Obama and Willful Ignorance

[Snipe]

Willful Ignorance

Here is Obama's new ad:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYI7qPO5wVw

It is a great video, and Obama is a great public speaker. Around the 1:30 mark he says:

"And as we end the war in Afghanistan, lets apply half the savings to pay down our debt"

The last time we actually paid down the National Debt was 1960. Ike was President then. To those not in the know, Ike means President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The National Debt has grown every year for the past 52 years, even during the vaunted Bill Clinton "surpluses". We have never paid down our debt in any of your lifetimes, well at least for most of you.

The debt has grown under Obama from around 10 trillion to 16 trillion. Yet he is running on a platform (or a message in this infomercial) that he is going to pay down our debt.

I doubt factcheck.org or any of the other "official truth seekers" or media mavens will notice his claims.

Here is my math:

10 Trillion < 16 Trillion

I did that calculation myself, on my own accord, and with no astroturfing.

Obama in 2008 appealed to the libertarian candidates. He said he was going to cut the size of government in the debates. That hasn't happened. He said he was going to do it, but he didn't.

Obama also said that he was going to reduce waste and fraud. He was going to go through the budget "line by line" as he said himself. "Line by line" to reduce waste, fraud and inefficiency.

Should we hold him to his own words? He had a Democratic Congress and a Democratic Senate. What were the results of his "line by line" approach? He also promised the most transparent Administration is history. The recent terrorist attacks in Libya belie that falsehood.

How can he run his campaign on paying down the debt? Well, he sounds good saying it. I think that is all that matters. If Obama says he is paying down the debt, than people will believe it. If Obama says that we are cutting spending and the size of government, than people will believe it.

Obama promised to cut government spending, but government spending has flourished. I think that this can't last forever. Obama's only proposed spending cuts were for "government spending through the tax code". Tell me what that means. If you say that we are spending too much through the tax code, what are you saying? I don't think a lot of people actually understand what he was doing with that, so reps to whoever points out what that actually means.

This thread is about Barack Obama. Please keep your posts on topic. If you want to start a thread bashing Mitt Romney, I promise to add to that thread.

There is a lot of ruin in a nation. Good luck.

[blueblob06]

Please let it be November 7th. I can't take anymore Xavier off-season shit or political shit.

[bleedXblue]

He aslo saved the banking and auto industry

Just ask him

The dude has serious public speaking skills and has half of the country completely fooled

I fear that Romney is not strong enough and has too weak a platform the turn the tide in November

[Snipe]

Please let it be November 7th. I can't take anymore Xavier off-season shit or political shit.

Please get off my threads if you don't care. I don't need you here. Nobody else does either.

[DC Muskie]

I'm going to love me four more years of redistrubting your wealth to me.

YES I CAN!

[Snipe]

He aslo saved the banking and auto industry

Just ask him

The dude has serious public speaking skills and has half of the country completely fooled

I fear that Romney is not strong enough and has too weak a platform the turn the tide in November

GM went bankrupt, yet Obama was the one to "save the auto industry".

Romney and all other Republicans after him are going to be victims of the changing demographics of America. We are not a nation of married white people with children anymore. To those married with children in the suburbs it still looks mostly the same, but the numbers are changing. With those changing numbers comes political power, and it is power for the Democrats. The Democrats have had an open borders strategy to erode the white majority for decades, and they applaud these changes. If Republicans object they are racist.

The writing is more than on the wall. Republicans as we know them are going to vanish at some point in the near future. No way around that fact. White people in general still consider both political parties. When they talk about "independents" or "the middle", it is mostly the white middle. Minorities skew heavily to the Democratic Party. Romney was pulling 0% of the black vote in a survey poll around a month or so ago. The reason is because he is such a racist. I heard that Mitt Romney founded the KKK.

[Snipe]

Because the last four years made you so much wealthier, I suppose?

How would you judge the last four years?

[ChicagoX]

It really doesn't matter at this point anyway, because it's just too late for Romney with the rolling calamity that is his campaign. Short of a major gaffe by Obama at the debates, a terrorist attack on American soil or some kind of economic collapse before the election, Obama is going to finish with somewhere between 309-332 electoral votes and easily win this election. I can't wait for it to be over, too, so maybe Congress will actually try to get something done and work with each other and the president for the first time in quite a while.

I don't know why anyone thinks that posting ideological diatribes on a college basketball board is actually going to change anyone's opinion about anything. For all of the long-winded, cut-and-paste posts I've seen from Snipe, I'm willing to bet that he has changed the mind of exactly zero people on this board.

[DC Muskie]

Because the last four years made you so much wealthier, I suppose?

How would you judge the last four years?

I actually did make more money last four years then the four years before.

I would describe the last four years for me as pretty good. But it had nothing to do with who was in the White House. I'm a single guy living in the nation's capital...

I had a job for the majority of those four years. Paid off a car. Had a girlfriend, went to the beach a few times, saw friends get married have kids. Ran a few races, lost weight, gained weight, lost weight again.

Yeah, pretty good really.

[paulxu]

. The Democrats have had an open borders strategy to erode the white majority for decades,

Another possibility is that they may think government should actually represent all the people, not just the white majority?


. Had a girlfriend,

Good on you!

[bleedXblue]

GM went bankrupt, yet Obama was the one to "save the auto industry".

Romney and all other Republicans after him are going to be victims of the changing demographics of America. We are not a nation of married white people with children anymore. To those married with children in the suburbs it still looks mostly the same, but the numbers are changing. With those changing numbers comes political power, and it is power for the Democrats. The Democrats have had an open borders strategy to erode the white majority for decades, and they applaud these changes. If Republicans object they are racist.

The writing is more than on the wall. Republicans as we know them are going to vanish at some point in the near future. No way around that fact. White people in general still consider both political parties. When they talk about "independents" or "the middle", it is mostly the white middle. Minorities skew heavily to the Democratic Party. Romney was pulling 0% of the black vote in a survey poll around a month or so ago. The reason is because he is such a racist. I heard that Mitt Romney founded the KKK.

I fully expect some type of revolutionary war in this country sometime in the next 50 years. We're heded on a path of self destruction. Government is becoming too big and too many of the people are too dependant on Uncle Sam. Get off your ass, get a job and take care of yourself.

[Xman95]

Had a girlfriend

You say this and expect us to believe anything else in your post?!? :wave:

[Snipe]

It really doesn't matter at this point anyway, because it's just too late for Romney with the rolling calamity that is his campaign. Short of a major gaffe by Obama at the debates, a terrorist attack on America or some kind of economic collapse before the election, Obama is going to finish with somewhere between 309-332 electoral votes and easily win this election. I can't wait for it to be over, too, so maybe Congress will actually try to get something done and work with each other and the president for the first time in quite a while.

I don't know why anyone thinks that posting ideological diatribes on a college basketball board is actually going to change anyone's opinion about anything. For all of the long-winded, cut-and-paste posts I've seen from Snipe, I'm willing to bet that he has changed the mind of exactly zero people on this board.

My rebuttal points:

1) We just had a terrorist attack on America! The only thing the media notices was that they didn't like Romney for being critical of the President. It is amazing that you weren't even aware of that. Color yourself rube.

