Only Four (4) Presidents In The Last Century Have Won 50% of The Vote Twice

[OKTexas]

Keep it up TEXX-A$$...the Democrats of your state are hard at work to turn it into a blue state. And thanks to your rhetoric, and others like you, it will be a reality sooner than we expect.

Keep them coming!

Really, tell me where I went wrong. How many of Maobamas legions have any idea of his background. All they know is he looks like them and promises to give them shit he can never deliver.

Obama looks like a Latino, an Asian, a Women and age 18-29? Because these folks voted overwhelmingly for Obama. They helped get him elected too you know.

Really, go preach your racist crap to the conservative white men who will continue making the GOP look like a bunch of fools. Keep it up... and your next President will be a Latina Lesbian. I would love it. Your head would explode.

You really don't get it do you, I could care less who the president is as long as they take their oath of office seriously and follow the Constitution, of course you've probably never bothered to read that fine document, you might want to take a few minutes and read it sometime. You might actually learn something and have an idea of what government is supposed to be doing.

 

[Meathead]

Obama took the popular vote by 2.7%. As incumbents Wilson took 3.1 and Bush 2.4 They both had catastrophic second terms as lame ducks with no mandate. While Wilson and Bush carried more of the vote in their re-election than in their first term, Obama did not. One can only imagine the four years we have coming.

"In the popular vote, Wilson's lead was larger, albeit rather narrowly. Wilson's popular vote margin of 3.1% was the smallest attained by a victorious sitting president until 2004. It was also a smaller percentage than any victorious candidate had in the Fourth Party System except for Wilson's own minority victory in 1912. Both of Wilson's popular vote percentages were the only ones which were less than 51% during the period."

Something tells me that you and your ilk are going to work overtime to make that doomsday scenario a reality.

However, Obama's going to be more successful than Clinton, mark my words.

Clinton was re-elected with a mandate because he was good at what he did. Obama even with a super majority wasn't able to get much done in his first two years. You can rail against Republican obstructionism all you want, but that is a very poor excuse. Good presidents get things done regardless.

Obama eked out the election because of some heavily biased demographics, and certainly not because of his accomplishments as POTUS. With his skills being limited to oratory, there is little reason to expect anything but a catastrophic second term - your words aside.

 

[OKTexas]

MLK would embrace with open arms, hug and weep with Obama.

How DARE you invoke MLK for your nefarious RW purposes!?!?

You really are fucking clueless aren't you. King was an honorable man, Maobama has no more a clue about honor than you appear to have of King.

 

[MarcATL]

MLK would embrace with open arms, hug and weep with Obama.

How DARE you invoke MLK for your nefarious RW purposes!?!?

You really are fucking clueless aren't you. King was an honorable man, Maobama has no more a clue about honor than you appear to have of King.

The RWers of the day were all against him. They thought he was a radical, marxism, commie, et. al. All the same things the RW of today are saying about President Obama.

You are on the wrong side of history too.

40 years from now some RW turd just like you will be saying some nonsense praising Obama when comparing him to a similar LWer in the future.

Get outta heah!!!

 

[OKTexas]

MLK would embrace with open arms, hug and weep with Obama.

How DARE you invoke MLK for your nefarious RW purposes!?!?

You really are fucking clueless aren't you. King was an honorable man, Maobama has no more a clue about honor than you appear to have of King.

The RWers of the day were all against him. They thought he was a radical, marxism, commie, et. al. All the same things the RW of today are saying about President Obama.

You are on the wrong side of history too.

40 years from now some RW turd just like you will be saying some nonsense praising Obama when comparing him to a similar LWer in the future.

Get outta heah!!!

Are you saying I'm wrong about King, he wasn't an honorable man, I'm old enought to have been around then, and if your beleiving the crap Jackson and Sharpton spewing about the King movement then I pitty you for your gullability. It was the democrats that were trashing King, you might want to take a look at the real history of the civil rights movement. Republicans got Johnson's legislation passed over democrat oppostition.

 

[Sallow]

Funny, I thought this thread was about your dear leader Maobama.

Yeah, it's about how MAXIMUMLY SUCCESSFUL he is...don't come to me w/no BS RW nonsense.

Obama's a born winner. Period. End-of-story.

Yep, he's such a freaking winner you can't even come up with a decent arguement to defend his slimey gutter rat commie ass, Martin Luther King Jr. would spiit in his face. King and Maobama have nothing in common and if you had one micron of intellectual honesty you would admit it. King never took the attitude of victory at any cost, he won because he was right, not because he was popular or deceived people.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Sallow]

You really are fucking clueless aren't you. King was an honorable man, Maobama has no more a clue about honor than you appear to have of King.

The RWers of the day were all against him. They thought he was a radical, marxism, commie, et. al. All the same things the RW of today are saying about President Obama.

