You hit republicans for 133t dmg

[LostGrace]

kekekekekekejkkAKakKHJAKFHDSHFDKSHFKJDHFKDSHFDS


=p

[Jonne]

About time for you americans to get an election go the way it should

[Larry]

Yup now we get the Democrappers back in power to shit all over Americans once again.

What the fuck next?? Hillary in the White House?

[Jonne]

Yeah and the republicans were doing such a nice job...
I mean, considering that they got buttraped in the house election and the president has like 35% approval rating, they gotta be doing something right! Otherwise the people wouldn't support them... oh no wait!

[Jonne]

Now I wait for that guy from Bartz with a swastika tattooed on his left buttcheek and the 10 commandments on the right cheek to come here and explain to us all that the election result is the product of a massive conspiracy lead by the pot smoking, tree hugging liberal media.

[deg]

Yup now we get the Democrappers back in power to shit all over Americans once again.

What the fuck next?? Hillary in the White House?
I thought Hillary already had lived in the white house for 8 years =o

[Kilgore]

Don't think the Democrats won this election, per se. What happened is that the Republicans LOST this election.

And Bush has once again proved to the world that he is an idiot: he waits until the day AFTER the election to fire Rumsfeld.

HEY GEORGIE THE ELECTION IS OVER YOUR PARTY GOT THEIR ASS KICKED, THE TIME TO FIRE THE LIABILITY IS BEFORE THE ELECTION.

Poor strategy:
-------election--fire rumsfeld

Proper strategy:
---fire rumsfeld------election

I think I could teach political strategy to a chimpanzee easier than W.

[Jonne]

I think if there's two sides competing for something and the other one looses, then the other one wins

[Kilgore]

I think if there's two sides competing for something and the other one looses, then the other one wins

Technically, but not in realityau Because most voters weren't voting for the Democrats or their policies--they were voting against the policies of the other party.

To win you actually have to do something to affect the outcome. Democrats didn't.

[Jonne]

Technically, but not in realityau Because most voters weren't voting for the Democrats or their policies--they were voting against the policies of the other party.

To win you actually have to do something to affect the outcome. Democrats didn't.

The democrats policy was to be against the policies of the republicans. Hence the voters were voting for the democrats.

The whole "democrats didnt win, republicans just lost" sounds like a pretty bad way of trying to cushion the blow of loosing the election.

Basically what you're saying here is "Democrats didn't win the election because they didnt have to do anything to win. The republicans handled things so badly for the past couple years that they basically selfdestructed and all that the democrats had to do was to collect a free victory".

Now that says alot more about the republican party than it says about the democrats. Why waste resources and energy when your opponent is stupid enough to selfdestruct?

[ZeroWolf]

The democrats policy was to be against the policies of the republicans. Hence the voters were voting for the democrats.
Nah. they just made a big deal of the Republican partys' failings.

Basically what you're saying here is "Democrats didn't win the election because they didnt have to do anything to win. The republicans handled things so badly for the past couple years that they basically selfdestructed and all that the democrats had to do was to collect a free victory".

Now that says alot more about the republican party than it says about the democrats. Why waste resources and energy when your opponent is stupid enough to selfdestruct?
Exactly.

@Pappy She'll actually do a much better job than most in the past. But the country isn't ready for her.

[smileyz]

watching the republicans after the 2004 elections was like watching a train wreck in slow motion, while the train was driven by a retarded blind boy.

im glad these retards, child molesters, ethnically challenged-monkeys, lost the house AND senate.

[Fayd]

Yeah and the republicans were doing such a nice job...
I mean, considering that they got buttraped in the house election and the president has like 35% approval rating, they gotta be doing something right! Otherwise the people wouldn't support them... oh no wait!

actually he has like 45% right now. (according to exit polls from this election)

and considering circumstances, that's not too bad.

even reagan, the most popular president, only had like 60%...

[Fayd]

btw, i will say that the media plays a huge role in who gets elected by who gets favorable coverage, but more importantly how the media portrays actions. for example, spending a huge amount of time on the foley scandal when the bastard should have just been kicked out, brought up on charges, and that should have been the end of it.

if you say something enough, people will start to believe it. if you tell them it's important, they will believe you.

[Jonne]

actually he has like 45% right now. (according to exit polls from this election)

and considering circumstances, that's not too bad.

even reagan, the most popular president, only had like 60%...

Actually Clinton had about 68% approval rating when he left office.

And well dunno if Bush's approval rating spiked at the election, but for the past year it has been below 40% pretty much all the time.

Anyways, in my eyes when a president has basically constantly a higher disapproval rating than approval rating, he's doing a bad job no matter how you spin it. Then again, when I go vote I get to pick based on who I believe will do the most good for the country, not the one who will do the least harm.

[Viperkiller]

Pretty funny how all americans talk shit about Clinton fucking 1 woman when Bush fucked your whole nation!

