Post
It isn't only that, if they don't begin courting those minority votes, they definitely won't win in 2016, because of the changing racial demographics. By then maybe Latinos will already be in the majority. Also, when most of the country is for gay rights, women's rights, rights for minorities, government assistance, solution to climate change, and immigration reform, being against it is nothing short of illogical.
Sesi1990 Sesi1990 22-25, F 12 Answers Nov 7, 2012 in Community

Your Response

Cancel

It isn't the policies that are the problem. It's explaining the benefits of the policies where the Republicans failed. <br />
65% of Americans are for smaller government. <br />
More Americans are against Obamacare than favor it. <br />
Women don't like paying $4.00 for a gallon of gas.<br />
<br />
This election was not won on the issues. It was lost by virtue of not being the dirtiest liar spreading fear.Obama successfully demonized Romney early on, and Romney did not do enough to counter the false image that was formed.

Best Answer

No, even if he had been honest, he still would have lost, because of what the Republicans stand for. They think that rape is deserved!

Best Answer

Rape is deserved. That is incredible. And frankly, it is a perfect example of how intellectually bankrupt the electorate has become in terms of knowledge of the principles of the Founding of this country, of human nature, and of the impact that Obama's policies are going to have on the long term welfare of this country.
It is impossible to have a discussion of issues any longer than the length of a sound byte.
The truth is that Democrats do more to help rapists. From being lenient regarding prison sentencing and conditions, to gun control, to poor education. But that sort of discussion is rather extensive. It requires one to go beyond one liners and apply detailed logic and facts.
America is clearly not ready for that debate.

Best Answer

What do you think saying: in the case where she wanted it is? I mean, I am paraphrasing here, but that doesn't change the fact that that's how they feel. They think there are some instances where the woman asks for it. The Republicans are the ones that want people to keep their guns. That's my point exactly! Since the electorate is lacking that knowledge, it is time time to begin catering to them.

Best Answer

You're not paraphrasing-you're buying into shallow talking points-hate speech from the left. You saying that you believe that Republicans, as part of their-our- belief system approve of rape shows that you are simply not serious about having a discussion.--------
If someone raped my daughter, I would shoot them with one of my guns.--------------------------------------------
What is wrong with people keeping their guns? It is an indisputable fact that communities where guns are restricted, law abiding citizens do not own guns, but criminals do; and the crime rate is higher than places where gun ownership is permitted.-------------------
----------Here:----------------
"The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
-------------
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
-----------------------
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
-----------------------------------
If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)----------
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.----------
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
------------------------------------
[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original) ------------------------------
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Since the electorate-sorry, but yourself included, is lacking in knowledge, it's important that they learn, not that their ignorance be catered to.

Best Answer
1 More Response

I think I hate most of my fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
Illegal immigration should be legalized, right? That's what you really mean when you say "Immigration Reform." A majority of whites support homosexual marriage, at 54% but amongst minorities the support is under 50%. Are you ignoring what the minorities think now?

Best Answer

Most people(regardless of their ethnic background) support immigration reform, and gay rights. And what do you need to win-most people's votes.

Best Answer

You can't say most people do if amongst the minorities they don't. Blacks are less likely to support gay marriage than Latinos who are less likely than whites. You blubbered about minorities, yet you're brushing them to the side when it suits your views. Hypocrisy?

Best Answer

You obviously didn't understand my response. I said most people-regardless of race. Most people support gay marriage. Also, where is your evidence in support of your claim?

Best Answer

Another one that can't read.

Best Answer

"Most people(regardless of their ethnic background) support immigration reform, and gay rights." Sorry, what did I misunderstand? Oh, right, nothing. Since November the numbers of those who accept gay marriage amongst blacks and latinos has risen, now around 50% of blacks and latinos accept gay marriage, right around the 55% of people in America who do so. That is NOT much of a majority and it's unfair to claim "most" people do indeed support gay marriage in light of that.

Best Answer
2 More Responses

That is very true, but is going to be very hard for them. The religious right has seized the party making it impossible for them to nominate a moderate candidate.

Best Answer

totally agree. Obama didn't so much as win this election as the Repubs lost it. Their party has been hijacked by a bunch of psychos and intransigent blowhards. They have alienated every demographic in one way or another. If they could prune the nut jobs from their ranks and get back to a party of fiscal conservatism, they may have a chance. But I highly doubt they could do so and retain the numbers they need to regain the WH.

Best Answer

hear me right this voting thing is a sham.they have you believing we have a choice.we don't.the United States is being taken over from within.you can't become president unless you belong to a group call the bilderburg group who been planning the demise of the U.S,Sentor Kerry was elected them it was ****** from him from bush.twice this happen.we are comtrol by santic groups these groups are the bilderburgs the iluminati and masions so my friend it matters not who you vote for these groups will have their way .pushing for this New World Order.cause when this comes into play and chips are placed in your hand you will no longer buy or sell without it.just as the bible predicted 2000 years ago.why they don't stop me from writting this cause big brother is reading this they want to start a revilution to kill off most of the population in the U.s.

Best Answer

Perhaps, we will see a new party emerge from this election giving Americans a valid option with a more moderate fiscally conservative choice without the extremism. There is a great need for same.

Best Answer

Heck, Romney changed his policies week-by-week and it didn't work for him. ;)

Best Answer

Unfortunately he did it too late, and too blatantly, so people were unable to trust him.

Best Answer

Related Questions