Obama Thanks Supporters After Winning Re-Election

[maidu]

I can believe it. Most Americans doing the winging did not get off their ar*e and vote. They stayed home and like last time listened to the media and thought it would be close, but a walk in for Romney. Wrong. Now all you do is winge again. You knew he would have a strong black and latino vote and because nearly 90,000,000 Americans did not vote you lost. Best you do as the Australians do and make voting compulsory and then you would have nothing to winge about on the outcome.

I agree the Republicans whine a lot and always look to blame something other than look at the real reason: THE BEST CANDIDATE WON.

However, I don't agree it was because of voters being lazy. I take it you're an Aussie. I resided in the US for nearly half a century, I've seen how conservatives make more efforts to vote than liberals. Republicans lost because their candidate was simply not as good or as popular as the Dem's candidate. They're all sore losers. Most of today's comments on Fox news concern some variation of drowning their sorrows by drinking lots of alcohol, or going to sleep in a dark room for a long time. They never learned how to deal graciously with defeat

Edited November 7, 2012 by maidu

[khaowong1]

Well the American people are going to get what they deserve for being ignorant!

I think they got what they deserve for NOT being ignorant.

They asked questions of Romney and he failed to answer them.

The GOP are going to have to find a different way to win over the electorate, one that doesn't involve lying and stealing.

So you are saying OBAMA does not lie.

The Republican party has a bunch of back pedaling to do. They no longer can ignore the women, the blacks and the growing hispanics in the US.. These segments of the US have to be addressed if they want to get back in the running. No doubt, we're going to have Hillary to contend with in 2016. That's going to be a major hurdle.

[theblether]

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

If the Democrats would be better off with Michelle Obama next time......that would be a slam dunk.

A real slave descendant..........and potentially the first female President? That would cause some tremors in the Republican Party.

[maidu]

I have a hard time understanding why Americans are happy to see their country bankrupted. Just saying.

Who is 'happy' about it? unless it's someone who gets enjoyment from seeing another person unable to pay their bills. In the US, it's compounded by a belief, common among businessmen, politicians and everyone else that: YOU SHOULD ALWAYS BORROW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Dems aren't worse than Republicans in that regard. Look at the historical record, particularly R.Reagan's raising the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years while he was president. Reagan is a Republican can-do-no-wrong icon, yet he ballooned the federal deficit to its largest size in US history (not counting war years). All presidents increase the deficit. Sad but true.

Here are some of the signs to watch if/when the US slips to bankruptcy:

>>> federal workers will be laid off

>>> federal services will be curtailed or stopped.

>>> the most vulnerable and poorest will get hurt first: school lunches for poor kids, etc.

>>> Rich white men will be last in line for cuts. Those double dipping with federal hand-outs, etc. And veteran benefits.

>>> the US debt rating will get downgraded. % rates for borrowing will go up.

>>> China will foreclose and take Hawaii. (ok, that's a jest). ......gotta get off this computer.

[theblether]

@Maidu, they'll take more than Hawaii

But yes, I get your point, the American political class is writing cheques they won't have to honour.

Suffer the little American children.

[SteeleJoe]

People were talking about the reaction of Fox News earlier, and to be honest as loathsome an enterprise as I find it to be -- because of it's complete abandonment of objectivity, and casual dishonesty as well as for the ideology it expounds -- I get a little tired of hearing my fellow liberals go on and on about it so da*n much.

I also find the gloating over Pres. Obama's welcome victory a bit unseemly.

But I can't get over how classic this image is:

[nurofiend]

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

If the Democrats would be better off with Michelle Obama next time......that would be a slam dunk.

A real slave descendant..........and potentially the first female President? That would cause some tremors in the Republican Party.

you'd never know!

actually is that allowed i wonder?

[theblether]

I believe it is allowed......and it would be a Slam Dunk.

I don't think Hilary would have the energy for it, she's looking tired already.

[Genericnic]

I believe it is allowed......and it would be a Slam Dunk.

I don't think Hilary would have the energy for it, she's looking tired already.

Personally, I wish Bill could run again. He would be a shoe-in and would scare the cr*p out of the Rs. That alone would be worth seeing.