So I don't think that a terrorist attack on America will do much for Romney, unless you mean sink his campaign!


Obama is going to finish with somewhere between 309-332 electoral votes and easily win this election. I can't wait for it to be over, too, so maybe Congress will actually try to get something done and work with each other and the president for the first time in quite a while.


2) I think the election is a lot closer than you think. This country is divided and they don't care for either candidate in my opinion, but what do I know? And what do I care? I am not looking for your vote, and you can fuck yourself silly for all I care. I care about my children.

I am also interested in your thoughts about Congress. When did they get something done? Doesn't Obamacare constitute something getting done? Most people don't like it, but don't act like Congress hasn't gotten anything done. The problem with Congress is that people don't like what they do in my opinion. Again, just my opinion.


I don't know why anyone thinks that posting ideological diatribes on a college basketball board is actually going to change anyone's opinion about anything. For all of the long-winded, cut-and-paste posts I've seen from Snipe, I'm willing to bet that he has changed the mind of exactly zero people on this board.

3) I never claimed that "posting ideological diatribes" is actually going to change anyone's opinion on anything. In fact, I didn't even think that this was a case of ideology. Obama said that he was going to cut the size of government in the Presidential debates. He didn't do that. Is it ideological to note that he didn't live up to his word? Am I some hyper-partisan just for suggesting that he didn't do what he told you he was going to do? He told you he would do it, and he didn't. Sorry for noting that. Move along now, nothing to see here....

Then in this ad he talks about using the money from Afghanistan to pay down the debt. The whole point of my post was to object to that. That is the only real reason that I posted anything at all. I haven't been posting a lot of political stuff lately. Honest, you can do a search. So is the money saved from Afghanistan really going to pay down the debt? Do you really believe that? Can anyone really believe that? Our yearly deficit of spending is in excess of a trillion dollars. Closing down Afghanistan would be good for not accumulating more debt, but it won't pay off any of the debt. If you need this explained to you, I would be glad to go through it punch by punch. It is not a lie, nor it is an ideological stance, it is simple math. Seriously. I will lend you some money so you can buy a clue.

4) I think that at some point the debt will become so big that society itself will collapse. I have said this before, and I still hold this belief. More people hold this belief now than when I started staying it. I don't think that electing Mitt Romney will matter. I don't think that anyone can balance the budget. I think we are already bankrupt. I wasn't touting Mitt Romney in this post, and I told people that this post was not about Mitt Romney. How much more explicit would I have to be? I should be allowed to point out that when Obama says he is paying down the debt, he is not actually paying down the debt. Our National Debt has gone from 10 trillion to 16 trillion in four years. At some point the debt becomes too large and the system will break down. That is not partisan in my opinion, it is math.

[Lamont Sanford]

Ladies and Gentlemen....the Teleprompter of the United States.

God help us when we get another four years of socialism.

[Snipe]

Another possibility is that they may think government should actually represent all the people, not just the white majority?


Do you know anything about liberal identity politics? Do you currently believe that this country is run just for the white majority? Are you denying that the Democrats have a successful strategy of open borders? Do you disagreee with this, that you quoted me saying:


The Democrats have had an open borders strategy to erode the white majority for decades

Do you think that is true or false?

[blueblob06]

Please let it be November 7th. I can't take anymore Xavier off-season shit or political shit.


Please get off my threads if you don't care. I don't need you here. Nobody else does either.

I don't think anyone needs either of us here.

I do care. I wasn't disputing what you're saying, in fact I was agreeing with you on this whole "pay down debt platform" thing seeming questionable by referring to it as "political shit". I'm sick of the political BS being said as I'm sure you are too.

[DC Muskie]

Ladies and Gentlemen....the Teleprompter of the United States.

God help us when we get another four years of socialism.

Get ready baby cause it's coming!

I'm going to get a truck there's going to be so much socialism to carry around. I have to find room for some Marxism as well. For all my fascists friends to come over!

WHOOO HOO!

[Snipe]

I wasn't disputing what you're saying, in fact I was agreeing with you on this whole "pay down debt platform" thing seeming questionable by referring to it as "political shit". I'm sick of the political BS being said as I'm sure you are too.

Then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[paulxu]

Do you know anything about liberal identity politics? Do you currently believe that this country is run just for the white majority? Are you denying that the Democrats have a successful strategy of open borders? Do you disagreee with this, that you quoted me saying:
Do you think that is true or false?

I do know something about liberal politics, identity or otherwise, and live in (and have lived through) the changing demographics which your comments address...primarily in the South.

After the Civil War, Republicans were looked on unfairly because of economic results of carpetbagging. The South became Democratic.
When Lyndon Johnson pushed for civil rights (especially voting rights) he thought his party would lose the South for a generation because of the reaction. He was wrong. They lost it for many generations. And if you were/are black, the Republicans created a perception of being the party that was doing everything it could to block their their access to full citizenship rights. That continues today with some of the voter supression efforts, targeted primarily in swing states.

Certainly the Democratic strategy is to broaden its base as much as possible, but I disagree it is to "erode the white majority." It is simply to create a winning majority.

Why the Republicans persist in focusing on the white majority only (which probably won't exist as a clear group in the near future) escapes me. Down here, much of this persistence is traceable to an unease of having black people as true equals. It will take more generations for that to be accepted. It is of course compounded by having a black person as president.

That generates comments from leaders of the Republican party like this:


“The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term

For the long run, that's got to change for the Republican party to be relevent. They've got to do a better job of seeking a total majority, not just a white majority.

In the last election, 76% of voters were white. McCain got 55% of those, Obama 43%.
55% of 76% is only 42%. That's not enough to win.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election

You can adopt a strategy to seek votes from the 24% of voters who are not white, or focus on "generating enough angry white guys" who are in the 43% Obama got.

For sure, in those 43% are a lot of retirees, veterans, etc. who are living on Social Security and using Medicare that they believe they earned with their service and taxes. You probably don't want to tell them that they're in a group who hasn't taken responsibility for themselves and you're going to ignore them.

[blueblob06]

It's all good.

[waggy]

"Cut(ting) the growth of tuition in half"?

That's a clown comment bro.

[Snipe]

I do know something about liberal politics, identity or otherwise, and live in (and have lived through) the changing demographics which your comments address...primarily in the South.

After the Civil War, Republicans were looked on unfairly because of economic results of carpetbagging. The South became Democratic.
When Lyndon Johnson pushed for civil rights (especially voting rights) he thought his party would lose the South for a generation because of the reaction. He was wrong. They lost it for many generations. And if you were/are black, the Republicans created a perception of being the party that was doing everything it could to block their their access to full citizenship rights. That continues today with some of the voter supression efforts, targeted primarily in swing states.

Certainly the Democratic strategy is to broaden its base as much as possible, but I disagree it is to "erode the white majority." It is simply to create a winning majority.

Why the Republicans persist in focusing on the white majority only (which probably won't exist as a clear group in the near future) escapes me. Down here, much of this persistence is traceable to an unease of having black people as true equals. It will take more generations for that to be accepted. It is of course compounded by having a black person as president.

That generates comments from leaders of the Republican party like this:



For the long run, that's got to change for the Republican party to be relevent. They've got to do a better job of seeking a total majority, not just a white majority.

