WombatControl: Based on the way Democrats think, I have a feeling they are going to be very surprised when Obama loses in November and they will be even more surprised by the margin in both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

I'm sure I'll know the results of the election long before it happens (unless it's very, very close). All I have to do is read Nate Silver's blog. His forecast currently has Obama with a 62.7% chance of winning; that number should be 95+% (one way or the other) weeks before the election unless it's damned close.

tbartman68: Actually, I'm pretty well versed in how it works. Enough to also know that the procedures and laws are convoluted enough for whoever's in the majority to twist & manipulate to their favor.

If you knew how it worked, you wouldn't be here on Fark telling us that immigration reform could be passed "the same way" as healthcare reform.

Fart_Machine: So that must be why they only seem "concerned" about anyone who supports Obama over Romney?

Nope.

Do you have an example of their supporting Romney?
Can you support Obama under Romney?
Can you tell I think your post doesn't actually make sense?

FrailChild: This is typical of what happens across the country... private sector tanks & government stays the same or keeps growing... government is always hiring meaning there are less people paying in taxes to keep the public sector afloat.
[californiacitynews.typepad.com image 500x355]

We've now crossed the boundary... where more people work for government than private sector... who will pay for it?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

Um... your chart refers to only 'goods producing'. That seems a rather odd (and vague) limitation of non-government workers and clearly is NOT the totality of the private sector.

s2s2s2: Sock Ruh Tease: [i.imgur.com image 421x543]

I smell butthurt. Or else brilliant trolling because you are exemplifying the point the comics make about liberals reaction to criticism of Obama,

Either way, AE wins.

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: So that must be why they only seem "concerned" about anyone who supports Obama over Romney?

Nope.
[americanextremists.thecomicseries.com image 421x543]
Do you have an example of their supporting Romney?
Can you support Obama under Romney?
Can you tell I think your post doesn't actually make sense?

Can you tell you're a shill for this cartoonist? Everybody else can.

tbartman68: friday13: tbartman68: I'm well aware of the filibuster & how much the Repubs did it, yet they still rammed that shiat healthcare reform through, along with many other items. If they had chosen to do the same with immigration reform, they could have. That's all I'm saying.

You don't seem to remember the MONTHS of negotiation on health-care reform...do you have a selective memory?

I remember it well. I never said it was done in a week. I also remember the bribes and threats to members of their own party to pass a several thousand page document that most of them never even read. How exactly do you negotiate something you haven't read? The only thing they were really negotiating was the amount of kickbacks they were riding on it.

So you're saying that even IF the Dems had the supermajority they STILL wouldn't have had the votes without backroom deals and compromises? Doesn't that sort of, oh I don't know, OBLITERATE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT?!?!?

It's almost as if you have literally zero idea of how Congress works and bills get passed.

Actually, I'm pretty well versed in how it works. Enough to also know that the procedures and laws are convoluted enough for whoever's in the majority to twist & manipulate to their favor. I have a pretty strong feeling that if it would have went the other way & the other side would've had the majority & pulled the exact same stunts to pass theirs, you would be the "retard" screaming foul play.

First, I wasn't the one who said that, so your comment is VERY misplaced here: go read my post again and you'll see I was quoting cameroncrazy in regards to the reconciliation rules, which at the time I didn't remember. But pulling shiat out of context seems to be your specialty here.
Second, they did (though through a DIFFERENT yet similar stunt), and I was pissed, but didn't call it foul play. I called for reform, and didn't get it.

I don't usually bump people up TWO levels on the retard red scale in the same thread, but you certainly earned it with this one. False attribution and demolishing your own argument will do that.

AntiNerd: CPennypacker: I "oppose" Obama on a lot of issues. If someone better was running, I'd vote for him. But his opponent is worse. Much worse in a great deal of ways.

I suppose that sums up what I see here. Of course that doesn't explain the dark-green votes.

[www.myqwip.com image 210x280]
(click to vote in new window)

Lets take this a step further, Most polls can be skewed due to question bias, let's have a look at your poll question

"As the first non-white president of the United States, Obama was elected on a campaign promise of Hope And Change. He presents himself as a centrist, yet has been operating in an intensively polarized political climate. Conservatives have been driven to oppose his every action even when the policies he is pursing are those that their party proposed in the first place. Many liberals and progressives are disappointed with the compromises he has made, while a solid base remains fervently devoted.

Vote +++ If you think Obama deserves all the credit his loyal backers give him.
Vote ++ If you like Obama and will continue to support him, but have problems with some of his policies and political actions.
Vote + If you will continue to support Obama because you do not see a better alternative.
Vote - If you you would be politically include to support Obama because you are a progressive or liberal, but have been repelled by his compromises to ideals.
Vote - - If you believe that having Obama in office is directly damaging the nation.
Vote - - - (most negative) if you are ideologically opposed to what Obama stands for. Or if you are a Birther."