You are on the wrong side of history too.

40 years from now some RW turd just like you will be saying some nonsense praising Obama when comparing him to a similar LWer in the future.

Get outta heah!!!

Are you saying I'm wrong about King, he wasn't an honorable man, I'm old enought to have been around then, and if your beleiving the crap Jackson and Sharpton spewing about the King movement then I pitty you for your gullability. It was the democrats that were trashing King, you might want to take a look at the real history of the civil rights movement. Republicans got Johnson's legislation passed over democrat oppostition.

Again..you don't know what you are talking about.

Changing history or removing context doesn't making your bull any more true.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, it's about how MAXIMUMLY SUCCESSFUL he is...don't come to me w/no BS RW nonsense.

Obama's a born winner. Period. End-of-story.

Yep, he's such a freaking winner you can't even come up with a decent arguement to defend his slimey gutter rat commie ass, Martin Luther King Jr. would spiit in his face. King and Maobama have nothing in common and if you had one micron of intellectual honesty you would admit it. King never took the attitude of victory at any cost, he won because he was right, not because he was popular or deceived people.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Come on, you can do better than that, tell me where I got it wrong. Or have I over estimated you?

 

[Sallow]

Yep, he's such a freaking winner you can't even come up with a decent arguement to defend his slimey gutter rat commie ass, Martin Luther King Jr. would spiit in his face. King and Maobama have nothing in common and if you had one micron of intellectual honesty you would admit it. King never took the attitude of victory at any cost, he won because he was right, not because he was popular or deceived people.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Come on, you can do better than that, tell me where I got it wrong. Or have I over estimated you?

First off, King would be extremely happy with the Obama win. King was also very into community activism and advocated for reparations. The "Democrats" you referenced, that slammed his character, were "Dixiecrats" and made a beeline for the Republican party once civil rights legislation was passed.

King isn't this "conservative" figurehead you folks are morphing him into.

 

[OKTexas]

The RWers of the day were all against him. They thought he was a radical, marxism, commie, et. al. All the same things the RW of today are saying about President Obama.

You are on the wrong side of history too.

40 years from now some RW turd just like you will be saying some nonsense praising Obama when comparing him to a similar LWer in the future.

Get outta heah!!!

Are you saying I'm wrong about King, he wasn't an honorable man, I'm old enought to have been around then, and if your beleiving the crap Jackson and Sharpton spewing about the King movement then I pitty you for your gullability. It was the democrats that were trashing King, you might want to take a look at the real history of the civil rights movement. Republicans got Johnson's legislation passed over democrat oppostition.

Again..you don't know what you are talking about.

Changing history or removing context doesn't making your bull any more true.

How about we look how the parties voted. You can read the rest here.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original House version:[16]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[16]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

You will note that at no time did less than 80% of republicans voted for passage while as low as 61% of dems did. Dems fillabustered the bills, republicans took leadership to break them. But hey, you know it all, where did I rewrite anything?

 

[Sallow]

Are you saying I'm wrong about King, he wasn't an honorable man, I'm old enought to have been around then, and if your beleiving the crap Jackson and Sharpton spewing about the King movement then I pitty you for your gullability. It was the democrats that were trashing King, you might want to take a look at the real history of the civil rights movement. Republicans got Johnson's legislation passed over democrat oppostition.

Again..you don't know what you are talking about.

Changing history or removing context doesn't making your bull any more true.

How about we look how the parties voted. You can read the rest here.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original House version:[16]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[16]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

You will note that at no time did less than 80% of republicans voted for passage while as low as 61% of dems did. Dems fillabustered the bills, republicans took leadership to break them. But hey, you know it all, where did I rewrite anything?

Laughable at best.

Republicans took no leadership on the issue..many of them were trying to kill it. And the political landscape was far different back then. You had some pretty liberal republicans and pretty conservative democrats. The only common thread with both parties throughout history has been the democrats have been a bit more populist and republicans have favored rich folks.

 

[Grandma]

... I could care less who the president is as long as they take their oath of office seriously and follow the Constitution, of course you've probably never bothered to read that fine document, you might want to take a few minutes and read it sometime. You might actually learn something and have an idea of what government is supposed to be doing.

Honey, ANYONE can READ the Constitution. But being able to interpret it properly is another matter. You flatter yourself when you think you have more qualifications than a cum laude Constitutional scholar. You embarass yourself by posting that fantasy.

I'm not singling out just you, this goes for everyone that went over the edge on the far right, grasping at any straw or lie or talking point fed to them by their uber-rich, bitter, lily-white, old, fascist masters.

 

[OKTexas]

Again..you don't know what you are talking about.

Changing history or removing context doesn't making your bull any more true.

