Haven't updated to the results of the most recent elections due to some races still being outstanding but this is what the legislative branch looked like 2 weeks ago. It kinda puts Gorfias' comment directly above mine into perspective on how his mind is currently operating.
Racial Composition of the 112th Congress (including Delegates in the House)


........US House...US Senate
White......361........96
Black.......44.........0
Hispanic....25.........2
Asian........7.........2
American
Indian.......1.........0

TheGuy(wantstobe):
Haven't updated to the results of the most recent elections due to some races still being outstanding but this is what the legislative branch looked like 2 weeks ago. It kinda puts Gorfias' comment directly above mine into perspective on how his mind is currently operating.
Racial Composition of the 112th Congress (including Delegates in the House)


........US House...US Senate
White......361........96
Black.......44.........0
Hispanic....25.........2
Asian........7.........2
American
Indian.......1.........0

But who do they work for? The majority, which is given its edge by "racial minorities" who gave the edge to those in control.

These people no longer work for the average white man. At all. Not that they should, but giving racial minorities a pass on issues of racism due to these numbers is obscene.

I stick to my opinion: being a racist is being an asshole about race. No one should do it.

maddawg IAJI:

I think my response above to guy says it all. No one group has a claim to powerlessness anymore BUT...

Gorfias:
Being a racist is being an asshole about race. That can be anyone.

Fine, can you point out in that speech where that pastor or where Obama were being "assholes about race", because I sure don't see it. I think we should all try to stop being assholes on the issue of race.

I don't expect, as an alleged white guy, to tune into the inauguration which should be about us all, and be singled out as an asshole. I think that an outrageous thing to do. I blame Obama, in part, for having this guy there. Add that to other circumstances (saying Cambridge Police acted stupidly, throwing Granny, the typical white lady, repeatedly under a bus) and the guy has problems.

Gorfias:

Knight Templar:

What the hell are you trying to say?

Your mind is trapped by the "man" who is on the same side as the AI. It's as if you took the blue pill and do not know how deep the rabbit hole goes. It's a joke, but it's kind of sad too.

Aris Khandr:
I am honestly dumbfounded at the level of casual misogyny that Gorf is spewing. And this is why the Republicans keep losing. Because women want to be treated with respect, not an afterthought.

One does not have to hate women to acknowledge a simple fact... and it is a fact. Women, statistically, put Obama back in power despite the lousy job he has done. You can love women but be angry at them for making what is arguably a stupid choice unworthy of their liberty. They have, in a way, consigned us to generations of slavery.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/11/07/womens-vote-crucial-in-election/

"Let's face it: Women voters swung the election for Barack Obama yesterday."

I'm frightened that you seem to be blotting out reality.

I don't think people are calling you sexist because of the claim that women won the election for Obama. It's more the comments along the lines of

The conservative fear is, women want government to act as a substitute husband.

This implicitly assumes that women are helpless flowers who need a man to provide for them. It is 2012 not 1950, it's not about 'breadwinners' anymore and even if it is, there's no reason that can't be the women. Marriage is an equal partnership between people who love each other, not a financial transaction.

This is why people who say we don't need feminists anymore are wrong. There are clearly still people who want to turn the clock back.

ClockworkPenguin:

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/11/07/womens-vote-crucial-in-election/

"Let's face it: Women voters swung the election for Barack Obama yesterday."

I'm frightened that you seem to be blotting out reality.

I don't think people are calling you sexist because of the claim that women won the election for Obama. It's more the comments along the lines of

The conservative fear is, women want government to act as a substitute husband.

This implicitly assumes that women are helpless flowers who need a man to provide for them.

The way I see it is that men are not worthless. Men have some value. A woman without that man of value will not have as much as a woman with a man. When Government steps in to prop up that woman without a man, they are socially disenfranchising the man. They are using the power of government to blot out the value of a man.

It is 2012 not 1950, it's not about 'breadwinners' anymore and even if it is, there's no reason that can't be the women.

