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

That is ridiculous. But I can be convinced. So tell us, which free gubmint programs to lazy fucks are the Democrats clamoring to cut?

Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

No, I am talking about free handouts to lazy fucks who contribute nothing to society, not those who work hard and invest in bringing us our energy.

You know, I am talking about the free handouts to the core lazy-ass Obama voter.

You going to cut food stamps? Obama Phones? Tell us!

It's a waste of time Sniper, these are the people that are so informed they still think it was Sara Palin that said she could see Russia from her backyard.
 
That is ridiculous. But I can be convinced. So tell us, which free gubmint programs to lazy fucks are the Democrats clamoring to cut?

Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

No, I am talking about free handouts to lazy fucks who contribute nothing to society, not those who work hard and invest in bringing us our energy.

You know, I am talking about the free handouts to the core lazy-ass Obama voter.

You going to cut food stamps? Obama Phones? Tell us!

Chevron does something for you? They do not do anything for me. Its also questionable how hard they are working.
 
Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

No, I am talking about free handouts to lazy fucks who contribute nothing to society, not those who work hard and invest in bringing us our energy.

You know, I am talking about the free handouts to the core lazy-ass Obama voter.

You going to cut food stamps? Obama Phones? Tell us!

It's a waste of time Sniper, these are the people that are so informed they still think it was Sara Palin that said she could see Russia from her backyard.

Texan...*snicker*
 
Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

No, I am talking about free handouts to lazy fucks who contribute nothing to society, not those who work hard and invest in bringing us our energy.

You know, I am talking about the free handouts to the core lazy-ass Obama voter.

You going to cut food stamps? Obama Phones? Tell us!

Chevron does something for you? They do not do anything for me. Its also questionable how hard they are working.

LOL

Yeah, our energy producers add nothing to society.

You are a complete moron.
 

You can start by rejecting the premise since it's not true.

That is ridiculous. But I can be convinced. So tell us, which free gubmint programs to lazy fucks are the Democrats clamoring to cut?

Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

I'm all for that, how much money will it save?

Does that include the subsidies to the little drilling companies, the 'wildcatters' who normally employ less than 100 people?

How much money will that save?
 
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, so I won't count them as a separate group--but I thought it was worth noting Obama's huge margin of victory among high school dropouts).

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?

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.
 
Some people cannot seem to understand that all people do not want to spend their lives trying to be another Donald Trump, many are content and feel successful by having a job, raising a family, serving in the military, paying their taxes and watching football on TV. These types of people are labeled losers by the Romneys and not real Americans. I am happy for rich people, their use of America has been to make, or inherit, big bucks, so now they should pay their share of the taxes.

Big words from someone who pays none...

Oh, I forgot, sales taxes...
 
No, I am talking about free handouts to lazy fucks who contribute nothing to society, not those who work hard and invest in bringing us our energy.

You know, I am talking about the free handouts to the core lazy-ass Obama voter.

You going to cut food stamps? Obama Phones? Tell us!

Chevron does something for you? They do not do anything for me. Its also questionable how hard they are working.

LOL

Yeah, our energy producers add nothing to society.

You are a complete moron.

The waitress at White Castle adds to society as well. She does not get subsidies like the oil companies do...lazy fucks
 
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, so I won't count them as a separate group--but I thought it was worth noting Obama's huge margin of victory among high school dropouts).

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?

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.

And that resonated so well on November 6th. But, Sniper and other fools like him want to double down on the hate.
 
That is ridiculous. But I can be convinced. So tell us, which free gubmint programs to lazy fucks are the Democrats clamoring to cut?

Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

I'm all for that, how much money will it save?

Does that include the subsidies to the little drilling companies, the 'wildcatters' who normally employ less than 100 people?

How much money will that save?

$7.1B for exploration alone...or 23.2 times more than low income persons get for Title X family planning. That comes from Wiki Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
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, so I won't count them as a separate group--but I thought it was worth noting Obama's huge margin of victory among high school dropouts).

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?

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.

And that resonated so well on November 6th. But, Sniper and other fools like him want to double down on the hate.

Basically what they said on talk radio for the last 2 weeks
 
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.
 
$7.1B for exploration alone...or 23.2 times more than low income persons get for Title X family planning. That comes from Wiki Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no $7.3 billion for exploration. That's commie propaganda. They attempt to call every legitimate business expense a "subsidy." Note that the source of this claim is the Environmental Law Institute. Anyone who believes that outfit is an unbiased source is terminally gullible.
 
Last edited:
Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

I'm all for that, how much money will it save?

Does that include the subsidies to the little drilling companies, the 'wildcatters' who normally employ less than 100 people?

How much money will that save?

$7.1B for exploration alone...or 23.2 times more than low income persons get for Title X family planning. That comes from Wiki Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And $5 billion for ethanol... does that go, too?

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)
 
Last edited:
According to the exit polling numbers, Obama won mainly--not entirely, but mainly--by carrying the two bottom d 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 It's as if a s?

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?

Educated women? I guess that means you didn't vote. Did the educated women dressed as vaginas vote?

Gays make up 3% of the country.

So Obama was elected by the dumbest people in America. It's a statistic. I knew it.
 
OP- White poor vote Pub as much as Dem. Hispanics and Blacks know where the racist or anti-poor policies are from. And all non dupes know who ruined the whole world. Greedy megarich idiot Pubs.
 
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.

So, by your own logic you're not rich; because you are evidently a very stupid person.
 
All these arguments are strawman arguments. I said that not everyone who voted for Obama is poor or uneducated. I stipulated that. But you simply ignore that qualifier and act as though I said the opposite.

The fact remains that Obama owes his victory largely to the two least successful groups in society. If he had not carried those two groups by landslide margins, he would have lost.

And what lesson are you learning from that? Feel free to respond.

If I may.

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

—Benjamin Franklin
Just in case no one else has informed you,

THE above quote IS NOT a Ben Franklin Quote.
 
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, so I won't count them as a separate group--but I thought it was worth noting Obama's huge margin of victory among high school dropouts).

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?

Can you show us ANY democratic president that did not earn more votes than the republican candidate from the lower 2 income brackets?

I don't think this is exclusively an ''Obama'' thing....?
 
According to the exit polling numbers, Obama won mainly--not entirely, but mainly--by carrying the two bottom d 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 It's as if a s?

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?

Educated women? I guess that means you didn't vote. Did the educated women dressed as vaginas vote?

Gays make up 3% of the country.

So Obama was elected by the dumbest people in America. It's a statistic. I knew it.

Keep up with that message....it works well for you guys.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top