Given how you set up the question and the proposed answers, your poll should be heavily green.

Just give this up and admit that this poll is rectally generated and has the scientific value of 600 yr old dinosaur bones that were buried by Satan.

WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: Fart_Machine: WombatControl: AND THIS IS WHY THE DEMOCRATS KEEP LOSING.

Apart from losing seats in the House but still maintaining the Senate you have a strange notion of "keep losing". But keep on with the Tea Party standard. I'm sure it will win more seats next year.

Not just losing seats in the House, losing 63 House seats. That's more than the 1994 Democratic losses. Oh, and losing in the Wisconsin recall race. And losing in some key referrenda on public sector unions too. Oh, and a Republican taking Ted Kennedy's former seat in the Senate.

Yeah, so other than the largest seat change in a midterm election since 1938, the Democrats have no reason to worry. Sure, just pretend like that was totally normal and not a huge warning sign that the Democrats are completely out of touch.

Based on the way Democrats think, I have a feeling they are going to be very surprised when Obama loses in November and they will be even more surprised by the margin in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Now, maybe they'll wise up and see how idiotic they're being and salvage this thing, but I doubt that. They've drunk their own Kool-Aid for too long to even taste the cyanide anymore...

A bad candidate and a failed recall in one state means the Democrats are DOOOOOMED nationally! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

And the largest mid-term election loss since 1938 - you left that one out for some reason...

Quite frankly, there's one reason why the Democrats are doing so poorly: ObamaCare. If they had stayed on task with the economy, they probably would have lost some seats in the House, but not 63. I don't think the Democrats had any idea how bad an idea ObamaCare was, how unpopular it would be, or why it would cause them so many problems.

It was a mistake because the country was worried about jobs and the economy, and Obama went for a liberal wish-list item rather than showing a laser-like focus on the economy. And it's not like the Democrats had fai ...

They passed a $800 billion bill to cut taxes and invest money in the economy in February. What the hell else were they supposed to do? Cut regulations that aren't actually destroying jobs? Lower taxes even more?

theknuckler_33: tbartman68: yet they still rammed that shiat healthcare reform through

I love how following the legislative process is 'ramming' something through.


Following the legislative process isn't. Bribing and threatening members of your own party to force a majority on an item that the majority of the U.S. that voted them in didn't want (and showed it by promptly voting a lot of them out), at least in my book, is. To each their own, I guess.

LasersHurt: AE is kind of dry, holier than thou crap. A little. Sorry. Don't hit me.

It's cowardly like politifact.

s2s2s2: Do you have an example of their supporting Romney?

Oh and that isn't what I stated at all. What I said was their concern over anyone who supports Obama over Romney who are the only real candidates at this point (since third party has yet to be a realistic alternative).

cameroncrazy1984: AcneVulgaris: Obama is the Giant Douche to Romney's shiat Sandwich, nothing more.

Yes, because politics is as simple as a 12 year old South Park episode. BSABSVR

I guess it only makes sense if you're a passive aggressive partisan cock gobbler.

Epoch_Zero: Veloram: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Veloram: Conservatives have a history of being fiscally aware

I see zero evidence of this.

Google "fiscal conservative". I promise, there is such a thing haha. Don't see them all that much anymore with the regressives posing as conservatives hogging the spotlight, though.

Short Answer: "I can't prove it. It appears to be demonstrably false."

I expect no more than that. Conservatives have trouble with words like "history". They know the word means something important, but they've never been part of an ideology that actively makes use of it. So simply saying "conservatives have a history of being fiscally aware" is meant to carry weight by the sheer, magical nature of the mysterious word.

Scratch the surface, and it becomes clear they never knew what the word meant in the first place. Same with "theory", "fact", etc.

Sock Ruh Tease: Sock Ruh Tease:



Fart_Machine: Can you tell you're a shill for this cartoonist? Everybody else can.

I like 'em. But I guess what you meant to say is "No, I can't effectively argue with them."

s2s2s2: Can you support Obama under Romney?
dood, what the fark? I had you pegged as a troll, not the real thing...

AcneVulgaris: cameroncrazy1984: AcneVulgaris: Obama is the Giant Douche to Romney's shiat Sandwich, nothing more.

Yes, because politics is as simple as a 12 year old South Park episode. BSABSVR

I guess it only makes sense if you're a passive aggressive partisan cock gobbler.

The analogy? Yes.

WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: Fart_Machine: WombatControl: AND THIS IS WHY THE DEMOCRATS KEEP LOSING.

Apart from losing seats in the House but still maintaining the Senate you have a strange notion of "keep losing". But keep on with the Tea Party standard. I'm sure it will win more seats next year.

