Obama's secret advantage- people's inability to admit a mistake

[Ravi]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

Exactly. My vote for Obama was not a mistake given that the alternative could have made Sarah Palin president.

And there is no one currently trying for the Republican nomination that would be an improvement on Obama.

And a vote that could have Biden being President is any better??




Anything at this point would be better than Obama... my only hope is the Republicans get a nominee that is closer to my stances/ideals than we have had in the past

Absolutely.

A buffoon or a hair trigger retard....the choice is pretty easy.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Obama's secret advantage?- People don't want to be crucified on the GOP's cross of GOLD

Better to die on the cross of debt. Got it!!

You Right Wingers definitely ought to understand the national debt. Hell....we used to pay our debts before Ronald Reagan and the Bushes:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)


09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Full-Auto]

Obama's secret advantage?- People don't want to be crucified on the GOP's cross of GOLD

Better to die on the cross of debt. Got it!!

You Right Wingers definitely ought to understand the national debt. Hell....we used to pay our debts before Ronald Reagan and the Bushes:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)


09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Tell us how Reagen locked up the dem congress and acted on his own.

OK

 

[Toro]

I did not know that. You're more of a commie than I ever suspected.

What is the difference between Obama and Mitten?

Romney is competent. Obama is not.

Romney understands business. Obama does not.

Romney is closer to the center. Obama is not.

I get the negatives with him. I'm leaning towards supporting Huntsman in the primary, but he will not get the nomination. So I will likely support Romney in November.

Do you vote?

Ah, you're very attentive ...

 

[Toro]

I did not know that. You're more of a commie than I ever suspected.

What is the difference between Obama and Mitten?

Romney is competent. Obama is not.

Romney understands business. Obama does not.

Romney is closer to the center. Obama is not.

I get the negatives with him. I'm leaning towards supporting Huntsman in the primary, but he will not get the nomination. So I will likely support Romney in November.

Barack Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law school.

You guys are hung up on Texas cowboys with C averages and a real "Gift Of Gab!" LMAO!!

Dude, in your fog of partisanship, you've got us bad guys mixed up.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Better to die on the cross of debt. Got it!!

You Right Wingers definitely ought to understand the national debt. Hell....we used to pay our debts before Ronald Reagan and the Bushes:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)


09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Tell us how Reagen locked up the dem congress and acted on his own.

OK

That's easy. Reagan got less than he asked for seven of the eight years he was there.

Don't you get it it's the tax cuts. Reagan and George W. Bush cut taxes by the trillions and Bill Clinton raised taxes. It's not rocket science. If you cut taxes and continue to increase spending you borrow from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. George W. Bush was the first president in our history who borrwed from Communist Chinese banks. Now they are coming back over here and buying up our lands with the interest we're paying them.

 

[JBG]

Frankly, the Ottomans had the thing under control, but the Europeans had to go in and start messing with things.

Until the Ottomans picked the wrong side in WW I that is.

There was a "right" side of World War I? World War I was probably the biggest disaster to ever hit the world. It got rid of monarchies that were slowly inching towards democracy and replaced them with Communism, Fascism, Nazism and every other bad idea of the 20th century.

Good point about WW I. I just got finished reading Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August", about the forces that led to WW I. While antebellum Europe was inching towards democratic forms, its fundamental nature as being a bunch of mini-countries, mini-cultures and mini-languages hadn't changed. This provided a fertile ground for war; as Tuchman called Europe, it was a "crossed nest of swords" (or words to that effect). The only thing that has prevented Europe from hurtling down the same path is the wet blanket of NATO (really U.S. and British) troops that remain.

And what I meant by the Ottomans picking the wrong side is they picked the loser. Sucks to be them.

I would also dispute that the holiness of Jerusalem to Muslims was merely an invention of the 20th century. I seem to remember that there were these things called "Crusades" that the Muslims fought pretty hard. Which I think shows the ultimately futility of Zionism. Took them two hundred years, but they finally pushed the Crusaders into the sea.

That does not mean that history repeats itself. In view of the importance of petroleum a Western presence in that part of the world is vital. And before you mouth the words "alternative sources of energy" the Middle East can still pump oil at a cost of about $6 per barrel. The threat of underpricing will always make alternative sources unfeasible.

