President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

by **Seven Wishes2** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:28 am

Wow. The news keeps getting better for the GOP, doesn't it?

Romney trails in every national poll by between 5 and 8 points.

Needing to win all eight swing states, Romney only leads in four and is facing a nearly double-digit deficit in Ohio, without which he has zero chance of becoming President.

Scott Walker's union-killing law was struck down by the court as unconstitutional.
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-wis-law-limiting-union-rights-214923391.html

Republicans are losing ground on the critical issues, most notably Medicare:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/us/politics/in-poll-obama-opens-medicare-edge-over-romney.html?_r=1&hp

by **brandonx76** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:40 am

slucero wrote:both parties want people to focus their hate on the "other party".....

I completely disagree...the Republicans have flung enough false truths and accusations, you can no longer have an Adult Conversation...With Obama, he decided to meet them in the gutter....so be it, after all the shenanigans of Karl Rove and his ilk...about fucking time!

by **slucero** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:15 am

brandonx76 wrote:
slucero wrote:both parties want people to focus their hate on the "other party".....

I completely disagree...the Republicans have flung enough false truths and accusations, you can no longer have an Adult Conversation...With Obama, he decided to meet them in the gutter....so be it, after all the shenanigans of Karl Rove and his ilk...about fucking time!

Both parties have poo on their hands...

Get a clue.. Obama is the incumbent.. he doesn't have to stoop.. its part of the advantage of being the incumbent..

Please post for me the last time either party has had a "kumbaya" moment with the other party.. when it WASN'T in both parties best interests...

If you think the either party represent the average American... then you actually must believe the Gulf of Tonkin Incedent actually happened, and the Shah of Iran was freely elected..

Parties don't matter... their track record is the proof... it has always been aboutr corporate interests, power and money... I remember a campaign promise to "end the lobby"... "repeal The Patriot Act".....

but go on deluding yourself..

by **Monker** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:40 am

slucero wrote:Get a clue.. Obama is the incumbent.. he doesn't have to stoop.. its part of the advantage of being the incumbent..

4yrs ago, Obama didn't do it against McCain. And, when McCain started going very negative, he sounded like an angry old man. He actually had to tone down his FOX news followers who were making crazy statements while McCain was holding the mic!

This is the way Republicans have been winning the White House for decades.

Please post for me the last time either party has had a "kumbaya" moment with the other party.

McCain suspending his campaign due to the financial crisis and asking for a meeting with Obama, W, and himself, and others to address the issue.

Obama doing the same with Health Care, giving Republicans the opportunity to express real ideas and compromise.

If you think the either party represent the average American... then you actually must believe the Gulf of Tonkin Incedent actually happened, and the Shah of Iran was freely elected..

Right now, the Democratic party represents the average American's best interest FAR more then the Replican party. Yeah, they have their own selfish interests too, but it is no where near as skewed as the Republicans.

Parties don't matter... their track record is the proof... it has always been aboutr corporate interests, power and money... I remember a campaign promise to "end the lobby"... "repeal The Patriot Act".....

And, you forget that corporations are people and money is free speech.

by **Monker** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:01 am

Seven Wishes wrote:Wow. The news keeps getting better for the GOP, doesn't it?

Romney trails in every national poll by between 5 and 8 points.

Needing to win all eight swing states, Romney only leads in four and is facing a nearly double-digit deficit in Ohio, without which he has zero chance of becoming President.

Scott Walker's union-killing law was struck down by the court as unconstitutional.
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-wis-law-limiting-union-rights-214923391.html

Republicans are losing ground on the critical issues, most notably Medicare:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/us/politics/in-poll-obama-opens-medicare-edge-over-romney.html?_r=1&hp

I guessed that would happen about a week ago. The only poll that has Romney ahead is Rasmussen. Out of the conventions, Obama received about a 3pt bounce and Romney netted a -1 decline...which I also said would happen. The Democrats have set themselves up for a win.

The only way the Republicans can win is if Obama does bad in the debates...and I don't see that happening.

by **slucero** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:32 am

Monker wrote:
slucero wrote:Get a clue.. Obama is the incumbent.. he doesn't have to stoop.. its part of the advantage of being the incumbent..

4yrs ago, Obama didn't do it against McCain. And, when McCain started going very negative, he sounded like an angry old man. He actually had to tone down his FOX news followers who were making crazy statements while McCain was holding the mic!

This is the way Republicans have been winning the White House for decades.

