patrick.net

Honest Abe says

Doctor Olson notes that Obama's territory mostly encompassed citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare." [From Independent Living.]

Wow, ha haha. So that's what our biggest metropolitan areas have become ?

Maybe soon if you get your way, but wtf Abe ?

Oh, its "Doctor" Olson. I see, that's some serious credibility right there.

What, are they giving away "phds" when you super size your meal at Burger King now ?

IT seems some bs was attributed to that guy. He might be legit.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp

If they made up all that shizzle in his name for the 2000 election, this is probably the same.

I would say I'm embarrassed for you Abe, but this is kind of what we expect from you.

This is pure piffle. You need to incorporate, of course, the fact that he won a plurality of ALL voters, and those of both large and small cities.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html

So, yeah, I guess if you exclude all densely populated areas in America--where people live, this data has some relevance.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/election_stats.htm

Wow, it's too much work to link the supposed article. Nor do a search for the alleged author and see if Snopes is in first few hits. Makes me sad DARPA spent all that money on developing the Internet protocols, when it's used by people who are not only disingenuous but also LAZY AND INEPT at it.

My first impulse was to FLAG this thread for it's idiotic and laughable content. Then I thought no, that's precisely the reason it needs to stay here. I'm bookmarking this one for future Honest Abe crossing.

Sounds like a piercing analysis. Obama won 28 states + dc + nebraska's 2nd district; McCain won 22 states and Prof. Olson can't count:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Other interesting stats:
The states Obama won comprise 72% of the US GDP and 61% of the US population. In terms of productivity, McCain won Texas and a bunch of states which contain small populations with low economic productivity.

Troll, troll, your so droll...

CL says

I guess if you exclude all densely populated areas in America--where people live, this data has some relevance.

I thought that pretty well sums up the take away - any half way intelligent person (including republicans) would get from reading Abe's post.

(aside from a possible desire to look it up to find out that all the numbers are fabricated).

@Abe. Just out of curiosity Abe, have you ever been to "the big city" ?

I have to admit--Abe outdid himself on this thread. Just when I thought his last one about gas prices rising under Obama was the dumbest thread on pat.net, he comes up with this one.

Bravo Abe. You've set the bar high. It will take something pretty ridiculous to beat this thread.

Voters vote. Empty land does not vote. But it does carry some weight in the archaic arrangement of selecting the electoral college and US Senate.

OK, apparently the quote from Independent Living is incorrect. But I still bet that a large percentage of Obama supporters are among the 50% of Americans who pay no Federal Income Tax. And the government is losing its ability to shower money on its indentured voters. Oops.

This will create a large, unhappy, dissatisfied and angry segment of society. There is evidence that tens of millions of low income government dependents, and others infected with a sense of entitlement, could be prone to crime and violence.

The simple truth is that millions of Americans who have subsisted on government handouts now have a militant expectation that society "owes" them something.

This happens because liberals discourage the concept of personal responsibility and embrace and encourage an "entitlement mentality."

Honest Abe says

This happens because liberals discourage the concept of personal responsibility and embrace and encourage an "entitlement mentality."

bullshit.

Republicans (note I don't say conservatives) discourage responsible corporate citizenship, and encourage a sense of entitlement (some would call it socialism or "corporate welfare") to corporations. Especially the military industrial complex, the energy complex, and the medical / pharmaceutical complex. Oh, and lets not forget the Banks and Wall Street.

This is where the real plundering of America's wealth is occurring, and even worse is profiteering through war. Sure we have our interests, but I would like to see the draft associated with all wars. If we are going to kill, and risk being killed, let's include everyone, so that we all think seriously about how just the war is.

Your focus on public aid, is not the problem Abe. Most of those people would prefer the dignity of having a job and making a decent living. We need to invest more in education and training. Having some minimal subsistence floor is only a problem when there is no alternative for half way decent employment.

shrekgrinch says

Not to mention that they are living in prime targets for WMD attacks. Pop a nuke in Chicago or San Francisco and you'll end up with a large percentage of the Libruhl population of this country dead as a door nail (but will still magically show up in voter rolls in Chicago, just see). Even a crude dirty bomb going off in the downtown area will bankrupt most of them as the real estate market will collapse totally in at least a 30 mile radius and business will flee. Permanently.

