If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   In the midst of increasing GOP criticism, Nate Silver posts his final forecast update: Oh, I'm afraid President Obama will be quite re-elected, when your talking points arrive   (fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 302
    More: Followup, President Obama, GOP, talking points  
•       •       •

10813 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Nov 2012 at 8:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



302 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-06 01:51:48 AM
"All of this leaves Mr. Romney drawing to an inside straight. I hope you'll excuse the cliche, but it's appropriate here: in poker, making an inside straight requires you to catch one of 4 cards out of 48 remaining in the deck, the chances of which are about 8 percent. Those are now about Mr. Romney's chances of winning the Electoral College, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast"
 
2012-11-06 02:58:37 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: "All of this leaves Mr. Romney drawing to an inside straight. I hope you'll excuse the cliche, but it's appropriate here: in poker, making an inside straight requires you to catch one of 4 cards out of 48 remaining in the deck, the chances of which are about 8 percent. Those are now about Mr. Romney's chances of winning the Electoral College, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast"


Which makes it a good time to put the GOP "all-in" because you know those fish will call.
 
2012-11-06 04:23:20 AM
Haven't clicked it yet but my prediction for tomorrow is Obama by 6% with a 55% voter turnout. let's see how close i am...
 
2012-11-06 04:25:45 AM

Tellingthem: Haven't clicked it yet but my prediction for tomorrow is Obama by 6% with a 55% voter turnout. let's see how close i am...


The FiveThirtyEight forecast of the national popular vote is within this range, projecting Mr. Obama's most likely margin of victory to be two or three percentage points,

Damn that is closer than I thought...
 
2012-11-06 04:26:25 AM

Tellingthem: Tellingthem: Haven't clicked it yet but my prediction for tomorrow is Obama by 6% with a 55% voter turnout. let's see how close i am...

The FiveThirtyEight forecast of the national popular vote is within this range, projecting Mr. Obama's most likely margin of victory to be two or three percentage points,

Damn that is closer than I thought...


the race not my prediction...I'm going to bed now...
 
2012-11-06 06:14:16 AM

Tellingthem: Tellingthem: Haven't clicked it yet but my prediction for tomorrow is Obama by 6% with a 55% voter turnout. let's see how close i am...

The FiveThirtyEight forecast of the national popular vote is within this range, projecting Mr. Obama's most likely margin of victory to be two or three percentage points,

Damn that is closer than I thought...


And it really highlights WHY we can't have nice things.

I foresee the winner being hotly conested.
 
2012-11-06 07:38:55 AM
Interesting that FL changed over to a slight lead for Obama on the last day. I think it was around %55 Romney just yesterday now it's %52.5 Obama. This is the only comment he makes "Florida remains too close to call. The FiveThirtyEight forecast has the race there within two-tenths of a percentage point, which would be close enough to trigger an automatic recount." Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.
 
2012-11-06 08:17:21 AM
"I have a bad feeling about this..."

"That's no moon...that's Obama's campaign bus!"
 
2012-11-06 08:27:19 AM
Well, I just went to TrueFreedomF-150JesusPoll.org and they're using actual science to prove that Romney is going to win with 1,076 Electoral Votes AND that he'll win the popular vote six billion to zero, as people around the world hold spontaneous elections demanding a Romney presidency and giving the Republicans a majority of 15,265-0 in the House.

Of course, they'll still blame Democrat obstructionism on that abortion ban they keep promising, but...
 
2012-11-06 08:44:59 AM
I'm not gonna unclench until the magic number 270 show up and corks start flying at the Obama campaign HQ.
 
2012-11-06 08:45:37 AM
I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.
 
2012-11-06 08:47:00 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: "All of this leaves Mr. Romney drawing to an inside straight. I hope you'll excuse the cliche, but it's appropriate here: in poker, making an inside straight requires you to catch one of 4 cards out of 48 remaining in the deck, the chances of which are about 8 percent. Those are now about Mr. Romney's chances of winning the Electoral College, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast"


And boom goes the dynamite.
 
2012-11-06 08:47:13 AM

Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.


As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?
 
2012-11-06 08:48:34 AM

MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?


Yes.
 
2012-11-06 08:48:52 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Well, I just went to TrueFreedomF-150JesusPoll.org and they're using actual science to prove that Romney is going to win with 1,076 Electoral Votes AND that he'll win the popular vote six billion to zero, as people around the world hold spontaneous elections demanding a Romney presidency and giving the Republicans a majority of 15,265-0 in the House.

Of course, they'll still blame Democrat obstructionism on that abortion ban they keep promising, but...


I went to "truefreedomf-150jesuspoll.org" so that I can keep my hopes up for a Romney victory but I got this instead... "Firefox can't find the server at truefreedomf-150jesuspoll.org."

YOU LIE. Why would you keep my hopes up with a fake link? 

I'm predicting Romney wins every state except for that Chinese communist state of Hawaii.
 
2012-11-06 08:49:17 AM

theorellior: I'm not gonna unclench until the magic number 270 show up and corks start flying at the Obama campaign HQ.


I'll be clenching right along with you.
 
2012-11-06 08:49:51 AM
I elected to ignore the pollsters and look at the bookies, people who are the most inclined to be objective. Currently Obama is pretty heavily favored.
 
2012-11-06 08:50:56 AM

MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?


Or a queen, king, knight, rook, pawn?
 
2012-11-06 08:51:03 AM

sammyk: Interesting that FL changed over to a slight lead for Obama on the last day. I think it was around %55 Romney just yesterday now it's %52.5 Obama. This is the only comment he makes "Florida remains too close to call. The FiveThirtyEight forecast has the race there within two-tenths of a percentage point, which would be close enough to trigger an automatic recount." Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.


Doubt it will be called til very late. Polls don't close in the panhandle until 8 eastern, will be prolly midnight before close to calling it.
 
2012-11-06 08:51:07 AM

MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?


any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.
 
2012-11-06 08:51:40 AM

MemeSlave: As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?


Call me when a Catholic bishop, a rabbi or an imam are running for president.
 
2012-11-06 08:51:46 AM

Even With A Chainsaw: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

Or a queen, king, knight, rook, pawn?


i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-06 08:51:49 AM

sammyk: Interesting that FL changed over to a slight lead for Obama on the last day. I think it was around %55 Romney just yesterday now it's %52.5 Obama. This is the only comment he makes "Florida remains too close to call. The FiveThirtyEight forecast has the race there within two-tenths of a percentage point, which would be close enough to trigger an automatic recount." Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.


It was a coin-flip yesterday and a coin-flip today. I'm not sure there's much more to say about that.
 
2012-11-06 08:52:42 AM
I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.
 
2012-11-06 08:54:46 AM

VendorXeno: I elected to ignore the pollsters and look at the bookies, people who are the most inclined to be objective. Currently Obama is pretty heavily favored.


Nate Silver isn't a pollster. He's an aggregator of information who takes polling data and turns it into something useful.
 
2012-11-06 08:56:43 AM

Bontesla: I foresee the winner being hotly conested.


Sort of depends on what you mean by "hotly contested". In any election more important than American Idol, a consistent 1% lead long-term is actually considered pretty reliable, and 2-3% is considered damned near unassailable.

Albeit that's talking about actual elections and _average_ poll numbers over extended periods at the state level, national-level numbers are more volatile but less important and individual polls can run all over the place. But, for instance, Texas is considered a deep-red state that's so Republican you shouldn't even bother campaigning here because of a gap on the order of like five percent in voter registration/polling/presidential voting, and no one bothers with CA because of a similar swing the other way.

//As always, note that polling analysis isn't what I do for a living or anything, so take this with the usual internet grain of salt.
 
JW
2012-11-06 08:56:52 AM

Dwight_Yeast: VendorXeno: I elected to ignore the pollsters and look at the bookies, people who are the most inclined to be objective. Currently Obama is pretty heavily favored.

Nate Silver isn't a pollster. He's an aggregator of information who takes polling data and turns it into something useful.


In fact, he's much closer to a bookie or oddsmaker than a pollster.
 
2012-11-06 08:57:35 AM

sammyk: Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.


Nate's 55% or 52.5% refer to the candidates chances of winning the state based on computer simulations, not the poll numbers. A small gain in the polls can lead to a larger gain in chance of winning when other variables are factored in. The swings are higher so close to the election because the time has run out for a last minute game changer. Therefore even a small lead means a high percentage of victory.

Obama didn't gain 7% in Florida's polls. His odds of winning Florida went up by 7%.
 
2012-11-06 08:57:48 AM

Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.


Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.
 
2012-11-06 08:58:13 AM
Guys, come on, I'm getting excited too, but this isn't anywhere close to a done deal yet.

Very definitely related.
 
2012-11-06 08:58:28 AM
sammyk: Interesting that FL changed over to a slight lead for Obama on the last day.

I imagine it might be greater had Scott not nearly halved the number of early voting days.
 
2012-11-06 08:58:47 AM

Earpj: theorellior: I'm not gonna unclench until the magic number 270 show up and corks start flying at the Obama campaign HQ.

I'll be clenching right along with you.


I am Toby right now:

TOBY
Put it down! Put it down! Put it down!

BONNIE
Toby...

TOBY
No champagne.

BONNIE
We're just getting ready to...

TOBY
Put it down. Everyone in this room let me have your attention, please. The law of our
land mandates that Presidential appointees be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.
A majority being half plus one for a total of what, Ginger?

GINGER
51.

TOBY
51 yea votes is what we see on the screen before a drop of wine is swallowed! Because
there's a little thing called what, Bonnie?

BONNIE
Tempting fate?

TOBY
"Tempting fate" is what it's called. [starts collecting champagne glasses from everyone]
In the three months this man has been on my radar screen, I have aged 48 years. This is
my day of jubilee and I will not have it screwed up by what, Bonnie?

BONNIE
By tempting fate.

TOBY
By tempting fate!
 
2012-11-06 08:59:43 AM

Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.


Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way
 
2012-11-06 08:59:49 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Earpj: theorellior: I'm not gonna unclench until the magic number 270 show up and corks start flying at the Obama campaign HQ.

I'll be clenching right along with you.