Actually Obama did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

In a 2010 report, the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project (which is now housed at Wesleyan University as the Wesleyan Media Project) surveyed presidential advertising in the 2008 campaign. The report concluded that McCain ran more negative ads than Obama in July, August and November, while Obama ran more negative ads in September and October.

Obama and his allies had $380 million to spend, compared to $195 million for McCain and his allies.) McCain had a higher percentage of negative ads, and quite likely matched or even exceeded the number of negative ads aired by Obama. So his campaign, on a percentage basis, was more negative. But Obama could afford to spend money on positive ads, especially in the final days of the campaign, while McCain turned increasingly negative as the campaign progressed.

..and 4 years ago there was no incumbent, which was my point.

.. and McCain is an angry old man.. :lol:

Monker wrote:
slucero wrote:Please post for me the last time either party has had a "kumbaya" moment with the other party.

McCain suspending his campaign due to the financial crisis and asking for a meeting with Obama, W, and himself, and others to address the issue.

More accurately - McCain asked President Bush to convene a meeting with the congressional leadership, then fell on his face when it came to offering any kind of solution.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 57648.html

Monker wrote:Obama doing the same with Health Care, giving Republicans the opportunity to express real ideas and compromise.

Right.. a law that was passed with not one Republican vote. Lots of Republican Ideals in there... even Peolosi alludes to t hat here when she talks about rammig through.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mkfQobyxgQ

Monker wrote:
slucero wrote:If you think the either party represent the average American... then you actually must believe the Gulf of Tonkin Incedent actually happened, and the Shah of Iran was freely elected..

Right now, the Democratic party represents the average American's best interest FAR more then the Replican party. Yeah, they have their own selfish interests too, but it is no where near as skewed as the Republicans.

I disagree.. and their collective record indicates so...

The last time that we had a federal budget that was signed into law was 15 YEARS AGO, in 1997. All we've had since then is “omnibus spending bills” and “continuing resolutions.” Both parties appear to be doing a bang up job.. and that same congress repealed Glass-Steagal in 1999...

Bang up job...

Monker wrote:
slucero wrote:Parties don't matter... their track record is the proof... it has always been aboutr corporate interests, power and money... I remember a campaign promise to "end the lobby"... "repeal The Patriot Act".....

And, you forget that corporations are people and money is free speech.

..and therein lies the problem, Joe American no longer being represented.

by **conversationpc** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:05 am

Seven Wishes wrote:Romney trails in every national poll by between 5 and 8 points.

The king of hyperbole strikes again. What polls are you reading?

Gallup...Obama +3
Rasmussen...Romney +1
CBS/NY Times...Obama +3
Democracy Corps...Obama +5
Esquire/Yahoo! News...Obama +4
Fox News...Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos...Obama +3
ABC News/Washington Post...Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research...Obama +6
IBD/CSM/TIPP...Obama +2

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/#

Needing to win all eight swing states, Romney only leads in four and is facing a nearly double-digit deficit in Ohio, without which he has zero chance of becoming President.

A scan of the same site shows Obama with the following leads in the various polls for Ohio: 7, 1, 4, & 5. Nothing really even close to double digits there and only one out of the margin of error.

by **conversationpc** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:56 pm

No wonder most polls show Obama up instead of either even or behind Romney...

Obama’s National Lead Based Entirely on Over-Sampling Democrats

I went to great lengths to debunk the over-sampling of Democrats in polling used across polling outfits. As a brief reminder, they use the prior election as their base model (7 percentage points more Democrats than Republicans) for consistency sake but not for accuracy sake. Only Rasmussen Reports aggressively surveys the public to get a sense of current party affiliation and weights his polls accordingly. This is why, despite hysterical protests from the Left, Rasmussen consistently calls the Presidential races better than his competitors. One of the commenters, greymarch, mentioned some good work by @NumbersMuncher showed the +3.1% lead for Obama in the current (September 15) Real Clear Politics average of national polls was based on polls where Democrats were being oversampled by on average +6.1%. Now we have this disparity in graphic detail:

As you can see the X-Axis is the % over-sampling either way: movement to the left is Republican over-sampling while movement to the right is Democrat over-sampling. The Y-Axis is the attendant Obama lead which loosely correlates to how greatly Democrats are over-sampled. The real take-away which I have mentioned the times I blog national polls is that many of those national polls are HORRIBLE for Obama, namely the ABC/Washington Post and CBS/New York Times polls where you have large Democrat over-samplings but rather small leads for Obama. This means if Obama doesn’t meet or beat his stellar 2008 turnout advantage he’s in for a drubbing on election day.