In the last election, 76% of voters were white. McCain got 55% of those, Obama 43%.
55% of 76% is only 42%. That's not enough to win.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election

You can adopt a strategy to seek votes from the 24% of voters who are not white, or focus on "generating enough angry white guys" who are in the 43% Obama got.

For sure, in those 43% are a lot of retirees, veterans, etc. who are living on Social Security and using Medicare that they believe they earned with their service and taxes. You probably don't want to tell them that they're in a group who hasn't taken responsibility for themselves and you're going to ignore them.

I think we are saying the same thing. Demographically, the Republican Party is doomed. You have quoted Lindsay Grahamnesty a few times on this message board. He was saying the same thing as you and me, the Republican Party is demographically doomed. I have been talking about demographics for some time. Whites are becoming a minority in this country, and they are already a minority of newborns as of 2011. Change is coming. Democrats havn't gotten a majority of the white vote since the 1940s in a Presidential election outside of the Lydon Johnson landslide in 1964. Obama's people have speculated that they can win with as little as 38% of the white vote, yet whites make up 90% or more of the Republican vote.

The times they are a changing. The Republican Party as it exists today will cease to exist.

How do Republicans go about attracting blacks? Romney is getting 0% of blacks in some polls. What can Republicans promise to blacks that Democrats aren't already giving? Mexicans are political advocates of big government. They love welfare programs, and 75% of first generation Mexican immigrants are on welfare. What can Republicans offer them while still being Republicans? I don't think Republicans can successfully out-welfare Democrats to blacks and Hispanics. I just don't see it happening. Plus, Republicans are racist. If they weren't, why wouldn't they be Democrats?



After the Civil War, Republicans were looked on unfairly because of economic results of carpetbagging. The South became Democratic.

Was it unfair, or were they actually carpetbaggers? Which is it?


When Lyndon Johnson pushed for civil rights (especially voting rights) he thought his party would lose the South for a generation because of the reaction. He was wrong. They lost it for many generations. And if you were/are black, the Republicans created a perception of being the party that was doing everything it could to block their their access to full citizenship rights.

Southern Democrats controlled Congress until 1994. That kind of sticks your whole theory of political history right in the crapper. "Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats lost the South for many generations", except for the 3 decades between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Gingrich Revolution of 1994, when Southern Democrats controlled Congress, and we elected two Southern Democrats as President. What an asinine and ignorant statement to make. You are a blithering idiot.

Republicans are racist!

[XUglow]

You say this and expect us to believe anything else in your post?!? :wave:

Willful ignorance.

[paulxu]

Was it unfair, or were they actually carpetbaggers? Which is it?

Southern Democrats controlled Congress until 1994. That kind of sticks your whole theory of political history right in the crapper. "Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats lost the South for many generations", except for the 3 decades between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Gingrich Revolution of 1994, when Southern Democrats controlled Congress, and we elected two Southern Democrats as President. What an asinine and ignorant statement to make. You are a blithering idiot.

Sure there were carpetbaggers. It was not a political attribute (hence the term "unfair"), it was simply the victor reaping the spoils of war.

There have been 10 presidential elections since the Civil Rights acts were signed. This is the voting record of the Southern States in those elections, with the number of times a state went Republican/Democrat

Alabama 9R/1D
Arkansas 7R/3D
Georgia 7R/3D
Kentucky 7R/3D
Louisiana 7R/3D
Mississippi 9R/3D
North Carolina 8R/2D
South Carolina 9R/1D
Tennessee 7R/3D
Virginia 9R/1D

It is safe to say that most Republicans elected president would not have been elected without this solid Southern vote.
While the House remained Democrat for many years, those Southern Democrats who retained their seats were often really Republican in philosopy, with some changing parties after election. The Senate was 22 yrs under the D's and 16 years under the R's.

Yep, in the 10 presidential elections since LBJ till 2008, 7 have gone to Republicans and 3 to Southern white guys. No more Kennedys I guess. Which makes Obama's election rather remarkable.

Yes, I'm an idiot. And you still owe me a drink. I may just come up and collect this year.

[Snipe]

But at least you can get a phone....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio

[boozehound]

I hope that the Republican party as we know it today does cease to exist. Perhaps then we could get at least one party that truly and genuinely believe in honesty and fiscal discipline. Republicans today are really no different than Democrats. They want to borrow and spend. I guess I like the Republicans a little better because they favor lower taxes. I might as well pay less taxes while America turns into Japan.

One of (if not the) biggest problems I see in politics right now is that both parties are lying to America. They are both completely devoid of any real leadership. Real leadership, to me, means telling Americans that we are in trouble. It means telling Americans that the country has been mismanaged (by both parties) and that we are all going to have to sacrifice to get back on solid footing. It means unpopular cuts to things like defense spending, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Welfare. Nobody is even talking about that. Even Paul Ryan's budget was a joke in terms of actually making meaningful cuts to government spending.

We are facing a turning point as a country right now and nobody is trying to drive any kind of unity among Americans. They just want to play one side against the other to get elected.

[boozehound]

But at least you can get a phone....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio

This is a great example of what is wrong with America. This lady doesn't want to hear about the budget defecit, she just wants her Obama phone!!! She gets the same one vote as Warren Buffet by the way.

[bigdiggins]

This is a great example of what is wrong with America. This lady doesn't want to hear about the budget defecit, she just wants her Obama phone!!! She gets the same one vote as Warren Buffet by the way.

"...Vavreck asked thousands of voters -- both decided and undecided -- a battery of basic, multiple-choice questions about who’s who in politics. The questions were designed to be easy. You didn’t have to know that John Boehner is Speaker of the House. You just had to know he is a congressman rather than a judge or the vice president.

According to Vavreck’s polling, only 35 percent of undecided voters could identify Boehner’s job as “congressman.” Only 69 percent could say that Joe Biden is the vice president rather than, say, a representative. Only 17 percent can identify Chief Justice John Roberts as a judge..."

[xudash]

This is a great example of what is wrong with America. This lady doesn't want to hear about the budget defecit, she just wants her Obama phone!!! She gets the same one vote as Warren Buffet by the way.

The Founders probably never could anticipate such an idiot coming.

It's been pointed out here before, but the parallels to the fall of the Roman Empire are a little revealing:


http://moneymorning.com/2012/08/15/what-last-roman-emperor-would-tell-president-obama-today/

"But it is also remembered for its spectacular collapse in less than a century under the weight of bad debt, an overextension of the Empire, a collapse of morals that led to a deluded and self-absorbed political elite and reckless public spending that far outweighed collections."

For me, this is an election about the lessor of two evils, but, beyond party affiliation bullsh!t, this is about focusing on the most important decision of our time: reestablishing fiscal discipline. I believe Romney is more capable of achieving that. I can't put it any more simply than that.

Obama doesn't understand business, finance, fiscal discipline or true leadership. He is a Chicago politician molded by very political people. He's an idiot mouthpiece who truly hasn't accomplished anything of note in his lifetime.