I am Toby right now:

TOBY
Put it down! Put it down! Put it down!

BONNIE
Toby...

TOBY
No champagne.

BONNIE
We're just getting ready to...

TOBY
Put it down. Everyone in this room let me have your attention, please. The law of our
land mandates that Presidential appointees be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.
A majority being half plus one for a total of what, Ginger?

GINGER
51.

TOBY
51 yea votes is what we see on the screen before a drop of wine is swallowed! Because
there's a little thing called what, Bonnie?

BONNIE
Tempting fate?

TOBY
"Tempting fate" is what it's called. [starts collecting champagne glasses from everyone]
In the three months this man has been on my radar screen, I have aged 48 years. This is
my day of jubilee and I will not have it screwed up by what, Bonnie?

BONNIE
By tempting fate.

TOBY
By tempting fate!


Thank you! I wanted to post that exchange as well, but I couldn't find a video clip for it.
 
2012-11-06 09:00:06 AM

Thunderpipes:

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.


I think most people would have gone with Rome as the comparative collapsing empire, rather than Greece, as Rome's collapse was due to far more internal strife and political conflict than Greece and its largely fiduciary failings created through not having a unified monetary policy with the EU, but getting to borrow money at EU rates. But, otherwise, 2/10.
 
2012-11-06 09:01:42 AM
The fact that a former vulture capitalist who has been running for President for 7 years, has changed his opinion on every major electoral issue within the past 10 years, has not outlined a definitive budget plan past mathematically impossible platitudes, declared disdain for half the country, and lied repeatedly to the point where his lies aren't even newsworthy anymore is going to get more than 2% of the vote is quite disturbing.

The fact that people are openly advocating FOR him to be President is just plain scary.
 
2012-11-06 09:02:00 AM

Dwight_Yeast: VendorXeno: I elected to ignore the pollsters and look at the bookies, people who are the most inclined to be objective. Currently Obama is pretty heavily favored.

Nate Silver isn't a pollster. He's an aggregator of information who takes polling data and turns it into something useful.


I really enjoy seeing how much Silver gets Joe Scarboroughs panties in a bunch!
 
2012-11-06 09:04:04 AM
Exit polls here (takes a while to load)
 
2012-11-06 09:04:07 AM

eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.


These guys had no problem running up 5 trillion dollars in debt all while receiving the extra tax revenue from the housing boom but during the crash when government spending could help prop up the economy and help cash strapped states who are getting less property tax revenue they have this huge problem with the debt. Republicans have zero credibility on the economy it's a sad state of affairs that people can buy into the line of shiat he is repeating there.
 
2012-11-06 09:04:26 AM
No celebrating till it's over here. I'm really afraid of GOP election fraud at this point. I don't put it past them to try to steal the votes for a swing state or two.
 
2012-11-06 09:04:41 AM

Thunderpipes: Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it.


Why not? I'll take 2% growth over those last couple of Bush years any day of the week.
 
2012-11-06 09:04:50 AM

eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.


Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.
 
2012-11-06 09:05:26 AM

Antimatter: No celebrating till it's over here. I'm really afraid of GOP election fraud at this point. I don't put it past them to try to steal the votes for a swing state or two.


Just go ahead and accept that Ohio is going for Romney. Accept it now and it won't bother you alter. Then laugh and chuckle to yourself when you realize he still needs to win Virginia, Florida, and a half dozen other swing states.
 
2012-11-06 09:06:36 AM
FAIL MORE YEARS! FAIL MORE YEARS!
 
2012-11-06 09:07:34 AM
Game metaphors? Why?

/Obama has a terminator save and Feel no Pain.
 
2012-11-06 09:07:34 AM
AvP

/two thumbs, jaded, cynical?
//this guy right here
 
2012-11-06 09:08:06 AM

Thunderpipes: Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.


LOL... you think your kid gets into college?
 
2012-11-06 09:08:25 AM

bulldg4life: The fact that a former vulture capitalist who has been running for President for 7 years, has changed his opinion on every major electoral issue within the past 10 years, has not outlined a definitive budget plan past mathematically impossible platitudes, declared disdain for half the country, and lied repeatedly to the point where his lies aren't even newsworthy anymore is going to get more than 2% of the vote is quite disturbing.

The fact that people are openly advocating FOR him to be President is just plain scary.


I think we know why.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-06 09:08:28 AM
I liken this election to last week Packers game (I live in Wisconsin, so bear with me). They were playing Arizona. Everybody picked Green Bay to win. Everybody knew Green Bay was going to win. They were a 5-to-1 favorite. Heck, probably some players for Arizona knew Green Bay was going to win. However, there was a monent in the third quarter where Arizona was on the 2-yard line looking to score a touchdown that would've brought them to within 3 points. It was close. Was Arizona actually going to pull this game out? The answer, of course, was no. Because Arizona is, well, Arizona and they're too one dimensional of a team...and that one dimension is very good. Meanwhile Green Bay is that much better, and they should've won that game going away. What I'm trying to say is Romney is like Arizona and Obama is like Green Bay. Obama should be blowing out Romney, but he's not. however, he's still leading the game late and will more than likely put it away by the two-minute warning in the fourth quarter.

That's enough sports analogies for the day.
 
2012-11-06 09:08:53 AM
i309.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-06 09:09:22 AM
Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?
 
2012-11-06 09:09:35 AM

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way


I wouldn't say that being leery of a bishop appointing supreme court justices is anti religion. They could decide issues like abortion rights and gay marriage.
 
2012-11-06 09:09:49 AM

Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.


Jews don't really have "bishops". There are rabbis (certified) and pulpit rabbis (certified and employed as congregation/synagogue leaders), but I don't know of any higher level than that. It's certainly not standard - maybe the local va'ad or some synagogue controlling organization (like Young Israel or something) makes some hiring decisions, but since Jews don't really have a rabbinical hierarchy (there's no Chief Rabbi for all Jews; if there is a nominal Chief Rabbi, it's a ceremonial or political post). </TMYK>

Anyway, I'd be leery of electing anyone who puts religious belief above earthly demands. If the sole reason you take or don't take a course of action is "god", stay the fark away from my agnostic government.
 
2012-11-06 09:09:53 AM

Thunderpipes: eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.

Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


How do you explain the international community all "voting" for Obama? Do you think it is in the best interest of the global economy that the US "falls as a country"?
 
2012-11-06 09:09:55 AM
I'm going to spend the day posting pictures of Guy Fawkes and complaining about how people are too stupid to vote for Gary Johnson. Who's with me?
 
2012-11-06 09:10:53 AM
It's easy to be a psychic when the votes have already been counted and you know how it came out. Let's stop all this Nate Silver worship. It's a clever illusion.
 
2012-11-06 09:11:03 AM
So, when Obama ins, does that mean we get to declare it a "mandate" like Bush's supporters did when he won reelection?
 
2012-11-06 09:11:12 AM

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way


He didn't say he didn't want religious people, he said he didn't want bishops or the equivalent. Probably because he suspects they would make awful decisions based on what was best for sky jesus and not the usa.

// it rings hollow to accuse someone of asserting superiority and then claiming 'totes not flamin ya, brah'
 
2012-11-06 09:11:59 AM

Leeds: Did he even exist before this week?


only on the politics www.virtualvender.coca-cola.com
 
2012-11-06 09:11:59 AM

TheOther: [i309.photobucket.com image 365x472]


Yep, That's why Obama wins even if Obama loses. Democrats have the best lawyers.
 
2012-11-06 09:12:03 AM

Thunderpipes: math does not lie.


You're right, it doesn't:
www.blogforarizona.com

Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life.

I'm sorry, but the prize for worst economic outlook goes to GW Bush, not BH Obama.  Looking at that graph in Jan of '09 looked much, MUCH worse than it does now. Not even a contest.
 
2012-11-06 09:12:11 AM

Thunderpipes: eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.

Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


And Romney's... plan... will fix this?

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-06 09:12:13 AM

Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?


do you live under a rock?
 
2012-11-06 09:12:49 AM

Thunderpipes: ... math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good...

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


Horrific math and such below...

In case you don't remember the financial crisis, here is an article explaining the financial crisis timeline, which started on Feb of 2007.

A basic illustration of what was going on in late 2008...
budget.senate.gov

A link showing a few newspaper headlines during the crisis...

A few September 2008 links from CNBC

Anyway, those scary headlines are no longer appearing.

Maybe it is because GDP performance during the Obama Administration has gone into positive growth.
www.tradingeconomics.com

Many US corporate profits after tax are at an all-time high.
research.stlouisfed.org

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...
DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09
DOW in 11/01/2012: 13,232.62
Rate of Return: 66.47%

S&P 500 in 01/20/2009: 805.22
S&P 500 in 11/01/2012: 1,427.59
Rate of Return: 77.29%

NASDAQ in 01/20/2009: 1,440.86
NASDAQ in 11/01/2012: 3,020.06
Rate of Return: 109.60%



US stock markets performance since hitting the bottom on March 9th of 2009...
DOW in 03/09/2009: 6,547.05
DOW in 11/01/2012: 13,232.62
Rate of Return: 102.12%

S&P 500 in 03/09/2009: 676.53
S&P 500 in 11/01/2012: 1,427.59
Rate of Return: 111.02%

NASDAQ in 03/09/2009: 1,268.64
NASDAQ in 11/01/2012: 3,020.06
Rate of Return: 138.05%


Private jobs hemorrhage slowed down during the Obama Administration and eventually went into positive territory.
farm9.staticflickr.com

Unemployment claims has been dropping, especially since the start of the stimulus.
s3.amazonaws.com

Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation between President Bush and President Obama.

Bush
01/20/2001: 4.2%
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 85.71% increase

Obama
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Currently: 7.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 1.28% increase


Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation when their budgets first took place

Bush
01/01/2002: 5.7%
12/31/2009: 9.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 73.68% increase

Obama
01/01/2010: 9.9%
Currently: 7.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 20.20% decrease

Unemployment rate was trending up steeply when Obama took over the White House...
media.ycharts.com

And now the unemployment rate has been trending down now during the Obama Administration...
i2.cdn.turner.com


...Even though The Senate has filibustered any bill that could help the economy and the employment situation.
m.static.newsvine.com

A list of a few jobs bills the Senate have blocked

One in particular that should offend our troops coming back since it seems the Senate GOP were too busy blocking a veterans jobs bill

Or having Mitch McConnell Admits That Republicans Took America Hostage and that his number one priority is to make sure President Obama is a one-term president... instead of helping with the economic issues our country faces.

