big government.

The Left are all about the wink-and-nod. Say whatever you have to to get elected, we know what you will really do once in office. The Right don't do that. Votescam is almost entirely a Left-wing phenomenon, with 53,000 dead voters finally coming off the rolls in Florida hitting them hard. I dunno whether it is a religious thing. the Left holding their politics as a church, where the end justifies the means, but the Right tends to use pseudologic and if a nominee has fifty issues they like, and one they don't, they will hold his feet to the fire.

What the Carville-Begalla strategy pushes is telling the disenchanted Right that voting for a Perot or Libertarian candidate will somehow teach a lesson to whoever opposes the candidate they most abhor. Clinton won with a plurality as Perot took a major slice away from the majority, and we got an infusion of Progressive Justices. Another term will break the Constitution forever.

[Max]

The Left are all about the wink-and-nod. Say whatever you have to to get elected, we know what you will really do once in office. The Right don't do that. Votescam is almost entirely a Left-wing phenomenon, with 53,000 dead voters finally coming off the rolls in Florida hitting them hard. I dunno whether it is a religious thing. the Left holding their politics as a church, where the end justifies the means, but the Right tends to use pseudologic and if a nominee has fifty issues they like, and one they don't, they will hold his feet to the fire.

Irony. You have it.

I'm not sure what politics you have been following, but if you don't think that Mittens (or even McCain in 2008) didn't/doesn't subscribe to the "...wink-and-nod. Say whatever you have to to get elected..." strategy, then whatever you're smoking must be awesome. Pass pass puff.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ignore him.
Of his four posts so far in the forum, three of them have basically been copy-pasta of right wing talking points and conspiracy theories.
He's either a "hit and run" posting a bit and leaving, or he'll be pounced upon soon enough by the others and chewed on.

[D.Turtle]

Of course if you want to be the one who does the chewing, go right ahead.

[WmLambert]

Ignore him.
Of his four posts so far in the forum, three of them have basically been copy-pasta of right wing talking points and conspiracy theories.
He's either a "hit and run" posting a bit and leaving, or he'll be pounced upon soon enough by the others and chewed on.

Actually, I answered your copy-paste response to my post and severed you at your knees with fact. Of course it is easy to link to a Left-wing post that is inaccurate, but that doesn't prove your point. Trying to be cute instead of being on point may be against your grain - but perhaps you might give it a try.

Denying proved facts - some pulled from Obama's own books - may be conspiracy to you in projection land, but doesn't work in real life.

I responded to a post that was linked to someplace I visit and came here for the first time a few days ago. Again that makes a first-time poster a hit-and-run in your world. Such posts are a strategy that forum owners and supporters use to drum up new members - but I guess you must be the anti-forum guy here. Should I treat you as a contrarian who goes against the grain for your own ego? It does serve a purpose and such contrarian attitudes can drive interest to a forum.

You shoot from the hip without true facts and smugly infer superiority that doesn't exist. Do you brow beat all posters who dare to offer new facts you never searched out and ask for more information from you, or just newly arrived ones, in hopes of driving off those who may show you as the wink and nodder that you are.

You probably thought Obama was a good student, when factually, his only school record we have showed that he did not graduate from his local college with honors before going to Columbia or Harvard. His book said he was a poor student in High School. If you have more info, please share. We do know that Khalid al-Monsour raised money for him. If you have more information on that, please share. His books did not make money for him until he became famous and certainly didn't pay his way onto Harvard. ...Unless you have some knowledge to the contrary.

Mr. Contrarian, perform your service and enlighten us. Maybe you can provide that transparency that Obama can't.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Oh my heavens! Such attention, I feel honored!

Ok first off I have, untill now, not directly resonded to you. That would be Terralthra and Thanas, both of whom have already done a good job of refuting your so called 'claims' regarding the President.

Actually, I answered your copy-paste response to my post and severed you at your knees with fact. Of course it is easy to link to a Left-wing post that is inaccurate, but that doesn't prove your point. Trying to be cute instead of being on point may be against your grain - but perhaps you might give it a try..

Ok, you are new here, so let me lay something out. There will be others that shall do this far better than I, but I shall try and be more civil about it.
This site revolves around providing facts, and then backing up the facts. "Backing up" usually means providing links to a credible news source or peer reviewed institution.
As an example, Terralthra responded to you by providing links that refute and contradict your points. When you responded to him in return, you made a lot of "claims" and statments, but no real 'Proof' IE linking to a website that others can verify your claims.