How about we look how the parties voted. You can read the rest here.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original House version:[16]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[16]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

You will note that at no time did less than 80% of republicans voted for passage while as low as 61% of dems did. Dems fillabustered the bills, republicans took leadership to break them. But hey, you know it all, where did I rewrite anything?

Laughable at best.

Republicans took no leadership on the issue..many of them were trying to kill it. And the political landscape was far different back then. You had some pretty liberal republicans and pretty conservative democrats. The only common thread with both parties throughout history has been the democrats have been a bit more populist and republicans have favored rich folks.

Didn't bother to read the link did ya,

 

[OKTexas]

... I could care less who the president is as long as they take their oath of office seriously and follow the Constitution, of course you've probably never bothered to read that fine document, you might want to take a few minutes and read it sometime. You might actually learn something and have an idea of what government is supposed to be doing.

Honey, ANYONE can READ the Constitution. But being able to interpret it properly is another matter. You flatter yourself when you think you have more qualifications than a cum laude Constitutional scholar. You embarass yourself by posting that fantasy.

I'm not singling out just you, this goes for everyone that went over the edge on the far right, grasping at any straw or lie or talking point fed to them by their uber-rich, bitter, lily-white, old, fascist masters.

Who should I believe, the founders, who said the Constitution was written in a way a simple farmer can understand it, or a freaking ass with a law degeree with a vested interest in conviencing me that he knows best? I'll put my faith in the founders, thank you. Sounds like you think you need the lawyer.

 

[Sallow]

How about we look how the parties voted. You can read the rest here.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original House version:[16]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[16]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

You will note that at no time did less than 80% of republicans voted for passage while as low as 61% of dems did. Dems fillabustered the bills, republicans took leadership to break them. But hey, you know it all, where did I rewrite anything?

Laughable at best.

Republicans took no leadership on the issue..many of them were trying to kill it. And the political landscape was far different back then. You had some pretty liberal republicans and pretty conservative democrats. The only common thread with both parties throughout history has been the democrats have been a bit more populist and republicans have favored rich folks.

Didn't bother to read the link did ya,

Why?

I lived it.

 

[Sallow]

... I could care less who the president is as long as they take their oath of office seriously and follow the Constitution, of course you've probably never bothered to read that fine document, you might want to take a few minutes and read it sometime. You might actually learn something and have an idea of what government is supposed to be doing.

Honey, ANYONE can READ the Constitution. But being able to interpret it properly is another matter. You flatter yourself when you think you have more qualifications than a cum laude Constitutional scholar. You embarass yourself by posting that fantasy.

I'm not singling out just you, this goes for everyone that went over the edge on the far right, grasping at any straw or lie or talking point fed to them by their uber-rich, bitter, lily-white, old, fascist masters.

Who should I believe, the founders, who said the Constitution was written in a way a simple farmer can understand it, or a freaking ass with a law degeree with a vested interest in conviencing me that he knows best? I'll put my faith in the founders, thank you. Sounds like you think you need the lawyer.

Many of the founders..were lawyers.

 

[OKTexas]

Honey, ANYONE can READ the Constitution. But being able to interpret it properly is another matter. You flatter yourself when you think you have more qualifications than a cum laude Constitutional scholar. You embarass yourself by posting that fantasy.

I'm not singling out just you, this goes for everyone that went over the edge on the far right, grasping at any straw or lie or talking point fed to them by their uber-rich, bitter, lily-white, old, fascist masters.

Who should I believe, the founders, who said the Constitution was written in a way a simple farmer can understand it, or a freaking ass with a law degeree with a vested interest in conviencing me that he knows best? I'll put my faith in the founders, thank you. Sounds like you think you need the lawyer.

Many of the founders..were lawyers.

And this changes what, are you saying they lied?

 

[Sallow]

Who should I believe, the founders, who said the Constitution was written in a way a simple farmer can understand it, or a freaking ass with a law degeree with a vested interest in conviencing me that he knows best? I'll put my faith in the founders, thank you. Sounds like you think you need the lawyer.

Many of the founders..were lawyers.

And this changes what, are you saying they lied?

It changes the concept you outlined in your post.

 

[OKTexas]

Many of the founders..were lawyers.

And this changes what, are you saying they lied?

It changes the concept you outlined in your post.

Doesn't change what they said about the way the document was constructed, and no offense but I trust them more than you. It's a shame more Americans choose to believe the lawyers instead of their own eyes.

 

[Sallow]

And this changes what, are you saying they lied?

It changes the concept you outlined in your post.

Doesn't change what they said about the way the document was constructed, and no offense but I trust them more than you. It's a shame more Americans choose to believe the lawyers instead of their own eyes.

The document was written by a lawyer.

Jefferson read law while working as a law clerk for Wythe. During this time, he also read a wide variety of English classics and political works. Jefferson was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1767.[14]
Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia