Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Election results thread

I looked into buying land there 4 years ago. The realtor I contacted was tired of Americans sending her emails wanting to move.

Cap, I afraid your observations are correct...

This is worse than '08, much worse. In 2008 he was an unknown and we were coming off 8 years of Bush and looking at a financial disaster. We had two very weak candidates at the top so a BHO win was understandable.

Now, with four years of perhaps the worst President ever, he gets re-elected against two very strong, attractive candidates. This tells me that there has been a fundamental shift in the electorate and I don't see any possibility of ever electing a true Conservative as President.

Best to arrange your affairs to cope with and prosper in a Socialist nation.

I�m going to need �reeducation camp��� I will now learn to think infanticide, gay marriage, no personal reasonability, and tools such as a firearm are � at fault �anytime said tool is used in the wrong way, a place where god can receive a no vote -and folks clap and cheer I will learn to put my hand out for a hand out�not �up�.....sorry grandpa ww2 vet, RIP

There are lots of threads here about the election results, and one part of me wants to chime in on several aspects. But, although disgusted and worried about the outcome, I am only going to comment on one thread and then move on to things I can affect for the good. In that regard, I need to own some past comments.

First - I consistently said that Obama was "toast", and for more than one reason. A big reason was that I thought that a significant majority of voting citizens had seen the light, were fed up with Obama's smart-mouth posturing and egotistical/ideological actions that are not in the best interest of this country. On that count I WAS WRONG, clearly overestimating the common sense of at least 50% of our voters. That makes me quite sad.

Another reason I say he is toast is that he is in a job that he is not equipped to perform effectively and for the good of this country, and this reason still holds. So, he is faced with four more years of dealing with his hidden agendas and his ego - a small man in a job that requires bigness and genuineness in order to do the right things for this country and its people.

If no other evidence presents itself today, the negative and malicious nature of his campaign is a good example. He did not offer solid plans and strategies for better performance and did not take responsibility for his failures. He adroitly dodged all of that and concentrated on negative attacks to undermine the persona - not the qualities or qualifications - of his opponent. Scare tactics may be a formula for election success in 2012, but it is not a formula for good leadership.

I see him as a politician not worthy of being entrusted with this great responsibility, and not capable of performing honestly and effectively for his constituents. In many ways, he is just another political hack, and will amount to toast when compared with our worthy Presidents.

I love my country and its Constitution, and want the best for it - and this is a rough day. Now, I'm going hunting.

All true. But the other tactic used was to set up straw-issues to scare people, i.e. class envy/warfare, race, abortion, contraception. This, combined with the sugar/handouts, was enough to blind people to the real issues, and his bad performance.

It very much depends on what your definition of conservative is.

I have very much disagreed (and publicly) with those party loyalists who have interpreted each election as a "mandate" for their party's respective platforms. But at this point I will step up and say that the Republican version of conservatism (as it is defined at this moment) is doomed long term against the current Democratic strategy of identity politics. Not to say it cannot win occasionally, but as a long term governing coalition it is finished.

I could draw up a platform right now that if adopted and put into practice by the Republicans would guarantee that they would dominate US elections now and into the foreseeable future. The trouble is that you have to in effect tell some of the most ardent party loyalists that the issues they hold dearest are no longer a priority for the party. You also have to work at loggerheads for the people who fund elections. They control the party and neither group will go willingly.

But it is all about numbers.

There are a hell of a lot of good, hard working men and women of all shapes and colors that share a hell of a lot of common interests with what I would call a fairly conservative outlook. At this point they are precluded from joining in with Republicans because of an outright animosity toward them. Continue to do so and yes, the Republican party is doomed to be nothing more than a regional party albeit a strong one within its region.

Will

^^ THIS! ^^

YOU VOTED FOR HIM AGAIN DIDN'T YOU, YOU PIECE OF SCHIT!

No, Les, I did not.

I will take you at your word Jeff, I rescind Piece of schit.

