patrick.net

bgamall4 says

Ahhhh.... The resident Obama brown nose shows up right on cue with his GOP rant of the day....

I have "Call it crazy" on ignore, but seeing as how he showed up in a quote and made yet another silly comment I feel compelled to respond anyway.

At least I'm not a brown noser for the GOP and anything that would fit under the definition of ignorant and backwards.

bgamall4 says

But compared to the Republicans, we have more peace with Democrats as a general rule.

Wilson, a Democrat was president during WW1
Roosevelt, a Democrat was president during WW2
Truman, a Democrat was president during the Korean war
Johnson/Kennedy, both Democrats got us involved in the Vietnam War.

Anything done by Bush 1 & 2 since them pales in comparison.

bgamall4 says

Look at how little war we have now compared to when Republicans are in charge.

At least before we were a nation at war under the sanctions of the UN, with Congress approval and the People's support.
What do you call a rouge assassin, with remote fire power to take out a whole village with the press of a button.

Housing prices will dominate as the important issue off the upcoming elections. Seeing as how all the demtards chant in unison to make the entire country poorer via higher housing costs, I could see people voting for the shitstain gop.

zzyzzx says

bgamall4 says

But compared to the Republicans, we have more peace with Democrats as a general rule.

Wilson, a Democrat was president during WW1

Roosevelt, a Democrat was president during WW2

Truman, a Democrat was president during the Korean war

Johnson/Kennedy, both Democrats got us involved in the Vietnam War.

Anything done by Bush 1 & 2 since them pales in comparison.

On the home front, we had Ruby Ridge, David Koresh, and the OKC bombing all under a Dem president, as well as the recent Sandy hook, Dc shootings, and that nutjob at the movie theatre in Colorado.

errc says

Housing prices will dominate as the important issue off the upcoming elections. Seeing as how all the demtards chant in unison to make the entire country poorer via higher housing costs, I could see people voting for the shitstain gop.

How have the reps tried to make housing costs more affordable? I don't recall that ever happening. Seems to me that both parties want high housing prices for the simple reason that almost 2/3rds of americans own and the "think tank" has concluded that existing owners get stimulated by wealth effect and spend money when their home values are up.

Quigley says

Your vote only matters in the primaries. That's when candidates are allowed who haven't yet sold their souls to the wealthy elite. Vote for one of them next time, instead of whoever the lame stream media is touting as the "front runners."

Once these front runners are on the big ticket, you may as well vote for Mickey Mouse since neither ticket will represent you.

That is the break in Democracy right there.
The biggest problem facing our Voting system right now, is not voting fraud. It's no representation for more than 1/3 of the registered voting public.

The person you described usually appeals to the opposite parties dissillusioned base, or those who are registered as NPA, neither of which are allowed to vote in primaries for parties they are not registed for.

So the same tired ass lame groomed and properly vetted dickhead, gets the official party nod, that then all of the party-line toters all fall in line to tow to November.

Who ever sucks down the most inches on a Corn dog at the Iowa state fair is far more important than who is being denied to participate in voting in the primaries, or who else in those parties are being stonewalled, railroaded and Wide walled and reduced to off the cuff sound bytes taken out of context.

Nothing is going to change, until America ignores the Left bitching when they vote their conscious for someone who isn't an official sanctioned entry in the National Idiot contest. Or they start allowing open primaries.

Why not, you can still only vote once in the Primaries.

If you wanna waste your vote on rigging the opposition to set them up to lose against the worst possible candidate. Then that would only be something that could bite you in the ass ten fold should he win the November election.

I don't think there's any reason to not open up the primaries, but other than allow both parties tighter control of who actually gets put on the cereal box.

dublin hillz says

Seems to me that both parties want high housing prices for the simple reason that almost 2/3rds of americans own and the "think tank" has concluded that existing owners get stimulated by wealth effect and spend money when their home values are up.

I always thought it had to do with all the campaign contributions made by real estate agents.

bgamall4 says

WW1 and WW2 were defensive wars.

WW1 was not a defensive war! We went to war to defend and expand British ans French colonial expansion and to keep Eastern Europe as part of the USSR.

zzyzzx, just when I think you couldn't possible be any more of an idiot, you go and surprise me.

