Real reason for Obama victory: 6.5 million fewer whites voted in 2012

[Rubystars]

One of the things that sickened me the most was that I would have voted for one of Romney's opponents that I liked better in the primary, but by the time I finally got to vote the only two candidates that hadn't dropped out of the race were Romney and Ron Paul. So I had to vote for one of them and so I ended up voting for Romney not once but twice. That was so difficult since I really don't like him at all.

[HiWarp]

Baloney.  We don't have to fool ourselves anymore with election rhetoric.  The election is over and Obamacare is being implemented in the fullest...  If you claim that what Romney did is OK because he did so for his State, then people can just as equally cry foul that it's State favoratism...  Why should Massachusetts' residents get socialized healthcare, funded by the Federals, but not the rest of the USA!?  And don't tell me that MA would have had to pay for it, there's not nearly enough industry and tax to cover such a program.  I'm completely against socialist healthcare, actually having seen it and lived in it for many years, but once again, this was a very weak argument against Obamacare by the Romney campaign and was even warned about openly in the Primary debates by the other candidates.

Really, baloney? Is it baloney that this country was founded, and actually operated for a while, as a constitutional republic? Is it baloney that the federal government is limited to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution? Where did I say the any state should solely get socialized healthcare funded by the federal government? I didn't and your assertion that there's not enough industry and taxation to fund it at the state level is nonsense. Take a look at US GDP by states and compare it to countries in the rest of the world. You will find that many states have a higher GDP than countries that provide socialized medicine to their citizens. What you really mean is states can't fund socialized healthcare and all the other things that they want without the federal government kicking in a few bucks to help them. That is not the way this country was founded and meant to function. Admittedly, this is exactly the way things have evolved today and THAT is the problem. To address the subject of this post, the reason Obama won was not because so many fewer whites voted. It is because so many people who voted embrace socialism. Pity that those same people don't understand what socialism is beyond the hope that they will get free stuff that someone else pays for.

[Debbie Shafer]

The GOP Establishment needs to take note of this...quit forcing candidates on us, let us pick our own!

[בַּחַמַל]

Really, baloney? Is it baloney that this country was founded, and actually operated for a while, as a constitutional republic? Is it baloney that the federal government is limited to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution? Where did I say the any state should solely get socialized healthcare funded by the federal government? I didn't and your assertion that there's not enough industry and taxation to fund it at the state level is nonsense. Take a look at US GDP by states and compare it to countries in the rest of the world. You will find that many states have a higher GDP than countries that provide socialized medicine to their citizens. What you really mean is states can't fund socialized healthcare and all the other things that they want without the federal government kicking in a few bucks to help them. That is not the way this country was founded and meant to function. Admittedly, this is exactly the way things have evolved today and THAT is the problem. To address the subject of this post, the reason Obama won was not because so many fewer whites voted. It is because so many people who voted embrace socialism. Pity that those same people don't understand what socialism is beyond the hope that they will get free stuff that someone else pays for.

Your idea that the desire of the Founding Fathers of America was to give as much powers as possible to the States is in error.  Alexander Hamilton, a usurer and British Agent, is the one who wrote the Federalist Papers, advocating exactly that.  George Washington was the ideological opponent of Hamilton and published the "anti-Federalist" Papers.  Washington had to call them "anti-Federalist" not because he was anti-federalism, but because he was against Hamilton's "Federalist" papers.  Washington's "anti" Federalist Papers advocated strong CENTRAL government as opposed to Hamilton.

And Washington was correct.  I support a strong Federal government.  Opposing the Federal government by advocating State independency is not as good as changing the Federal government in itself.  If this is not possible, then and only then should the States protest the Federal tyranny by secession.

[muman613]

I believe that the country was intended to have a weak central government which was granted the powers enumerated in the Constitution while granting the bulk of the responsibility on the State government. This is the model which Conservatives like myself support. The Federal government has the responsibility to protect the country and its interests, but it doesn't have the power to micro-manage the lives of the citizens. The Federal government should have no business telling me I need to have insurance. The Federal government should make sure that inter-state commerce moves smoothly...

See the original 'constitution' which is known as the 'Articles of Confederation'..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation

The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution.[1] Its drafting by the Continental Congress began in mid 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781. Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Indian relations. Nevertheless, the weak government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists. On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution.[2][3] The new Constitution provided for a much stronger national government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.

[בַּחַמַל]

I am very much aware what the Articles Of Confederation are, and you are mistaken to assume that Washington intended for a weak central government.