Or the Tea Party Nation urged small business owners to not hire people in order to make Obama look bad

Or when a company with company policies about not hiring until Obama is gone based on nothing to do with the basic supply and demand process for his business goods.

Or having the GOP blocked a 10 percent tax break for small businesses that hires new employees

Even so, the job market did improve. Read all about it...

Private-sector job growth biggest in 3 years (new window)

Stealth signs of a stronger job market (new window)

Biggest unemployment rate improvement in nearly 28 years (new window)

Small businesses ramp up jobs (new window)

Jobs: 2 hopeful signs (new window)

The unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009 (new window)

Stealth jobs boom: 6 months, 2 million jobs (new window)

Jobless claims plunged last week to a nearly four-year low (new window)

Manufacturing jobs boom is for real (new window)

If you are unemployed or underemployed, you don't have a 4 year degree (or higher) and blame Obama for your situation, then maybe you should get a college degree. It is not the Government's fault you don't have the necessary skills to compete in today's world. The Government can even help you pay for it (via student loans, grants, GI Bill etc.).
farm8.staticflickr.com

Housing market is recovering...
i2.cdn.turner.com

Foreclosures are down as well...
i2.cdn.turner.com

Car sales have gone up...
www.aei-ideas.org

Average weekly paychecks have improved.
i2.cdn.turner.com

Inflation has not been out of control.
i2.cdn.turner.com

Manufacturing has started to go up.
i2.cdn.turner.com

Consumer spending is up.
i2.cdn.turner.com

Consumer confident at a 4-year high

Your taxes have not gone up since Obama took office. This was a rooted fear from Tea Partiers. Take a look at a Forbes article written by Bruce Bartlett, a self-described fiscal conservative...
Forbes: Tea partiers confused, taxes 'lower by every measure' under Obama (Cutting to a new window)
 
2012-11-06 09:13:03 AM

Thunderpipes: ....And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession....


In the future, if you're wondering, this is when I decided to put you on ignore.
 
2012-11-06 09:13:07 AM

Thunderpipes: eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.

Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


I think Headso's posts retry much sum it up:

Most people aren't voting based on an objective opinion of the candidates. Instead they're making their decision on a preconceived notion of a person.

Maybe Romney will suck, will never know unless he's elected. Obama has certainly sucked big time which is why I'm not voting for him
 
2012-11-06 09:13:29 AM

urger: Exit polls here (takes a while to load)


Excellent.
 
2012-11-06 09:13:39 AM

Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?


I take it you don't follow politics. Or get out of your mom's basement often.
 
2012-11-06 09:13:41 AM

Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.


Obama will leave office 20 trillion in debt. It will be interesting the years 2018 to 2028, when the glut of these bonds get bought back. Interest rates will skyrocket to sell new treasury bonds and the bulk of US economic policy will be towards controlling interest rates, at the expense of the economy. Plus, that's about the time the SSA will begin selling their bond holdings back to the government.

I'm not voting as neither one is going to return to solvency. Almost as if it is part of the plan. I imagine we will officially be ruled by a cabal of international investors who take half of our wealth in interest payments. I can't imagine how any feels hopeful or optmistic during this election. The numbers speak for themself. There is no turning back.
 
2012-11-06 09:14:06 AM

midigod: Thunderpipes: math does not lie.

You're right, it doesn't:
[www.blogforarizona.com image 500x294]

Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life.

I'm sorry, but the prize for worst economic outlook goes to GW Bush, not BH Obama.  Looking at that graph in Jan of '09 looked much, MUCH worse than it does now. Not even a contest.


Bush had nothing to do with the housing crisis, it was Democrats. Doesn't matter who was elected, the country would have turned around, it is a matter of how much. 7% unemployment is the new norm. 67% debt to GDP when Bush left, we will pass 100% this year. When my son goes to college, that will be 180% of GDP. How can our kids possibly recover from this?
 
2012-11-06 09:14:12 AM

Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?


1/10. I would have given you a zero, but someone actually took a bite
 
2012-11-06 09:15:35 AM
For you newcomers: Thunderpipes is an old throwback shill that doesn't post in the politics tab anymore because he got tired of getting beaten to a bloody pulp in every thread.

Have fun with it, but it's really not worth a lot of your time.
 
2012-11-06 09:15:37 AM
Thundergenius,

"In no way can anything about the economy be called good. "

The current economy is better in every way than the economy 3 months after Obama took office. (Though I'm sure those first 3 months are his fault in your eyes.)

Try removing your USA tunnel vision apparatus for a change. Economies all over the world are still struggling. I bet Obama responsible for the EU's troubles too?
 
2012-11-06 09:15:43 AM

Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?


What good does it do you to announce your own stupidity to the rest of the world?
 
2012-11-06 09:16:36 AM

Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.


You exhibit both of the chief symptoms of advanced paranoia - delusions of persecution, and delusions of grandeur. You are not the superior human being surrounded by inferiors that you imagine yourself to be, and nobody's out to get you or take your pitiful little pile of crap away from you. Quit whining, grow up, take responsibility, and heal your mental illness.
 
2012-11-06 09:16:44 AM

Thunderpipes: eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.

Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


Is this a thing?
 
2012-11-06 09:16:54 AM

Headso: GrizzlyPouch: Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way

I wouldn't say that being leery of a bishop appointing supreme court justices is anti religion. They could decide issues like abortion rights and gay marriage.


That's a good point but I offer this:

Shouldn't we be electing a president who would appoint justices who follow the law, and not what their own opinion is on political issues.

I'm not sure Obama has done this
 
2012-11-06 09:17:19 AM

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?


Not speaking for Headso, but I do agree with him on this point. For me, it is not that I am anti-religion, it is more that I would not trust a high ranking church official serving in the office of the president not to attempt to impose his religious view of morality on the rest of the country.
 
2012-11-06 09:19:03 AM

hugram: Horrific math and such below...


Great summary but it will largely fall of deaf ears. Thunderpipes would already know these things if he wanted to. He has, instead, chosen to cocoon himself in an information bubble that reinforces what he wants to be true rather than what is.
 
2012-11-06 09:19:09 AM

Thunderpipes: eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.

Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


i know its thunderpipes, but even still...

i just cant believe people can be so willfully ignorant, so poorly informed, and come to such incredibly base and simple conclusions about things. And be defiant and self righteous about it.

This is weapons grade stupidity here, and it just makes me sad.
 
2012-11-06 09:20:04 AM

Tellingthem: The FiveThirtyEight forecast of the national popular vote is within this range, projecting Mr. Obama's most likely margin of victory to be two or three percentage points,

Damn that is closer than I thought...


LOTS of people in the high population density northeast aren't going to vote because of the hurricane. Those states will still be blue and the EC votes will go to Obama, but voter turnout will be quite low. It's because of this that I predict Romney will do better in the popular vote than he normally would have, might even win it.
 
2012-11-06 09:20:49 AM

barbu: GrizzlyPouch: Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way

He didn't say he didn't want religious people, he said he didn't want bishops or the equivalent. Probably because he suspects they would make awful decisions based on what was best for sky jesus and not the usa.

// it rings hollow to accuse someone of asserting superiority and then claiming 'totes not flamin ya, brah'


Maybe. But his opinion is he would never vote for somebody in a ranking religious position regardless of the persons character or history.

This tells me he feels like high ranking religious people are fundamentally flawed (regardless of what type of person they are). This makes it seem like he feels superior
 
2012-11-06 09:22:09 AM
Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.
 
2012-11-06 09:22:13 AM
I refuse to talk about the outcome, but subby's headline made me giggle. So thanks for that, smitty.
 
2012-11-06 09:23:45 AM

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: GrizzlyPouch: Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way

I wouldn't say that being leery of a bishop appointing supreme court justices is anti religion. They could decide issues like abortion rights and gay marriage.

That's a good point but I offer this:

Shouldn't we be electing a president who would appoint justices who follow the law, and not what their own opinion is on political issues.

I'm not sure Obama has done this


I don't think anyone does that, you get democrats appointing people that are more leftish and republicans appointing people that are more rightish. My personal political leanings line up more with democrats than republicans especially on social issues. You may like the idea of a very religious man appointing justices because your political leanings are more like his.
 
2012-11-06 09:24:28 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: hugram: Horrific math and such below...

Great summary but it will largely fall of deaf ears. Thunderpipes would already know these things if he wanted to. He has, instead, chosen to cocoon himself in an information bubble that reinforces what he wants to be true rather than what is.


The funny thing is that he is a big car's guy. I remember when the economy was falling apart and when the Gov was bailing out the banks, he was saying "let them fail... we should save the auto industry instead"... This is before the auto bailout was even a thought.

Now that the auto industry was actually saved, thanks to Obama, I have not heard anything positive about the auto bailout from him. Maybe he has made positive comments about it... I just have not seem them.
 
2012-11-06 09:24:56 AM

blackhalo: Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?

I take it you don't follow politics. Or get out of your mom's basement often.


Evidently it's because I don't read the New York Times.

// I just googled him, evidently he's one of those NYT folks.
 
2012-11-06 09:26:02 AM

Thunderpipes: exploding the national debt


government spending during an economic downturn is day one stuff, bro.
 
2012-11-06 09:26:32 AM

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: GrizzlyPouch: Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way

I wouldn't say that being leery of a bishop appointing supreme court justices is anti religion. They could decide issues like abortion rights and gay marriage.

That's a good point but I offer this:

Shouldn't we be electing a president who would appoint justices who follow the law, and not what their own opinion is on political issues.

I'm not sure Obama has done this


It's a hit or miss deal, for Presidents from both parties. SCOTUS justices, historically, have quite a track record of not turning out to be who those who appointed them were expecting. Roberts certainly surprised a lot of people. The jury is still out on Kagan and Sotomayor - neither one of them have done much of note so far. But the chances are, they will end up confounding somebody's expectations - SCOTUS justices usually do.
 