It was not 71% of Obama voters, it was 71% of THOSE WHO SAID THEY WOULDN'T VOTE FOR OBAMA IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD AGAIN.

Here is the question from the actual poll, not a 3rd hand source as you quoted:

4. Regret Obama vote
Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?
Asked of those who reported voting for Barack Obama in 2012 but would vote for someone else if the election were held again

So how many said they wouldn't vote for Obama if the election were held again? Only 10%.

3. Still vote for Obama
If the election was held again, would you still vote for Barack Obama?
Asked of those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012

Yes 79%
No 10%
Not sure 11%

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ge25jg66q8/tabs_OPI_romney_documentary_20140210.pdf

It didn't strike you as odd that you were claiming 100% of Hispanics regretted voting for Obama? 100%?

The stupid. It burns!

Still, given the choice of Obama versus Romney, Obama supporters said they would stick with their guy, 79 percent to 10 percent for Romney.

That 20 percent swing would be all the difference in the world.
And is the only thing standing between you and mandated Mormon underwear.

I'm not convinced the parties are really that different. I think we are meant to see them as fundamentally different, which is a divisive tactic. It's like a football game; everyone gets all riled up over THEIR team, they get in fights with strangers and even their own friends over it, some people even get hospitalized over the fights over their teams at games they paid triple digits to see. Why? Because the teams are REALLY that different? No, they are just drafted guys who could easily be drafted to the opposing team the following year. The players follow the money. When you rally for your team you get a hit of serotonin, when you rally with others that hit is greater, it's a dopamine hit. It's rally mentality, and the spin doctors use people's love of pointless rallying to get you to instill loyalty. If you really think about how odd it is that the majority of people in this country will pay hundreds to see a football game live, and will fight with their best friend over it, you will understand what strings the people in power are pulling to get the masses to react the way they need. The two political parties are not fundamentally any more different from each other than two football teams are. Essentially, we are putting tons of energy and money into something as trivial as a football game. It doesn't really matter who wins or loses. It's like how liberals are meant to believe that there is a conservative media, and conservatives are meant to believe there is a liberal media. No, there is corporate media convincing the liberals that NBC is fair, while they convince conservatives that FOX is fair. They are both filtered propaganda controlled by a limited few with the intention of distracting the American people from the truth by dividing them and instilling fear, while making them falsely believe that their "team" media is on their side. We are all coming to the political bowl and defending and cheering on our team, but in reality the two parties are outside the stadium doing their dirty work together, hand in hand, while our eyes are still fixed on the meaningless game inside.

hrhjuliet says

Why? Because the teams are REALLY that different? No, they are just drafted guys
who could easily be drafted to the opposing team the following year.

I think there are differences at lower levels of government, but once they get to the top echelons of power, many of them on both sides are 1 percenters so chances are out of "rational self interest" they will vote for policies or enforce/look other way regarding legislation that is of benefit to the interest of the 1%.

CaptainShuddup says

Still, given the choice of Obama versus Romney, Obama supporters said they would stick with their guy, 79 percent to 10 percent for Romney.

That's just stupid. Romney never became president. The "support" of his voters is based only on his campaign promises, since he never had the opportunity to break them. Believe me, if Romney had won, struck down ACA, gave tax breaks to the rich, and then said, "Oh, you can't get health insurance? Well here's a useless 'voucher'." he would be about as popular as a root canal.

Yes selecting the president process has diluted to the point that by time November rolls around. The issues are all reduced to two political parties talking points, and all thought into who will be the president is as apathetic as to who will win the next super bowl.

Most people never cared for either team playing but they'll spend hundreds on food and beer, or thousands on televisions and toys, to mark the occasion as they root for a team that they have absolutely no vested emotional interest in, other than to see the commercials, and hear Jimmy Kimal quip

Homeboy says

CaptainShuddup says

Still, given the choice of Obama versus Romney, Obama supporters said they would stick with their guy, 79 percent to 10 percent for Romney.

That was a quote from the article.

Homeboy says

That's just stupid. Romney never became president.

Exactly.

90% would vote for Romney again? So they continue to pick losers?

Homeboy says

That's just stupid. Romney never became president. The "support" of his voters is based only on his campaign promises, since he never had the opportunity to break them. Believe me, if Romney had won, struck down ACA, gave tax breaks to the rich, and then said, "Oh, you can't get health insurance? Well here's a useless 'voucher'." he would be about as popular as a root canal.