Like him or not, like Mormon stuff or not, Romney fixed an Olympics. Romney was part of an incredible success story with Bain Capital. He has already been a governor. I don't know if he will be willing to break the big money stranglehold on the Beltway or not, but he's better positioned to do it than a guy who looks at things the same way as the latter stage emperor's looked at them: spend on the idiots to keep them happy, regardless of what's in the treasury.

[BBC 08]

Like him or not, like Mormon stuff or not, Romney fixed an Olympics.

http://deadspin.com/5945741/you-built-that-how-mitt-romney-shook-down-american-taxpayers-for-his-welfare-olympics

[paulxu]

Don't confuse this discussion with facts.

[RealDeal]

. He's an idiot mouthpiece who truly hasn't accomplished anything of note in his lifetime.

.
I agree. If I went into politics as a career and the furthest I ever got was President of the United States I would feel like a failure, that's for sure.

[xudash]

http://deadspin.com/5945741/you-built-that-how-mitt-romney-shook-down-american-taxpayers-for-his-welfare-olympics

Did Romney pursue the Olympics for the United States originally?

Was he in on the ground floor planning for it originally?

At the point where the deal is won, someone has to step up and make them successful. There is no way around it. You can't give it back. Timing - for corrective action - also played into it; it wasn't like he had a lot of time to figure out Plan B for funding. The idea that certain developers directly benefited is disturbing, but land is land and the original planner should have already had that factored into their Olympic designs and budgets.

Finally, the authors' premise is that Romney handled the Olympics "this way" so that's the way he'll handle himself in D.C. now. What utter non-sense.

[vee4xu]

Zipity do dah, zipity aye
My oh my what a wonderful day
Plenty of sunshine comin' my way
Zipity do dah, zipity aye.

[xudash]

I agree. If I went into politics as a career and the furthest I ever got was President of the United States I would feel like a failure, that's for sure.

Cute, but sorry. The guy is an empty suit with a philosophy that runs counter to what has made this country the greatest nation in history. If you fundamentally believe that the government is the answer for the things for which he thinks it's the answer, then you are sadly mistaken.

I just heard him literally say that "the truth is it's going to take a few more years to fix what's been building for decades." What's been building for decades, for the most part, is Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society. What's been building for years is zero leadership from both parties to become more fiscally responsible.

Someone shared with me an email that broke down the percentages for each Presidential cabinet with respect to the amount of business experience each had. The data went back to FDR. If I recall correctly, FDR's cabinet was experienced to the tune of about 43% (percentage of business experienced cabinet members to total cabinate members). Obama? 13%. He is so far under the next figure that it isn't even funny. You have a bunch of idealists and academics, most of whom having never made a payroll, making economic and fiscal decisions.

Now what? Why SOLOPOWER, of course.

Unreal.

[vee4xu]

President BO had a $800 billion stimulus and President George W. Bush conducted two wars off the books totaling $1 trillion. I'd say that's pretty much a tie. But for the death and dismemberment that war caused. Before people go nuts here, President BO has continued to conduct those two wars, has not closed Gitmo as promised and extended President George W. Bush's tax cuts twice. Oh and his health care plan was done with the help of insurance companies (which is why they are not griping about it) and is not a single payer program. I think an argument can be made the BO is really WBush-light, no? I'd have to think that liberals are mighty angry at BO for these and other reasons. Hell, Biden had to slip up for BO to admit he supports gay marriage. You can say a lot of things about BO, but radical really doesn't seem to fit him well. He was no more radical that George W. since he really has continued many of this initiatives.

[vee4xu]

Lest people get the wrong idea here, I am not defending BO. The dude can defend himself. I was simply trying to suggest that he is a lot of things, but radical he is not. I have made the comment in other threads that he really is supports corporatocracy. He takes tons of money from corporations and special interests that support corporations and to my thinking is beholden to them.

[RealDeal]

Cute, but sorry. The guy is an empty suit with a philosophy that runs counter to what has made this country the greatest nation in history. If you fundamentally believe that the government is the answer for the things for which he thinks it's the answer, then you are sadly mistaken.

I just heard him literally say that "the truth is it's going to take a few more years to fix what's been building for decades." What's been building for decades, for the most part, is Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society. What's been building for years is zero leadership from both parties to become more fiscally responsible.

Someone shared with me an email that broke down the percentages for each Presidential cabinet with respect to the amount of business experience each had. The data went back to FDR. If I recall correctly, FDR's cabinet was experienced to the tune of about 43% (percentage of business experienced cabinet members to total cabinate members). Obama? 13%. He is so far under the next figure that it isn't even funny. You have a bunch of idealists and academics, most of whom having never made a payroll, making economic and fiscal decisions.

Now what? Why SOLOPOWER, of course.

Unreal.

Dash, I understand you don't like Obama. That's fine. But saying that someone who has attained the office of the presidency has never accomplished anything in their life is a pretty ridiculous statement. That in itself is a monumental accomplishment. Frankly I didn't appreciate how well he and his team run a campaign until I saw mitt and his team attempt to run a presidential campaign. What a mess.

[xudash]

Lest people get the wrong idea here, I am not defending BO. The dude can defend himself. I was simply trying to suggest that he is a lot of things, but radical he is not. I have made the comment in other threads that he really is supports corporatocracy. He takes tons of money from corporations and special interests that support corporations and to my thinking is beholden to them.

Fair points, but I still think his version of hope and change doesn't cheer up most Rotary Clubs. George Soros probably provides free KY Jelly whenever they meet.

And on that note, I'm finished with participating in this thread.

[xudash]

Dash, I understand you don't like Obama. That's fine. But saying that someone who has attained the office of the presidency has never accomplished anything in their life is a pretty ridiculous statement. That in itself is a monumental accomplishment. Frankly I didn't appreciate how well he and his team run a campaign until I saw mitt and his team attempt to run a presidential campaign. What a mess.

I'm not arguing the statement in the literal sense. I agree with you in that sense. I'm asking you to consider his accomplishments in each office he's ever held. That is the point I'm making. His lack of meaningful track record speaks for itself. The man was chosen and expedited.

He went rock star crazy and everyone went batshit crazy for him - that Chicago event was as telling as any on that point. No one really knew anything about him. He is amazing with a microphone and teleprompter. He talked about hope and change. Now he is nothing more than what vee described. Now what has been happening in the Middle East are "bumps in the road" to him. My God.

Now I'm officially out of this thread.

[RealDeal]

Bush phone?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

[paulxu]

You're adding to the factual confusion.

Let's stick to the made up stuff.

http://www.imjan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/funny_pictures-21.jpg

[boozehound]

The Founders probably never could anticipate such an idiot coming.

It's been pointed out here before, but the parallels to the fall of the Roman Empire are a little revealing:


http://moneymorning.com/2012/08/15/what-last-roman-emperor-would-tell-president-obama-today/

"But it is also remembered for its spectacular collapse in less than a century under the weight of bad debt, an overextension of the Empire, a collapse of morals that led to a deluded and self-absorbed political elite and reckless public spending that far outweighed collections."

For me, this is an election about the lessor of two evils, but, beyond party affiliation bullsh!t, this is about focusing on the most important decision of our time: reestablishing fiscal discipline. I believe Romney is more capable of achieving that. I can't put it any more simply than that.