And as far as Jerusalem's "holiness" the Muslim World was going to fight against being cut in half, regardless of whether Jerusalem was holy or not. Nowadays, with modern air and ocean travel such a bi-section of their world matters far less, though they may not be smart enough to realize it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I voted for McCain, but Biden would be a better president than Sarah Palin every could have hoped to be. It would be Biden's score of D minus to Palin's F minus minus.

 

[Cammmpbell]

I voted for McCain, but Biden would be a better president than Sarah Palin every could have hoped to be. It would be Biden's score of D minus to Palin's F minus minus.

Palin reminds me of Archie Bunker's wife Edith.

 

[Londoner]

The mistake for Democratic voters was in the primary. They probably should have elected the Clintons because Hill-Bill would have better equipped to play hard ball. Obama rolled over.

There was no mistake in the general election.

McCain was 100% the wrong choice.
Obama was 99.9% the wrong choice.

The only good choice would have been a candidate who stood-up to big money in politics. someone like Ron Paul.

Look at the 2003 Drug Bill, the most expensive entitlement since LBJ, passed by a Republican President and Republican Congress - and not covered by rightwing media. This bill was written by big pharma. Some of the very senators and congressman who molded it now work as drug lobbyists. There is now no distinction between congressman and lobbyists - they are interchangeable. The progression from congressman to lobbyists is now a standard progression. This is why Fannie/Freddie paid Gingrich so handsomely - because he gave them access to top Republicans. They paid Newt for access to top republicans; they paid Newt to get the Bushies and Republican congress to soften lending regulations from 2003-2007 - so they could push their cash cow, sub primes.

I love when Republicans say they hate government. They're being naive. There is no government. Government is owned by big money. Politicians are the puppets of those who fund their elections. Government is a reflex of big business. Or did you think the billions paid by Wall Street to both parties is just for fun?

[Republicans are so naive about the role of money in politics because talk radio fails to educate them]

The market winners - the blessed private sector - now staffs all levels of government, from the regulatory agencies to the congress and presidency.

Why wasn't Obama able to pass the Public Option? Because Republican senators and blue dog democrats work for health insurance monopolies (who also fund rightwing think tanks and talk radio).

People make a mistake whenever they vote for a politician who is going to uphold the Robert Supreme Court coup of placing big money at the center of politics.

 

[Ravi]

Romney is competent. Obama is not.

Romney understands business. Obama does not.

Romney is closer to the center. Obama is not.

I get the negatives with him. I'm leaning towards supporting Huntsman in the primary, but he will not get the nomination. So I will likely support Romney in November.

Do you vote?

Ah, you're very attentive ...

Nice answer.

Why is understanding business so important for the president, anyway? I never realized that understanding business was something the country was founded on.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Also enjoy the poll...

One huge advantage incumbants enjoy. If you voted for them to start with, you usually won't admit you made a mistake, even to yourself in the privacy of a voting booth. So not surprisingly, of the seven incumbants who have stood for re-election since WWII, five actually increased their vote totals.

Eisenhower- 33 million in 1952, 35 million in 1956.
Nixon- 31 million in 1968, 46 million in 1972
Reagan 44 million in 1980, 54 million in 1984
Clinton - 45 million in 1992, 47 million in 1996
Bush-43- 50 million in 2000, 62 million in 2004

For purposes of this discussion, Truman, Johnson and Ford don't count as "incumbants", because they were filling out someone else's term.

"But, Joe," you ask, "what about the two guys who got LESS votes?" Ah, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Carter got 40 million in 1976, when he barely edged out Jerry Ford's 39 million. In 1980 he got 35 million. Reagan got 5 million more than Ford, but Anderson got 6 million votes. More than likely, most of those 6 million Anderson voters came out of the folks who voted for Carter four years earlier.

Bush the Elder got 48 million in 1988, but a mere 39 million in 1992. Clinton did improve his vote total over Dukakis by 3 million votes, but the real bleeding loss was the 19 million who voted for H. Ross Perot.

In short, the presense of third party candidates enabled those people to admit they had made a mistake without forcing them to vote for the opposition party.

Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.

To read more...

President Elect

View the misery index and you will get your answer....

I voted Bush twice and I don't regret it...

Sure Bush signed a few bills I didn't agree with, the Patriot Act being the most notable....

That thing is being abused today to create a police state...

 

[Cammmpbell]

Also enjoy the poll...