Lovely. I see you've really thought this through.

What about the farmers living off of subsidies? I highly doubt too many of them voted for Obama.

Quick now Jettison the contents of your desk to under your conclusion.

Honest Abe says

My guess is that a high percentage of Obama supporters are those of the nearly 50% of Americans who pay no Federal income tax.

You're forgetting all the rednecks (and or teabaggers) in red states. Many of them are in this group (I know - it's counter intuitive).

I would never advocate only the intelligent being allowed to vote, but I guarantee that if only people in the upper quartile of the IQ distribution were allowed to vote, we would never have had Reagan or GWB as President, And Obama would have taken at least 65% of the vote. Maybe over 75%.

HousingWatcher says

What about the farmers living off of subsidies? I highly doubt too many of them voted for Obama.

I love Republican Senators from midwestern states. Always reliable anti-socialist voters, until it comes to both farm subsidies and federal aid to states that drops the per capita rules and uses land area instead.

That's how Casper, WY gets more DHS grants per person than the NYPD.

Michelle Bachmann loves govt. subsidies. She's living large in a 5,200 sqaure foot house thanks to farm subsidies and her govt. backed Fannie Mae $417,000 mortage.

Yeah, HW.

Did you hear that her husband got $100k+ from Medicaid?

(CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann responded Wednesday to a report by NBC that the mental health clinic run by her husband has collected annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000, while she has criticized the program for swelling the "welfare rolls."

"Medicaid is a valuable form of insurance for many Americans and it would be discriminatory not to accept Medicaid as a form of payment," Bachmann spokeswoman Alice Stewart told CNN. "As a state-sponsored counseling service, Bachmann and Associates has a responsibility to provide Medicaid and medical assistance, regardless of a patients financial situation."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/bachmann-reponds-to-medicaid-payout-report/

shrekgrinch says

Pop a nuke in Chicago or San Francisco and you'll end up with a large percentage of the Libruhl population of this country dead as a door nail (but will still magically show up in voter rolls in Chicago, just see). Even a crude dirty bomb going off in the downtown area will bankrupt most of them as the real estate market will collapse totally in at least a 30 mile radius and business will flee.

Grinch, I'd be careful writing things like that on the internet. You never know who is reading/archiving/listening

Honest Abe says

The square miles of land by which Obama won were a mere 580,000 compared to McCains victory over 2,247,000 square miles.

And that would mean a lot in a country where land and not people vote.

Honest Abe says

The murder rate per 100,000 residents in pro-Obama areas is 13.2 In McCain areas the murder rate is a much smaller 2.1.

True, but the per capita incest rate in the McCain areas is much, much higher.

Yes, the electoral college did greatly exaggerate the Obama victory; made it look like a landslide when it was a close election. But Obama did actually win the election, unlike Bush in 2000.

Honest Abe says

My guess is that a high percentage of Obama supporters are those of the nearly 50% of Americans who pay no Federal income tax.

I pay buttloads of taxes, and although I didn't support Obama, he was the lesser of the two evils. Hopefully, democrats will field a better candidate in 2012, but I doubt it. The republican candidates are all bad except Ron Paul, who stands no chance.

Personally, I wish that Elizabeth Warren would run for president. She understood the housing bubble and the financial collapse and actually has both a brain and an ethical backbone -- something unheard of in Washington -- and she actually stands up for the common citizens rather than lobbyists. Best of all, the bankers mother-$#&@% hate her.

marcus says

I would never advocate only the intelligent being allowed to vote, but I guarantee that if only people in the upper quartile of the IQ distribution were allowed to vote, we would never have had Reagan or GWB as President, And Obama would have taken at least 65% of the vote. Maybe over 75%.