David

[hellodolly]

@Maidu, they'll take more than Hawaii

But yes, I get your point, the American political class is writing cheques they won't have to honour.

Suffer the little American children.

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

If the Democrats would be better off with Michelle Obama next time......that would be a slam dunk.

A real slave descendant..........and potentially the first female President? That would cause some tremors in the Republican Party.

For that I would make the effort to vote. Hillary would make a good running mate.

If you stop and think about it they both have brains and know the ropes around Washington.

They have both spent 8 years watching their husbands fight bureaucracy and opposition that dosen't care what happens o the people as long as they are the ones doing it to the People.

[Jingthing]

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

If the Democrats would be better off with Michelle Obama next time......that would be a slam dunk.

A real slave descendant..........and potentially the first female President? That would cause some tremors in the Republican Party.

I reckon you aren't being serious, right? Running for president with no experience in any elected political office is out of the question. No, being first lady is not an elected office. Her chance to be nominated with no elected office experience? ZERO. Actually, I don't any vibe from her that she is ambitious that way. If she is, the path for her would be to later to run for high office in Illinois FIRST.

The idea that the democrats are lacking fantastic potential candidates for 2016 and they would be so desperate to nominate a lady with zero experience is laughable! Yes, Michelle Obama is popular, but not in that way.

Strongly on the radar now are:

Senator Mark Warner Virginia

Hillary Clinton Secretary of State / Senator

Governor Andrew Cuomo New York

Governor Mark O'Malley Maryland

If Hillary runs, she's the favorite. Otherwise, Warner would be very appealing coming from a border/Southern swing state, would probably bring in North Carolina as well.

Name recognition, after Hillary, Cuomo has it.

Mark O'Malley would be the most unknown, but has great potential, youthful, energetic.

Gov. Beebe of Arkansas is also mentioned but I don't see it.

Hillary was a massively popular and successful U.S. SENATOR and now also has been Secretary of State. Hillary running as VP to Michelle Obama? Not in a million years.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Jingthing

[rubl]

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

If the Democrats would be better off with Michelle Obama next time......that would be a slam dunk.

A real slave descendant..........and potentially the first female President? That would cause some tremors in the Republican Party.

I reckon you aren't being serious, right? Running for president with no experience in any elected political office is out of the question. No, being first lady is not an elected office. Her chance to be nominated with no elected office experience? ZERO. Actually, I don't any vibe from her that she is ambitious that way. If she is, the path for her would be to later to run for high office in Illinois FIRST.

Hillary was a massively popular and successful U.S. SENATOR and now also has been Secretary of State. Hillary running as VP to Michelle Obama? Not in a million years.

Being Dutch I have no say in this, but I still wonder what it would be like with having 'first gentleman' William J. Clinton

[nurofiend]

i think he was joking around.

anyway, here's a list of possibles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

"Trump"

*snigger*

[StevieH]

Hillary was a massively popular and successful U.S. SENATOR and now also has been Secretary of State. Hillary running as VP to Michelle Obama? Not in a million years.

polls have been done that showed that hillary and bill would have both waltzed this election. reckon hillary's a great option to have in the bank for 2016 really. if she's up for it like.

[StevieH]

i think he was joking around.

anyway, here's a list of possibles

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2016

"Trump"

*snigger*

richard nixon is currently shorter odds than donald trump. so is abraham lincoln. and also donald trump's barber.

[Genericnic]

Hillary was a massively popular and successful U.S. SENATOR and now also has been Secretary of State. Hillary running as VP to Michelle Obama? Not in a million years.

polls have been done that showed that hillary and bill would have both waltzed this election. reckon hillary's a great option to have in the bank for 2016 really. if she's up for it like.

But for the Twenty-Second Amendment, Bill might still be president. Not a bad idea considering when he left office, we had a large budget surplus and most of the world liked us. And, of course, we could have skipped W as president.

David

[Jingthing]

i think he was joking around.

anyway, here's a list of possibles

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2016

"Trump"

*snigger*

I love Cory Booker and it sounds superficial but I just don't believe the party will nominate another light skinned African American man directly after Obama's eight years. Too bad Corey isn't a woman ... Edited November 7, 2012 by Jingthing

[Hugo6]

I have a hard time understanding why Americans are happy to see their country bankrupted. Just saying.