Read Washington's Anti-Federalist (read: PRO-Federalist) papers.  It is a series of articles he wrote for his own newspaper in which he laid out the foundation for the USA.  He most certainly advocated for strong central government, and it is easy to see why.  It follows the adage that divided we fall united we stand.  When America followed the path of Statism, it became a backwater.  When it centralized its government and currency, it became a great power.  Of course there is a great deal of risk, that a central government is susceptible to becoming a tyranny, but there's a phrase in Judaism:  "Everything is in the hands of Heaven, except for the fear of Heaven".  Even a Goy, who we are taught has some Bechira Chafshit (Free choice), has a choice (albeit limited) whether to fear G-D or not.

I don't want to offend the Noahides here - you are excepted from this statement.  Righteous Noahides are able to rise to the level of a Jew, whos soul is empowered by Kelipat Noga, as opposed to Shalosh Kilipot Ha'Tmeiot.  When the Rebbe came to America, he said he saw great potential in what was then a moral and principled people.  And most of Americans until recently also practiced circumcision (Yes, I'm aware that the Rambam classifies non-Jewish circumcision as nonparticipating in terms of the actual Mitzvah - but there is an inyan of kabalat ol in my opinion), but now they have gone and thrown everything down the toilet by electing Barrack Osamba.

[HiWarp]

Your idea that the desire of the Founding Fathers of America was to give as much powers as possible to the States is in error.  Alexander Hamilton, a usurer and British Agent, is the one who wrote the Federalist Papers, advocating exactly that.  George Washington was the ideological opponent of Hamilton and published the "anti-Federalist" Papers.  Washington had to call them "anti-Federalist" not because he was anti-federalism, but because he was against Hamilton's "Federalist" papers.  Washington's "anti" Federalist Papers advocated strong CENTRAL government as opposed to Hamilton.

And Washington was correct.  I support a strong Federal government.  Opposing the Federal government by advocating State independency is not as good as changing the Federal government in itself.  If this is not possible, then and only then should the States protest the Federal tyranny by secession.

I am not arguing whether the federal government should be strong or weak, I am arguing that it has limited enumerated powers as defined in the Constitution. Do you interpret the meaning of a strong federal government as a federal government that can grant itself powers not granted to it in the Constitution?

You site the Federalist papers but the Federalist papers are not the law of the land but merely essays. Look instead to the Bill of Rights which were included in the Constitution specifically to limit the power of the federal government and protect the states from tyranny. Again, looking at what has happened today, it's a pity that it hasn't quite worked in the way it was meant. A great deal of the fault for this lies in the judicial branch's usurpation of power that was never granted to it but equal fault must be attributed to the citizens and state politicians as well for allowing this to happen.

[בַּחַמַל]

The Bill Of Rights has nothing to do with protecting so-called States rights, it's meant to protect individual rights.

Also, my point in bringing up the Federalist Papers is to show the intention of the founding fathers for America.  The Constitution was a highly flawed document that had to be written in a relatively short amount of time and agreed on by many people with different views.  Alexander Hamilton is one example of someone they had to appease to ratify the Constitution.

The Constitution must be amended to reflect the spirit of the Washington's anti-Federalist Papers (Which once again were pro-Federalist) , and indeed, we do have a system for this, but unfortunately, it is more often than not used to go against the spirit of the Founding Fathers.

[HiWarp]

The Bill Of Rights has nothing to do with protecting so-called States rights, it's meant to protect individual rights.

Also, my point in bringing up the Federalist Papers is to show the intention of the founding fathers for America.  The Constitution was a highly flawed document that had to be written in a relatively short amount of time and agreed on by many people with different views.  Alexander Hamilton is one example of someone they had to appease to ratify the Constitution.

The Constitution must be amended to reflect the spirit of the Federalist Papers, and indeed, we do have a system for this, but unfortunately, it is more often than not used to go against the spirit of the Founding Fathers.

So, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." does not protect "so-called States rights"?

The Constitutional convention lasted 116 days and it took 2 1/2 years for the Constitution to be fully ratified so I wouldn't quite call it a highly flawed document written in a short period of time.

[בַּחַמַל]

No.  It does not.