Not just losing seats in the House, losing 63 House seats. That's more than the 1994 Democratic losses. Oh, and losing in the Wisconsin recall race. And losing in some key referrenda on public sector unions too. Oh, and a Republican taking Ted Kennedy's former seat in the Senate.

Yeah, so other than the largest seat change in a midterm election since 1938, the Democrats have no reason to worry. Sure, just pretend like that was totally normal and not a huge warning sign that the Democrats are completely out of touch.

Based on the way Democrats think, I have a feeling they are going to be very surprised when Obama loses in November and they will be even more surprised by the margin in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Now, maybe they'll wise up and see how idiotic they're being and salvage this thing, but I doubt that. They've drunk their own Kool-Aid for too long to even taste the cyanide anymore...

A bad candidate and a failed recall in one state means the Democrats are DOOOOOMED nationally! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

And the largest mid-term election loss since 1938 - you left that one out for some reason...

Quite frankly, there's one reason why the Democrats are doing so poorly: ObamaCare. If they had stayed on task with the economy, they probably would have lost some seats in the House, but not 63. I don't think the Democrats had any idea how bad an idea ObamaCare was, how unpopular it would be, or why it would cause them so many problems.

It was a mistake because the country was worried about jobs and the economy, and Obama went for a liberal wish-list item rather than showing a laser-like focus on the economy. And it's not like the Democrats had fai ...

I don't think "Obamacare" is going to be a major factor in this election. The fact that the Republicans picked Romney (who signed a statewide bill that was very similiar) means that that can not be a winning attack strategy. It's just like how Kerry couldn't effectively bash Bush on the war in Iraq because he voted for it in the Senate.

This election is going to come down to the following:

If the economy improves signficantly in the coming months, Obama will win in a landslide.

If the economy gets worse or is completely stable, there will be a challenge between "Vote against the guy currently in office because the economy sucks no matter who his opponent is" and the sheer power of incumbency in the first place.

Nobody, except Mormons, is actually voting for Romney (as opposed to voting against Obama). And it's really hard to win by merely being not the incumbent, as Kerry found out. But a very poor economy could make this work for Romney, by sheer accident (IE, it's out of his hands, and Obama's).

thurstonxhowell: Pointing out that the headline is inaccurate? On Fark? SO BRAVE.

Well, my aim was more along the lines of pointing out that the author's entire argument was against the words that he himself came up with, in effect arguing with himself, but either way I do feel quite brave for having done so. I can now proudly beat my chest and roar about how awesome I was on the internet today.

tbartman68: How exactly do you negotiate something you haven't read?

Maybe you should ask the individual Congressmen and Senators why they hadn't read it.

tbartman68: I never said it was done in a week.

But it was still "rammed through", eh?

/Waiting for the out-of-context quote from Nancy Pelosi

Fart_Machine: Oh and that isn't what I stated at all. What I said was their concern over anyone who supports Obama over Romney who are the only real candidates at this point (since third party has yet to be a realistic alternative).

Do you realize you are a shill for the two party, bought and sold, system? Because I do.

/Obama 2012.

Epoch_Zero: Veloram: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Veloram: Conservatives have a history of being fiscally aware

I see zero evidence of this.

Google "fiscal conservative". I promise, there is such a thing haha. Don't see them all that much anymore with the regressives posing as conservatives hogging the spotlight, though.

Short Answer: "I can't prove it. It appears to be demonstrably false."

I think he forgot to finish the sentence; Conservatives have a history of being fiscally aware of their own financial situation, aka I got mine, screw the rest of you

friday13: dood, what the fark? I had you pegged as a troll, not the real thing...

If you think I'm seriously asking that question, you need your meter checked.

WombatControl: And the largest mid-term election loss since 1938

The party in the White House typically loses seats in Congress during the midterms, and if you pair that with an apathetic left and the Tea Party, losing 63 seats (many of which were seats won in 2006, giving rise to the same scenario we see in the Senate this year as Democrats try to hold seats in relatively conservative districts) was not particularly surprising. At the same time, the "national" Senate races went badly for the GOP as they missed two solid locks in Delaware and Nevada.

WombatControl: And it's not like the Democrats had fair warning: the Scott Brown win should have been a huge red flag that ObamaCare was a bad idea.

The Scott Brown win was a huge red flag that Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate who phoned in her campaign. The lesson is "don't take a win for granted".

WombatControl: It was a mistake because the country was worried about jobs and the economy, and Obama went for a liberal wish-list item rather than showing a laser-like focus on the economy.

Obama did the best stimulus that could be gotten through Congress. A bigger or second stimulus wasn't going to happen. What else should have been done? Do you think Democratic voters would have been happier with him if he'd punted on health care reform, which was a central issue in his campaign?

s2s2s2: I like 'em. But I guess what you meant to say is "No, I can't effectively argue with them."