Obama doesn't understand business, finance, fiscal discipline or true leadership. He is a Chicago politician molded by very political people. He's an idiot mouthpiece who truly hasn't accomplished anything of note in his lifetime.

Like him or not, like Mormon stuff or not, Romney fixed an Olympics. Romney was part of an incredible success story with Bain Capital. He has already been a governor. I don't know if he will be willing to break the big money stranglehold on the Beltway or not, but he's better positioned to do it than a guy who looks at things the same way as the latter stage emperor's looked at them: spend on the idiots to keep them happy, regardless of what's in the treasury.

I agree with most of the post, and I do agree with the bolded part (which is why I am planning to vote for Romney).

I would say, however, that I wish I had more faith the Romney would establish some kind of true fiscal discipline. The 'fiscal discipline' of the Republican party lately has amounted to throwing out red herrings about the general fund and making cuts that are insignificant while ignoring the places where meaningful cuts have to be made. The Republicans pay lip service to the idea of fiscal discipline but if you actually look at the numbers they are really only slightly better than the Democrats.

[boozehound]

Bush phone?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

This is exactly the problem. That lady doesn't care who pays for it, as far as she is concerned it is her "Obama Phone". If she votes for Obama she gets to keep her phone!

Unfortunately there are way too many stupid people in this country who are very easy to market to. Politicians figured out a long time ago that it is more effective to play to the lowest (read: dumbest) common denominator to get elected. That's much easier and more effective than proposing actual solutions for problems.

We need to be saved from ourselves. We have too many uninformed voters who simply lack either the intelligence or the drive to understand the issues. They simply parrot whatever their chosen party line is. "Obama phone" lady has the same 1 vote as a CEO. I would love to see how she does on any kind of basic issues and/or intelligence test.

[DC Muskie]

The Founders probably never could anticipate such an idiot coming.

You realize the Founders (Capitalized because of their importance!) didn't think this woman was a human being? So while you guys joke about the fact this woman can vote, the Founders actually agreed with you so much they prevented her from voting. In fact most of the Founders would be interested in owning her. She looks like a hefty negro capable of carrying large loads of cotton!

Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, can you at least try and stop usurping what you thought the Founders thought and actually look at the way we set how we elect the president? That's all I ask.

Start with Alexander Hamilton and look into the electoral college. I'm not even going to bother to provide a link, this is a test to see what you can do by yourself.

This woman's vote may or not be more important than Warren Buffet. It really depends on where she lives.

Also, what Warren Buffet has to do with this I have no idea.

[MCXU]

Obama's only proposed spending cuts were for "government spending through the tax code". Tell me what that means. If you say that we are spending too much through the tax code, what are you saying?

Cutting Government Spending Through the Tax Code - To define this phrase we must first understand the point of view of the person who is saying it. To a Big Government Socialist, all money that is earned by the people belongs to the government. Remenmber this because it is the key to understanding the phrase. Continuing on, If all earned money belongs to the Government then what ever Government lets you keep is an expense. Expenses equal Spending. So to "Cut Government Spending Through the Tax Code" means.... To raise TAXES! The Government is reducing the "Expense" or "Spending" it incures by not taxing you at 100%.

Doesn't "Cutting Government Spending Through the Tax Code" sound so much more pallatable than say "Raising the crap out of your taxes"?

[bigdiggins]

You realize the Founders (Capitalized because of their importance!) didn't think this woman was a human being? So while you guys joke about the fact this woman can vote, the Founders actually agreed with you so much they prevented her from voting. In fact most of the Founders would be interested in owning her. She looks like a hefty negro capable of carrying large loads of cotton!

Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, can you at least try and stop usurping what you thought the Founders thought and actually look at the way we set how we elect the president? That's all I ask.

Start with Alexander Hamilton and look into the electoral college. I'm not even going to bother to provide a link, this is a test to see what you can do by yourself.

This woman's vote may or not be more important than Warren Buffet. It really depends on where she lives.

Also, what Warren Buffet has to do with this I have no idea.

We need to reconsider this notion. If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be able to help decide what the government does with the taxes they do collect.

[DC Muskie]

We need to reconsider this notion. If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be able to help decide what the government does with the taxes they do collect.

So you want to overturn the 24th amendment of the Constitution?

[MCXU]

So you want to overturn the 24th amendment of the Constitution?

And the 17th Amendment!

[DC Muskie]

And the 17th Amendment!

Well yeah that needs to be overturned. Duh.

[boozehound]

You realize the Founders (Capitalized because of their importance!) didn't think this woman was a human being? So while you guys joke about the fact this woman can vote, the Founders actually agreed with you so much they prevented her from voting. In fact most of the Founders would be interested in owning her. She looks like a hefty negro capable of carrying large loads of cotton!

Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, can you at least try and stop usurping what you thought the Founders thought and actually look at the way we set how we elect the president? That's all I ask.

Start with Alexander Hamilton and look into the electoral college. I'm not even going to bother to provide a link, this is a test to see what you can do by yourself.

This woman's vote may or not be more important than Warren Buffet. It really depends on where she lives.

Also, what Warren Buffet has to do with this I have no idea.

The fact that this moron has the same 1 vote as Warren Buffet helps to explain what is wrong with our political system. We have far too many people voting who are incapable or unwilling to understand the issues. Warrent Buffet is a smart man capable of understand complex concepts. I want him to have much more say in how we are governed than some toothless lady screaming about Obama phones. The same applies for pretty much anybody who has done something with their lives, but Buffet is a good example because people know who he is.

Instead of seeking to educate the ignorant about how government works and what is and is not sustainable we would rather just market to their ignorance. That will be our downfall. These people don't know or care about sustainability and rather than inform the populus we would prefer to manipulate them.

Obama phones for everybody!!!!! Just make sure you get out and vote!!!

[DC Muskie]

The fact that this moron has the same 1 vote as Warren Buffet helps to explain what is wrong with our political system. We have far too many people voting who are incapable or unwilling to understand the issues. Warrent Buffet is a smart man capable of understand complex concepts. I want him to have much more say in how we are governed than some toothless lady screaming about Obama phones. The same applies for pretty much anybody who has done something with their lives, but Buffet is a good example because people know who he is.

Instead of seeking to educate the ignorant about how government works and what is and is not sustainable we would rather just market to their ignorance. That will be our downfall. These people don't know or care about sustainability and rather than inform the populus we would prefer to manipulate them.

Obama phones for everybody!!!!! Just make sure you get out and vote!!!

I have an aunt who votes on one issue. Abortion. She will only vote for pro-life issues. To me that is asinine.

Who gets to be the arbitrator of who is smart enough to understand complex issues? Warren Buffet is likely smarter than you on these things, should you not vote then? Who decides whether or not people have "done something with their lives?" Is there an age for that? Certainly kids at 18 haven't done squat. Do we move the vote to only the elderly? WHOOPS can't do that, because they don't pay taxes on their fixed income.

People here don't have a basic understand of how the government works. But I'm supposed to get all fired up because, what did you call her, "some toothless lady screaming about Obama phones" has a vote? There are certainly many different levels of stupidity. I point in the general direction of the teabaggers and their interpretation of American history and how it applies to today. I would love for them not to vote. Who can I get to make that decision? Warren Buffet? Because that guy thinks he should be taxed more! And there were plenty of people, even on this board who thought Buffet was an idiot. I guess that eliminates him from voting as well.