You shoot from the hip without true facts and smugly infer superiority that doesn't exist. Do you brow beat all posters who dare to offer new facts you never searched out and ask for more information from you, or just newly arrived ones, in hopes of driving off those who may show you as the wink and nodder that you are.

Again while it was not I, I will none the less address these points.
This bored does have a Liberal bias, but when it comes to arguments we do not hold punches. We will mercilessly eviscerate anyone who does not back up claims with proof. Liberal or conservative alike. We WANT people to bring in new ideas and different view points, but you must be prepared to defend them. We do not hold punches, and we play very rough here.

So, while others will come along who shall show you exactly what I mean, I would hope this preares you for what may be in store Let it not be said you were never warned.

[WmLambert]

... Terralthra responded to you by providing links that refute and contradict your points. When you responded to him in return, you made a lot of "claims" and stat[e]ments, but no real 'Proof' IE linking to a website that others can verify your claims.

No, you don't play very tough at all, if you think links to unsupported blogs and unfounded websites to be the sole buttress of incorrect preconceived notions. It's easy to paraphrase and then respond to the paraphrasing - but then you are just talking to yourself.

My points are solid - but don't let me stop you from researching more thoroughly. I appreciate learning new facts and being shown information I didn't know before. I don't think too much about rambling links that are themselves mere conjecture and often incorrect. I wrote about the few facts about Obama that are rock-solid and objective - and get angry subjective response meant to belittle and falsely win a debate with the fallacy of laughter by intimidation. I throw out one fact out of a hundred that can be used, and don't worry too much about snarky insults. The facts are always there and will come out in the end. When I am wrong, i will apologize and be glad for learning something.

BTW, I apologize for attributing others' words for yours, I don't have much familiarity with who is who here, and lumped them together.

[Terralthra]

Your points are not solid, and my links were to publishers like Politico and the New York times. Your links, on the other hand, were to a Houston Press article - that you have altered the meaning of to suit your agenda - and to a youtube video which doesn't answer the question you were asked.

[Crossroads Inc.]

... Terralthra responded to you by providing links that refute and contradict your points. When you responded to him in return, you made a lot of "claims" and stat[e]ments, but no real 'Proof' IE linking to a website that others can verify your claims.

No, you don't play very tough at all, if you think links to unsupported blogs and unfounded websites to be the sole buttress of incorrect preconceived notions. It's easy to paraphrase and then respond to the paraphrasing - but then you are just talking to yourself. .

Ah.. I think you may have lost me.
When you say ""unsupported blogs and unfounded websites"" are you indeed talking about Politico and the NYT? Because those are about as trusted as they come.
Would you say CNN is "unsupported'"? The Wall Street Journal? MSNBC?

Is it perhaps that you see these as all part of "Liberal Media" and thus untrustworthy?
And I am not sure how linking to such information is "Talking to yourself'.

My points are solid - but don't let me stop you from researching more thoroughly. I appreciate learning new facts and being shown information I didn't know before. I don't think too much about rambling links that are themselves mere conjecture and often incorrect. I wrote about the few facts about Obama that are rock-solid and objective - and get angry subjective response meant to belittle and falsely win a debate with the fallacy of laughter by intimidation. I throw out one fact out of a hundred that can be used, and don't worry too much about snarky insults. The facts are always there and will come out in the end. When I am wrong, i will apologize and be glad for learning something.

I am afraid it does not exactly work like that here.
From what I could see of your large denunciation of Terralthras response, you linked only two points, and both of the were to the "Houston Press" and did not exactly support your claims.
You have to understand, when you say something like "Khalid al-Monsour raised money for him." You have to provide a link.
People here will not take you seriouslly unless you can back up any and all claims you make.

Always remember the burden of proof is upon you. You cannot state something, and then leave it up to us to disprove you. We won't spend hours trying to disprove something. If you make a case for something, you provide facts and proof, and THEN we validate and verify those facts.

I'll tell you what, pick ONE 'Rock Solid' fact of yours that you are 100% sure is true and impossible to refute and then provide links and proof. Pick the one item you feel is the strongest, and we shall go from there.