2012-11-06 09:27:40 AM

Leeds: Evidently it's because I don't read the New York Times.

// I just googled him, evidently he's one of those NYT folks.


you must have seen articles whining about him on American Thinker or WND between articles looking for the real birf certfcate.
 
2012-11-06 09:28:09 AM

bulldg4life: The fact that a former vulture capitalist who has been running for President for 7 years, has changed his opinion on every major electoral issue within the past 10 years, has not outlined a definitive budget plan past mathematically impossible platitudes, declared disdain for half the country, and lied repeatedly to the point where his lies aren't even newsworthy anymore is going to get more than 2% of the vote is quite disturbing.

The fact that people are openly advocating FOR him to be President is just plain scary.


The fact that a former communist/community activist who has been President for 4 years, has changed his opinion on gay marriage to garner votes and not improved the economy in the past 4 years, has not outlined a definitive budget plan in any of his years as president, declared disdain for half the country, and lied repeatedly to the point where his lies aren't even newsworthy anymore is going to get more than 2% of the vote is quite disturbing.

The fact that people are openly advocating FOR him to be President is just plain scary.
 
2012-11-06 09:28:59 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: Even With A Chainsaw: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

Or a queen, king, knight, rook, pawn?

[i.imgur.com image 328x640]


I was kind of hoping Ryan would be a chip from checkers.
 
2012-11-06 09:29:42 AM

Last Man on Earth: God Is My Co-Pirate: Earpj: theorellior: I'm not gonna unclench until the magic number 270 show up and corks start flying at the Obama campaign HQ.

I'll be clenching right along with you.

I am Toby right now:

TOBY
Put it down! Put it down! Put it down!

BONNIE
Toby...

TOBY
No champagne.

BONNIE
We're just getting ready to...

TOBY
Put it down. Everyone in this room let me have your attention, please. The law of our
land mandates that Presidential appointees be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.
A majority being half plus one for a total of what, Ginger?

GINGER
51.

TOBY
51 yea votes is what we see on the screen before a drop of wine is swallowed! Because
there's a little thing called what, Bonnie?

BONNIE
Tempting fate?

TOBY
"Tempting fate" is what it's called. [starts collecting champagne glasses from everyone]
In the three months this man has been on my radar screen, I have aged 48 years. This is
my day of jubilee and I will not have it screwed up by what, Bonnie?

BONNIE
By tempting fate.

TOBY
By tempting fate!

Thank you! I wanted to post that exchange as well, but I couldn't find a video clip for it.


Not the same scene, but still relevant. The wrath from high atop the thing.
 
2012-11-06 09:29:56 AM

Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.


trillions of dollars that were spent in obamas first time that added to the debt came in the form of the glorious wars the Republicans started. Now as an added bonus, you can pretend it was Democrats fault for having to spend the money for cleaning that shiat up.
 
2012-11-06 09:30:34 AM

Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.


Yeah, but it's even gloomier under [the best guesses of] Romney's [incredibly vague] plans, if you like the CBO so much. *shrug* There hasn't been anything we could do about the deficit since the Boomers voted themselves $ALL in medical benefits, and you know perfectly well neither party is brave enough to cut Medicare (and that the old folks would vote them out and replace them with someone to reinstate it if they did).

/Trolls get hungry too; someone has to feed them.
 
2012-11-06 09:30:46 AM

the_geek: Tellingthem: The FiveThirtyEight forecast of the national popular vote is within this range, projecting Mr. Obama's most likely margin of victory to be two or three percentage points,

Damn that is closer than I thought...

LOTS of people in the high population density northeast aren't going to vote because of the hurricane. Those states will still be blue and the EC votes will go to Obama, but voter turnout will be quite low. It's because of this that I predict Romney will do better in the popular vote than he normally would have, might even win it.


As far as I know, the only people that are still adversely affected enough by the storm to make it hard for them to vote are on Long Island and some on the coast of New Jersey. Even if nobody from those areas voted at all it still wouldn't have a significant effect on the popular vote. And plenty of them will still end up voting anyway.
 
2012-11-06 09:30:55 AM

depmode98: trillions of dollars that were spent in obamas first time that added to the debt came in the form of the glorious wars the Republicans started. Now as an added bonus, you can pretend it was Democrats fault for having to spend the money for cleaning that shiat up.


Well, Obama should have kept it off the books like Bush did! Then it wouldn't have counted! Duh!
 
2012-11-06 09:31:40 AM

Leeds: Evidently it's because I don't read the New York Times.

// I just googled him, evidently he's one of those NYT folks.


He did baseball statistics prior to turning his attention to political statistics. He's so accurate that in the middle ages he'd probably have been accused of witchcraft. The move of his political statistics bloc, fivethirtyeight, was a relatively recent thing and his analysis factored heavily into reporting for the not only this election but the last two election cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver
 
2012-11-06 09:31:50 AM

The Why Not Guy: sammyk: Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.

Nate's 55% or 52.5% refer to the candidates chances of winning the state based on computer simulations, not the poll numbers. A small gain in the polls can lead to a larger gain in chance of winning when other variables are factored in. The swings are higher so close to the election because the time has run out for a last minute game changer. Therefore even a small lead means a high percentage of victory.

Obama didn't gain 7% in Florida's polls. His odds of winning Florida went up by 7%.


I understand it's not a 7% shift in the polls. In a sense Nates model is similar to how Vegas would set the line on the superbowl. For Vegas to move the line that much on the day of the big game something significant would have to happen like a star player breaking his leg in a car wreck the night before.

Here are the FL polls for the last few days. IPSOS is the largest sample and it's moved 3 points towards a Romney win. I know the secret 538 sauce is very complex but I just don't see how it shifted that much on the last day.

POLLS 538 WT. DATE DEM REP MARGIN
Ipsos (online) 11/5 47.0 48.0 Romney +1.0
InsiderAdvantage 11/4 47.0 52.0 Romney +5.0
Ipsos (online) 11/4 46.0 46.0 Tie
PPP 11/4 50.0 49.0 Obama +1.0
Angus Reid 11/3 49.0 49.0 Tie
YouGov 11/3 47.0 48.0 Romney +1.0
Ipsos (online) 11/3 47.0 47.0 Tie
Mellman 11/2 47.0 45.0 Obama +2.0
Ipsos (online) 11/2 48.0 46.0 Obama +2.0
 
2012-11-06 09:32:14 AM

bulldg4life: The fact that a former vulture capitalist who has been running for President for 7 years, has changed his opinion on every major electoral issue within the past 10 years, has not outlined a definitive budget plan past mathematically impossible platitudes, declared disdain for half the country, and lied repeatedly to the point where his lies aren't even newsworthy anymore is going to get more than 2% of the vote is quite disturbing.

The fact that people are openly advocating FOR him to be President is just plain scary.


SO MUCH THIS!
 
2012-11-06 09:32:39 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: "All of this leaves Mr. Romney drawing to an inside straight. I hope you'll excuse the cliche, but it's appropriate here: in poker, making an inside straight requires you to catch one of 4 cards out of 48 remaining in the deck, the chances of which are about 8 percent. Those are now about Mr. Romney's chances of winning the Electoral College, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast"


I read much of this in the voice of Josh Malina's character on The West Wing. Thank you.
 
2012-11-06 09:33:23 AM

jaybeezey: bulldg4life: The fact that a former vulture capitalist who has been running for President for 7 years, has changed his opinion on every major electoral issue within the past 10 years, has not outlined a definitive budget plan past mathematically impossible platitudes, declared disdain for half the country, and lied repeatedly to the point where his lies aren't even newsworthy anymore is going to get more than 2% of the vote is quite disturbing.

The fact that people are openly advocating FOR him to be President is just plain scary.

The fact that a former communist/community activist who has been President for 4 years, has changed his opinion on gay marriage to garner votes and not improved the economy in the past 4 years, has not outlined a definitive budget plan in any of his years as president, declared disdain for half the country, and lied repeatedly to the point where his lies aren't even newsworthy anymore is going to get more than 2% of the vote is quite disturbing.

The fact that people are openly advocating FOR him to be President is just plain scary.


It would be scary if any of that were true. But it's not.

Nice NO YOU! though.
 
2012-11-06 09:33:56 AM
Yo, I got this. I'm a statisticmetricologizt.

www.thatraw.com
 
2012-11-06 09:34:15 AM

hugram: Thunderpipes: ... math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good...

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.

Horrific math and such below...

In case you don't remember the financial crisis, here is an article explaining the financial crisis timeline, which started on Feb of 2007.

A basic illustration of what was going on in late 2008...
[budget.senate.gov image 776x600]

A link showing a few newspaper headlines during the crisis...

A few September 2008 links from CNBC

Anyway, those scary headlines are no longer appearing.

Maybe it is because GDP performance during the Obama Administration has gone into positive growth.
[www.tradingeconomics.com image 700x300]

Many US corporate profits after tax are at an all-time high.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...
DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09
DOW in 11/01/2012: 13,232.62
Rate of Return: 66.47%

S&P 500 in 01/20/2009: 805.22
S&P 500 in 11/01/2012: 1,427.59
Rate of Return: 77.29%

NASDAQ in 01/20/2009: 1,440.86
NASDAQ in 11/01/2012: 3,020.06
Rate of Return: 109.60%


US stock markets performance since hitting the bottom on March 9th of 2009...
DOW in 03/09/2009: 6,547.05
DOW in 11/01/2012: 13,232.62
Rate of Return: 102.12%

S&P 500 in 03/09/2009: 676.53
S&P 500 in 11/01/2012: 1,427.59
Rate of Return: 111.02%

NASDAQ in 03/09/2009: 1,268.64
NASDAQ in 11/01/2012: 3,020.06
Rate of Return: 138.05%

Private jobs hemorrhage slowed down during the Obama Administration and eventually went into positive territory.
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 658x412]

Unemployment claims has been dropping, especially since the start ...


OH SNAP!

Well done, well done indeed. Epic even.
 