One huge advantage incumbants enjoy. If you voted for them to start with, you usually won't admit you made a mistake, even to yourself in the privacy of a voting booth. So not surprisingly, of the seven incumbants who have stood for re-election since WWII, five actually increased their vote totals.

Eisenhower- 33 million in 1952, 35 million in 1956.
Nixon- 31 million in 1968, 46 million in 1972
Reagan 44 million in 1980, 54 million in 1984
Clinton - 45 million in 1992, 47 million in 1996
Bush-43- 50 million in 2000, 62 million in 2004

For purposes of this discussion, Truman, Johnson and Ford don't count as "incumbants", because they were filling out someone else's term.

"But, Joe," you ask, "what about the two guys who got LESS votes?" Ah, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Carter got 40 million in 1976, when he barely edged out Jerry Ford's 39 million. In 1980 he got 35 million. Reagan got 5 million more than Ford, but Anderson got 6 million votes. More than likely, most of those 6 million Anderson voters came out of the folks who voted for Carter four years earlier.

Bush the Elder got 48 million in 1988, but a mere 39 million in 1992. Clinton did improve his vote total over Dukakis by 3 million votes, but the real bleeding loss was the 19 million who voted for H. Ross Perot.

In short, the presense of third party candidates enabled those people to admit they had made a mistake without forcing them to vote for the opposition party.

Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.

To read more...

President Elect

View the misery index and you will get your answer....

I voted Bush twice and I don't regret it...

Sure Bush signed a few bills I didn't agree with, the Patriot Act being the most notable....

That thing is being abused today to create a police state...

Bush cut taxes for the wealthy twice....2001 and 2003. He proceeded to double the national debt.

He elected to invade a sovereign nation which had done no harm to the United States of America and lost over 4000 of our young troopers. There were also more than 32,000 seriously wounded and all these families were impacted. Bush was the dumbest, most self centered prick I've ever seen. 'Course I'm only 77.

 

[Trajan]

if I had written parody I could not have done better....

I confess I laughed out loud when Swallow said Obama is 'well liked by foreign leaders'. That is some funny shit.

As an interesting aside, yesterday I was in London and I met an American girl who lives here. We got to talking politics and she informed me that she voted for Obama in 2008. I smiled. She said 'You know that joke about voting for Obama in 08 to prove you're not racist, and not voting for him in '12 to prove you're not stupid'... 'Yea' I said 'I've heard that joke'.... 'well' she replied 'that's me'.

Like I said....the people I know who voted for the president in 2008 are all going to do it again.

do you know anyone else?

 

[Trajan]

Also enjoy the poll...

One huge advantage incumbants enjoy. If you voted for them to start with, you usually won't admit you made a mistake, even to yourself in the privacy of a voting booth. So not surprisingly, of the seven incumbants who have stood for re-election since WWII, five actually increased their vote totals.

Eisenhower- 33 million in 1952, 35 million in 1956.
Nixon- 31 million in 1968, 46 million in 1972
Reagan 44 million in 1980, 54 million in 1984
Clinton - 45 million in 1992, 47 million in 1996
Bush-43- 50 million in 2000, 62 million in 2004

For purposes of this discussion, Truman, Johnson and Ford don't count as "incumbants", because they were filling out someone else's term.

"But, Joe," you ask, "what about the two guys who got LESS votes?" Ah, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Carter got 40 million in 1976, when he barely edged out Jerry Ford's 39 million. In 1980 he got 35 million. Reagan got 5 million more than Ford, but Anderson got 6 million votes. More than likely, most of those 6 million Anderson voters came out of the folks who voted for Carter four years earlier.

Bush the Elder got 48 million in 1988, but a mere 39 million in 1992. Clinton did improve his vote total over Dukakis by 3 million votes, but the real bleeding loss was the 19 million who voted for H. Ross Perot.

In short, the presense of third party candidates enabled those people to admit they had made a mistake without forcing them to vote for the opposition party.

Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.

To read more...

President Elect

View the misery index and you will get your answer....

I voted Bush twice and I don't regret it...

Sure Bush signed a few bills I didn't agree with, the Patriot Act being the most notable....

That thing is being abused today to create a police state...

Bush cut taxes for the wealthy twice....2001 and 2003. He proceeded to double the national debt.