These over-samplings serve a few purposes but mainly drive down enthusiasm for Republicans while assisting the Obama campaign with “bandwagon” supporters who simply like being on the winning team (they’re real and they count). If pollsters in conjunction with the Obama campaign create a negative feedback loop for Republicans such that the marginal voter doesn’t show up (definitely a well documented top priority for the Obama campaign) and assist with the bandwagon voter — a small but meaningful voter in close elections — then Obama can create the perfect storm he needs to eek out a close victory following one of the worst four-year performances for any President in modern times (Carter is the only arguable comparable).

That is the what and why pollsters are doing the massive Democrat over-sampling this election cycle.

http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/16 ... democrats/

by **conversationpc** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:16 pm

So the economy's getting better but Bernanke and the Fed are going to do "unlimited quantitative easing" part III. Interpreted, that means unlimited printing of new currency, thereby devaluing the dollar and creating major inflation and likely hyper-inflation later on. Bush started it and they're now going to turn us into the next Weimar Republic. Nice going!

by **Monker** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:12 am

conversationpc wrote:No wonder most polls show Obama up instead of either even or behind Romney...

Obama’s National Lead Based Entirely on Over-Sampling Democrats

LOL....grasping at straws. If it were reversed, FF would have a LOT more polls to use for his propaganda.

As it is, even if Rasmussen is correct, Republicans are STILL going to have a hard time winning the states they need.

by **conversationpc** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:36 am

Monker wrote:
conversationpc wrote:No wonder most polls show Obama up instead of either even or behind Romney...

Obama’s National Lead Based Entirely on Over-Sampling Democrats

LOL....grasping at straws. If it were reversed, FF would have a LOT more polls to use for his propaganda.

As it is, even if Rasmussen is correct, Republicans are STILL going to have a hard time winning the states they need.

I'm not arguing with that, believe me. I'm not claiming Romney is going to sweep the election ala Reagan vs. Mondale.

by **slucero** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:24 am

conversationpc wrote:So the economy's getting better but Bernanke and the Fed are going to do "unlimited quantitative easing" part III. Interpreted, that means unlimited printing of new currency, thereby devaluing the dollar and creating major inflation and likely hyper-inflation later on. Bush started it and they're now going to turn us into the next Weimar Republic. Nice going!

Bernanke's Thursday comments that this 3rd round of QE is to accelerate the recovery are flat lying... QE3 is simply continued support of the financial Status Quo. By any measure there is no recovery, GDP, jobs are all flat, indicating the prior stimulus (QEI, QEII and the Governments stimulus) have not worked... because they never were intended to.

QE is for the banks, government stimulus is a placebo for consumers.

If anything the Fed has done in the past four years had actually had a positive consequence in the real economy, Bernanke would have identified that policy and expanded it in a measured response. Note this key quote from his remarks:

"If people feel that their financial situation is better because their 401(k) looks better for whatever reason, or their house is worth more, they are more willing to go out and provide the demand."

The key phrase here is "for whatever reason." In other words, it doesn't matter how artificial or phantom the increase in Joe Consumers assets may be, any increase is presumed to be good enough to trigger a "wealth effect" euphoria that generates a pressing urge for Joe Consumer borrow and spend money.

The stock market has more than doubled nominally from its March 2009 low, why? The reason for this is self-evident: 93% of all stocks and bonds are owned by the top 10%. That's bankers and the wealthy. The bottom 90% (Joe consumer) feel little if any wealth effect from a new bubble in equities.

DEMAND for goods or services is growth, not a stock price or the DOW going up. Any DIRECT measure of consumer growth or demand, like Personal Consumption Expenditures from GDP reporting, retail sales reports, or INDIRECT measures like the Purchasing Managers ISM Manufacturing Index indicate otherwise.

But most people do not read, watch or understand those.. instead they read their newspapers, or simply believe what they are told on the news... which is utter bullshit.

The data does not lie... but no one reads that.. we've been a soundbite nation for decades.

For Joe Consumer, the"real economy" has been completely disconnected from the traditional barometer of the economy (the DOW) for some time now... A good example of this is food price inflation... look at what a gallon of milk, 5lb bag of sugar, or a gal of gas cost 2 years ago... heck the 5lb bag of sugar is now 4lbs, but the same price... and then remember the FED says we've only had CPI 2% inflation...