Yes, arguing with rhetorical cartoon strawmen is pretty pointless. Most people realize this.

cameroncrazy1984: AcneVulgaris: cameroncrazy1984: AcneVulgaris: Obama is the Giant Douche to Romney's shiat Sandwich, nothing more.

Yes, because politics is as simple as a 12 year old South Park episode. BSABSVR

I guess it only makes sense if you're a passive aggressive partisan cock gobbler.

The analogy? Yes.

I was also wondering why AcneVulgaris chose to call himself a passive aggressive partisan cock gobbler.

Fart_Machine: strawmen

[youkeepusingthatword.jpg]

The Republicans are just to soft on the war on terror for me

ModernPrimitive01: I don't know if he was just pandering or believed his hype only to be disappointed at the reception he got in Washington, but there are some definite campaign promises he hasn't fulfilled.

Which ones? As far as I can figure out, the only campaign promises he hasn't fulfilled were ones that the Republicans blocked in Congress.

LasersHurt: Which I'm sure Fark's conservatives will only demonstrate with their thoughtful, fact-filled explanations of their opposition that in no way make them sound like selfish ideologues.

Still waiting....

aug3: The Republicans are just to soft on the war on terror for me

Making more efficient the killing of brown people is a Democratic virtue.

theknuckler_33: Um... your chart refers to only 'goods producing'. That seems a rather odd (and vague) limitation of non-government workers and clearly is NOT the totality of the private sector.

Fair enough. Still an alarming growth of government workers... it is unsustainable.

Rmoney is the white, old, straight candidate.

Obama isn't.

FrailChild: theknuckler_33: Um... your chart refers to only 'goods producing'. That seems a rather odd (and vague) limitation of non-government workers and clearly is NOT the totality of the private sector.

Fair enough. Still an alarming growth of government workers... it is unsustainable.

It isn't growing. It's falling.

Descartes: Rmoney is the white, old, straight candidate.

Obama isn't.

Obama is gay? You'd think that would conflict with his deeply held Islamic beliefs.

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: strawmen

[youkeepusingthatword.jpg]

Informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of your opponent's position. I hope that helps you out. Political cartoons do this on a regular basis in case you haven't noticed. Even the one you shill for.

Fart_Machine: a misrepresentation of your opponent's position

[citation.plz]

s2s2s2: Do you realize you are a shill for the two party, bought and sold, system? Because I do.

The idea of 3rd and 4th parties seems attractive but after thinking about it more you eventually come to the conclusion that they'd just be elected then corrupted by the same money.

mrshowrules: Geotpf: If the economy improves signficantly in the coming months, Obama will win in a landslide.

If the recovery remains weak or even if the economy dips slightly, I think Obama takes it. If it tanks, he loses.

I agree. The economy will have to really go in the tank for Obama to lose. Romney is a very non-charismatic candidate with little actual support behind him (except for Mormons who mostly live in non-swing states). The power of incumbency is strong.

Headso: The idea of 3rd and 4th parties seems attractive but after thinking about it more you eventually come to the conclusion that they'd just be elected then corrupted by the same money.

Right, well then, I guess since they are all corrupted (willingly or by the force of others), I guess I have no reason to be disappointed with all the corruption in politics and can start up that KUWTK marathon.

friday13:

First, I wasn't the one who said that, so your comment is VERY misplaced here: go read my post again and you'll see I was quoting cameroncrazy in regards to the reconciliation rules, which at the time I didn't remember..


Actually, that was my bad. I meant to include his name in that quote, & accidentally deleted it.

Do I get a strike back there, Sheldon, or do I have to take the class????


So you're saying that even IF the Dems had the supermajority they STILL wouldn't have had the votes without backroom deals and compromises? Doesn't that sort of, oh I don't know, OBLITERATE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT?!?!?

Nope. The party leaders forced their members to "toe the line" & utilized their majority. Doesn't obliterate it at all.

DarwiOdrade: Every single one of those stupid cartoons you posted in this thread.

That's not a citation, so that's two words, now. Show me how they are misrepresenting a position, instead of restating your belief as if it were a citation, please.

Headso: s2s2s2: Do you realize you are a shill for the two party, bought and sold, system? Because I do.

The idea of 3rd and 4th parties seems attractive but after thinking about it more you eventually come to the conclusion that they'd just be elected then corrupted by the same money.

In a system such as ours, a two party system is almost inevitable. If you threw out the constitution completely and reformed the nation in a parlimentary system where one voted for a party as opposed to a candidate, you'd have vibrant multi-party elections. Since that won't happen, we will be stuck with a two party system. Everybody just needs to deal with this reality.

Uh, all sorts of thoughtful people could reasonably oppose Obama. But no thoughtful person could reasonably vote Romney.

Given that, and we do have a two party system, he is indeed our one and only solution.

Context matters.