The spirit of the Founding Fathers is more important than the Constitution.  Yes, 118 days is a very short period, considering America was battling many foreign influences at the time, and not to mention the well known "Founding Father" British Agent Alexander Hamilton, who had to be appeased during the ratification.  There are a lot of clauses in the Constitution that don't have foundation in logical law.  To take a relatively short document and to try and derive a complete set of laws for what was then considered a gargantuan country is absurd.  The Jews have 63 Tractates in the Talmud, with thousands of other books expounding on the laws in those 63 tractates alone.

[moshe44]

No, there's a HUGE difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. One was instituted at a state level and the other at a federal level. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States, a state has every right to implement "free" health care for it's citizens if that is what they want. The federal government has no right to implement this benefit nationally.

retard, there is zero difference between romneycare and obamacare.  what gives romney the right to screw over the people of massachusetts just because it is a state and not a country?  he has no right to do that.  romney is a piece of garbage communist and romneycare is the same as obamacare, both requiring an unconstitutional individual mandate forcing people to buy health insurance that they don't want.   glad romney lost, that lowlife hypocritical communist piece of [censored] [censored]

[moshe44]

I am very much aware what the Articles Of Confederation are, and you are mistaken to assume that Washington intended for a weak central government.

Read Washington's Anti-Federalist (read: PRO-Federalist) papers.  It is a series of articles he wrote for his own newspaper in which he laid out the foundation for the USA.  He most certainly advocated for strong central government, and it is easy to see why.  It follows the adage that divided we fall united we stand.  When America followed the path of Statism, it became a backwater.  When it centralized its government and currency, it became a great power.  Of course there is a great deal of risk, that a central government is susceptible to becoming a tyranny, but there's a phrase in Judaism:  "Everything is in the hands of Heaven, except for the fear of Heaven".  Even a Goy, who we are taught has some Bechira Chafshit (Free choice), has a choice (albeit limited) whether to fear G-D or not.

I don't want to offend the Noahides here - you are excepted from this statement.  Righteous Noahides are able to rise to the level of a Jew, whos soul is empowered by Kelipat Noga, as opposed to Shalosh Kilipot Ha'Tmeiot.  When the Rebbe came to America, he said he saw great potential in what was then a moral and principled people.  And most of Americans until recently also practiced circumcision (Yes, I'm aware that the Rambam classifies non-Jewish circumcision as nonparticipating in terms of the actual Mitzvah - but there is an inyan of kabalat ol in my opinion), but now they have gone and thrown everything down the toilet by electing Barrack Osamba.

the Rebbe was a despicable human being and a false messiah

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Hi Homo, Jr.

[muman613]

the Rebbe was a despicable human being and a false messiah

The Rebbe was a great man, a man who brought a lot of people back to Judaism, kept them Jewish, performed many mitzvot, and was an accomplished Torah scholar. This punk is just jealous.

We have rebuked those who claim he was Moshiach. And I hereby rebuke you for speaking Lashon Hara against a Torah Scholar.

If you do not believe he was a Talmid Chocham it can be pointed out that many Gedol HaTorah have corresponded with the Rebbe and so many of them considered him a Talmid Chocham. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not defame the Chabad organization or those who work tirelessly for the Jewish people through his organization Chabad.

[muman613]

I wonder if there is any connection between the 44 in 'moshes' name and 88...

88 is the # of the Neo-Nazis because H is the eighth letter of the alphabet and 88 stands for HH which they read as "Heil sHitler"...

44 is half of 88, and a 4 looks like a lowercase 'h' thus it also stands for Heil sHitler...

[moshe44]

The Rebbe was a great man, a man who brought a lot of people back to Judaism, kept them Jewish, performed many mitzvot, and was an accomplished Torah scholar. This punk is just jealous.

We have rebuked those who claim he was Moshiach. And I hereby rebuke you for speaking Lashon Hara against a Torah Scholar.

If you do not believe he was a Talmid Chocham it can be pointed out that many Gedol HaTorah have corresponded with the Rebbe and so many of them considered him a Talmid Chocham. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not defame the Chabad organization or those who work tirelessly for the Jewish people through his organization Chabad.

the gedolei yisroel did not consider the rebbe to be a torah scholar, and most of them rebuked him in the harshest language.  he was, as Rav Shach said, "the madman who sits in new york and drives the whole world crazy."

[muman613]

the gedolei yisroel did not consider the rebbe to be a torah scholar, and most of them rebuked him in the harshest language.  he was, as Rav Shach said, "the madman who sits in new york and drives the whole world crazy."

You are certainly the same troll who mentioned this earlier this year.