Chew on this for a bit. BofA's own chief economist said this yesterday:

"We do not believe there will be “substantial” improvement in the labor market for the next 1.5-2 years and foresee the Fed buying Treasuries after the end of Operation Twist."

This means the Fed is gong to expand its balance sheet to over $5 Trillion Dollars by 2015 and that expansion will equal:

30% of U.S. GDP
33% of the entire mortgage market by 2014.
65% of the entire bond market with a maturity over 5 years by end of 2014

... so if one simply tracks the Feds growing balance sheet with the price of gold and oil, it looks like this:

In case it is unclear, the answer is:

$3350 gold
$190 oil.

..remember what happened 2 years ago when oil hit $147?

Luckily the Fed has already factored all these soaring input costs (and "alternative money" prices) in its models, and there is nothing to worry about. Lest we forget, the Fed can crush inflation cold in 15 minutes cold... somehow. Even when unwinding its balance sheet would mean sacrificing 30% of US GDP and, let's be honest about it, civil war.

And folks here would rather argue about the Obama or Romney... :roll:

by **Gin and Tonic Sky** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:03 am

slucero wrote:

If anything the Fed has done in the past four years had actually had a positive consequence in the real economy, Bernanke would have identified that policy and expanded it in a measured response. Note this key quote from his remarks:

"If people feel that their financial situation is better because their 401(k) looks better for whatever reason, or their house is worth more, they are more willing to go out and provide the demand."

yep, paper over the structural problems of the economy, don't address any bad debt, keep inflating to create another feel good. Never mind its another bubble that pops , we will just paper over that one two when it happens.

slucero wrote:And folks here would rather argue about the Obama or Romney...

depressing ain't it. Neither one has any intention of auditing the Fed or making it accountable and without that nothing is going to ever get fixed .

by **conversationpc** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:13 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Gin and Tonic Sky wrote:
slucero wrote:

If anything the Fed has done in the past four years had actually had a positive consequence in the real economy, Bernanke would have identified that policy and expanded it in a measured response. Note this key quote from his remarks:

"If people feel that their financial situation is better because their 401(k) looks better for whatever reason, or their house is worth more, they are more willing to go out and provide the demand."

yep, paper over the structural problems of the economy, don't address any bad debt, keep inflating to create another feel good. Never mind its another bubble that pops , we will just paper over that one two when it happens.

slucero wrote:And folks here would rather argue about the Obama or Romney...

depressing ain't it. Neither one has any intention of auditing the Fed or making it accountable and without that nothing is going to ever get fixed .

in just the last 3 weeks....

Romney Calls for Fed Audit as Party Mulls Platform Plank

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-2 ... plank.html

MITT ROMNEY: It's Time To Audit The Fed

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul ... z26kfl6e6P

Romney Reiterates He Would Replace Bernanke

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/2 ... -bernanke/

Saying they are for it or are going to do it is one thing. Actually doing it is another. I like that he's saying these things but I will wait to see some follow-through until I actually believe it.

by **Gin and Tonic Sky** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:28 am

Really all this talk by Romney about auditing the Fed was throwing a sop to all of us Libertarians and
Economic Conservatives, so Ron Paul folks wouldn't run away and vote for Gary Johnson. No way is he ever going to do, and we're not that dumb to fall for it. Sorry Willard a Who Song comes to mind.

Here's a hard truth you need to realize: If Romney wins the whole Tea Party libertarian and true conservative movement is dead. Romney will be will be ineffective, and advocate of big government and his failures will just get pinned on those wings of the party.

Plus Romney's folks showed his disdain for conservatives and libertarians with its Rule 16 which it adopted at the convention. Obama might be the wolf but Romney is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Me, id rather have the wolf . At least everyone knows what we are looking at and no-one is under any illusions

Fact Finder wrote:
Gin and Tonic Sky wrote:
slucero wrote:

If anything the Fed has done in the past four years had actually had a positive consequence in the real economy, Bernanke would have identified that policy and expanded it in a measured response. Note this key quote from his remarks:

"If people feel that their financial situation is better because their 401(k) looks better for whatever reason, or their house is worth more, they are more willing to go out and provide the demand."

yep, paper over the structural problems of the economy, don't address any bad debt, keep inflating to create another feel good. Never mind its another bubble that pops , we will just paper over that one two when it happens.

slucero wrote:And folks here would rather argue about the Obama or Romney...

depressing ain't it. Neither one has any intention of auditing the Fed or making it accountable and without that nothing is going to ever get fixed .

in just the last 3 weeks....