I don't think Healthcare would have been a big concern had he also kept his other promise to create jobs with adult sized wages.

Of course this is all just speculation, you know, not any different than when you guys said that Obama would be better.
But at least Romney hasn't proved it yet.

CaptainShuddup says

I don't think Healthcare would have been a big concern had he also kept his other promise to create jobs with adult sized wages.

By throwing money at the top 1%? Yeah, that works...

Most people who voted for Obama, myself included, are of the opinion that he's a bit of a disappointment. But almost EVERYONE who voted for Obama are quite sure Romney would have been worse.

Homeboy says

opinion

And you quite free to shit out of your opinion.

I don't think there's a lot of difference between the two parties now. The only reason democrats are winning is because we don't want EVEN MORE of our money thrown at the banksters, and we don't want a federal law banning abortion and gay marriage.

Oh, and we don't want our schoolkids being fed Fritos and Ding Dongs for lunch, and counting them as vegetables.

CaptainShuddup says

And you quite free to shit out of your opinion.

I'll be sure to note your disagreement with my "opinion" that Obama is a disappointment. LOL.

Homeboy says

Oh, and we don't want our schoolkids being fed Fritos and Ding Dongs for lunch

Can't have eating touching the murch.

Dealers can't be users and if they are going to be part time minimum wage purveyors of Frito and whoppers, then it's probably a good call.

zzyzzx says

55% Democrats 'regret' voting for his re-election

I call bullshit. Many Democrats and independents voted for Obama, not because they liked him, but because he was the lesser of the two evils. There is no way that 55% of Democrats now consider Romney and Ryan to be the lesser of the two evils and wish they had voted for those two numbnuts.

Furthermore, a link in the original article takes you to a article in which the site claims the #1 campaign donor is "unions".

Unions is not an organization; it is a term that applies to tens of thousands of organizations. If we're playing that game, the #1 campaign donor is "corporations" and the #2 is "people". Less than ten seconds on washingtonexaminer.com makes me conclude it's a right-wing propaganda machine.

hrhjuliet says

I'm not convinced the parties are really that different.

Their stances that they show to the public are night and day. The GOP has been using Nixon's Southern Strategy for the better part of 45 years and counting. The Democrats used to be that party. The Democrats have been fairly consistent with their message of government playing a more active role via social programs and legislation that benefits the working and middle classes. They have also favored environmental and workplace regulations

The GOP has been consistent on having limited government, minus military spending, having very little social programs and a financial agenda that favors more wealthy Americans at the disadvantage of the working and middle classes. They have also consistently disfavored environmental and workplace regulations.

The GOP at one time was the party of the educated and social elite. They did a 360 as soon as Nixon enacted the Southern Strategy. The Democrats are now ironically more akin to the old GOP.

rooemoore says

Homeboy says

That's just stupid. Romney never became president.

Exactly.

And that's a pity since we would have gotten rid of the mortgage tax deduction and other "special" bullshit deductions if Mittens had become president.

mell says

And that's a pity since we would have gotten rid of the mortgage tax
deduction and other "special" bullshit deductions if Mittens had become
president.

Check out whats happening in NC today and watch what happens in the next five years to see what the country would have been like under a Romney Presidency.

control point says

mell says

And that's a pity since we would have gotten rid of the mortgage tax

deduction and other "special" bullshit deductions if Mittens had become

president.

Check out whats happening in NC today and watch what happens in the next five years to see what the country would have been like under a Romney Presidency.

If you are referring to the duke clusterfuck, it has nothing to do with Romney, so that's irrelevant. I'm somehow confident Mittens could swing in whatever way the public opinion evolves on coal ;)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/16/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-once-said-coal-burning-plant-kil/

mell says

rooemoore says

Homeboy says

That's just stupid. Romney never became president.

Exactly.

And that's a pity since we would have gotten rid of the mortgage tax deduction and other "special" bullshit deductions if Mittens had become president.

It remains to be seen how seriously mr bain would have pursued MID removal. Also, if he were to combine it with reducing tax burden on passive income investment ballers, it would have been rightly perceived as a class warfare attack against the middle class.