I have rebutted this argument, named the names of the Gedolei Yisroel which corresponded with the Rebbe ( I have seen books of these and the names of the Rebbes, it is enough to fill an encylopedia ). And Rav Shach is permitted his opinion, but there are more great Torah scholars who supported the Rebbes work.

Nobody (except fringe elements) suggests he was Moshiach. And his work is a testament to his greatness. Anyone who wants to argue about this must look at the mitzvot the Chabad organization is responsible for.

You are just jealous of the Chabad, admit it...

PS: I'm having Shabbat with my Chabad Rabbi... I just may repost the list of the Rabbis who supported the Chabad Rebbe after Shabbat..

Here is the great Rabbi Solevetchik and his meeting with the Rebbe..

http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/529444/jewish/The-Rebbe-and-the-Rav.htm



See also : The Gedol Rabbi Moshe Feinstein met the Chabad Rebbe and took on Chabad tefillin customs..

http://portraitofaleader.blogspot.com/2010/11/incredible-encounter-with-rabbi-moshe.html

Regarding tefillin, the black leather casing donned by Jewish men during prayer, the Torah commands (Deut. 6:8): “Bind them as a sign upon your arm and they shall be for tefillin between your eyes.” Tefillin, which contain the four Scriptural passages mentioning this mitzvah, are worn differently, according to custom and community, and the “Rashi” tefillin was the pair for a Lubavitcher boy becoming bar mitzvah. However, during a public talk in 1976, the Rebbe mentioned the importance of donning two pairs of tefillin instead of one – a practice commonly known as “tefillin d’Rabbeinu Tam.”

This practice was slowly integrated into the Lubavitcher community. But there were those outside of Lubavitcher circles who adopted the practice as well—among them Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), the most prominent scholar and authority of his day, whose Igrot Moshe, a compilation of responsa, addressed numerous legal and ethical issues. Who encouraged Rabbi Feinstein to follow the Rebbe’s directive? The following story contains fascinating details of this came about thanks to one of the Rebbe’s ardent supporters.

The Rebbe Archive presents two newly released photos of the Rebbe from 6 Tishrei 5732/ 1971, with special thanks to the Minkowitz family.

Good Shabbos
Menachem

[muman613]

Here to is the great Rabbi Auerbach talking about his meeting with the Rebbe..

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/08/chabad-rav-s-z-auerbachs-regard-for.html

There is a sefer Shemen Sasson Meichaveirecha with many quotes from gedolei Yisroel about the Rebbe, that shows the ultimate mutual respect that they had for each other, in contrast to the vicious lies that are being bandied about here. I'll post some things, and hopefully Rabbi Eidensohn will see fit to turn this imp't info. into blog posts just as he turns every small comment on a topic into one.

THE MIGHTY GAON RABBI SHLOMO ZALMAN AURBACH
From Shemen Sasson Meichaveirecha
by Rabbi Shalom Dover Ha’Levi Wolpo
Translated by Alexander Zushe Kohn

The mighty gaon Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach was born in the holy city of Yerushalayim on the holy day of Shabbos, 23 Tammuz 5670 (July 30, 1910), to his father, the gaon and kabbalist Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Yehuda Leib zatzal, and his mother the tzedeikes Tzivya, peace unto her. (Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Leib, a descendant of the holy Toldos Yaakov Yosef zatzal, was the founder and rosh yeshiva of the Kabbala yeshiva Shaar HaShamayim, and the author of Chacham Lev.)[...]

[Rubystars]

I think a weak federal government and strong state governments are better because the more local the control is the better suited it is to the local population's wants and needs.

[HiWarp]

retard, there is zero difference between romneycare and obamacare.  what gives romney the right to screw over the people of massachusetts just because it is a state and not a country?  he has no right to do that.  romney is a piece of garbage communist and romneycare is the same as obamacare, both requiring an unconstitutional individual mandate forcing people to buy health insurance that they don't want.   glad romney lost, that lowlife hypocritical communist piece of [censored] [censored]

Romney did not screw over the people of Massachusetts with Romneycare, idiot, just like Obama did not screw over the people of the United States with Obamacare. These bills were enacted by the Senate and House, at the state level in the case of Romneycare and at the federal level in the case of Obamacare. So, moron, the bills were created, voted on, and passed by legislators who the people voted for. Romney and Obama signed them into law. The difference is that there's no Constitutional basis for passing a law and mandating that everyone purchase health insurance at the federal level. Unless the state constitution of Massachusetts specifically grants the state government limited powers or specifically prohibits a mandatory health insurance law, the state of Massachusetts, or any other state, can do whatever the hell they want if the people of that state elect representatives that truly adhere to the wishes of the citizens. If they don't, it's up to the citizens to remove them from office. That's the way it's supposed to work so you should really strive towards an understanding of the process before you open up your a'hole and blow hot air out of it.