Who is 'happy' about it? unless it's someone who gets enjoyment from seeing another person unable to pay their bills. In the US, it's compounded by a belief, common among businessmen, politicians and everyone else that: YOU SHOULD ALWAYS BORROW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Dems aren't worse than Republicans in that regard. Look at the historical record, particularly R.Reagan's raising the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years while he was president. Reagan is a Republican can-do-no-wrong icon, yet he ballooned the federal deficit to its largest size in US history (not counting war years). All presidents increase the deficit. Sad but true.

Here are some of the signs to watch if/when the US slips to bankruptcy:

>>> federal workers will be laid off

>>> federal services will be curtailed or stopped.

>>> the most vulnerable and poorest will get hurt first: school lunches for poor kids, etc.

>>> Rich white men will be last in line for cuts. Those double dipping with federal hand-outs, etc. And veteran benefits.

>>> the US debt rating will get downgraded. % rates for borrowing will go up.

>>> China will foreclose and take Hawaii. (ok, that's a jest). ......gotta get off this computer.

the US is not going bankrupt and anyone worried about that should get their head checked.

[Jingthing]

I kind of assume Hillary still wants to be president. If so, has four years to do all kinds of plastic surgery.

[Genericnic]

i think he was joking around.

anyway, here's a list of possibles

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2016

"Trump"

*snigger*

I love Cory Booker and it sounds superficial but I just don't believe the party will nominate another light skinned African American man directly after Obama's eight years. Too bad Corey isn't a woman ...

He could visit Thailand and they could take care of that for him.

David

[rubl]

People were talking about the reaction of Fox News earlier, and to be honest as loathsome an enterprise as I find it to be -- because of it's complete abandonment of objectivity, and casual dishonesty as well as for the ideology it expounds -- I get a little tired of hearing my fellow liberals go on and on about it so da*n much.

I also find the gloating over Pres. Obama's welcome victory a bit unseemly.

But I can't get over how classic this image is:

Well, to be fair they didn't mention 'Osama re-elected'

[Jingthing]

Fox should be thrilled! Four more years to kvetch about Obama, doing what they do best ...

[KHR1010]

<deleted>. In case you didn't know, crime is a direct result of poverty and an absence of oppostunity. Give people hope and the tools to prosper and crime will resolve itself. Guess who's being arrested for looting in the storm damaged areas of NYC and NJ? Mostly non afro americans. Gosh, they didn't get your memo did they?

Crime is not caused by poverty, certainly not directly by poverty, you can see this time and time again where immigrants arrive with nothing and the wheat quickly gets sorted from the chaff due to a combination of cultural factors. Perpetuate a victim or entitlement culture and you will get the crime alright with ready made justification whenever the economic chips are down.

Well right out the gate you contradict yourself. Any immigrants arriving in the US with "Nothing" are arriving illegally, they have committed a felony upon crossing the border illegally. So they had nothing, hence living in poverty. This poverty motivated them to commit a crime by entering a country illegally. Clear cut, poverty caused the crime!

[mesquite]

I can't believe we Americans elected this guy - again! He has taken the debt from 11 to 16 trillion and seems bent on turning the US into a cradle to grave socialist state.

We risked all out nuclear war to avoid becoming like this. In two elections we have done to ourselves what the Russians could not.

I fear we have only seen Obama lite. The real Obama may well implement his true agenda, including redistribution of wealth based on race (look up his speeches on the internet). We Americans have only ourselves to blame.

The POTUS did not run up the debt. The House of Representatives controls spending Bills. The past two budgets have to be approved by the GOP controlled House. The debt problems are a result of the US having 2 wars and a House that refused to deal with the issue of taxes.

A few people like Mesquite keep harping on this I guess they missed Mitts 5 trill dollar tax cuts and 2 trillion dollar increase in defense spending. It just boils down to people have a really hard time with a black guy in charge and they use any excuse to justify it

So Mitt was president at one time?

So how do you "know" i have a hard time with a black guy in charge? Am I racist toward blacks? Asians? Am I a member of the Klan? What is my ethnicity? Is my wife whiite, black or some other color?