2012-11-06 09:34:44 AM

Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.


Here's a key distinction: Obama seems to give a damn about funding his programs. Bush II plowed a surplus into Medicare Part D (funded by deficit spending), tax cuts (which led to a deficit), and two wars. The only piece of deficit spending that Obama passed were temporary measures directly related to stimulating the economy. For all your deficit hand-wringing, he passed a health care plan that's deficit-neutral! The last Bush budget started the trillion dollar deficit nonsense, and Obama has shown a trend of actually caring about reversing this trend.

I posted a snarky "plan" for Mitt Romney, but let's be realistic. He said he wants to cut tax rates by 20% and increase military spending by 2 trillion dollars. Oh yeah, and of course balance the budget. Obama has proposed a budget that begins a trajectory of cutting the deficit, formed a commission with even more aggressive solutions, and has started a conversation about getting us back on a sustainable fiscal path. Even Paul Ryan has made more efforts at deficit reduction than the guy at the top of the ticket, and he's forced into a completely powerless position now as the republican running mate. Romney's own plans are nothing but rainbows and unicorn farts.

You can argue that Obama's not doing enough, but his challenger is the one offering nothing at all. So vote republican, amirite?
 
2012-11-06 09:34:47 AM

ChuDogg: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Obama will leave office 20 trillion in debt. It will be interesting the years 2018 to 2028, when the glut of these bonds get bought back. Interest rates will skyrocket to sell new treasury bonds and the bulk of US economic policy will be towards controlling interest rates, at the expense of the economy. Plus, that's about the time the SSA will begin selling their bond holdings back to the government.

I'm not voting as neither one is going to return to solvency. Almost as if it is part of the plan. I imagine we will officially be ruled by a cabal of international investors who take half of our wealth in interest payments. I can't imagine how any feels hopeful or optmistic during this election. The numbers speak for themself. There is no turning back.


Go cry in the corner, emo boy.
 
JW
2012-11-06 09:35:35 AM

Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.


Nobody (or very few reasonable people) are for 'exploding the deficit'. Including people you call "libbies" or whatever.

The fact is that the 2009 budget was set by 2008 president, so the 2009 deficit is a Bush (well, Congress/Bush 20008) deficit (just as if Romney had been elected, his first year of office would have been Obama's).

Since then, the deficit has gone down. Unfortunately, because it's such an enormous deficit, and because the economy was in the crapper, there's not much that can be done. Trying to stimulate job growth so you have more taxpayers is met with obstruction. Wanting to bring down the cost of health care so that Medicaid/Medicare bill to the feds isn't as high: met with obstruction.

Your thesis centers around the notion that deficits are deliberately high (they are not) and that the people you dislike are not doing anything about it (they are trying, but they're being blocked).

All you have left now is "well it damn well shouldn't be that way", which it shouldn't, you're right. But it is, because some people are putting politics ahead of making the country better. Hint: It's the guys you're voting for today.
 
2012-11-06 09:36:13 AM

jaybeezey: The fact that a former communist/community activist who has been President for 4 years, has changed his opinion on gay marriage to garner votes and not improved the economy in the past 4 years


He didn't just change his opinion on gay marriage, he also actually did something about it by repealing DADT.

Also if you know anything about acceleration or rate of change you'd know that the economy is dramatically better today than it was 4 years ago. You may remember 4 years ago people were stocking up on rice and ammo because they literally thought the end of the world was coming. It's not all skittles and rainbows now but you don't see a lot of people frantically preparing for a financial apocalypse in this country anymore. When he took office we were losing 450k per month, now we're making over 100k jobs per month. The stock market is near record highs, corporate profits are near record highs. In numerous measurable ways the economy is better than it was 4 years ago. Yes, it's not amazingly good, but it's disingenuous to say there hasn't been dramatic improvement.

Unlike other people who disagree with you I don't support Obama. I didn't vote for him and don't suggest anyone else does either. But what you've stated is demonstrably false and only the most uneducated observer would believe it.
 
2012-11-06 09:38:49 AM
Now a point about the Republican voter...

I don't know if Thunderpipes is trolling or not, but regardless, he does a spot on impression of the contemporary Republican voter. His main focus is on how bad Obama has been for the economy, without supplying emperical data, but merely relying on the way his gut feels. In order to argue from the Republican side, you literally have to pretend to be stupid. You just have to pretend to not understand how a graph works, or how math works.

This is the data:
farm9.staticflickr.com

You can drag a Republican over and stick his nose in it, but it does not matter. In the face of numbers, the part of his brain that understands high level thinking will shut down.
 
2012-11-06 09:39:06 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Earpj: theorellior: I'm not gonna unclench until the magic number 270 show up and corks start flying at the Obama campaign HQ.

I'll be clenching right along with you.

I am Toby right now:

TOBY
Put it down! Put it down! Put it down!

BONNIE
Toby...

TOBY
No champagne.

BONNIE
We're just getting ready to...

TOBY
Put it down. Everyone in this room let me have your attention, please. The law of our
land mandates that Presidential appointees be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.
A majority being half plus one for a total of what, Ginger?

GINGER
51.

TOBY
51 yea votes is what we see on the screen before a drop of wine is swallowed! Because
there's a little thing called what, Bonnie?

BONNIE
Tempting fate?

TOBY
"Tempting fate" is what it's called. [starts collecting champagne glasses from everyone]
In the three months this man has been on my radar screen, I have aged 48 years. This is
my day of jubilee and I will not have it screwed up by what, Bonnie?

BONNIE
By tempting fate.

TOBY
By tempting fate!


No, this is the one to quote:

Sam Seaborn: You wrote a concession?

Toby Ziegler: Of course I wrote a concession. You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?

Sam Seaborn: No.

Toby Ziegler: Then go outside, turn around three times and spit. What the hell's the matter with you?

Sam Seaborn: He wrote a concession speech.

Josh Lyman: Of course he wrote a concession speech. Why wouldn't he? What possible reason would he have for not writing a concession speech?

Sam Seaborn: The wrath from high atop the thing.

Toby Ziegler: He upped and said we were gonna...

Josh Lyman: No, you got to go outside, turn around three times and curse.

Toby Ziegler: Spit.

Josh Lyman: Spit and curse.

Toby Ziegler: Do everything. Go!

Josh Lyman: Go!

Toby Ziegler: Go!

Josh Lyman: Go!

Toby Ziegler: Go!

[Sam gets up and leaves the room]
 
2012-11-06 09:40:33 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Leeds: Evidently it's because I don't read the New York Times.

// I just googled him, evidently he's one of those NYT folks.

He did baseball statistics prior to turning his attention to political statistics. He's so accurate that in the middle ages he'd probably have been accused of witchcraft. The move of his political statistics bloc, fivethirtyeight, was a relatively recent thing and his analysis factored heavily into reporting for the not only this election but the last two election cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver


Thank you Zendo. Cheers :)
 
2012-11-06 09:40:47 AM
I've followed Silver since his time at Baseball Prospectus. His system is accurate but I'm wondering how the after-effects of Sandy will impact his predictions. I have a feeling that slight changes of voter turnout will swing some blue states red, especially with all the talk of an Obama run away. That talk could keep some Obama supporters from turning out.
 
2012-11-06 09:41:06 AM

sammyk: The Why Not Guy: sammyk: Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.

Nate's 55% or 52.5% refer to the candidates chances of winning the state based on computer simulations, not the poll numbers. A small gain in the polls can lead to a larger gain in chance of winning when other variables are factored in. The swings are higher so close to the election because the time has run out for a last minute game changer. Therefore even a small lead means a high percentage of victory.

Obama didn't gain 7% in Florida's polls. His odds of winning Florida went up by 7%.

I understand it's not a 7% shift in the polls. In a sense Nates model is similar to how Vegas would set the line on the superbowl. For Vegas to move the line that much on the day of the big game something significant would have to happen like a star player breaking his leg in a car wreck the night before.

Here are the FL polls for the last few days. IPSOS is the largest sample and it's moved 3 points towards a Romney win. I know the secret 538 sauce is very complex but I just don't see how it shifted that much on the last day.

POLLS 538 WT. DATE DEM REP MARGIN
Ipsos (online) 11/5 47.0 48.0 Romney +1.0
InsiderAdvantage 11/4 47.0 52.0 Romney +5.0
Ipsos (online) 11/4 46.0 46.0 Tie
PPP 11/4 50.0 49.0 Obama +1.0
Angus Reid 11/3 49.0 49.0 Tie
YouGov 11/3 47.0 48.0 Romney +1.0
Ipsos (online) 11/3 47.0 47.0 Tie
Mellman 11/2 47.0 45.0 Obama +2.0
Ipsos (online) 11/2 48.0 46.0 Obama +2.0


I'd say two things. First, as I said before, it moved all the way from coin-toss to coin toss. 55-45 Romney probability is not substantially different from 52.5-47.5 Romney probability. Second, that little movement is likely due to trendline adjustment, i.e. prognosticating momentum.

Obviously you can argue that we'll never know if Obama had momentum going into this race. But, like any of Silver's other methods built into the model, it's something that he feels has statistically come closer to predicting an electoral victory than simply averaging polls.
 
2012-11-06 09:42:23 AM
I'll have to upgrade my troll rating from 2/10 to 5/10 for the biters.

/former Republican disgusted with what current Republicans have done to the party
//Also, much of our current debt load is thanks to policies enacted with the complicity of a largely Republican majority Congress in the key period between 1995-2007...
///but why learn things that contradict your beliefs?
 
2012-11-06 09:42:31 AM
Just amazing how many trolls have to come out on a nice day like today.

I hope Mittens gets his ass beat so bad he cant ever sit down again.

I hope Duckworth and Warren win too. The GOP is the greatest threat the United States has ever faced.
 
2012-11-06 09:44:20 AM

Thunderpipes: eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.

Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


I feel ya. I feel it deep in my heart that Romney has the stones and deep personal strength of character and conviction to put this country on the right track, but we all just openly mock him. Maybe it's that weird jealousy, where someone is so superior to you, that you immediately attack out of some reptilian mind kind of way, to try and level the playing field. Romney is much better than we could ever hope for, and we'll be spanking ourselves later.