Well said, Will. I agree completely.

Yep

I agree with you from a logical perspective but a GOP candidate with policies that reflect a balanced approach still has to face a democratic machine that's willing to do anything to win an election. The GOP brand is tainted and has suffered immensely from the bashing by democrats.

As superficial at it may seem a GOP candidate will have to have the personality and charisma to win an election. It's basic human nature to make decisions based on how one feels more so than logic. I know it's counterintuitive to a logical thinking person but when I worked in sales I saw it time and again. The number of people that use logic to make decisions is in the minority.

Mitt didn't lose based solely on his policies and his vision for America. His likability, or lack thereof, played a big factor in his defeat.

Thanks Les. Emotions run high today.

I was "lucky" in that my state was not in play, so I could vote for the candidate who's platform most closely aligns with my personal beliefs. That was Johnson.

If Oregon had been in play I would have held my nose and voted Romney, like TRH, but I'll tell you something. That fake bastid was going to be his own flavor of disaster. He was a scary dude on several levels.

Obama is no great leader of men, and any real change requires that. And we've got a divided government, and thanks to the wisdom of the Founders, in two short years we can adjust the composition of the Congress. There's a whole lot of gridlock coming. Anything that does happen won't be by decree; it'll by necessity have to be by consensus. A further silver lining is that I seriously doubt that Obama initiates a real shooting war a la Iraq/Afganistan, whereas Romney was practically foaming at the mouth at the opportunity. That's huge right there.

In my opinion, and I am relatively naive at politics and have come to really appreciate the insights and information I glean here, but in my opinion the playing field is largely set, the game is underway, the players are in motion, the rules are written... Obama might officiate things differently, maybe, sometimes, than Romney would have but he was every bit a part of the system, same as Obama. The game would largely play out the same. Obama might be more whistle-happy as a ref... might lean more towards letting the game flow this way or that... but in essence with either man it was not in question whether the game itself, the court it was played on, the building it was in, needed a fundamental overhaul.

If you believe, as most of us here do, that the game/building/court need fundamental changes, or revisions, to be viable going forwards, it's not going to be a Dem or Repub that gets us there. It wasn't going to be Romney.

Finally, this is the third or fourth time I've said this on this thread, but as others, notably Penguin, have said.... the republican party simply must divorce itself from the social issue stuff. One gentleman above accused the Dem's of throwing up straw men on conception, abortion, etc. When you have prominent R's saying some of the things they did on those issues prior to the election, no action by the D's is required. Just sit back and let the public go, whoa... these [bleep] really are that crazy! True or not, it's the perception that the R's have an agenda that is driven by often irrational religious beliefs; they deny this but then every year, there it is, sneaking out into view like a flasher who keeps whipping his dong out. Well, the dong needs to go away. There's still a belief- why I don't know, given GWB's abject failures- that Republicans run a better economy and are more tactically correct on military matters. And, conservatism at it's core is a much more philosophically pure way of thinking than liberalism. It's just that by the time the process kicks out a Republican candidate, he's had to swing to the far religious right to appease those.... wackos.... then attempt to swing BACK to not seem crazy! That process just makes these men seem fake, and like liars, and like they have a hidden agenda just waiting to get out (like the flasher, grin).

Anyway.... I've got a pile of work on my "out for production" clipboard.... a new lathe that I'm still getting up to speed on... and a sincere hope that hard work equals success. I'm headed back out there to make some chips. I'm not happy about this election- I wouldn't have been either way- and I'm profoundly disturbed by the overall direction our presidents, R and D, have taken in my adult life. I'm sure we agree on that.

So, how long before we see gun registration and assault weapon bans?

Stupid UN observers amazed at voters not showing ID to vote but not the results of the vote.

How long before we are taxed on our mileage?

When the Democrats decide they've had enough of this whole "being in power" thing?

BHO is the turd that just wouldn't flush!!!