I think Maureen Dowd had a point, that women seem to look down on men who make less than them. I think that is changing some. But it would be nice if changes happened without government subsidy (example, subsidized daycare, to help the man that might help care for a child seem relatively worthless.)

Marriage is an equal partnership between people who love each other, not a financial transaction.

I think mutual support is a big issue in marriage. Nice not to have government enter the relationship to make one side seem relatively worthless.

This is why people who say we don't need feminists anymore are wrong. There are clearly still people who want to turn the clock back.

Back to what? Any reasonable person can understand things change. Power Steering makes it possible for women to drive trucks. Greater automation of war makes them good warriors. Men increasingly care of kids.

That acknowledgement is a long stretch from having government programs turn you into a social handbag: nice to have around, but not needed.

Gorfias:
The way I see it is that men are not worthless. Men have some value. A woman without that man of value will not have as much as a woman with a man. When Government steps in to prop up that woman without a man, they are socially disenfranchising the man. They are using the power of government to blot out the value of a man.

Men have no value. Neither individually, nor as a concept. There is only one thing that a man could possibly add to my life that my girlfriend does not. And that is a legally recognised marriage, and all the rights associated with it. And guess what, boys? We won't need men for THAT much longer, either.

Back to what? Any reasonable person can understand things change. Power Steering makes it possible for women to drive trucks. Greater automation of war makes them good warriors. Men increasingly care of kids.

And here we see more misogyny. Women need technology to be on par with men, but aren't worth anything but "taking care of the kids". The day of your backward views of gender roles is done. There is nothing men can do that women cannot.

That acknowledgement is a long stretch from having government programs turn you into a social handbag: nice to have around, but not needed.

To be honest, you're not even a social handbag. You are, quite frankly, not that nice to have around. I cannot imagine how your wife stays with you, with all the casual disdain for her entire gender you display.

Here's where you're failing, Gorf. You're too focused on men, where the rest of us are focused on everyone. The Head Start program you hate so much isn't going to turn away a single father. It's for everyone. Aid given to anyone who needs it is not discriminatory.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act isn't stealing money from men, simply requiring that two workers be paid the same for the same work, regardless of their gender. If, to go back to your example, your job decides to lower your salary from $115 to $100 to make up the difference in raising a woman's from $85 to $100, that isn't her stealing from you. If anything, you had been stealing from her all that time. Same work, same pay. If you can't support that, it is just another example of your misogyny.

Men aren't special. They're not valuable, we don't need to cherish and protect them. The world is moving on. And if all you have to offer is an unjustly inflated paycheck, you need to reflect on your own life, not blame everyone else for taking away your pathetic contribution.

I love that big money Republicans donors are all like "I'm angry that I didn't get my money's worth when I tried to buy this election. I want a refund.", like motherfuckers want to talk about entitlements and shit, that's some entitled shit right there when you think you literally should be able to purchase the election and that you can take the election back to customer service because it didn't come out right.

Aris Khandr:

Gorfias:
The way I see it is that men are not worthless. Men have some value. A woman without that man of value will not have as much as a woman with a man. When Government steps in to prop up that woman without a man, they are socially disenfranchising the man. They are using the power of government to blot out the value of a man.

Men have no value. Neither individually, nor as a concept. There is only one thing that a man could possibly add to my life that my girlfriend does not. And that is a legally recognised marriage, and all the rights associated with it. And guess what, boys? We won't need men for THAT much longer, either.

Gorfias seems categorically incapable of believing that a woman can lead a life without a man, so I'm not sure why you're arguing against him.

The really ironic thing though is that, if men are so important to a relationship, realistically Gorfias is arguing that all relationships should be between two gay men.

I mean if Man = 1, Woman = 0, then Man * 2 is even better.

The only way that your life would be 'better' with a man instead of a woman is because other douche bags will specifically make your life harder for you. That's hardly some reason to endorse something.

Aris Khandr:

Men have no value.

OK then... there's that.

Damien Granz:

Gorfias:
The way I see it is that men are not worthless. Men have some value.