/amidointhisshiatrite?
 
2012-11-06 09:44:32 AM

JW: Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.

Nobody (or very few reasonable people) are for 'exploding the deficit'. Including people you call "libbies" or whatever.

The fact is that the 2009 budget was set by 2008 president, so the 2009 deficit is a Bush (well, Congress/Bush 20008) deficit (just as if Romney had been elected, his first year of office would have been Obama's).

Since then, the deficit has gone down. Unfortunately, because it's such an enormous deficit, and because the economy was in the crapper, there's not much that can be done.



The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.

If you look at the budgets like you look at a company's prospectus and you remove the non-recurring one time charge that year, your claim that the deficit has been shrinking can be shown to be false.

No disrespect meant, just trying to add some logic/accounting to the discussion.
 
2012-11-06 09:45:14 AM

Thunderpipes: midigod: Thunderpipes: math does not lie.

You're right, it doesn't:
[www.blogforarizona.com image 500x294]

Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life.

I'm sorry, but the prize for worst economic outlook goes to GW Bush, not BH Obama.  Looking at that graph in Jan of '09 looked much, MUCH worse than it does now. Not even a contest.

Bush had nothing to do with the housing crisis, it was Democrats. Doesn't matter who was elected, the country would have turned around, it is a matter of how much. 7% unemployment is the new norm. 67% debt to GDP when Bush left, we will pass 100% this year. When my son goes to college, that will be 180% of GDP. How can our kids possibly recover from this?


Wow... really doubling down on your genetic stock, eh?

Pro-Tip: Coming from your weak seed, that odds are he's *not* going to college. Or if he does; he's not graduating.
 
2012-11-06 09:45:27 AM

Thunderpipes: At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined.


This was also true of GW Bush. It was also true of Clinton. It was also true of Reagan.

$1 trillion in 2012 doesn't buy as much as it did in 2000. or 1992. or 1865. By the same token, it won't be as hard to raise $1 trillion to pay it off. Inflation works both ways, and so long as we're not growing past the point we can afford to (no one on Earth seems to think so. If the gloomier projections hold up for the next 30 years - even though they haven't been accurate for the past 40 - we MAY go PARTIALLY broke then), we'll be fine.

// Japan's at 200% debt/GDP, and no one is shying away from investing there
 
2012-11-06 09:46:41 AM

MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?


Opposed to a priest, cleric, or rabbi. Romney is clergy, not congregation.
 
2012-11-06 09:46:45 AM
So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.
 
2012-11-06 09:49:39 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.



Why would it be that high? Spooky sketchy math where I have to put on a tin foil hat, smack myself in the mirror while singing 'my country tis of thee' and carry the one a few extra times doesn't count.
 
2012-11-06 09:49:45 AM
The GOP can still steal Ohio without too much trouble. They are well on their way in Florida already with all of the voting restrictions.
 
2012-11-06 09:49:49 AM

elffster: The GOP is the greatest threat the United States has ever faced.


Go read some about how 1860 played out.

\Democrats committing open treason is how it ended...
 
2012-11-06 09:50:13 AM

Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.


Didnt you vote for Bush and defend the Iraq war?

What do you know?
 
2012-11-06 09:50:18 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


i331.photobucket.com

i331.photobucket.com

i331.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-06 09:50:23 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


Show me a candidate who's plan to reduce the deficit doesn't include tax cuts and increased defense spending and maybe I'll take them seriously for once.
 
2012-11-06 09:51:09 AM
Looks like tomorrow's headline is going to be "Truman Defeats Dewey"
 
2012-11-06 09:52:52 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


Hey, if you'd acknowledge Republican complicity, nay, responsibility for taking the national debt from 4 trillion to over 10 trillion, all while preaching tax cuts and initiating two unfunded conflicts, as well as bailing out millionaire bankers while providing for no prosecution thereof, I might have some sympathy for you. But since you can't recognize those simple facts, I'd much rather risk the highly unlikely scenario you propose than the far more likely bad stuff with a continuation of Neocon policies.
 
2012-11-06 09:53:34 AM

NateGrey: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Didnt you vote for Bush and defend the Iraq war?

What do you know?


This is basically why I can't take the GOP's concern about the deficit seriously.
 
2012-11-06 09:55:08 AM

Mixolydian Master: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


Why would it be that high? Spooky sketchy math where I have to put on a tin foil hat, smack myself in the mirror while singing 'my country tis of thee' and carry the one a few extra times doesn't count.


Umm, you do read, don't you? Trillion dollar deficits are projected for the next 4 years, and the CBO is always on the low side because they project based on growth we don't get.
 
2012-11-06 09:55:38 AM
There's a lot of projection going on in here.
 
JW
2012-11-06 09:55:46 AM

Leeds:
Since then, the deficit has gone down. Unfortunately, because it's such an enormous deficit, and because the economy was in the crapper, there's not much that can be done.


The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.

If you look at the budgets like you look at a company's prospectus and you remove the non-recurring one time charge that year, your claim that the deficit has been shrinking can be shown to be false.

No disrespect meant, just trying to add some logic/accounting to the discussion.


I don't think you can draw that analogy. For one, governments are not companies and it's not correct to treat them as the same. For example, if I build a road, and that encourages business, how do I recognize the revenue from that? Increased tax receipts in the area? How long am I allowed to count that for? Governments invest in things that have 25-50 year returns, and that are essential for society, so it's just not an apt comparison. Second, the stimulus money is money spent by the government, which should make their books look worse, not better, assuming they're not recouping their investment. Unless you're saying additional tax revenue should not be counted, but the expenditures should?
 
2012-11-06 09:55:58 AM

Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.


Oh, no. That debt isn't because of lazy young people. It's because of boomers who refuse to pay for anything. They got theirs , fark the rest of you.
 
SH
2012-11-06 09:56:37 AM

Thunderpipes: Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.


You can point your finger at Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.

Clinton had us in surplus territory, the GOP keeps shoving "trickle down economics" down our throats when it's proven since 1980 to not work

Only moronic Repubs look at the last 4 years and start pointing fingers.
 
JW
2012-11-06 09:57:06 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


Oh, your'e not a troll, you're just racist! Ok, that makes a lot more sense, the way you shut your ears to data and facts and the like.
 
2012-11-06 10:00:52 AM

YodaBlues: Thunderpipes: ....And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession....

Congratulations. I have been coming here to Fark for a good while now, mostly laughing at headlines, not commenting a lot, but this has to be answered. You are either extremely confused or extremely dim. Either way, please get help.

 
2012-11-06 10:01:01 AM

JW: Leeds:
Since then, the deficit has gone down. Unfortunately, because it's such an enormous deficit, and because the economy was in the crapper, there's not much that can be done.


The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.

If you look at the budgets like you look at a company's prospectus and you remove the non-recurring one time charge that year, your claim that the deficit has been shrinking can be shown to be false.

No disrespect meant, just trying to add some logic/accounting to the discussion.

I don't think you can draw that analogy. For one, governments are not companies and it's not correct to treat them as the same. For example, if I build a road, and that encourages business, how do I recognize the revenue from that? Increased tax receipts in the area? How long am I allowed to count that for? Governments invest in things that have 25-50 year returns, and that are essential for society, so it's just not an apt comparison. Second, the stimulus money is money spent by the government, which should make their books look worse, not better, assuming they're not recouping their investment. Unless you're saying additional tax revenue should not be counted, but the expenditures should?


I don't mean to be condescending, but you are all over the place with your comments- almost like you didn't understand my post at all.

We were speaking of deficits. Your statements about recouping long term investments is interesting, but a complete red herring. Money in and money out - that's how you determine if you have a deficit or a surplus. The integral of that answer is called the national debt. These numbers have nothing to do with whether or not the deficit is "good" because it was part of an investment in infrastructure or "bad" because it's throwing money at people to discourage them from working. debt is debt.

You aren't by any chance a Democrat, are you?
 
2012-11-06 10:02:11 AM

AlteredChemical: YodaBlues: Thunderpipes: ....And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession....

Congratulations. I have been coming here to Fark for a good while now, mostly laughing at headlines, not commenting a lot, but this has to be answered. You are either extremely confused or extremely dim. Either way, please get help.


Erm...sorry about that, must clarify. I was saying that to Thunderpipes, not YodaBlues. Like I said, not much experience commenting here.
 
2012-11-06 10:04:09 AM

The Why Not Guy: sammyk: Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.

Nate's 55% or 52.5% refer to the candidates chances of winning the state based on computer simulations, not the poll numbers. A small gain in the polls can lead to a larger gain in chance of winning when other variables are factored in. The swings are higher so close to the election because the time has run out for a last minute game changer. Therefore even a small lead means a high percentage of victory.

Obama didn't gain 7% in Florida's polls. His odds of winning Florida went up by 7%.


If Obama wins Florida and Ohio we can all go to bed before the Daily Show comes on.
 
2012-11-06 10:05:01 AM

AlteredChemical: AlteredChemical: YodaBlues: Thunderpipes: ....And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession....

Congratulations. I have been coming here to Fark for a good while now, mostly laughing at headlines, not commenting a lot, but this has to be answered. You are either extremely confused or extremely dim. Either way, please get help.

Erm...sorry about that, must clarify. I was saying that to Thunderpipes, not YodaBlues. Like I said, not much experience commenting here.


S'all good brother. :-D
 
2012-11-06 10:05:05 AM
I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.
 
2012-11-06 10:06:46 AM

GrizzlyPouch: Maybe Romney will suck, will never know unless he's elected. Obama has certainly sucked big time which is why I'm not voting for him


Obama has NOT sucked, by any measure. Fact.

Why lie today?
 
2012-11-06 10:07:40 AM

urger: Exit polls here (takes a while to load)


You brilliant, brilliant man/woman...
 
2012-11-06 10:07:49 AM
I had a feeling this was going to be a good day, but now that I'm watching Thunderpipes flop around getting spittle on everything while he gets angrier and angrier, I KNOW it is going to be AWESOME!



Thanks for starting the next four years off right, you farking water head.
 
