The Two Least Successful Groups in Society Put Obama in the White House

[candycorn]

Hey when you get a $138 dollars a month from Obama's stash.....you get the votes.

Can you beleive that? The swine get $138 a month in food stamps alone. You libs are pigs.

Big oil got $7.1 Billion

 

[kiwiman127]

If I may.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

—Benjamin Franklin

And you don't think that the "successful" people who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to Romney/Right wing Super PACs were doing that or attempting to sway others to do so? If you really do think that these people are just concerned citizens.... that's fine. Humorous but fine. It also reveals that you're not very sophisticated politically.

Anyway, the "problem" is still there for 2016. What you going to do about it? More photoshopping? Yeah...that'll work.

I am not sure.

What do you think can be done about lazy fucks voting themselves more things from the gubmint which cannot possibly be afforded?

So Sniper, started looking for a job yet?

 

[candycorn]

Well one thing for certain that the OP proves is that Romney's core messages about jobs and the economy failed miserably.

The economy was not the only issue. Romney is a life long flip flopper who you can not trust

 

[Cowman]

All I'm hearing is "financially well off people are better than poor people".



That's just the same fucking message you guys have reiterated forever.

"Better" is purely a subjective value judgement. However, one thing is certain: rich people are smarter than poor people. No one ever claimed they got rich by being stupid.

The bottom line is that stupid people voted for Obama and smart people voted against him.

Would you like to look at all the Paris Hilton's in the world, and contrast them with all the teachers and other technical and scientific fields that require great intellect but don't pay a lot, and revise your statement?

 

[candycorn]

All I'm hearing is "financially well off people are better than poor people".



That's just the same fucking message you guys have reiterated forever.

"Better" is purely a subjective value judgement. However, one thing is certain: rich people are smarter than poor people. No one ever claimed they got rich by being stupid.

The bottom line is that stupid people voted for Obama and smart people voted against him.

Many were "smart enough" to have rich parents who left them a fortune. You should know, you voted for one of them.

Your post was the most hilariously stupid thing I've ever read.

Please continue to post this through 2016...PLEASE!!!

 

[jillian]

All I'm hearing is "financially well off people are better than poor people".



That's just the same fucking message you guys have reiterated forever.

"Better" is purely a subjective value judgement. However, one thing is certain: rich people are smarter than poor people. No one ever claimed they got rich by being stupid.

The bottom line is that stupid people voted for Obama and smart people voted against him.

no....that's a lie, too, oh ignorant one,

sometimes rich people are just members of the lucky sperm club.

and the part in bold... that just proves the lie to your statement since most people who voted for obama on this board and in real llfe are way smarter than you are. (and lots of those voters are way richer than you are).

 

[regent]

Most societys are built on the concept that wealth indicates intelligence, ability to lead, and a special type people. The framers, despite the "all men are created equal" followed suit. Over the years we have changed somewhat, but we still are taught that wealth indicates a superior people. We accept that concept just like gravity as normal. The GOP bases most of its political campaigns on that concept and maybe its true and maybe not, but it still garners votes. One problem: if wealthy people are special, how can the poor be used to reinforce that concept?

 

[bripat9643]

All I'm hearing is "financially well off people are better than poor people".



That's just the same fucking message you guys have reiterated forever.

"Better" is purely a subjective value judgement. However, one thing is certain: rich people are smarter than poor people. No one ever claimed they got rich by being stupid.

The bottom line is that stupid people voted for Obama and smart people voted against him.

no....that's a lie, too, oh ignorant one,

sometimes rich people are just members of the lucky sperm club.

Sometimes they are. However, 90% of them are self-made.

and the part in bold... that just proves the lie to your statement since most people who voted for obama on this board and in real llfe are way smarter than you are. (and lots of those voters are way richer than you are).

ROFL! I've seen no tangible evidence to support that claim.

