In response to:

Post-Mortem

gertyjm Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 9:29 AM
I find it rather comical. In 2000 Bush was effectively appointed by the Supreme Court, after loosing the popular vote nationwide and winning the Electoral College mostly due to shenanigans perpetrated in Florida. In 2004 Bush did appear to win the popular vote, barely, as well as the Electoral College. However, it was mostly due to some very significant electronic voting irregularities in Ohio. If he hadn't carried Ohio he would have lost. After both these suspect elections Bush declared he had a mandate. Yet with Obama, after winning both his terms quite handily, you deny him the same standing.
rthompson235 Wrote: Jan 05, 2013 6:09 AM
The reason Bush's victories were "suspect", while Obama "won both of his terms handily" is because he's better at corruption than Bush. The media lied, fabricated stories and hid evidence; Benghazi was completely covered up; an audio recording from a private meeting was annexed illegally, taken out of context and used to broadcast Obama's sleazy "47%" attack ads (Richard Nixon would be proud!), and there were NUMEROUS voting irregularities in multiple states that were completely swept under the rug. Examples: 1) Adults from homes for the mentally disabled being bussed to polling places and instructed to vote for Obama, 2) precincts where more than 100% of people voted.
rthompson235 Wrote: Jan 05, 2013 6:09 AM
More irregularities: 3) precincts where 100% of thousands of votes went for Obama and 0 for Romney, where neighboring precincts had nothing like those percentages, 4) dead people voting, 5) illegal aliens (oh, sorry, we're not allowed to call them that, I mean "undocumented") people voted. None of these things were reported by the "Joseph Goebbles" media. And Obama didn't really win that handily; he won by 3%. I'm sorry, that's not "handily". In 1984, Reagan won by more than 10%, now THAT'S handily.
rthompson235 Wrote: Jan 05, 2013 6:07 AM
The reason Bush's victories were "suspect", while Obama "won both of his terms handily" is because he's better at corruption than Bush. The media lied, fabricated stories and hid evidence; Benghazi was completely covered up; an audio recording from a private meeting was annexed illegally, taken out of context and used to broadcast Obama's sleazy "47%" attack ads (Richard Nixon would be proud!), and there were NUMEROUS voting irregularities in multiple states that were completely swept under the rug. Examples: 1) Adults from homes for the mentally disabled being bussed to polling places and instructed to vote for Obama, 2) precincts where more than 100% of people voted.

I am already reading so many pundits and other talking heads analyzing the disaster that was this year’s elections. I am adding my own ten cents. Here goes:

1. We are outnumbered

We accurately foresaw the enthusiasm, the passion, the commitment, the determination, and the turnout. Married women, men, independents, Catholics, evangelicals – they all went for Romney in percentages as high or higher than the groups which voted for McCain in 2008. It wasn’t enough. What we saw in the election on Tuesday was a tipping point: we are now at a place where there are legitimately fewer Americans who...