Seriously, the electoral college was set up to minimize the impact of one individual vote, simply because the Founders didn't think ordinary white men who owned land could come to the proper decision. So in sense your ideas about who should vote are exactly in line to what old rich white guys who didn't want to pay their taxes thought about voting. It's just funny that you use an example of an old rich white guy who thinks he should pay more taxes as an example of understanding complex concepts.

[xudash]

You realize the Founders (Capitalized because of their importance!) didn't think this woman was a human being? So while you guys joke about the fact this woman can vote, the Founders actually agreed with you so much they prevented her from voting. In fact most of the Founders would be interested in owning her. She looks like a hefty negro capable of carrying large loads of cotton!

Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, can you at least try and stop usurping what you thought the Founders thought and actually look at the way we set how we elect the president? That's all I ask.

Start with Alexander Hamilton and look into the electoral college. I'm not even going to bother to provide a link, this is a test to see what you can do by yourself.

This woman's vote may or not be more important than Warren Buffet. It really depends on where she lives.

Also, what Warren Buffet has to do with this I have no idea.

I'm only jumping back into this to make one thing very clear, based on the direction you've taken my response: I didn't see a black woman in the video; I saw a stupid human being in the video. Stupid comes in multiple flesh colors. That black woman could have just as easily been an idiot white redneck fresh from his or her trailer, screaming about his or her phone.

Also, I wasn't joking about anything.

Otherwise, please help me out with how I look at the way we set how we elect the president. From my chair, I see a government that drives programs that essentially promote and sustain structural poverty and therefore structural dependency. Most of these people have a vote. Virtually all of them vote for free stuff. Why not. The problem is that it isn't sustainable, not to mention that it's simply wrong.

[Smails]

People here don't have a basic understand of how the government works.

I had a comment, but I think this pretty much stands on its own

[spazzrico]

We need to reconsider this notion. If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be able to help decide what the government does with the taxes they do collect.

And how do you do this exactly....She's most certainly paying all kinds of sales taxes and indirectly property taxes if she rents. So does she get a blanket no vote, or just a Federal elections no vote. At what level is she disenfranchised?

[spazzrico]

The fact that this moron has the same 1 vote as Warren Buffet helps to explain what is wrong with our political system. We have far too many people voting who are incapable or unwilling to understand the issues. Warrent Buffet is a smart man capable of understand complex concepts. I want him to have much more say in how we are governed than some toothless lady screaming about Obama phones.

Well you are in luck, because Warren Buffet does in fact have a whole hell of a lot more say in how we are governed than the lady in question. Just because they each have one vote doesn't mean the the business leaders of this country don't have a very outsized influence on the kind of legislation and regulations that are passed. And with Citizens United in force now we can now live in this Utopia. You should be thrilled, you've won.

[DC Muskie]

I'm only jumping back into this to make one thing very clear, based on the direction you've taken my response: I didn't see a black woman in the video; I saw a stupid human being in the video. Stupid comes in multiple flesh colors. That black woman could have just as easily been an idiot white redneck fresh from his or her trailer, screaming about his or her phone.

You tried to spin what the Founders' would think of this person. And how they did not account for someone when coming up with this grand experiment and how we elect them. Sorry that the example you used was a stupid black woman. If you are trying to be an expert on what rich white men were or were not thinking in the 1780's, you can't simply ignore the obvious fact that the person you were using was a woman, who was also black. How can judge that if you just dismiss those important factors? Oh right, because you don't want to be associated with racism. I don't think you are racist dash.


Also, I wasn't joking about anything.

Then you need to lighten up.


Otherwise, please help me out with how I look at the way we set how we elect the president. From my chair, I see a government that drives programs that essentially promote and sustain structural poverty and therefore structural dependency. Most of these people have a vote. Virtually all of them vote for free stuff. Why not. The problem is that it isn't sustainable, not to mention that it's simply wrong.

Sooooo you basically don't want poor people to have any say in what goes in this country, because you somehow think you are paying for things that they get for free?

You have obviously been quite successful in dodging these poverty driven programs that promote structural dependency. I hope you don't get old and live on any social security, because you will be pretty pissed at yourself.

I'm with you on people voting for free stuff. Look at sporting events. People absolutely freak out at the ball toss, or a t shirt toss, or anything that is tossed to them at their seats. Lazy ass people should get up go to a store and buy these things. Same with people on welfare. They have zero motivation to work. It's wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We can't sustain this, all this...this..charity. Government charity.

[boozehound]

I have an aunt who votes on one issue. Abortion. She will only vote for pro-life issues. To me that is asinine.

Who gets to be the arbitrator of who is smart enough to understand complex issues? Warren Buffet is likely smarter than you on these things, should you not vote then? Who decides whether or not people have "done something with their lives?" Is there an age for that? Certainly kids at 18 haven't done squat. Do we move the vote to only the elderly? WHOOPS can't do that, because they don't pay taxes on their fixed income.

People here don't have a basic understand of how the government works. But I'm supposed to get all fired up because, what did you call her, "some toothless lady screaming about Obama phones" has a vote? There are certainly many different levels of stupidity. I point in the general direction of the teabaggers and their interpretation of American history and how it applies to today. I would love for them not to vote. Who can I get to make that decision? Warren Buffet? Because that guy thinks he should be taxed more! And there were plenty of people, even on this board who thought Buffet was an idiot. I guess that eliminates him from voting as well.

Seriously, the electoral college was set up to minimize the impact of one individual vote, simply because the Founders didn't think ordinary white men who owned land could come to the proper decision. So in sense your ideas about who should vote are exactly in line to what old rich white guys who didn't want to pay their taxes thought about voting. It's just funny that you use an example of an old rich white guy who thinks he should pay more taxes as an example of understanding complex concepts.

I'm actually OK with paying more taxes if it is part of a comprehensive plan to balance the budget. I don't like paying taxes, but I would pay 3%-5% more in federal income taxes as a compromise if it was part of a plan to make immediate and meaningful cuts to defense spending, foreign aid, SSI, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Warren Buffet's stance on taxation has little to do with his overall intelligence.

With respect to the electoral college, I don't recall many (any) instances in which the electoral vote by district didn't follow the popular vote, by and large. The electoral college prevents large and populous cities from wielding undue political power more than it serves as a check and balance for voter stupidity.

The fundamental problem I have is this: Americans as a whole are too stupid to understand how the budget works. They want to pull far more out of the government than they put in. The only way to finance that is through increased borrowing with WILL eventually destroy the country. Nobody in politics is telling them that though, and few of us are smart enough to realize it.

Stupid people are destroying this country.


And how do you do this exactly....She's most certainly paying all kinds of sales taxes and indirectly property taxes if she rents. So does she get a blanket no vote, or just a Federal elections no vote. At what level is she disenfranchised?

If you are on welfare, you don't vote. That's my take. You are far too beholden to the government for your survival and you have far too much incentive to vote for whomever promises you the most handouts. If you want to vote, get off welfare.

[xudash]

And how do you do this exactly....She's most certainly paying all kinds of sales taxes and indirectly property taxes if she rents. So does she get a blanket no vote, or just a Federal elections no vote. At what level is she disenfranchised?