Keep your accusations of racism to yourself.

Edited November 7, 2012 by mesquite

[Jingthing]

Just how white was Romney's vote? Mighty white. 88 percent white.

Obama won the Latino vote, 71 to 27. He also won the Asian vote, 73 to 26. Those voters all look the same to the losers. That's why they're the losers.

http://www.slate.com...c_campaign.html

Similar news:

Republican leaders awoke Wednesday to witness their grim future. Without a makeover, a party that skews toward older, white and male voters faces political peril in an increasingly diverse and complex America.

President Obama’s decisive victory over Mitt Romney served as a clinic in 21st-century politics, reflecting expanded power for black and Hispanic voters, dominance among women, a larger share of young voters and even a rise in support among Asians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/republicans-face-murky-political-future-in-increasingly-diverse-us/2012/11/07/3b71e4f2-28e7-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html

It is my impression, this huge margin of ASIANS going democratic is a very new thing in American politics.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Jingthing

[Dancealot]

Guys, are you really happy with the Obama win? I mean to say: Everyone knows he promised to back out of Afghanistan 2 years ago but he failed to keep that promise. Everyone knows he promises more jobs and gives them but alternately brings the USA and drags along all other US economically dependant country's (greece/spain/portugal) down the rabbit hole? Inducing partial world economical decay...

Anyone?

Perhaps sir Naam...

[Dancealot]

He also made a slip when he was talking about rights for people regardless of WHERE you love. Obviously he meant WHO you love but I got a chuckle imagining the visuals on that one.

No, I think he meant that your right to marry whoever you like shouldn't depend on which state you live in. If so, it's a direct attack on state rights and there's going to be an unholy shitstorm if he tries to force Ohio or Tennessee into accepting gay marriage.

I guarantee you he did NOT mean that. It was a slip of a phrase he has spoken many times, including at the recent convention. He meant WHO you love. No question at all.

The thing you are afraid of isn't even under the power of the president and house/senate. Only a supreme court ruling or constitutional amendment could force a state to do that.

So in short: Obama doesn't mean what he says. right?

And we have your guarantee for that. right?

You have my guarantee! Most def.

[Jingthing]

There is no politician that keeps (or is able to keep) all her promises, especially on a time table.

But in Obama's case his clear CORE VALUES are much more in tune with the masses of American people compared to his plutocratic losing challenger (whose core values were slippery and mysterious at best). (We can forget his challenger's name now, because he is going away.)

Edited November 7, 2012 by Jingthing

[Dancealot]

There is no politician that keeps (or is able to keep) all her promises, especially on a time table.

But in Obama's case his clear CORE VALUES are much more in tune with the masses of American people compared to his plutocratic losing challenger (whose core values were slippery and mysterious at best). (We can forget his challenger's name now, because he is going away.)

Same core values as George Bush had? Bush was very in tune with the masses(especially the Kurds) when he and(Tony Blair) unlike Winston Churchill approved the attack on Iraq on the basis of Weapons of Mass destruction which are declassified now; There were no WMD's.

Jingthing, you do understand that it doesn' t matter if you vote on white or black, also on republican or democratic.

You do understand these terms where invented to give us the people the illusion of choice?

I am personally revolted by seeing HIS photo on the first page of this thread.

IMHO

[keemapoot]

Just how white was Romney's vote? Mighty white. 88 percent white.

Obama won the Latino vote, 71 to 27. He also won the Asian vote, 73 to 26. Those voters all look the same to the losers. That's why they're the losers.

http://www.slate.com...c_campaign.html

Similar news:

Republican leaders awoke Wednesday to witness their grim future. Without a makeover, a party that skews toward older, white and male voters faces political peril in an increasingly diverse and complex America.

President Obama’s decisive victory over Mitt Romney served as a clinic in 21st-century politics, reflecting expanded power for black and Hispanic voters, dominance among women, a larger share of young voters and even a rise in support among Asians.

http://www.washingto...553f_story.html

It is my impression, this huge margin of ASIANS going democratic is a very new thing in American politics.

Thank you for that chart. I am surprised as well at the Asian vote. This bodes extremely well, and very bad for the Republicans in the future.