Gorfias seems categorically incapable of believing that a woman can lead a life without a man

No, I disagree with Aris Khandr. I think men have some value. Do you disagree?

I also think women just voted to have government replace EDIT (Some of ) that value with government programs. See http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

EDIT: wondering if you all are reading up on Republican publications on what they think needs to happen next. Almost seems like it should be its own thread.

Some things that seem to be proposed:

1) Become a 2nd liberal party. You aren't arguing that you are a conservative party, but that you think you can do better at liberal policies than Democrats
2) Pick and choose some liberal areas to try to take away from the Democrats, while remaining conservative in other areas. The one gaining the most traction at this time, I would write, is Amnesty and benefits for Illegal aliens. Can they outbid the Democrats on this matter to swing latino voters to the Republican Party
3) Romney just failed at delivering the Conservative Message. We need someone that can better articulate why a conservative government will improve this nation.

I have read some lambasting of Republicans from the left, but it seems more bashing than advice on what to do next. There's little advice to the Democratic party as they don't seem to need it.

Interesting one from George Will:

"Liberals have an inherent but not insuperable advantage: As enthusiasts of government, to which many of them are related as employees or clients, they are more motivated for political activity than are conservatives, who prefer private spaces. Never mind. Conservatives have a commensurate advantage: Americans still find congenial conservatism's vocabulary of skepticism about statism. And events - ongoing economic anemia; the regulatory state's metabolic urge to bully - will deepen this vocabulary's resonance."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will111012.php3#.UKOAB4bNnJY

No, I disagree with Aris Khandr. I think men have some value. Do you disagree?

I would disagree with this. Nobody has value just because they are "man" or "woman." Do you know why Society has value? Because people innovate, invent, inspire for all. Not because they are man, or because they are woman. Because they push us forward.

Inherent bias like that is what has held us back for far too long as a people. Gorfias, if nothing else gets through into your mind, let this.

nyttyn:

No, I disagree with Aris Khandr. I think men have some value. Do you disagree?

I would disagree with this. Nobody has value just because they are "man" or "woman."

Never said that. Never wrote that. I never wrote or implied that there are things ONLY men are good for either. What I wrote is, "men are not worthless. Men have some value". Do you agree or disagree with that much?

EDIT: And the reply from Aris is, "Men have no value." Aris did not write, Men have no value just because they are men. Aris wrote twice in one post, "Men have no value."

maddawg IAJI:

Gorfias:

nyttyn:

I would disagree with this. Nobody has value just because they are "man" or "woman."

Never said that. Never wrote that. I never wrote or implied that there are things ONLY men are good for either. What I wrote is, "men are not worthless. Men have some value". Do you agree or disagree with that much?

EDIT: And the reply from Aris is, "Men have no value." Aris did not write, Men have no value just because they are men. Aris wrote twice in one post, "Men have no value."

He just told you. He disagrees.

He also wrote, Nobody has value just because they are "man" or "woman." This is non responsive to my thought: "Men are not worthless. Men have some value."

No individual has value without first earning it from his peers and that person will NOT have equal value placed up on them by different people.

I didn't write about individuals. I wrote men have value. Aris wrote they do not. No qualifications.

I didn't write of equality of individuals either. There are some louses out there of either sex that make the world poorer.

I think a reasonable person would know what this means and agree or disagree with it: Men have value. Yes or no might suffice, but Aris went further and wrote, "men have no value" which, is about the most hate filled, irrational statement of which I can think off hand. Men do have value.

Men have no value.

A Scientist has value. A Mathematician has value. A Doctor has value.

A man has no value.

nyttyn:
Men have no value.

A Scientist has value. A Mathematician has value. A Doctor has value.

A man has no value.

So, socratic method:
Gorfias is a man
per nyttnn and maddawg man has no value
Gorfias has no value.

I resent that. I have value.

maddawg IAJI:

Fine, then to satisfy your need for a very simple answer, no, men do not have value.

Same at you.

Last night I did all sorts of things for my wife. Those things have value. I resent someone writing I do not have value.