She isn't paying property taxes indirectly. Are you kidding me? How is she paying property taxes indirectly? Please don't tell me she's paying them indirectly because her landlord has built them into her monthly rental payment. She pays no real estate property taxes if she is a renter, period.

The person who owns the apartment complex who put his or her capital at risk to purchase and maintain it for rental revenue pays the property taxes on the apartment complex. That person is the person who is in the records of the local taxing authority for property taxes. The taxing authorities look to the owner to make the tax payments; the taxing authorities would never come after the renters for such payments.

She pays sales taxes you say? What most likely is the source of the money she uses to make taxed purchases?

Frankly, I don't see this as a complicated issue. It's the difference between people who want to live on the dole versus people who want to find a path to self-fulfillment/gainful employment.

Pick a low earnings threshold number to make it very inclusive - - $20,000 in Gross Salary/Wages W-2 or 1099 income. Private sector earnings (ID'd by SIC Code) validated by the IRS.

[spazzrico]

If you are on welfare, you don't vote. That's my take. You are far too beholden to the government for your survival and you have far too much incentive to vote for whomever promises you the most handouts. If you want to vote, get off welfare.

But in order to get off of welfare many people aren't paying taxes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/how-paying-no-federal-income-taxes-helps-the-poor-get-off-welfare-and-into-work/). So when will they ever get to vote? This feel like a catch-22.

[boozehound]

But in order to get off of welfare many people aren't paying taxes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/how-paying-no-federal-income-taxes-helps-the-poor-get-off-welfare-and-into-work/). So when will they ever get to vote? This feel like a catch-22.

That's fine. People who don't pay taxes can vote but people on welfare cannot. I'm good with that.

I also think birth control should be a requirement for welfare, BTW. When you depend on the government to live then we get some say in the choices you make. If you don't like it, get off welfare.

[Pablo's Brother]

Atlas is shrugging.

[chico]

And how do you do this exactly....She's most certainly paying all kinds of sales taxes and indirectly property taxes if she rents. So does she get a blanket no vote, or just a Federal elections no vote. At what level is she disenfranchised?

If this is true then many people on here also pay indirect property taxes to Dana's, so 94 Grad need to lower the price of beer.

[paulxu]

Some of these ideas aren't going to go over real big with disabled veterans.

[boozehound]

Some of these ideas aren't going to go over real big with disabled veterans.

Right. That is the problem with excluding people who pay no taxes from voting, veterans and retirees. I don't think dash or anyone else would seriously suggest denying voting rights to disabled veterans.

Excluding people on welfare from voting would make more sense.

[xudash]

Right. That is the problem with excluding people who pay no taxes from voting, veterans and retirees. I don't think dash or anyone else would seriously suggest denying voting rights to disabled veterans.

Excluding people on welfare from voting would make more sense.

Exactly. Vet's earned their right to vote beyond belief.

Chico, outstanding. Sometimes a direct, humorous way to explain it makes it more obvious.

[DC Muskie]

Excluding people on welfare from voting would make more sense.

How exactly does that make sense? Are you an expert when it comes to the livelihoods of people on welfare?

I don't think you are joking which is simply scary to me.

[LadyMuskie]

Right. That is the problem with excluding people who pay no taxes from voting, veterans and retirees. I don't think dash or anyone else would seriously suggest denying voting rights to disabled veterans.

Excluding people on welfare from voting would make more sense.

You're not serious, are you? You want to go back to the days of yore, when only white males, who owned their own land (which was typically only the first born son - would you qualify?) could vote? Aren't we a better country than that? Aren't we smarter and more inventive than having to resort to restricting people's right to vote because we can't come up with a better way to fix a broken system?

The answer is not to restrict the ability of certain classes to vote. That does nothing but promote class warfare. If you're angry about people being on welfare, then the answer is to work harder as a society and a government to educate them so that you can break the cycle. Give charitably to organizations that work with welfare recipients to get their GEDs, or who help them apply for jobs. Give of your time to organizations like the Boys & Girls Club of America, so that you can work with young people and give them a good influence, and show them why it is so important to work hard in school so that you do not have to rely on others. Additionally, educate yourself on those people who receive welfare. Many of them are "working poor". They're single parents, for example, who do work 40 hours or more a week, but who still cannot make ends meet because of daycare costs and because the minimum wage is way below the poverty level.

I think that sometimes we (and I include myself in this) who have graduated from a university like Xavier, take for granted that you can just be a hard worker and go to college and then get a job. There are so many children who are raised in situations that some of us cannot begin to fathom. We have to break the cycle. We can't hate them. We can't take away their rights. They're human beings. They're Americans. They need better examples of why they shouldn't want to continue the cycle of being on welfare. If you go at them with taking away their rights, you'll accomplish nothing.

And to be honest, as someone firmly ensconced in the disenfranchised political middle of this country, I will tell you that I would strongly campaign against, work against and vote against ANY politician who wanted to take away the right to vote of ANY American. We're better than that. The way to fix our financial problems in this country may not come to us easily, but when we start taking away rights, we're definitely doing it the wrong way!

[X-band '01]

One point to make about "Obamaphones" - most, if not all of, the funding comes from the Universal Service Fund that shows up on all phone and cable bills. If this is the case, wouldn't the "rich" consist of people who pay the bigger phone bills because of high data and minute usage?

The USF was intended to give lower-income people an outlet/lifeline for emergency situations (i.e. 911). Nowadays, it does give people another tool to use when looking for work and might not be able to get a landline for whatever reason. I do believe you get up to 450 free minutes a month but would have to pay for further minutes used.

If campaign money were used to bombard people with text messages on Obamaphones persuading them to vote for Obama and all Democrats, then I could see a legitimate shitstorm ensuing. With the cellphone market being saturated in the last decade, it shouldn't be too big a deal to give everyone access to cell phones (to a certain extent). It's not like everyone's getting free smartphones or iPad usage each month (yet).

[Snipe]

It is safe to say that most Republicans elected president would not have been elected without this solid Southern vote.


Let us go through the elections "line by line" as Obama promised to go through the budget.

1968: Nixon didn't win the South. He didn't win Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia. He got no electoral votes from any of those states.

That is not much of a "Southern Strategy"




It is safe to say that most Republicans elected president would not have been elected without this solid Southern vote.


It is safe to say that in 1968, your theory loses, and you are 0-1.

1972: Nixon won 49 out of 50 states. He didn't need the South. In fact the whole south could have voted against him, and it wouldn't have mattered one bit.




It is safe to say that most Republicans elected president would not have been elected without this solid Southern vote.


It is safe to say that in 1972, your theory loses, and you are 0-2.

1976: Jimmy Carter was elected President. A Southern White Democrat. He swept the South, taking Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.

It was as clean a sweep of the South as you can have. He had to have it too, because California was still White and still Republican.




It is safe to say that most Republicans elected president would not have been elected without this solid Southern vote.


So get this, based upon the data, the only President that needed a "solid Southern vote" to get elected between 1968 and 1976, was the Democrat, not the Republican.

Again, your theory loses, and you are 0-3.

1980: Ronald Reagan won in a landslide in 1980.