Romney Calls for Fed Audit as Party Mulls Platform Plank

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-2 ... plank.html

MITT ROMNEY: It's Time To Audit The Fed

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul ... z26kfl6e6P

Romney Reiterates He Would Replace Bernanke

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/2 ... -bernanke/

by **Behshad** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:30 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Monker wrote:
conversationpc wrote:No wonder most polls show Obama up instead of either even or behind Romney...

Obama’s National Lead Based Entirely on Over-Sampling Democrats

LOL....grasping at straws. If it were reversed, FF would have a LOT more polls to use for his propaganda.

As it is, even if Rasmussen is correct, Republicans are STILL going to have a hard time winning the states they need.

Those polls have been over sampling Dems by sometimes more than 10%. This should worry you guys on the left. As I said the other day, most of these polls are about as credible as a Ted Kennedy neck brace.

So lets see : When you like the polls then you swear by them, but when you dont like them you think theyre fake . :lol:

Screw the polls , November is right around the corner buddy

I bet you will still continue to share your polls(as long as they are in your boy's favor)

by AR » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:33 am

I think this Middle East situation is going to hurt Obama. He looks weak. Not that I truly give a shit either way these days.

by **slucero** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:34 am

Fact Finder wrote:The Audit The Fed Bill Gets Passed By The House But Obama And The Democrats Are Going To Kill It

Nancy Pelosi: 'Audit The Fed' Bill Is Likely Going Nowhere

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 ... 06235.html

Jul 26, 2012 – Barack Obama's good buddy Ben Bernanke called the Audit the Fed bill a “nightmare scenario” last week.

MITT ROMNEY: It's Time To Audit The Fed

If I recall correctly - Obama also promised to end the lobby and repeal the Patriot Act. DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Where's Romney on those items?? Romney BACKS the Patriot Act... and is MUM on the lobby...

Translation: Romney = Obama, Obama = Romney...

Fact Finder wrote:It's only gonna happen if we get more Tea Party Types Elected to the House and Senate. Romney is not what we wanted but he's still a damn site better than The Empty Chair. We need overwhelming majority control.

Anybody with half a fucking brain could see that the Republican Party co-opted the Tea Party because they were a real threat to the Republican monopoly on representing conservatism (more importantly FISCAL conservatism) in this country...

If the Tea Party had any balls it would separate RIGHT NOW from the Republican Party... nothing is gonna happen in 4 years... the economy will not recover until the de-leveraging happens, which won't happen because the Fed is on a never ending quest to prop everything up... (see my previous post). Whoever is the POTUS for the next for years will simply get the blame for this Depression II.

Pauls' been chasing this for 30 years, so it isn't like auditing the Fed is a new idea... hell Bush had 8 FUCKING YEARS to audit the Fed...

Congress will be impotent until the corruption changes.. and that won't happen until there's a 3rd party that gains enough power in Washington to force that change.. This continuing belief in these do nothing of substance Republicans/Democrats is simply one thing..... myopic.

by AR » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:36 am

Libyan president Mohammed el-Megarif is saying the attack Benghazi that killed the American ambassador was planned well beforehand. His statements on this topic firmly contradict the Obama administration's version of events.

"The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous," Megarif says in an interview on NPR. "We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lib ... 52437.html

by **conversationpc** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:39 am

AR wrote:Libyan president Mohammed el-Megarif is saying the attack Benghazi that killed the American ambassador was planned well beforehand. His statements on this topic firmly contradict the Obama administration's version of events.

"The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous," Megarif says in an interview on NPR. "We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lib ... 52437.html

So he's basically saying what every thinking American already knows.

by **conversationpc** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:41 am

slucero wrote:If I recall correctly - Obama promised to end the lobby and repeal the Patriot Act.

Correct. He voted against it as a Senator and then basically lobbied for Congress to extend it again and then signed the extension back into law after being elected President. I didn't vote for Obama but I at least hoped he would kill the Patriot Act.

by **The Sushi Hunter** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:54 am

Quite interesting the stuff Rice is claiming.

by AR » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:58 am

This is a really good blog where I read and get a lot of info on the Middle East.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog ... l-j-totten

I find it to be mostly non-partisan. Really sheds some light on that part of the world.

by **The Sushi Hunter** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:04 am

conversationpc wrote:Gallup...Obama +3
Rasmussen...Romney +1
CBS/NY Times...Obama +3
Democracy Corps...Obama +5
Esquire/Yahoo! News...Obama +4
Fox News...Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos...Obama +3
ABC News/Washington Post...Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research...Obama +6
IBD/CSM/TIPP...Obama +2

If these "polls" are accurate, all the dems have absolutely nothing at all to worry about, BOzo will win by a landslide.

by **Gin and Tonic Sky** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:01 am

AR wrote:This is a really good blog where I read and get a lot of info on the Middle East.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog ... l-j-totten

I find it to be mostly non-partisan. Really sheds some light on that part of the world.