[notcircus]

Republicans lost the election because they were acting like huge spending democrats the last few years. They lost their base and the point was made.

Those of you that would point to the war and say thats why they lost, you are wrong. Joe Lieberman who is in full support of the WOT effort, ran as an independent and won handily over his anti war democrat challenger.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the Republicans lost, they were not conservatives.

The worst part is though, what is in office now is 20x worse spenders and people that don't think Islamic etremism is a danger to the world. But conservatives will not vote AGAINST something, they only vote FOR something, they didn't believe in keep voting for Republicans that were acting like democrats so now you see the result.

When you don't really understand American politics, you should just keep quiet because you look foolish.

[notcircus]

Pretty funny how all americans talk shit about Clinton fucking 1 woman when Bush fucked your whole nation!

he sure did, non existent unemployment, record levels in the stock market, dismantling of Al Queda, Sadam soon to be hung.....he sure fucked us all right. He will fuck us now along with that newly elected democratic Congress, 15 million + illegal aliens will now have total amnisty in the United states including 2 years of not paying taxes and backpay of social security of 3 years.....hope you agree with that because thats what you get now.

Clinton wasn't vilified for having sex with Monica, he was impeached for lying under oath to the American people and the world. So even though he committed a dispicable act in the oval office, that is not the reason he was impeached.

[notcircus]

im glad these retards, child molesters, ethnically challenged-monkeys, lost the house AND senate.

You mean like William Stubbs? He was the democrat that screwed an underage boy and got a standing ovation from the other democratic house members AND kept his seat......at least when a Republican screws up they kick him out and condemn him. Get your facts before looking like a retard.

[notcircus]

Actually Clinton had about 68% approval rating when he left office.

And well dunno if Bush's approval rating spiked at the election, but for the past year it has been below 40% pretty much all the time.



Again, your lack of understanding American politics yet the ignorance you show to continue to post on it astounds me.

The reason Clinton had 68% approval rating when he left office is because he crossed the line to the center, for his legacy. Ask the extreme left leaning liberals what they thought of Clinton in his last few year of office, they hated him.

Bush will do the same thing, he will give some democrats things they want and you will see his approval rating skyrocket......

Also, since you seem to like to talk about Clinton, do you even know how Clinton got elected in the first place? I'll give you a hint....it wasn't because Americans liked his platform.

[Jonne]

Again, your lack of understanding American politics yet the ignorance you show to continue to post on it astounds me.

The reason Clinton had 68% approval rating when he left office is because he crossed the line to the center, for his legacy. Ask the extreme left leaning liberals what they thought of Clinton in his last few year of office, they hated him.

Bush will do the same thing, he will give some democrats things they want and you will see his approval rating skyrocket......

Also, since you seem to like to talk about Clinton, do you even know how Clinton got elected in the first place? I'll give you a hint....it wasn't because Americans liked his platform.


Well lets look at the approval ratings:

First Clinton:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clinton_approval_rating.JPG

Then Bush Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:George_W._Bush_public_opinion_polling.png

First term from Clinton is around 50%, starts at around 50%, drops in the beginning, lowest going close to 40%, highest at almost 60%. Second term around starts above 50%, rises up to 60%, peaks at around 70%, stays constantly above 55%, usually sailing between 60% +/- 5%. Ends up at 68%.

Bush:
Starts around 60%, drops down to 50%, then come 9/11 it peaks 90%, starts to drop down at a steady rate, gets a little boost due to the beginning of the Iraq war. After that it continues to drop down, gets steady around the election for a while around 50%, after that it plummets down to sub 40%.

Anyways, Clinton steadily had a +50% approval rating throughout his 2nd term, actually he had the average of around 60%. His approvals didn't get skyrocketed in the last year in office, they were steadily around 60% for his whole 2nd term. Yeah he had a rocky start, but he improved towards the end.
Bush on the other hand got a huge boost in the beginning due to 9/11, but dropped down to sub 40%.

Bush's peak is at around 90% when he had been in office for 1 year. Now he has been in office for 6 years and he's at about 40%.
For Clinton the numbers for the same timeperiods are from 50% up to 65%.

Anyways, you make it sound like a negative thing that Clinton "crossed the line to the center". What's so bad about the center? I mean, I don't really get that. Here in Europe the extreme left was represented by the communists, the extreme right by the facists. Neither of them are in power anymore because we realized that the extremes do not work. The answer into building a good society is somewhere in the middle.
And if Clinton did what you're saying here, went to the middle, then it's one more example of Clinton being a great president. He wanted to build the country so that it serves all of the people, not just the extreme left (or the extreme right).

If a president leaves office and has an almost 70% approval rating, and if out of 30% that disapprove him 15% are tree hugging hippies and communists and the other 15% are neo-facists and biblewaving evangelicas and the 70% of the people who approved with his action are the regular people from both sides of the party lines, I'd say that the president did a pretty fantastic job.