A man is like a shiny rock. You can run around all day long showing it to people and claiming it is valuable, but until you give people a reason for that value, it is just a rock. You claim that "a man has value". No quantifiers, no explanation, he just does. We disagree. So it is up to you to prove that a man inherently has value.

maddawg IAJI:

Gorfias:

So, socratic method:
Gorfias is a man
per nyttnn and maddawg man has no value
Gorfias has no value.

I resent that. I have value.

But you don't

Yes I do.

Nay, Man does not have value.

Do you doubt I help my wife?

You, as a man, have no value. You have no value until you contribute back to society.

I do contribute to society. And I am a man. Therefore, I am man with value.

You can add a "because" and write an explanation, such as, he contributes to society. You can even write that valuable men are valuable for reasons outside their gender, and you'd be right. But they'd still be valuable men. I was told men have no value. Not, maleness is what gives a man his value (or not).

Aris Khandr:

You claim that "a man has value".

No, I wrote, "The way I see it is that men are not worthless. Men have some value." You replied, "Men have no value". I am a man. I have value. Your statement is wrong. And if it is wrong, much else you've written follows. You spewed a lot of hate, bile and irresponsible personal attacks over this, while being demonstrably wrong in your most basic premises. I hope you'll do a lot of thinking over this.

Gorfias:

maddawg IAJI:

Gorfias:

So, socratic method:
Gorfias is a man
per nyttnn and maddawg man has no value
Gorfias has no value.

I resent that. I have value.

But you don't

Yes I do.

Nay, Man does not have value.

Do you doubt I help my wife?

You, as a man, have no value. You have no value until you contribute back to society.

I do contribute to society. And I am a man. Therefore, I am man with value.

You can add a "because" and write an explanation, such as, he contributes to society. You can even write that valuable men are valuable for reasons outside their gender, and you'd be right. But they'd still be valuable men. I was told men have no value. Not, maleness is what gives a man his value (or not).

Aris Khandr:

You claim that "a man has value".

No, I wrote, "The way I see it is that men are not worthless. Men have some value." You replied, "Men have no value". I am a man. I have value. Your statement is wrong. And if it is wrong, much else you've written follows. You spewed a lot of hate, bile and irresponsible personal attacks over this, while being demonstrably wrong in your most basic premises. I hope you'll do a lot of thinking over this.

That's not how it works. You are a valuable person. You can be a man, and you can be valuable, but you cannot just say "Men have value." To say we have spewed hate and bile over pure logic is both rambling and inocherent. You are thinking about this the wrong way.

The fact that you are a man, I am sorry to say to your sense of machocism, means literally absolutely nothing towards how useful you are. Genetically, there will be a slight bias towards certain roles, but people have easily overcome this bias (John D'Arc, Erin DiMeglio, Legros de Rumigny). This is what we have been saying, and have been trying to say to you all this time - until you realize this, you're just going to think we're trying to attack you.

Instead of

I do contribute to society. And I am a man. Therefore, I am man with value.

Thin

I do contribute to society. Therefore, I am a person of value.

At no point should being a man or woman enter the equation.

Also,

I was told men have no value. Not, maleness is what gives a man his value (or not).

That means exactly the same thing.

Let's play a game. We'll call it The Value Game. We're going to assign number values to various aspects of our lives.

So let's say someone is a doctor. That's pretty useful. We'll give it a value of 9. Taking out the trash? Not as useful, but still something that has to be done. So a value of 1. Cooking dinner for yourself and your partner? We'll give it a 2. Reading to your kids at night? I'll say that's a 5, because instilling a love of literature at an early age leads to smarter adults later. Being a man? 0. Being a man adds absolutely nothing to that value.

Remember, Gorf, you started us down this discussion, by claiming that we are voting for you, as a man, to be less valuable. But the fact is that men had no inherent value to begin with. You're the one who feels that you're becoming useless if the government is there to "open our pickle jars". You're the one who claims to be "nice to have around, but not necessary". We simply point out that men are already unnecessary.