 

[rdean]

According to the exit polling numbers, Obama won mainly--not entirely, but mainly--by carrying the two bottom income groups by 21.5%, and these two groups accounted for 41% of votes cast. He lost among the four other income groups by an average of 8.5%, and those groups accounted for 59% of votes cast. But he made up for his 8.5% loss in the 59% block by winning the 41% block by 21.5%, a landslide margin of victory.

Obama also won handily among high school dropouts, 64% to 35%, and these voters accounted for about 2-3% of votes cast (I suspect this group mostly overlaps with the bottom two income groups).

This is not to say that everyone who voted for Obama is uneducated or poor. It is to say that Obama would have lost if he had not carried the two lowest income groups by landslide margins. So the least successful among us were the decisive factor in Obama's victory.

Here's the breakdown:

Income....Obama's Margin of Victory
------------------------------------------
0-30K..........+28
30-49K........+15
50-99K...........-6
100-199K.....-10
200-249K.......-5
250K+..........-13

Income.....Percentage of Votes
---------------------------------------------
0-30K..........20%
30-49K........21%
50-99K........31%
100-199K....21%
200-249K......3%
250K+...........4%

It's as if a company's CEO were elected, not by a majority of the most educated and successful people in the company, but by winning a huge majority among the janitorial staff, the new admin assistants, and the new interns. Would you have much confidence in that company's future if its CEO were elected by such groups?

so did EDUCATED women.

so did younger people.

and gays (who have the highest per capita income in the country as a group)

i'm sorry the whole old white man thing isn't working out for you anymore.

does it hurt to be so ignorant?

why do you hate white people?

The majority of Democrats are white. But they are not the same "ilk" as those in the Republican Party. Lee Atwater described it perfectly, an ignorant, uneducated and mostly poor white base being led by a super wealthy sliver of white people. Don't think for a moment the Republican "elite" gives a dog turd for the Republicans base. They squat on you.

 

[bripat9643]

Most societys are built on the concept that wealth indicates intelligence, ability to lead, and a special type people. The framers, despite the "all men are created equal" followed suit. Over the years we have changed somewhat, but we still are taught that wealth indicates a superior people. We accept that concept just like gravity as normal. The GOP bases most of its political campaigns on that concept and maybe its true and maybe not, but it still garners votes. One problem: if wealthy people are special, how can the poor be used to reinforce that concept?

What utter horseshit. Your concept has nothing to do with how this society was founded. The guiding principle is that men should be free to pursue their own happiness rather than just to be draft animals used by the state for its purposes. That means they are entitled to keep the fruits of their own labor.

 

[bripat9643]

The majority of Democrats are white. But they are not the same "ilk" as those in the Republican Party. Lee Atwater described it perfectly, an ignorant, uneducated and mostly poor white base being led by a super wealthy sliver of white people. Don't think for a moment the Republican "elite" gives a dog turd for the Republicans base. They squat on you.

Yep, we know they are not like Democrats. They are richer and smarter.

 

[regent]

Most societys are built on the concept that wealth indicates intelligence, ability to lead, and a special type people. The framers, despite the "all men are created equal" followed suit. Over the years we have changed somewhat, but we still are taught that wealth indicates a superior people. We accept that concept just like gravity as normal. The GOP bases most of its political campaigns on that concept and maybe its true and maybe not, but it still garners votes. One problem: if wealthy people are special, how can the poor be used to reinforce that concept?

What utter horseshit. Your concept has nothing to do with how this society was founded. The guiding principle is that mean should be free to pursue their own happiness rather than just to be draft animals used by the state for its purposes. That means they are entitled to keep the fruits of their own labor.

Yep, those slaves of Jefferson allowed him the time and freedom to sit down write about all men being created equal and the purpose of government is the pursuit of happiness. Then the founders created a government that was allowed to tax the fruits of the peoples own labor. The GOP just ran a candidate for president on the premise that he was rich, little else.

 

[rdean]

The majority of Democrats are white. But they are not the same "ilk" as those in the Republican Party. Lee Atwater described it perfectly, an ignorant, uneducated and mostly poor white base being led by a super wealthy sliver of white people. Don't think for a moment the Republican "elite" gives a dog turd for the Republicans base. They squat on you.