[ZeroWolf]

If a president leaves office and has an almost 70% approval rating, and if out of 30% that disapprove him 15% are tree hugging hippies and communists and the other 15% are neo-facists and biblewaving evangelicas and the 70% of the people who approved with his action are the regular people from both sides of the party lines, I'd say that the president did a pretty fantastic job.
Love this.

Also love reasons #10 and 8 and strangely #3...

[notcircus]

War and a Liberal media will tend to make a Republican president less popular.....examine the history on that. It's amazing Bush's was around mid 40's for this long. Do you know there are a large amount of Americans that don't even realize our economy is great right now? Wonder why that could be.

You didn't answer my question on if you know how Clinton got elected in the first place.

You don't know as much as you think about American politics.

[Jonne]

War and a Liberal media will tend to make a Republican president less popular.....examine the history on that. It's amazing Bush's was around mid 40's for this long. Do you know there are a large amount of Americans that don't even realize our economy is great right now? Wonder why that could be.

You didn't answer my question on if you know how Clinton got elected in the first place.

You don't know as much as you think about American politics.

Damn, I can see the future!
Now I wait for that guy from Bartz with a swastika tattooed on his left buttcheek and the 10 commandments on the right cheek to come here and explain to us all that the election result is the product of a massive conspiracy lead by the pot smoking, tree hugging liberal media.

If the american people are really so stupid that they can be yanked around like puppets by the media, then you got a huge problem there.

And yeah duh wars make presidents unpopular. People don't like it when their leaders send citizens to die in a war on the other side of the world based on a lie, personal profit or an idiotic cause. (good examples: 2nd Gulf War & Vietnam) However they do tend to support the presidents when the war is fought in a defensive manner or against a clear aggressor (1st & 2nd WW, and in a way the 1st Gulf War).


As for Clinton getting elected. Well the way I've understood it is that even tho the 1st Gulf War received the support from the people, it still had some unresolved issues. Then there was an economic recession which hindered Bush's re-election. Also Bush broke his "Read my lips, no more new taxes" promise. The republican party had internal turmoil and the christian right gained power which cause some of the moderates to vote for Clinton. Then in addition to all of this there was an independent candidate mixing things up.
But in the end, what does that matter? I mean, Clinton rose to power, he got re-elected and even despite a huge scandal, he held his position as one of the most popular presidents in the US history.

And considering how Bush got elected the first time, I wouldn't really start to complain about Clinton's election.

[notcircus]

Damn, I can see the future!


If the american people are really so stupid that they can be yanked around like puppets by the media, then you got a huge problem there.


Yes people are very stupid. But you can't really blame them when all they see on their news stations is death and destruction and not 1 good story. This is not a figment of my imagination, a study that was done said 77% of news stories over the last year were favorable to democrats but 17% were favorable to republicans. Keep in mind we have an excellent economy right now....so there really is no excuse.


And yeah duh wars make presidents unpopular. People don't like it when their leaders send citizens to die in a war on the other side of the world based on a lie, personal profit or an idiotic cause. (good examples: 2nd Gulf War & Vietnam) However they do tend to support the presidents when the war is fought in a defensive manner or against a clear aggressor (1st & 2nd WW, and in a way the 1st Gulf War).


Are you talking about the "lie" that our very own Liberal NY times accidentally exposed the documents that showed everyone Sadam had a WMD program? The Iraq war was not only about WMD, Bush layed out several factors before invading Iraq, WMD was the one the media blew up because it sells better than say Sadam broke the cease fire of the first gulf war by firing on our planes every day in the no fly zone......so whether you agree with war or not, it was very justified and a terrible man got what he deserved for a long time. Ask an Iraqi sometime if they want us to leave, but don't ask one of the Iranians that's blowing up our troops because of course he wants us to leave.


As for Clinton getting elected. Well the way I've understood it is that even tho the 1st Gulf War received the support from the people, it still had some unresolved issues. Then there was an economic recession which hindered Bush's re-election. Also Bush broke his "Read my lips, no more new taxes" promise. The republican party had internal turmoil and the christian right gained power which cause some of the moderates to vote for Clinton. Then in addition to all of this there was an independent candidate mixing things up.
But in the end, what does that matter? I mean, Clinton rose to power, he got re-elected and even despite a huge scandal, he held his position as one of the most popular presidents in the US history.

And considering how Bush got elected the first time, I wouldn't really start to complain about Clinton's election.

He was elected in the first place because the democratic run congress pushed Bush 41 into raising taxes which then caused conservatives to turn their back on him and vote for Independent Ross Perot splitting the Republican vote. The same thing that happened this election, conservatives turned their backs on big spending Republicans....Like I said, it's not that hard to figure out why democrats won, but it's not because people liked the democrats ideas (or lack of). Don't forget all those Democrats in Congress were voted out in 1994 as well giving republicans the majority of which they did a good job until the last 4 years or so.