Really?
The IQ and income/assets are reasonably (though not perfectly) correlated. Do you feel ~65 - 75% of the upper income group would vote to increase their taxes to support and expand social spending for those who pay little or no taxes? While some rich folks vote like poor (a well-known phenom among the jews, most of which vote D), sure not ~70%. I didn't and wouldn't vote for O, I'm a Ph.D from top-10 US university - hope that makes into the upper quartile.

Fisk says

The IQ and income/assets are reasonably (though not perfectly) correlated.

Only until you reach the 10 percentile. A few fields populated by highly intelligent people pay over $100k/yr, but never much beyond that. Some of the most intelligent professions like astrophysicists and mathematicians not working in finance or "defense" are paid squat.

Furthermore, once you get to about the 8 percentile the correlation between intelligence and assets no longer exists. Increasingly, the correlation is between wealth and parasitic behavior.

It's worse in the top 0.5% as shown in an article posted in another thread.

Fisk says

Really?

It's my opinion. I guessed 65%. If it was university professors it would be easily 70%.

Also, remember, I'm not saying that intelligent people are wildly liberal. Many I'm sure are conservative on a number of levels, including those having to do with wars, freedom, and pragmatically addressing long term goals, and government spending.

I consider myself quite the moderate conservative, it's only compared to the far right that I can really be considered a liberal. If one is honest with themself, they know the same can be said of Obama.

Intelligent people are going to be more likely to see through a lot of the bullshit histrionics, and probably far more likely to be independents.

Relatively well off people, if they are intelligent, don't vote exclusively their short term financial interests. Also, I would take iussue with this:

Fisk says

The IQ and income/assets are reasonably (though not perfectly) correlated

If you want me to, I will go through all the types of people who are smart and yet, they don't revolve their life around making money, and yet they get by well enough. This would include most artists , writers, musicians, academics, scientists, etc.

Then there are all of the rich people with average or so intelligence. Ones who made it mostly on people skills (not that that isn't a very important form of intelligence), or due to drive and persistence, or even brute force or aggressiveness. Many of these people can be close to average. Don't forget, average isn't particularly stupid. For all I know, I am closer to average than I am to the top quartile. (I don't even believe in such measures anyway, really - there are too many types of intelligence to quantify or measure it well. In my view there is even emotional intelligence.)

Then there are all of the people who inherited their wealth. Some of these people are SUPER wealthy, and who knows how intelligent they are.

SO I would agree there is some correlation between intelligence and wealth, especially at the extremes, but I don't think it is that high.

I see "Honest" Abe still never allows truth to interfere with his flawed ideology.

Dan8267 says

I pay buttloads of taxes

this part was one of the better portions of this thread ... lol

marcus says

If you want me to, I will go through all the types of people who are smart and yet, they don't revolve their life around making money, and yet they get by well enough. This would include most artists , writers, musicians, academics, scientists, etc.

I think those people you are pointing out are able to be less than agressively earning money in their trade because there is a societal base in place to secure their survival. I am not suggesting their are not smart, or leeches, I am just suggesting that they exist as part of the fat from a productive society -- without which they do not do those trades, and if they do they do them exclusivly to survive.
Would you agree?

Bap33 says

I am just suggesting that they exist as part of the fat from a productive society

In about a hundred years, nobody will remember who was the richest CEO of 2011, or who farmed the food, or who made the most cars or owned the flashiest house. I rather expect they will still know who Einstein was, and Mozart, and Carl Sagan and many other great talents.

This humbles me from time to time, as I toil away at my ignominious support job.

I guess suggesting that they are beneficiaries of being in a semi civilized, and semi free world, where they weren't born in to slavery or indentured servitude is true.

IT also is probably true that it hasn't been that many centuries that people other than the aristocracy were free to pursue their talents. Even now, conditions have to be conducive, relative to economic family stability, parenting and quality of schools for it to happen, that is if children have such interests and potential.

As to existing off the fat of a productive society ? I don't see it that way. More accurate these days to say that a society is productive if and only if it has these. That is, the productivity comes just as as much from having these as the other way around.