2012-11-06 10:07:56 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


Simple. If we have actually managed to get something through congress that is a common sense compromise to debt reduction, I assume we'll say that we're on the right track. If we don't it will be because you were right all along and we were just too blind to see it: Obama really is a sekrit muslin.
 
2012-11-06 10:08:17 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: Even With A Chainsaw: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

Or a queen, king, knight, rook, pawn?

[i.imgur.com image 328x640]


imageshack.us
 
2012-11-06 10:08:21 AM
I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- that a guy who's whole identity revolves around his big, dopey motorcycle ("Thunderpipes", LOL) isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer politically. :-)
 
2012-11-06 10:10:22 AM

depmode98: In order to argue from the Republican side, you literally have to pretend to be stupid. You just have to pretend to not understand how a graph works, or how math works.


I'm not convinced they're pretending.
 
2012-11-06 10:10:44 AM

Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.


Brilliant post. Well done sir. You said all of the idiotic things an actual Republican thinks, and with a straight face too, as if you actually believed them yourself. I'm impressed.
 
2012-11-06 10:10:45 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.


Won't need to argue it if the wealthy far right would just pay their fair share of taxes.
 
2012-11-06 10:10:46 AM

Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.


I think the only thing he will prove if there is backlash against a Romney win is that Americans really are too tremendously stupid to handle basic math. Statistics isn't even a particularly complicated branch of math.

Sorry, you can continue your flecks of spittle now.
 
2012-11-06 10:12:06 AM

ChuDogg: I'm not voting as neither one is going to return to solvency


Only one office up for election in your district? Odd.
 
2012-11-06 10:12:06 AM

Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.


You do realize that a Romney victory doesn't disprove Silver in any way, shape, or form, right? Or do you not understand probabilities?
 
2012-11-06 10:13:34 AM

Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.


I still cannot comprehend how you continue to survive with your head wedged so firmly up your ass? Have you evolved to the point that you can survive on methane emissions now?

Oh, I'm sorry, in your case it would be 'intelligently designed'.

That said, if you could spew more than right wing noise and platitudes, people might actually listen. But since you don't, they'll continue to dog pile on your lack of intelligence. Have fun. :)
 
2012-11-06 10:14:07 AM

Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.


Oh wow.. the bullshiat detector - it's over NINE THOUSAND!!!
 
2012-11-06 10:14:15 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

Won't need to argue it if the wealthy far right would just pay their fair share of taxes.


Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

By fair share, what do you mean exactly, pay all the taxes instead of most?
 
2012-11-06 10:16:56 AM

Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?


I was gonna ask the same thing, then I read the thread and how you got flamed by the herpa derp crowd that wouldn't answer your question.

Thanks for posting the answer you had to go find for yourself.

Now I get the impresstion that is an eerily accurate statistician that came from the world of baseball (which is crazy about statistics). Welcome to my favorites list with the tag line "Guy willing to take the hit for asking the obvious questions I was about to."
 
2012-11-06 10:17:52 AM

Thunderpipes: Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.


So does cutting funding to NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't stop the GOP from harping on about it acting like it would make a big difference in the budget. 

So you can either admit that both things make very little impact on the budget or admit that both things will help pay off the deficit/debt one step at a time.

Anything else makes you look like a dishonest partisan shill.
 
2012-11-06 10:20:03 AM

Thunderpipes: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

Won't need to argue it if the wealthy far right would just pay their fair share of taxes.

Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

By fair share, what do you mean exactly, pay all the taxes instead of most?


I dunno. I guess we would have to compromise somewhere between their share of income and their share of wealth.
 
2012-11-06 10:22:25 AM

BeesNuts: The Why Not Guy: sammyk: Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.

Nate's 55% or 52.5% refer to the candidates chances of winning the state based on computer simulations, not the poll numbers. A small gain in the polls can lead to a larger gain in chance of winning when other variables are factored in. The swings are higher so close to the election because the time has run out for a last minute game changer. Therefore even a small lead means a high percentage of victory.

Obama didn't gain 7% in Florida's polls. His odds of winning Florida went up by 7%.

If Obama wins Florida and Ohio we can all go to bed before the Daily Show comes on.


If Obama wins FL Romney can have OH,NV,CO,WI and VA and he still loses.

Link
 
2012-11-06 10:25:27 AM

Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

So does cutting funding to NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't stop the GOP from harping on about it acting like it would make a big difference in the budget. 

So you can either admit that both things make very little impact on the budget or admit that both things will help pay off the deficit/debt one step at a time.

Anything else makes you look like a dishonest partisan shill.


To solve this requires cuts all over the place, those are just two small examples. The big thing is SS, medicare reform, reduce military spending, and encourage growth. Remember, we have Obamacare looming in 2014 and it so far keeps costing more and making business even more wary.

Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

Obama has no plan whatsoever, but to tax the rich, make success an evil word. CBO projections are just dismal and get worse each year. Compounding interest cannot be wished away by starry eyes kids. What do we do in a decade when interest payment on the debt alone are in the 1 trillion dollar range? Tax the rich?
 
2012-11-06 10:26:52 AM

Thunderpipes: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

Won't need to argue it if the wealthy far right would just pay their fair share of taxes.

Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

By fair share, what do you mean exactly, pay all the taxes instead of most?


You think "growth" is something that rich people just decide to generate, out of the goodness of their hearts, as a means of rewarding us for not taxing them?

Of course not. All wealth is created through labor, and who is it again that does all of the "making" in this country? It aint the wealthy, I'll tell you that much.

Next time someone says to you "I never got a job from a poor person", politely remind them that the largest private employers in the world are the poor people who shop at WalMart. Those jobs are not created out of the charity of the Walton family.
 
2012-11-06 10:28:04 AM
At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.
 
2012-11-06 10:28:49 AM

Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.


And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?
 
2012-11-06 10:30:12 AM
STOP REPLYING TO THE SELF-PARODY TROLL.
 
2012-11-06 10:30:54 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that...


So no response to hugram's post, then? No rejoinder for the wall of facts that contradicts you at every turn? Ok then. If you can't play by the rules of civil and moral discourse, where each side actually presents evidence and reasons for believing things, then you can be dismissed for what we all know you are.

Either address the facts, or keep snivelling. The choice is yours. Do you have the backbone to do the right thing?
 
2012-11-06 10:31:20 AM

AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?


Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.
 
2012-11-06 10:31:34 AM

AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?


Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials
 
2012-11-06 10:31:55 AM

crazyeddie: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that...

So no response to hugram's post, then? No rejoinder for the wall of facts that contradicts you at every turn? Ok then. If you can't play by the rules of civil and moral discourse, where each side actually presents evidence and reasons for believing things, then you can be dismissed for what we all know you are.

Either address the facts, or keep snivelling. The choice is yours. Do you have the backbone to do the right thing?


Nobody made any logical argument whatsoever, when they do, I respond.
 
2012-11-06 10:35:01 AM

Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials


The only question I would have about that is, were they actual party officials there as observers, or were they the 'True the Vote' group?

One has a pretty valid reason to be there, the other is a group of Teatards looking to try and disenfranchise minority voters through intimidation.
 
2012-11-06 10:35:48 AM

Thunderpipes: Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?


This is still as retarded as sentiment as it has ever been in this country. People work for farking beans because they have to eat. When Labor Demand exceeds Labor Participation you can talk about discouraging excellence or whatever. But this entire concept that people won't work hard if you tax them at 35% instead of 32% on every dollar made over 300k is farking *dumb*. And you know it. I know you FEEL like higher taxes will make people not want to work hard or whatever. But deep down you know that in the context of this election, the point is moot, and ridiculous.
 
2012-11-06 10:38:05 AM

AurizenDarkstar: Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

The only question I would have about that is, were they actual party officials there as observers, or were they the 'True the Vote' group?

One has a pretty valid reason to be there, the other is a group of Teatards looking to try and disenfranchise minority voters through intimidation.


No, according to the articles, they are the minority inspectors and minority clerks. They are supposed to be there.
 
905
2012-11-06 10:39:08 AM

depmode98: This is the data:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 658x412]

You can drag a Republican over and stick his nose in it, but it does not matter. In the face of numbers, the part of his brain that understands high level thinking will shut down.


Yes, but how much do those jobs pay on average? Are a good chunk of those $35k + jobs or minimum wage McJobs?

You can't assume that those jobs are all "living middle class" jobs based on that graph. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown if you have one.

As for the "health care being deficit neutral" comment I saw above, the cost is still passed on to business and the taxpayer, let's not kid ourselves. The money has to come from somewhere.
 
2012-11-06 10:39:31 AM
I think if Obama wins Virginia, which is in the first group of states to close, it will be all over early.
 
2012-11-06 10:39:33 AM

BeesNuts: Thunderpipes: Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

This is still as retarded as sentiment as it has ever been in this country. People work for farking beans because they have to eat. When Labor Demand exceeds Labor Participation you can talk about discouraging excellence or whatever. But this entire concept that people won't work hard if you tax them at 35% instead of 32% on every dollar made over 300k is farking *dumb*. And you know it. I know you FEEL like higher taxes will make people not want to work hard or whatever. But deep down you know that in the context of this election, the point is moot, and ridiculous.



Wouldn't it be nice if our economy was roaring and we didn't fall into finger pointing over budget issues?

I hope that the next president will focus on the economy, the current one certainly didn't.

// A rising tide floats all boats
 
2012-11-06 10:40:07 AM

INeedAName: Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.

Brilliant post. Well done sir. You said all of the idiotic things an actual Republican thinks, and with a straight face too, as if you actually believed them yourself. I'm impressed.


Thanks! If I had to actually type that out I almost definitely couldn't have done it, but I can't make any claims to it. It was just the newest comment at 538 when I read the article. I was impressed too.
 
2012-11-06 10:40:08 AM

Thunderpipes: The big thing is SS, medicare reform, reduce military spending, and encourage growth.


Romney wants to do the opposite and you think he's more serious about the deficit?
 
2012-11-06 10:40:26 AM

Thunderpipes: I understand this is a far left message board,


There are some intelligent, insightful conservative posters here. They just aren't you.
 
2012-11-06 10:41:41 AM

Robots are Strong: INeedAName: Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.

