That’s sad when offering bailouts and unlimited money and handouts is the most appealing way to go, but that’s what the other side did. And frankly, as much as we’d like to try, none of the other candidates could have made much of a difference. Sure, you can be an aggressive debater, or be a decent person, but it’s pretty messed up when offering the free handouts is the winning strategy in America and around the world.
I think it much more than that. If we go with the narrative that it is the 47% hand-out crowd then they have perfectly framed the republicans and Romney.
I sincerely have come to see Romney as a regular Joe, too liberal and loves his father but certainly not a rich-beach type. He and his family are good people.
The democrats won over a few things. Fraud and corruption of the election is one.
Deciding a Supreme Court judge is another, they couldn’t risk a conservative there. In that, the stupid Fluke girl counted big.
Religion is another, not because Romney is Mormon but because he is a true believer—that scares the left (The Handmaidens Tale).
The homosexual agenda is another, the republican party is schizophrenic there.
Romney didn’t lose because of the takers, he lost because of the makers. The takers are little slave puppets to the democrats...Romney lost to the 1% crowd who are so much better than the rest. ahem.
The takers in 3rd world countries don’t usually win unless the makers decide that’s what they want. The 47% are usually slaves to the makers.