Comparing the OP headline from the Moonie Examiner to the headline from those who conducted the poll, and the actual poll results, reminds me of an adage from when I studied stastics: “Some people,” said Andrew Lang, “use statistics as a drunk man uses lamp-posts—for support rather than for illumination.”

From the linked article:

After Secrets first published their poll, YouGov.com noted that the sample for the question was small and recharacterized the sample as "those who reported voting for Barack Obama in 2012 but would vote for someone else if the election were held again" from "those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012."

Still, given the choice of Obama versus Romney, Obama supporters said they would stick with their guy, 79 percent to 10 percent for Romney.

If you want to understand how small the sample was, consider the "100% of Hispanics" factoid was based on four Hispanic voters. Not four thousand, not even four hundred, just plain four! The poll was reportedly commissioned to see if Romney should try again in 2016, and the answer was basically no.

dublin hillz says

It remains to be seen how seriously mr bain would have pursued MID removal. Also, if he were to combine it with reducing tax burden on passive income investment ballers, it would have been rightly perceived as a class warfare attack against the middle class.

True, it's not unusual that they don't keep their promises, but you have to look whatever they are proposing, that's better than nothing. Regarding the capital gains tax, I don't think he would have lowered it, but probably kept it where it was before Obama increased it. I can see both sides of the arguments on the capital gains tax, but as long as special deductions remain, I am categorically against tax hikes. I'm sure people would like to have a car interest deduction (even if they don't use it for business), after all it's more useful than a house, you can sleep in it AND go from A to B. Or how about a brokerage interest deduction so that people can fire up their trading and get leveraged to the hilt like with their house?

zzyzzx says

“Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”

Overall, 71 percent said yes, 26 percent no.

That's cause the other monkey isn't around anymore.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, a link in the original article takes you to a article in which the site claims the #1 campaign donor is "unions".

Unions is not an organization; it is a term that applies to tens of thousands of organizations. If we're playing that game, the #1 campaign donor is "corporations" and the #2 is "people". Less than ten seconds on washingtonexaminer.com makes me conclude it's a right-wing propaganda machine.

Love how you have to twist yourself in knots to downplay the fact that Democrats are the biggest recipients of outside money in our politics.

What is even more corrupt is that much of that union money going straight to Democrats is our TAX DOLLARS from government workers!

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Last time I checked, unions weren't even in the top 100 campaign donors in Washington.

Dan8267 says

I call bullshit.

Article already debunked.

http://patrick.net/?p=1238546&c=1053808#comment-1053808

Heraclitusstudent says

zzyzzx says

“Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”

Overall, 71 percent said yes, 26 percent no.

That's cause the other monkey isn't around anymore.

No, it's because the statement is untrue. Already debunked:

http://patrick.net/?p=1238546&c=1053808#comment-1053808

I looked at http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Unions are the top 7 to 14 for donors, and I include the American Federation of Teachers.

Also city and county workers are at #2.

I don't see George Soros on list but I suspect he gives to a lot of the top 10 groups like Act Blue.

Koch Brother are not even in the top 25 !

zzyzzx says

80 percent of whites said yes, 61 percent of blacks said no and 100 percent of Hispanics said yes.

This is very twisted reporting, especially when they reversed the yes response for blacks to a no response?

If reported with clarity, Obama's approval rating today would read as follows:

0% for Hispanics, 20% for Whites and 39% for Blacks.

That jells with his overall approval rating of 29% nationwide.

Nothing surprising here, except for the 0% among Hispanics, if that can be validated?

socal2 says

Love how you have to twist yourself in knots to downplay the fact that Democrats are the biggest recipients of outside money in our politics.

What is even more corrupt is that much of that union money going straight to Democrats is our TAX DOLLARS from government workers!

Don't me us laugh. You want to talk about outside money influencing politics the GOP has this down to a perfected science. The Tea Party is nothing more than a astroturf organization founded, organized, and funded by a orchestrated collection of industry and lobby groups organized under patriotic-sounding organizations, which are themselves also astroturf organizations and then pooled under the guise of this co-called "Party" and in turn used to tell the constituency that its totally real, front candidates and politicians who promote their interests, and as seen have succeeded in getting people elected to congress who in turn most recently planted the seed of shutting down the government. So don't give me that line about Democrats. Sure- the dems also accept outside contributions and its no secret that unions are contributers. But at least those unions aren't hiding behind make-believe fake astroturf movements...