Why the Republicans won and the Democrats lost.

[zzigzzag]

We rebutted whatever you wrote more than once. Here... one more time:

The voters have spoken. They're tired of your shit, and you lost.

Clear enough?

Non-responsive....again. No rebuttal whatsoever....again.

 

[zzigzzag]

Not sure what you are laughing about.
GOP won.
Democrats lost.
Period.

You confirm, once again, my most oft repeated accusation.

All pugs care about is winning elections. None of you can explain what you like about the way they govern and none of you can cite a Republican President in our lifetime who left the country in better shape than he found it. So you vote for liars....because you can relate to that.

 

[zzigzzag]

[QUOTE="Jen, post: 1205855, member: 8201"]They are still demanding that we argue our points.
We don't need to do that.
We won the election.
It's not quite time to start the next one.

What is it about "GOP WON" that they don't get?[/QUOTE]
Hahahahahahaha! That explains your handlers' perspective of you perfectly!

Just substitute "can't" for "don't have to" and you have a truth there. That would be unique for you.

 

[zzigzzag]

In other words, we (who don't vote for Democrats anyway) fooled ourselves into not voting for Democrats?

So, where were the ones that do vote for Democrats...were they fooled too? And if they were, what does that say about the intelligence of the Democrat base...that they could be so easily fooled Republican snake oil salesmen?

I really couldn't care less about your answer...all I know is the Democrats are no longer in charge...

So you won't blame Democrats when they tank the economy again....right?

 

[zzigzzag]

Not sure what you are laughing about.
GOP won.
Democrats lost.
Period.

The challenge was to explain what policies you voted for. The challenge was to Sarge. He bailed out and left you standing there holding the empty bag. This is what you consider an "answer".

"They are still demanding that we argue our points.
We don't need to do that.
We won the election."

Let me help you. You voted against Obama because you were told that all candidates were Obama after a six year campaign to get you to hate him while he cleaned up your mess. You have no idea who or what you voted for. That, obviously, is a matter of pride to automatons.

 

[fairsheet]

The challenge was to explain what policies you voted for. The challenge was to Sarge. He bailed out and left you standing there holding the empty bag. This is what you consider an "answer".

"They are still demanding that we argue our points.
We don't need to do that.
We won the election."

Let me help you. You voted against Obama because you were told that all candidates were Obama after a six year campaign to get you to hate him while he cleaned up your mess. You have no idea who or what you voted for. That, obviously, is a matter of pride to automatons.

It's odd. It's bad enough that the GOP can't* tell us what it proposes to DO, but it's now taken to shouting down anyone who even asks. There should be no question that our functioning democracy chose the GOP over the Dems in the 2014 election cycle. On the the other hand, since the GOP hasn't proposed to do a single thing, let's be honesty. The next 2 years are going to0 be about absolutely NOTHING but electing the next President Clinton!

*I say "can't", rather than "won't", for good reason.

 

[Number_58]

So you won't blame Democrats when they tank the economy again....right?

Absolutely I'll blame the Democrats when they tank the economy again...why wouldn't anyone?

 

[zzigzzag]

Absolutely I'll blame the Democrats when they tank the economy again...why wouldn't anyone?

I suppose that would be cute if I hadn't emboldened and made red your words that I responded to. That degrades it to obtuse....and unresponsive.

I guess that's the new directive if this thread is an indicator. You used to be directed to just plug your noses and vote for [Unwelcome language removed]. Now, you're required to close your eyes, too.

Such an obedient lot. You were told to see nothing but "Obama" and "not Obama" on the ballot, vote for your hatred and don't ask too many questions. "Duhhhh.....OK."

Hint: You voted for Bush again. Same agenda. That's who "not Obama" was. They failed to mention that. If that's not so, tell us about the "new direction" of the Republican party....or just parrot garish lies about who invariably tanks the economy by running the country on debt to give "relief" only to those who don't need it.

Clowns.

 

[zzigzzag]

It's odd. It's bad enough that the GOP can't* tell us what it proposes to DO, but it's now taken to shouting down anyone who even asks. There should be no question that our functioning democracy chose the GOP over the Dems in the 2014 election cycle. On the the other hand, since the GOP hasn't proposed to do a single thing, let's be honesty. The next 2 years are going to0 be about absolutely NOTHING but electing the next President Clinton!

*I say "can't", rather than "won't", for good reason.

They conceded long ago that Obama has everything going in the right direction....but too slowly to suit them. "He's making things worse" died years ago. The solution, obviously, is to turn around and put the pedal to the metal. Winger logic.

You are correct that only they could put another Clinton in the WH. Running another Bush might do the trick.

 

[Craig]

The true reason is mathematical...

Only 36.4 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the midterm general election, marking the lowest voter turnout in 72 years...

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/11/10/3590959/turnout-in-the-midterm-election-was-the-lowest-since-1942/

 

[Craig]

They conceded long ago that Obama has everything going in the right direction....but too slowly to suit them. "He's making things worse" died years ago. The solution, obviously, is to turn around and put the pedal to the metal. Winger logic.

You are correct that only they could put another Clinton in the WH. Running another Bush might do the trick.

The rumblings are a tad frightening...Is this really the best we've got?

(Reuters) - Never mind the potential for name fatigue. Former U.S. President George W. Bush likes the idea of a 2016 presidential matchup between his Republican brother Jeb Bush and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

In an interview as part of the rollout of a book he has written about his father, former President George H.W. Bush, Bush said he is urging Jeb to try to make it three Bush presidents...


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/10/us-usa-georgewbush-idUSKCN0IU1KC20141110

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Just make shit up, Sarge. Always impressive.

They told you every candidate was Obama and you all said, "Yeah! They are!"

That was the depth of what pugs had to convey to the blind lemmings and you know it.