You've got your shiny stone, Gorf. You claim it's a diamond, we see a rock. It's up to you to sell it.

nyttyn:

I do contribute to society. And I am a man. Therefore, I am man with value.

Thin

But true. And black horses are fast. Their blackness isn't what makes them fast. But to say, "Black Horses are not fast" can be a great affront to such horses that are.

Of the two of us, you are playing a word games.

Aris Khandr:

Being a man adds absolutely nothing to that value.

See above.

Remember, Gorf, you started us down this discussion, by claiming that we are voting for you, as a man, to be less valuable. But the fact is that men had no inherent value to begin with.

Being a black has nothing to do with a horse being fast, but s/he can be a fast black horse.

You're the one who feels that you're becoming useless if the government is there to "open our pickle jars".

Less useful.

You're the one who claims to be "nice to have around, but not necessary". We simply point out that men are already unnecessary.

Wrong. Or you wouldn't need programs that are going to make men, "less useful".

So, next time a black horse tells you it is fast, do not respond, black horses are not fast. You'll be wrong.

Aris Khandr:
Let's play a game. We'll call it The Value Game. We're going to assign number values to various aspects of our lives.

So let's say someone is a doctor. That's pretty useful. We'll give it a value of 9. Taking out the trash? Not as useful, but still something that has to be done. So a value of 1. Cooking dinner for yourself and your partner? We'll give it a 2. Reading to your kids at night? I'll say that's a 5, because instilling a love of literature at an early age leads to smarter adults later. Being a man? 0. Being a man adds absolutely nothing to that value.

Remember, Gorf, you started us down this discussion, by claiming that we are voting for you, as a man, to be less valuable. But the fact is that men had no inherent value to begin with. You're the one who feels that you're becoming useless if the government is there to "open our pickle jars". You're the one who claims to be "nice to have around, but not necessary". We simply point out that men are already unnecessary.

You've got your shiny stone, Gorf. You claim it's a diamond, we see a rock. It's up to you to sell it.

Loathe though I am to leap to Gorfias's defence I believe men do have value. But only insofar as I believe all people (and strictly speaking all sapient but though so far that's just us) have an inherent value.

I must stress I don't think someone has value purely because they are 'a man'.(although I do feel 'men' as a group have value in that they are different and on average bring different skills and viewpoints to the table which is always good).

I do feel Gorfias is being very slippery, in that his language implies that 'only' men have this value the government is supposedly robbing us of.

Personally, I would much rather a women marry me because 'I was nice to have around' than because she was desperate for more economic security. But I'm funny like that.

ClockworkPenguin:

Loathe though I am to leap to Gorfias's defence I believe men do have value.

I had a teacher that once instructed us the "we hold these truths to be self evident" was untrue: a truth has meaning, unlike, say a 2 or 7, because we give it meaning because we cherish it. I am with you, all human life has value, but I understand their point. They're making a 2 or 7 kind of argument.

I must stress I don't think someone has value purely because they are 'a man'.

I agree. But we can find statistical disparities between genders regarding their priorities, politics, how they voted in the last election, etc.

(although I do feel 'men' as a group have value in that they are different and on average bring different skills and viewpoints to the table which is always good).

There are those that will argue gender has nothing to do with these differences. I agree these differences, at this time, tend to exist. They're just not biologically necessary due to sex.

I do feel Gorfias is being very slippery, in that his language implies that 'only' men have this value the government is supposedly robbing us of.

That isn't my intention. My intention is to recognize that women swung the election in Obama's favor and as a group, favor certain types of legislation men have been worried about since before the 19th Amendment passed.

Personally, I would much rather a women marry me because 'I was nice to have around' than because she was desperate for more economic security. But I'm funny like that.

A joke, but with some truth. Many women like men, and for good reason. But men should always be prepared to do their share. And our work would be easier if government stepped in and said, "hey, don't worry about that pickle jar, we'll get it!" but men will have lost a contribution they can make, and a part of their dignity. And it will likely cost a fortune.

Gorfias:

ClockworkPenguin:

Loathe though I am to leap to Gorfias's defence I believe men do have value.