I'm not a history person, but I think this symbiotic relationship can be traced back to "the age of enlightenment." Or maybe there are good examples further back, of many mainstream people being encouraged to pursue their talents. It's amazing how much good music, math, science and art came out between 1650 and 1850 or so.

But yeah, also modernity, what with all the modern conveniences, and protection, food stores, and plumbing etc certainly make putting time into these things more possible, if that's what you meant.

Vicente says

I rather expect they will still know who Einstein was, and Mozart

and the Beatles, and probably quite a few of the Jazz greats.

Intelligence is too difficult to measure. Would a genius pastry chef be able to easily fill the roll of a genius mathematician, and vice versa?

Does getting a Ph.D mean that someone is a critical thinker, and resistant to simple propaganda techniques? A Ph.D can know a lot within their field of expertise, but have huge blind spots in other areas. I have worked with Ph.Ds that were frustratingly simple minded, and displayed mediocre performance within their realm of expertise.

I would list the "intelligence" areas to be a "good" voter as:
1. Critical thinking skills
2. Ability to see through propaganda
3. Ability to understand somewhat complex issues
4. Understanding of the political system

The problem is that everyone thinks they fit in the above criteria. Many would be shocked to learn they failed their "voter test" with answers like:"yes Obama is a muslim."

Just to be clear I don't think it is a good idea to have a test in order to get the vote. Too easy to manipulate the test in order to disenfranchise target populations.

Dan8267 says

Personally, I wish that Elizabeth Warren would run for president.

Yes, Elizabeth Warren is awesome. So much so that I would fear for her safety if she were given any real power.

leoj707 says

Just to be clear I don't think it is a good idea to have a test in order to get the vote.

I don't either. I was just responding to this:

Honest Abe says

My guess is that a high percentage of Obama supporters are those of the nearly 50% of Americans who pay no Federal income tax.

...which I disagree with. Our society is complicated. There are a lot of people that buy the bs messages they are sold. I think a lot of people would be very surprised to learn the median income of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh listeners.

shrekgrinch says

I get a big kick out of how soft they are on terrorism but the ones most in danger of it.

You only wish Liberals were "soft" on terrorism. It would definitely help your overlords get their puppets in to power.

Remind me, who killed Bin Laden ?

There are smart ways of dealing with terrorism, and stupid ways (using terrorism as an excuse to line the pockets of your friends).

I'm not sure that the 4 trillion that Iraq and Afghanistan ultimately cost us was a smart way of dealing with terrorism. In fact, it almost seems like they win.

Let's see, Pros: It enriched many US businesses that have big influence with our government (esp oil, oil servicers, private military and entire military complex ( aka economic "stimulus")) IT maybe made us stronger or better positioned in the world, but mostly as the bully that certain countries better be scared of (wait - were we really "fighting" terrorism ?)

Cons: Helped destroy our economy, 4 TRILLION !! mostly unfunded wars, spent money on killing (creating future terrorists) and futile nation building, money that could have been well invested here, in things like infrastructure, education, alternative energy.

Fascinating that I remember Bush (GW) saying that he was opposed to nation building. Obama's position was also quite different than it seems now, when it comes to Afghanistan, and war in general. It makes one wonder what information they are working with, and or how it is that they change so much.

marcus says

Our society is complicated. There are a lot of people that buy the bs messages they are sold. I think a lot of people would be very surprised to learn the median income of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh listeners.

Yep, totally.

The drones of FOX "news" hate complicated, and want simple. Fear being a greater driving factor than reason.

While I think that simple elegant solutions are preferred one must first be able to understand that the system is complex, and not all solutions can be simple.

shrekgrinch says

... soft they are on terrorism but the ones most in danger of it.

Some still value freedom over security.

Can someone remind me who killed bin Laden?

Honest Abe says

ut I still bet that a large percentage of Obama supporters are among the 50% of Americans who pay no Federal Income Tax.

Maybe that's why the so-called "red states" are where disproportionate tax money goes.

Seriously, way too many statements in this thread are based on labeling and stereotyping, rather than fact and good argument.

I still bet a large percentage of the dependent class voted for Obama...how else would they keep the "gravy train" going?