[HiWarp]

No.  It does not.

The spirit of the Founding Fathers is more important than the Constitution.  Yes, 118 days is a very short period, considering America was battling many foreign influences at the time, and not to mention the well known "Founding Father" British Agent Alexander Hamilton, who had to be appeased during the ratification.  There are a lot of clauses in the Constitution that don't have foundation in logical law.  To take a relatively short document and to try and derive a complete set of laws for what was then considered a gargantuan country is absurd.  The Jews have 63 Tractates in the Talmud, with thousands of other books expounding on the laws in those 63 tractates alone.

Whoa, wait a minute. The relatively short document that you speak of was supposed to LIMIT the power of the federal government but allow states to derive their laws. That's the point, that the federal government was supposed to be, once again, LIMITED so that it would not grow to the intrusive and gargantuan nightmare that it has become today. By the way, there were individuals at the time of the convention who predicted this happening. You speak of the spirit of the founding fathers. Do you believe that the current federal government is what the founding fathers had intended for this country?

[בַּחַמַל]

Whoa, wait a minute. The relatively short document that you speak of was supposed to LIMIT the power of the federal government but allow states to derive their laws. That's the point, that the federal government was supposed to be, once again, LIMITED so that it would not grow to the intrusive and gargantuan nightmare that it has become today. By the way, there were individuals at the time of the convention who predicted this happening. You speak of the spirit of the founding fathers. Do you believe that the current federal government is what the founding fathers had intended for this country?

Do we agree on the fact that state governments and the federal government have no rights, only privileges granted to them by the citizens?

If so, the question now is who is better suited to protect those individual rights, the State or the Federal Government?

When States had more power than the Federals, you had white enslavement in the South.  I am not in any way a proponent of Lincoln, but part of the civil war was about also freeing White Slaves, not just Negroes, and in fact, many White Slaves in the South supported the Union, not the Confederacy.  So history does not stand on the side of the idea that States are a better protection against tyranny.

Washington believed that individual rights were better protected under a strong central Federal government, and I completely agree with him.  No, obviously I don't think that what we have today in Washington is any good, but like I said, that doesn't mean that State control is a better system.  It may seem like a better prospect right now, and it may even actually be a temporary solution, but to adopt it as a de facto model for government is against the principles of the Founding Fathers, and it would transform America into a post-Colonial backwater again.

[HiWarp]

Do we agree on the fact that state governments and the federal government have no rights, only privileges granted to them by the citizens?

If so, the question now is who is better suited to protect those individual rights, the State or the Federal Government?

When States had more power than the Federals, you had white enslavement in the South.  I am not in any way a proponent of Lincoln, but part of the civil war was about also freeing White Slaves, not just Negroes, and in fact, many White Slaves in the South supported the Union, not the Confederacy.  So history does not stand on the side of the idea that States are a better protection against tyranny.

Washington believed that individual rights were better protected under a strong central Federal government, and I completely agree with him.  No, obviously I don't think that what we have today in Washington is any good, but like I said, that doesn't mean that State control is a better system.  It may seem like a better prospect right now, and it may even actually be a temporary solution, but to adopt it as a de facto model for government is against the principles of the Founding Fathers, and it would transform America into a post-Colonial backwater again.

But you miss an important point. The Constitution can be changed by the amendment process, thereby giving the federals additional powers. This is how slavery was abolished and former slaves were given rights, by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

[בַּחַמַל]

"Rights" are not granted by government.  They are granted by G-D.  Government protects people's rights.  Parents rightfully violate their children's rights when necessary.  The Bill Of Rights is a receipt (Bill also means receipt) issued by government to the citizens that have paid them to protect their rights.  The Bill states the list of rights the citizens have paid them to protect.

[HiWarp]

"Rights" are not granted by government.  They are granted by G-D.  Government protects people's rights.  Parents rightfully violate their children's rights when necessary.  The Bill Of Rights is a receipt (Bill also means receipt) issued by government to the citizens that have paid them to protect their rights.  The Bill states the list of rights the citizens have paid them to protect.

You are correct. Perhaps I should have said the amendments afforded the same G-d given rights to former slaves that were afforded to free citizens.