I had a teacher that once instructed us the "we hold these truths to be self evident" was untrue: a truth has meaning, unlike, say a 2 or 7, because we give it meaning because we cherish it. I am with you, all human life has value, but I understand their point. They're making a 2 or 7 kind of argument.

I must stress I don't think someone has value purely because they are 'a man'.

I agree. But we can find statistical disparities between genders regarding their priorities, politics, how they voted in the last election, etc.

(although I do feel 'men' as a group have value in that they are different and on average bring different skills and viewpoints to the table which is always good).

There are those that will argue gender has nothing to do with these differences. I agree these differences, at this time, tend to exist. They're just not biologically necessary due to sex.

I do feel Gorfias is being very slippery, in that his language implies that 'only' men have this value the government is supposedly robbing us of.

That isn't my intention. My intention is to recognize that women swung the election in Obama's favor and as a group, favor certain types of legislation men have been worried about since before the 19th Amendment passed.

Personally, I would much rather a women marry me because 'I was nice to have around' than because she was desperate for more economic security. But I'm funny like that.

A joke, but with some truth. Many women like men, and for good reason. But men should always be prepared to do their share. And our work would be easier if government stepped in and said, "hey, don't worry about that pickle jar, we'll get it!" but men will have lost a contribution they can make, and a part of their dignity. And it will likely cost a fortune.

I think it depends how you see it. To use your analogy (and hopefully not stretch it to breaking point) you seem to picture a women struggling with a pickle jar, hand it to a man, only for 'The Feds' to elbow him out of the way and do it for them.

I see a couple working together to open a pickled jar, and still struggling, with 'The Feds' saying 'do you guys want a hand'.

(Let us also not forget times when no man is forthcoming to assist with the jar, or when the couple is same sex, or indeed it is a single man who is struggling).

The real problem with society is that middle income wages have barely grown in the last three decades. It used to be the boss earned about 5 times the employee average. Now its about 20 times. If people got paid fairly less people would need support.

ClockworkPenguin:

To use your analogy (and hopefully not stretch it to breaking point) you seem to picture a women struggling with a pickle jar, hand it to a man, only for 'The Feds' to elbow him out of the way and do it for them.

I see a couple working together to open a pickled jar, and still struggling, with 'The Feds' saying 'do you guys want a hand'.

(Let us also not forget times when no man is forthcoming to assist with the jar, or when the couple is same sex, or indeed it is a single man who is struggling).

The Fed doesn't "ask". The couple could be working together, trying to open the jar. Now that the Fed program exists, one partner really could say, over the objections of his/her partner, yeah, c'mon in Feds and do this!

My concern is that there will be real consequences to this: more taxes, more dependency, more government and more prisons for young, low income men.

The real problem with society is that middle income wages have barely grown in the last three decades. It used to be the boss earned about 5 times the employee average. Now its about 20 times. If people got paid fairly less people would need support.

I do think Conservatives need good answers to this. Part of it is an unnatural boost the USA got by being the only modern civilization to not have the schlitz bombed out of it. USA conservatives also blame the USA for being the world's fireman, while other Western countries turned inward social services wise.

Obamanomics appears to be Carteresque and telling people to rely on big government. Not a bad response when all Conservative Republicans can offer is more tax cuts for the rich.

In really real news, Obama said he wouldn't be doing anything about gay marriage.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-mtv-i-won-t-be-pushing-gay-marriage-second-term

Pardon me while I don't faint with amazement.

thaluikhain:
In really real news, Obama said he wouldn't be doing anything about gay marriage.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-mtv-i-won-t-be-pushing-gay-marriage-second-term

Pardon me while I don't faint with amazement.

.
I think that the maximum he did was his personal statement about gay marriage.

TheIronRuler:

thaluikhain:
In really real news, Obama said he wouldn't be doing anything about gay marriage.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-mtv-i-won-t-be-pushing-gay-marriage-second-term

Pardon me while I don't faint with amazement.