Jimmy Carter won Georgia, West Virgina, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Minnesota. Reagan won the other 45 States in the Union, for a 45-5 flush.

The total electoral count was 489 for Ronald Reagan, and 49 for Jimmy Carter.




It is safe to say that most Republicans elected president would not have been elected without this solid Southern vote.


Really? It was the "solid Southern vote” that made Reagan the President? You are now 0-4.

1984: Ronald Reagan in 1984 won 49 out of 50 States in the Union, winning every State but Minnesota. The final count of the electoral college was 525 to 10, and it was the most lopsided election in American history.





It is safe to say that most Republicans elected president would not have been elected without this solid Southern vote.


Really you say? That is an interesting theory!

You are now 0-5.

1988: George H.W. Bush (The Elder) won 39 states to 11 vs Michael Dukakis.

The electoral college was 426-111. It wasn't close. Dukakis didn't win a single Southern State, but that doesn't mean he could have won even if he had swept them. He lost by a wide margin.




It is safe to say that most Republicans elected president would not have been elected without this solid Southern vote.


Hate to say it, but it looks like you are 0-6 with your political theory.

1992: Democrat William Jefferson Clinton won the election, and he was a Southern Democrat. He won Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky in route to his election to the Presidency. Why didn't those racist southerners vote? I guess they took the election off again.

You claimed that LBJ lost the southern vote for not just a generation, but for generations. From 1964 to 30 years later, I can't see any evidence of that.

You claimed that




It is safe to say that most Republicans elected president would not have been elected without this solid Southern vote.


I can't see where you come up with that either. Nixon didn't need the Southern Vote. Reagan didn't need the Southern Vote. George Bush (the elder) didn't need the Southern Vote.

How do you reconcile your theory of the last 50 years of political drama with these facts?

[paulxu]

Snipe,
While I appreciate your well researched beat down, I would point out a few things.
First, it is clear from the numbers I provided for the state voting by year, that the South has gone predominately Republican since LBJ, when they were predominately Democrat before that time.

In the 10 elections since LBJ until Obama's election, the Dems won 3 (2 Clinton, 1 Carter). My point was that until Obama, Dems needed a southerner to even have a chance.

In the 7 elections won by Repblicans, 3 needed the South...3 didn't. Reagan didn't need it following Carter (or for a second term) and Nixon didn't for his second term. One is a toss-up I guess...Bush the elder.

But the first Nixon needed the South to get to 270; most of the states he didn't win in the South were voting for George Wallace. Without Kentucky, the Carolinas and Tennessee, he doesn't make it.

Obviously the 2 younger Bush victories needed the South. (You didn't mention them).

The Republicans built a successful strategy around mobilizing the South following the passage of the civil rights legislation. It has been effective, and I suspect will continue for some time.

GWB carried every Southern state in both elections I think. If Gore (who was from Tennessee) could have carried just one state, he would have won. Kerry could have also if he carried the right one or two.

The strategy has been building since 1968. When it was critical to win, it has worked. And will probably be in play for some time.

[Emp]

Because the last four years made you so much wealthier, I suppose?

How would you judge the last four years?

My IRA is in much better shape. The stim money finally paved most of the potholes I had to dodge on the way to work. My nephews and nieces have health insurance. The stock market came out the tank. The police recruiting class in my city that was on hold just as all the boomer cops were retiring is back in training.

[xubrew]

I fully expect some type of revolutionary war in this country sometime in the next 50 years. We're heded on a path of self destruction.

Bleed, I'm not calling you out at all. I'm just using the quote (and it's only part of a quote) because I think it sums up the way a lot of people think about how devided we are.....

When was America's Golden Age?? We don't seem to go through long periods of time where we are all united and everything is utopic.

-The 80s and 90s were pretty good, I guess, but there was the crack epidemic and the rise of gang violence, especially in LA.

-Toward the end of the 1970s there was major recession and a dismal view of the future, IE Carter's famous speech about how people's children would not be better off than their parents.

-At the beginning of the 1970s, of course, there was Vietnam, and the Cold War

-In the 1960s people thought the country was coming apart with the counter culture and major political strife. There was also a string of assassinations, and, of course, the buildup of Vietnam. There was also a very real threat of nuclear war where people were literally preparing for it by building bomb shelters under their homes. That had to have been distressing.

-In the 1950s we were pretty much a segregated nation that saw churches burned, busses blown up, people lynched, and firehoses turned on people. McCarthyism also ruled the day.

-The 1940s was the war, and we were segregated, but it hadn't boiled over yet.

-1930s was the depression

-the 1920s was prohibition, and the attempt to control the violence of the gangsters. There was also major labor strife. And we were still a racist nation.

-Same with the 1910s, only women were not allowed to vote, and most blacks who tried to vote would have a very hard time doing so.

-Reconstruction didn't go as hoped or planned. Throughout this period, there was also much unrest due to immigration issues.

-Before that, there was the Civil War. Not our finest moment, nor was it a time when the country was altogether united.

-Before that were the events that led up to the Civil War that were pulling the country apart.

-Andrew Jackson did balance the budget, but this was also a time where we continued to force Indians/Native Americans/American Indians (I'm not even sure what the current politically correct term is) off their land. I guess it wasn't genocide, but it may as well have been. Not our finest moment. At this point in time, brawling was commonplace among our poltical leaders, and fighting duels was a commonly accepted way of settling disputes.

-Even during the Revolution and the years that followed, the colonies could not agree on how to finance the war, and no one wanted to finance it themselves. So, they didn't. Soldiers went long periods of time without proper food, supplies, or compensation.


Yes, we are in unique and scary times in a sense. We're being lied to by our leaders in a time of crisis (or at the very least, a time of urgency). Snipe gave a good example of an issue of urgency that we are being lied to about in his initial post. Many Americans identify more with a party, and seemingly embrace whatever ideals that party tells them to embrace. They don't think for themselves, and they don't question their own party. They defend it, and attack the other side. Instead of democracy in a true sense, we have a system that is set up to be adversarial, not united. Remember, at one point, the guy that came in second was the Vice President. Was that our golden age?? (Or not, because only white men could vote, and slavery still existed, and we were driving Indians off the land, and fighting duels was still commonplace among our leaders).

It's a fascinating country we live in, and I really do think it is the best place in the world to live. It's not without it's warts, though, and if you really look at our history, we've always had them.

I kind of forgot where I was going with this. I agree with Snipe's initial post, and the tone of the initial post. I just don't think it's anything new in the sense that we've always been good at inflicting crisis upon ourselves. It seems as though that more often than not, we're seemingly headed toward some type of revolt like the one Bleed pedicted.

[X-band '01]

I move that Braves fans who were throwing bottle after bottle on the field should not be allowed to vote this year.

[UCGRAD4X]

Democracy is the worst form of government....except for all the others...
- Winston Churchill

[BENWAR]

I move that Braves fans who were throwing bottle after bottle on the field should not be allowed to vote this year.


The Braves got screwed on that call.

[X-band '01]

No doubt they were screwed out of a crucial out - but that's not a green light to litter the field. Had one of the players or umps been injured because of the debris, you would have likely been looking at a forfeit by the Braves.

Sent from a discarded O-phone