Yep, we know they are not like Democrats. They are richer and smarter.

Which is why Blue States subsidize Red States. Republicans have never done a very good job of explaining why that is.

 

[bripat9643]

Most societys are built on the concept that wealth indicates intelligence, ability to lead, and a special type people. The framers, despite the "all men are created equal" followed suit. Over the years we have changed somewhat, but we still are taught that wealth indicates a superior people. We accept that concept just like gravity as normal. The GOP bases most of its political campaigns on that concept and maybe its true and maybe not, but it still garners votes. One problem: if wealthy people are special, how can the poor be used to reinforce that concept?

What utter horseshit. Your concept has nothing to do with how this society was founded. The guiding principle is that mean should be free to pursue their own happiness rather than just to be draft animals used by the state for its purposes. That means they are entitled to keep the fruits of their own labor.

Yep, those slaves of Jefferson allowed him the time and freedom to sit down write about all men being created equal and the purpose of government is the pursuit of happiness. Then the founders created a government that was allowed to tax the fruits of the peoples own labor. The GOP just ran a candidate for president on the premise that he was rich, little else.

You're an imbecile who is only capable of regurgitating communist bromides.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would you categorize kids in college as the least successful?

Why not? That's what liberals do every time they post figures about income growth of the bottom quintile

Do you need me to repeat the question? Your answer is idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

The majority of Democrats are white. But they are not the same "ilk" as those in the Republican Party. Lee Atwater described it perfectly, an ignorant, uneducated and mostly poor white base being led by a super wealthy sliver of white people. Don't think for a moment the Republican "elite" gives a dog turd for the Republicans base. They squat on you.

Yep, we know they are not like Democrats. They are richer and smarter.

Which is why Blue States subsidize Red States. Republicans have never done a very good job of explaining why that is.

The whole "blue state/red state" thing is a ruse designed to fool the gullible. Plenty of people in so-called "blue states" are hard-working Republicans and plenty of people in red states are welfare sucking liberals.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would you categorize kids in college as the least successful?

Why not? That's what liberals do every time they post figures about income growth of the bottom quintile

Do you need me to repeat the question? Your answer is idiocy.

Feel free to demonstrate your stupidity.

 

[regent]

What utter horseshit. Your concept has nothing to do with how this society was founded. The guiding principle is that mean should be free to pursue their own happiness rather than just to be draft animals used by the state for its purposes. That means they are entitled to keep the fruits of their own labor.

Yep, those slaves of Jefferson allowed him the time and freedom to sit down write about all men being created equal and the purpose of government is the pursuit of happiness. Then the founders created a government that was allowed to tax the fruits of the peoples own labor. The GOP just ran a candidate for president on the premise that he was rich, little else.

You're an imbecile who is only capable of regurgitating communist bromides.

Why is it when some posters cannot respond to the argument they trot out the name- calling including their biggie, "communism"?

 

[candycorn]

Yep, those slaves of Jefferson allowed him the time and freedom to sit down write about all men being created equal and the purpose of government is the pursuit of happiness. Then the founders created a government that was allowed to tax the fruits of the peoples own labor. The GOP just ran a candidate for president on the premise that he was rich, little else.

You're an imbecile who is only capable of regurgitating communist bromides.

Why is it when some posters cannot respond to the argument they trot out the name- calling including their biggie, "communism"?

It's very curious:

This American Life (thisamericanlife.org) surveyed friendships that were torn apart by the election. In their survey of a bout 10-15 couples (Sister/Sister, Friend/Friend, Parent/Sibling etc...) they found that 100% of the time, one called the other a Nazi or made reference to their being as such.

It's tired, old, ineffective and we all do it.

Bripat has been exposed several times for the lying moron that he is and he hates it when he's wrong...which is why he is so consistently hateful.

 

[candycorn]

Why not? That's what liberals do every time they post figures about income growth of the bottom quintile

Do you need me to repeat the question? Your answer is idiocy.

Feel free to demonstrate your stupidity.

Nothing has stopped you thus far.