.
I think that the maximum he did was his personal statement about gay marriage.

Oh sure, but he very noticeably didn't say "but under my government, I promise to do fuck all useful" until jsut after the election.

A lot of people (for some reason) believed that his statement would lead to more.

thaluikhain:

TheIronRuler:

thaluikhain:
In really real news, Obama said he wouldn't be doing anything about gay marriage.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-mtv-i-won-t-be-pushing-gay-marriage-second-term

Pardon me while I don't faint with amazement.

.
I think that the maximum he did was his personal statement about gay marriage.

Oh sure, but he very noticeably didn't say "but under my government, I promise to do fuck all useful" until jsut after the election.

A lot of people (for some reason) believed that his statement would lead to more.

.
His statement indicated he would do exactly fuck all.

Not sure if this should be it's own thread or here, so I'll post it here and hope people pay attention:

Romney Blames Everyone Except Himself for Loss

Okay, that's probably a bit of a exaggeration, but he is pretty much blaming everyone except older white men for his loss. Apparently policies meant to bring the US in line with the basic standard of care for the rest of the world were "gifts" to specific segments of the population. Seriously.

[link]

Characterizing things like college debt forgiveness (which is laughable when the term "college debt" is pretty much unique to the US higher education system and a foreign concept to the rest of the industrialized world), the Dream Act, and basic healthcare as "gifts" speaks louder about him then anything else.

Not only did he actively campaign against many of those things, which, in his defense, do appeal to those groups, he also treated those groups as unimportant and parasitic and offered solutions to those problems that were simply untenable (you can't borrow money for education from parents who are barely making ends meet, you can't afford healthcare when you can barely afford rent, and you can't get US citizenship when every time you step into the public you risk being rounded up and deported to a country you hardly remember). I'm surprised he had no explanation for the 47% gap for Asian Americans voting in favor of Obama.

Then there's John Sununu, former governor of New Hampshire and prominent Romney surrogate, essentially race baiting every moment he got, with his characterization of the Powell endorsement being the most overt and blatant attempt to divide the electorate by race. It's like he doesn't believe non-whites listen to him...

This entire call does not speak well of a man who can't seem to take responsibility for loosing and is symptomatic of a GOP who, despite a message of "taking responsibility" and not being entitled, feels entitled to blame everyone except themselves.

GunsmithKitten:

thaluikhain:
In really real news, Obama said he wouldn't be doing anything about gay marriage.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-mtv-i-won-t-be-pushing-gay-marriage-second-term

Pardon me while I don't faint with amazement.

Care if I join you? I also need a rag to rub this into the Democrat loyalists amongst my fellow LGBT's....

Not that he needs to push it. Without being defended, DOMA is doomed when it goes before the Supreme Court. Which means that the only roadblock to federally recognised marriage will be gone. Thanks to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, that means that other states are required to recognise marriages performed elsewhere in the country. So while the states, individually, may not allow the marriages to happen, there isn't much pushing that will be required to get those rights passed nationally, anyway. Obama doesn't have to do anything, the Supreme Court will put the nail in the coffin on their own.

TheGuy(wantstobe):
Haven't updated to the results of the most recent elections due to some races still being outstanding but this is what the legislative branch looked like 2 weeks ago. It kinda puts Gorfias' comment directly above mine into perspective on how his mind is currently operating.
Racial Composition of the 112th Congress (including Delegates in the House)


........US House...US Senate
White......361........96
Black.......44.........0
Hispanic....25.........2
Asian........7.........2
American
Indian.......1.........0

Its not about race. Its about Issues. I guess some people value another person's opinion on issues more than another person.

Gergar12:
I guess some people value another person's opinion on issues more than another person.

That's politics for you. I mean, I don't care if my president is a good drinking buddy, and I don't care if our MPs like crossdressing.

What I vote for is their stance on the issues I want to see addressed in a certain way. Sure if they behave in a way that screams "arrogant, stuck up douchebag" I'm less likely to vote for them, because I'm going to be inclined ot believe they're not going to address the issues the way I'd want them to.