He elected to invade a sovereign nation which had done no harm to the United States of America and lost over 4000 of our young troopers. There were also more than 32,000 seriously wounded and all these families were impacted. Bush was the dumbest, most self centered prick I've ever seen. 'Course I'm only 77.

he cut taxes for everyone genius. ever heard of the 10% tax bracket for instance? your talking points are lame.

 

[JoeB131]

Dude, you're one of the most rabid anti-capitalists here, you are pro-union, you think business owners should be beaten if they fire workers, you're an atheist, and you're hardly a friend of Israel. You calling others a RINO is like a sectarian calling out anti-Semites. Oh wait, that's you too.

I'm probably the best friend Israel has. But unfortunately, I'm like the friend of the alcoholic who tells his friend to stop drinking because eventually, it's gonna kill them. Seriously, insisting on living next to 100 million people who want to kill you and think God's going to give them eternal virgins to bang if they die doing it. That's just fuckin' crazy, man.

Same thing with my view on Capitalism. What it's mutated into is self destructive, and the election of Obama (A guy the Democrats never would have nominated 20 years ago) should be a big wakeup call. But when the Republicans nominate an asshole who says, "I like being able to fire people" like the Weird Mormon Robot did today, they are just missing the point, aren't they.

What I've usually found in life is that human beings are largely self-destructive and don't listen to good advice when they hear it.

 

[Trajan]

"I like being able to fire people"


context?

 

[JoeB131]

"I like being able to fire people"


context?

Does it matter?

It's like Michael Jackson saying, "I love playing with children". Your mind immediately goes somewhere else.

 

[Toro]

Do you vote?

Ah, you're very attentive ...

Nice answer.

Why is understanding business so important for the president, anyway? I never realized that understanding business was something the country was founded on.

Because jobs are the most important issue. And he knows what companies require to create jobs.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Also enjoy the poll...

One huge advantage incumbants enjoy. If you voted for them to start with, you usually won't admit you made a mistake, even to yourself in the privacy of a voting booth. So not surprisingly, of the seven incumbants who have stood for re-election since WWII, five actually increased their vote totals.

Eisenhower- 33 million in 1952, 35 million in 1956.
Nixon- 31 million in 1968, 46 million in 1972
Reagan 44 million in 1980, 54 million in 1984
Clinton - 45 million in 1992, 47 million in 1996
Bush-43- 50 million in 2000, 62 million in 2004

For purposes of this discussion, Truman, Johnson and Ford don't count as "incumbants", because they were filling out someone else's term.

"But, Joe," you ask, "what about the two guys who got LESS votes?" Ah, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Carter got 40 million in 1976, when he barely edged out Jerry Ford's 39 million. In 1980 he got 35 million. Reagan got 5 million more than Ford, but Anderson got 6 million votes. More than likely, most of those 6 million Anderson voters came out of the folks who voted for Carter four years earlier.

Bush the Elder got 48 million in 1988, but a mere 39 million in 1992. Clinton did improve his vote total over Dukakis by 3 million votes, but the real bleeding loss was the 19 million who voted for H. Ross Perot.

In short, the presense of third party candidates enabled those people to admit they had made a mistake without forcing them to vote for the opposition party.

Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.

To read more...

President Elect

View the misery index and you will get your answer....

I voted Bush twice and I don't regret it...

Sure Bush signed a few bills I didn't agree with, the Patriot Act being the most notable....

That thing is being abused today to create a police state...

Bush cut taxes for the wealthy twice....2001 and 2003. He proceeded to double the national debt.

He elected to invade a sovereign nation which had done no harm to the United States of America and lost over 4000 of our young troopers. There were also more than 32,000 seriously wounded and all these families were impacted. Bush was the dumbest, most self centered prick I've ever seen. 'Course I'm only 77.

And Obama did something different???

Oh yeah, Obama SELECTIVELY gave tax cuts, doubled the national debt and did nothing but pander to minorities and unions oh and circumvent congress and appoint his communist homies to positions of power...

I don't give a shit if you're a democrat or not but if you have any respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights then you would have to realize the guy is a crazy ass tyrant that obviously ignores the document...

He may be your first black president and this may have been the your first experience with him, however being from Illinois the guy has been an total failure for over a decade - close to 15 years...

Look at his pathetic voting record at the library of congress website..

THOMAS (Library of Congress)

If one was to create a superhero out of the guy his name would be "special interest boy."