World affairs is a good journal. Most of their folks are pretty accomplished folks but are down to earth thinkers, not to stuck on themselves.

by **RedWingFan** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:38 pm

conversationpc wrote:No wonder most polls show Obama up instead of either even or behind Romney...

Obama’s National Lead Based Entirely on Over-Sampling Democrats

Exactly. When we get to within a couple of weeks of the election. You'll see these polling outfits start polling more accurately so they can claim to have been kinda close. The only purpose for these polls is to try to shape public opinion of Bamster. And as you can see in this thread there are plenty of people stupid enough to believe it.

by **Monker** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:56 pm

RedWingFan wrote:The only purpose for these polls is to try to shape public opinion of Bamster.

Yeah, that's why FOX News has Obama ahead in their poll....because they are so biased towards Democrats that they purposefully slant their poll in favor of Obama...Riiiiight.

The bottom line in this argument is that when Romney was ahead in the polls, nobody complained at all. Now that Obama gets a bounce from his convention and Romney slips a bit, suddenly they are all biased. It's actually kinda funny to me.

by **Monker** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:01 pm

Fact Finder wrote:Romney on the offensive...I like. You can't twist what he said. Plain, simple truth.

In fact he is saying exactly what I've said here for years. But dont mind me. Watch the video.

47% do not pay tax. If they pay it is usually rebated via EITC. People are tired of this.

If you are talking about that article you posted after this post, you are correct. He is stating hard right Republican conservative crap that will cost him votes from moderates and independents as he alienates 50% of the country.

Romney can't win...he either loses his base by being too moderate, or he loses the moderates by appearing too extreme. I've said that since before he was even nominated...and that is exactly what is happening. The Republican party is really screwed up right now.

by **Monker** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:02 pm

The Sushi Hunter wrote:
conversationpc wrote:Gallup...Obama +3
Rasmussen...Romney +1
CBS/NY Times...Obama +3
Democracy Corps...Obama +5
Esquire/Yahoo! News...Obama +4
Fox News...Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos...Obama +3
ABC News/Washington Post...Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research...Obama +6
IBD/CSM/TIPP...Obama +2

If these "polls" are accurate, all the dems have absolutely nothing at all to worry about, BOzo will win by a landslide.

Exactly, I'm not worried at all. But, it won't be a 'landslide'...Romney simply is not a strong enough candidate to win enough swing states to take the election.

by **Gin and Tonic Sky** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:45 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
Monker wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Romney on the offensive...I like. You can't twist what he said. Plain, simple truth.

In fact he is saying exactly what I've said here for years. But dont mind me. Watch the video.

47% do not pay tax. If they pay it is usually rebated via EITC. People are tired of this.

If you are talking about that article you posted after this post, you are correct. He is stating hard right Republican conservative crap that will cost him votes from moderates and independents as he alienates 50% of the country.

Romney can't win...he either loses his base by being too moderate, or he loses the moderates by appearing too extreme. I've said that since before he was even nominated...and that is exactly what is happening. The Republican party is really screwed up right now.

Monker, I think you guys should re-think this line of thought as a good thing for your side. Lets look at the reverse angle.

Romney says 47% are dependent on government,
0bama says 100% are dependent on government

who is alienated in O's world?

I dont necessarily have a problem with what Romney said, but what he didnt say. Romney should have said:" 47% of folks don't pay income tax and and are freeeloading,they wont vote for me. However, I also have a problem with a a high percentage of the other 53%. We have on our side, hundreds of thousands of federal defense contractors charging 50 dollars for a hammer and moaning about where their next government payout in the form a lucrative contract. We have others on our side who pillory the freeloaders but then moan about where their next pell grant, SBA or FHA loan ect is coming.

To fix our mess we all need to buy into smaller government and realize we all need to get less from it. We all need to be more self reliant = 100% of us. I start with a modest proposal , that the US Federal Govt cut its spending back to 2005 levels. If we simply only had what we all had in 2005- even that little bit of sacrifice we will have made a great start.

but I suppose that would be too much to ask.

MR

President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

Who is online