Choosing less bigoty candidate by Reps may cause Republican party split, and it would even more hurts the conservatives, I doubt it would happen soon.

I love this one:

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. "

Amazing how the electoral college is alternately a disaster and a blessing for some people as it serves partisans' needs. I didn't hear such complaints from Republicans as it helped Dubya into the Oval Office despite Al Gore's winning the popular vote. Not to mention that Obama won the popular vote this time around anyway.

I tend not to define people as extreme by their philosophies, but by their practicalities. From talking with you, you don't strike me as an ideologue - and that's how I define the wings.

People being philosophically attuned to conservative or liberal ideals is a good thing. It lends arguments weight and an intellectual honesty that is important in debate. That's not the same thing as being so overwrought with one's one ideals that one cannot stomach any compromise on them.

The problem is we have a Democratic party that would like to be liberal, but can't really be - so it makes half-hearted attempts that please few without ever making a strong argument about why liberal policies should work. And we have a Republican party that's begun to believe its own propaganda so blindly that it's dangerous. You don't strike me that way. Posts like this, make me think you staunchly philosophically conservative, but a practical person. That I respect, even if I disagree.

100% agree, very refreshing (from either side).

I tend to be completely in the center and play devil's advocate a lot. I was very conservative as a youth but have become much more liberal as I have aged, mainly due to certain personal issues outside of politics.

I'm a liberal. I'd like to see the damn thing abolished - it makes little sense and causes more problems than it solves in my opinion. I'm not saying there wouldn't be any negative consequences from its abolition, but our elections now come down to a paltry number of votes in a handful of swing states. People living outside of those swing states begin to feel their vote isn't important. People living in them, live in hell every election year and it's getting worse for them. The fact that it can go in opposition to the popular vote - favoring any party Democratic or Republican - is anathema to me.

I agree with you here. I think Rubio may have indicated that he wasn't willing to be Romney's running-mate behind closed doors. He is one of the guys that could make a serious run at the Presidency in 4, 8, or even 12 years. He hasn't been around that long, perhaps he wanted to keep his future options open. Same goes for Chris Christie.

It's very hard to beat an incumbent, especially with a wet blanket like Romney. The real talent knew to stay away.

I'm told most people get more conservative as they age. You buck the trend. :)

Well there was a big catalyst ;)

Splendid, bravo, wonderful: Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and people using P2P software will all cry of joy because of the Obama re-election....

P.S.Better Barack than Mitt "3rd World War" Romney anyway, imo....

Oh, I definitely agree that it's not really in keeping with democratic principles. I have a work colleague who's gone home to Carson City for a few weeks and she's been posting on Facebook how the political bombardment has been relentless and almost harassing from both sides of the political divide. Some of the photos defy belief.

My point is that the issue is almost never brought up except as an excuse for the loss of an election. No fucker is interested in the electoral college between elections. It only became a major point of contention in 2000 because Al Gore really did win the popular vote.

Donald Trump blaming the electoral college this time around is pointless at best, because even if he got what he assumedly wanted - victory by the popular vote - Obama would still have won the election.
I doubt it. The file-sharing situation under Obama isn't much better, even if he is the 'lesser evil' as it were.

Yeah most people don't care until their side loses, but I do! :) Sadly no one is proposing an amendment to get that fixed. To be fair we have more pressing matters, but still ...

I believe KingofGnG was being somewhat sarcastic :)

He was joking, that was his point. Both Obama and Romney are owned by corporations, which some people think means there is no difference between them.

They're wrong, but I understand their frustration.

What does "owned" by corporations mean anyway?

That corporations' lobbies will push whatever they want through legislation? I think. Especially laws more pro corporations less pro users/customers.

There's a reason why US customer protection laws are much much weaker than in EU