Only anger gets cons to the polls. You got played again. Go figure.

their leader spelled it out for them:

Republicans were not elected to govern.
The Republican party was not elected to fix a broken system and to make it work.
The Republican party was not elected to compromise.
The Republican party was not elected to sit down and work together with the Democrats.
---Rush Limbaugh 11-5-14

 

[Number_58]

I suppose that would be cute if I hadn't emboldened and made red your words that I responded to. That degrades it to obtuse....and unresponsive.

I guess that's the new directive if this thread is an indicator. You used to be directed to just plug your noses and vote for [Unwelcome language removed]. Now, you're required to close your eyes, too.

Such an obedient lot. You were told to see nothing but "Obama" and "not Obama" on the ballot, vote for your hatred and don't ask too many questions. "Duhhhh.....OK."

Hint: You voted for Bush again. Same agenda. That's who "not Obama" was. They failed to mention that. If that's not so, tell us about the "new direction" of the Republican party....or just parrot garish lies about who invariably tanks the economy by running the country on debt to give "relief" only to those who don't need it.

Clowns.

I don't give two shits if you think I'm obtuse...or unresponsive. You have absolutely no idea why I vote the way I do...but, here's hint; I vote for whom I think will most allow me the freedoms that the Founders had in mind for everyone. You, on the other hand, vote for freedoms that YOU think should be available for those that YOU agree with and think they should have and don't think twice about trying to deprive people of the ones you don't agree with or think others shouldn't have. You're a self centered, self serving imp. Period.

I'm obedient to the Constitution the way the Founders intended it to be...YOU are obedient to the Constitution for how you want it to be. You accuse me of hatred, but, I have displayed no hatred on any of my posts. YOU on the other hand post hatred of anything that doesn't walk in locked step with what you think. People like you wish to label me intolerant while you refuse to be tolerant of my belief. Ergo, you are exactly what you accuse me of and YOU are the hatred you try so damn hard to decry. YOU are who YOU hate.

I didn't vote FOR Bush...I voted against totalitarianism, socialism, and a bastadisation of the Constitution. I voted against a perceived monarchial attitude.

By the way...YOUR party drove up the debt in a greater amount than Bush and the Republicans did. I criticized Bush and Republicans for doing so (many lefties...the honest ones, anyway...who were on Slate witnessed my doing so and have enough honor to admit so)...you on the other hand, wish to make excuses and be a weak apologist for Obama doing the same thing you rail about here.

Hypocrite

 

[zzigzzag]

I don't give two shits if you think I'm obtuse...or unresponsive. You have absolutely no idea why I vote the way I do...but, here's hint; I vote for whom I think will most allow me the freedoms that the Founders had in mind for everyone. You, on the other hand, vote for freedoms that YOU think should be available for those that YOU agree with and think they should have and don't think twice about trying to deprive people of the ones you don't agree with or think others shouldn't have. You're a self centered, self serving imp. Period.

I'm obedient to the Constitution the way the Founders intended it to be...YOU are obedient to the Constitution for how you want it to be. You accuse me of hatred, but, I have displayed no hatred on any of my posts. YOU on the other hand post hatred of anything that doesn't walk in locked step with what you think. People like you wish to label me intolerant while you refuse to be tolerant of my belief. Ergo, you are exactly what you accuse me of and YOU are the hatred you try so damn hard to decry. YOU are who YOU hate.

I didn't vote FOR Bush...I voted against totalitarianism, socialism, and a bastadisation of the Constitution. I voted against a perceived monarchial attitude.

By the way...YOUR party drove up the debt in a greater amount than Bush and the Republicans did. I criticized Bush and Republicans for doing so (many lefties...the honest ones, anyway...who were on Slate witnessed my doing so and have enough honor to admit so)...you on the other hand, wish to make excuses and be a weak apologist for Obama doing the same thing you rail about here.

Hypocrite

So lowering the deficit "drives up" the debt.

You'd have to be a tad smarter to be a hypocrite.

 

[Number_58]

So lowering the deficit "drives up" the debt.

You'd have to be a tad smarter to be a hypocrite.

Yes...lowering the deficit still "drives up" the debt. Need me to explain that to you, so, you can feel as stupid as that comment makes you sound?

Now, what was that about being a "tad smarter"?

 

[fairsheet]

Yes...lowering the deficit still "drives up" the debt. Need me to explain that to you, so, you can feel as stupid as that comment makes you sound?

Now, what was that about being a "tad smarter"?

I think you meant to suggest that even as we may reduce an annual deficit, the nation's overall debt MAY increase. But...to suggest that lowering the deficit necessarily "drives up" the debt, is just plain silly.

 

[Number_58]

I think you meant to suggest that even as we may reduce an annual deficit, the nation's overall debt MAY increase. But...to suggest that lowering the deficit necessarily "drives up" the debt, is just plain silly.

Not silly at all...if you are already in debt and operating in a deficit, regardless of how much you lessen the deficit, you will continue to "drive up" your debt...until you completely eliminate the deficit you're operating in. Show me how it can be otherwise...this should be interesting.

One condition...no Common Core math techniques...none of have the time to go through all of the unnecessary steps it takes to complete those equations.

 

[fairsheet]

Not silly at all...if you are already in debt and operating in a deficit, regardless of how much you lessen the deficit, you will continue to "drive up" your debt...until you completely eliminate the deficit you're operating in. Show me how it can be otherwise...this should be interesting.

One condition...no Common Core math techniques...none of have the time to go through all of the unnecessary steps it takes to complete those equations.

To me, "drive up" means that by lowering your deficit, you're CAUSING the debt to increase. The average Democrat, liberal, capitalist, and "wealth creator" would agree that in most cases, that is the case.