Brilliant post. Well done sir. You said all of the idiotic things an actual Republican thinks, and with a straight face too, as if you actually believed them yourself. I'm impressed.

Thanks! If I had to actually type that out I almost definitely couldn't have done it, but I can't make any claims to it. It was just the newest comment at 538 when I read the article. I was impressed too.


(whew) Good, you're not insane.
 
2012-11-06 10:41:42 AM

Leeds: No, according to the articles, they are the minority inspectors and minority clerks. They are supposed to be there.


Then it was pretty damn dumb of the people who threw them out.
 
2012-11-06 10:43:12 AM
The sad fact is:

The News media persist in re-framing poll data as info-tainment geared to maximizing ad revenue, and by treating hard data as being less accurate their expert's "gut feeling".

This has created a market vacuum for reality, which has in turn created the impartial "expert analyst", a serious mathematician/statistician who can make a name for himself (herself) by cutting out the B.S.

538/Silver are only filling in a market created for them, a market that the Vegas odds makers have long filled anyway.
 
2012-11-06 10:43:27 AM
Politics make people really stupid. Watching people in this thread is like watching your friend who is in a bad relationship who won't realize it until about 3 months after it ends. Step away and think about what you're doing you dunderheads.
 
2012-11-06 10:43:43 AM

Thunderpipes: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.


The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?
 
2012-11-06 10:43:56 AM

Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials


It's not even uncommon for Philly. It was a problem in the last election, too.
 
2012-11-06 10:44:53 AM

Thunderpipes: Bush had nothing to do with the housing crisis, it was Democrats.


Well, aside from the fact that that statement has nothing to do with the graph I posted, there's still a great deal of speculation regarding who was responsible for the housing crash. Most reliable sources say both parties. But even if we assume it was completely the Dems, what in the world does that have to do with Obama? He wasn't even in office during that time. Let's keep focus on the argument, or you'll have none.
 
2012-11-06 10:45:21 AM

theorellior: STOP REPLYING TO THE SELF-PARODY TROLL.


QFT. Today of all days don't waste your time. Lets focus on reality.
 
2012-11-06 10:45:59 AM
Here is what happened.

Just last week there was a clear real world demonstration that Obama can lead in a crisis.
It happened in real time and he did well much better than the past administration did in a similar situation.
Since it happened in front of everyone there was no time to respin it no time to re-write history to make him look bad.

He and his people stepped up and did their job and did it well working to save people. At the same time Romeny and his teem continued their stump speeches and normal activity, after they got grief from that they continued with a small veneer of charity work for the swing states affected. When the word got out that he was only sending support to swing states that caused a stink and they changed again, and sent support to all the states effected.

The net result is that Obama looked professional Presidential and willing to put the politics aside to get the job of helping Americans in need done.
Romney looked less compassionate and less willing to sacrifice politics for the people.

If I had been sitting on the fence that would have pushed me to Obama, Hell if I was a moderate Republican it would have moved me to Obama. Just like the polls are showing.
 
2012-11-06 10:46:04 AM

AurizenDarkstar: Leeds: No, according to the articles, they are the minority inspectors and minority clerks. They are supposed to be there.

Then it was pretty damn dumb of the people who threw them out.


What was dumb about it? They got 2.5 hours of oversight-free balloting. In Philly, those precinct ballots will never be contested or overturned, despite the irregularities. There was nothing to lose by doing it.
 
2012-11-06 10:47:10 AM

Leeds: BeesNuts: Thunderpipes: Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

This is still as retarded as sentiment as it has ever been in this country. People work for farking beans because they have to eat. When Labor Demand exceeds Labor Participation you can talk about discouraging excellence or whatever. But this entire concept that people won't work hard if you tax them at 35% instead of 32% on every dollar made over 300k is farking *dumb*. And you know it. I know you FEEL like higher taxes will make people not want to work hard or whatever. But deep down you know that in the context of this election, the point is moot, and ridiculous.


Wouldn't it be nice if our economy was roaring and we didn't fall into finger pointing over budget issues?

I hope that the next president will focus on the economy, the current one certainly didn't.

// A rising tide floats all boats


Got any more platitudes to throw out there? C'mon, get em all out. :p

For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.
 
2012-11-06 10:47:47 AM

This text is now purple: Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

It's not even uncommon for Philly. It was a problem in the last election, too.


Slavery was a problem in the South some time ago, guess they should have let is slide?
 
2012-11-06 10:48:20 AM

Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials


From your Link
"Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love.

"It happens all the time," Voigt said. He said court-appointed Republican officials typically show up on Election Day and end up squaring off against stand-in officials at the polling sites filling in the open seats.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/06/judge-issuing-order-to-rein state-booted-philadelphia-election-officials/#ixzz2BSSZmvna
"
 
2012-11-06 10:49:23 AM

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way


It's not just that he has faith or even that he is religious or even that he thinks god lives on a particular planet. It is that he is a BISHOP in that religious institution and it is a bad idea to have high officials from a church in charge of political policy for everyone in the country who doesn't believe like they do. A simple catholic, mormon, muslim or jew is different than a Bishop, Iman, or Rabbi, they don't have an institutional duty to promote the churches line.
 
2012-11-06 10:49:27 AM

Thunderpipes: midigod: Thunderpipes: math does not lie.

You're right, it doesn't:
[www.blogforarizona.com image 500x294]

Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life.

I'm sorry, but the prize for worst economic outlook goes to GW Bush, not BH Obama.  Looking at that graph in Jan of '09 looked much, MUCH worse than it does now. Not even a contest.

Bush had nothing to do with the housing crisis, it was Democrats. Doesn't matter who was elected, the country would have turned around, it is a matter of how much. 7% unemployment is the new norm. 67% debt to GDP when Bush left, we will pass 100% this year. When my son goes to college, that will be 180% of GDP. How can our kids possibly recover from this?


If you really think that it was the Democrats alone who created the housing crisis situation, you are hopelessly partisan. I hope that kid can think for himself because his father is a simpleton fool. Enjoy your 4 more years.
 
2012-11-06 10:49:37 AM

mitEj: Here is what happened.

Just last week there was a clear real world demonstration that Obama can lead in a crisis.
It happened in real time and he did well much better than the past administration did in a similar situation.
Since it happened in front of everyone there was no time to respin it no time to re-write history to make him look bad.

He and his people stepped up and did their job and did it well working to save people. At the same time Romeny and his teem continued their stump speeches and normal activity, after they got grief from that they continued with a small veneer of charity work for the swing states affected. When the word got out that he was only sending support to swing states that caused a stink and they changed again, and sent support to all the states effected.

The net result is that Obama looked professional Presidential and willing to put the politics aside to get the job of helping Americans in need done.
Romney looked less compassionate and less willing to sacrifice politics for the people.

If I had been sitting on the fence that would have pushed me to Obama, Hell if I was a moderate Republican it would have moved me to Obama. Just like the polls are showing.


Meanwhile, on this morning's episode of fox and friends, all I saw was the Doocy crew talking about the thousands of people who are without power, cold, hungry and alone with no food and water, dying in the streets and NOBODY IS HELPING THEM OMG!

They never said "this is Obama's Katrina." But it was farking obvious what they were going for. A redux of the coverage received by Katrina in the hours leading up to voting time. Can't let him have that little win, now can we?
 
2012-11-06 10:49:49 AM

Thunderpipes: Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

So does cutting funding to NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't stop the GOP from harping on about it acting like it would make a big difference in the budget. 

So you can either admit that both things make very little impact on the budget or admit that both things will help pay off the deficit/debt one step at a time.

Anything else makes you look like a dishonest partisan shill.

To solve this requires cuts all over the place, those are just two small examples. The big thing is SS, medicare reform, reduce military spending, and encourage growth. Remember, we have Obamacare looming in 2014 and it so far keeps costing more and making business even more wary.

Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

Obama has no plan whatsoever, but to tax the rich, make success an evil word. CBO projections are just dismal and get worse each year. Compounding interest cannot be wished away by starry eyes kids. What do we do in a decade when interest payment on the debt alone are in the 1 trillion dollar range? Tax the rich?


Out of the four things you listed, Mitt Romney promised not to touch two, and actually promised to do the opposite of one (military spending). And it's certainly not settled who will "encourage growth" although I have a feeling your mind is made up on that one.

A modest tax increase on the rich in terms of letting the bush cuts expire for that income bracket will absolutely lower the deficit. In contrast you have Mitt Romney's plan to... well I guess we've covered that.

I certainly wouldn't mind, and I bet several others here wouldn't mind, if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. Combined with entitlement reform, defense cuts, etc., well now we're talking. So why do you oppose the candidate who has already began that discussion?
 
2012-11-06 10:49:52 AM
Thunderpipes's kid isn't going to college and will probably fark a relative.
 
2012-11-06 10:50:13 AM

BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.


You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

Please reconsider your position. At present you are basically saying "screw America."
 
2012-11-06 10:50:46 AM

BeesNuts: The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?


1. They were Republicans in a city that's 90% Democrat. That's the only reason.
2. Would it also be racist for black voters to challenge a poll-watcher who was a Klansman?
 
2012-11-06 10:51:29 AM

midigod: Well, aside from the fact that that statement has nothing to do with the graph I posted, there's still a great deal of speculation regarding who was responsible for the housing crash. Most reliable sources say both parties.


most reliable sources say it was banks loaning out money to anyone who applied, in the heyday you could get a loan for a home with no income documentation. Banks were not compelled by the government to do that.
 
2012-11-06 10:51:47 AM

Thunderpipes: This text is now purple: Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

It's not even uncommon for Philly. It was a problem in the last election, too.

Slavery was a problem in the South some time ago, guess they should have let is slide?


Point of order: While we can argue about whether they should have, it's worth noting that they, in fact, DID let is slide. Specifically to save the fledgling republic. And it worked. Also off the table was "What do we do with all the Indians?" Good thing, too, or we would all be speaking french now.

But that has nothing to do with anything, really. So I guess I'm wondering what the flying fark you think you're saying?
 
2012-11-06 10:54:35 AM

Leeds: BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

Please reconsider your position. At present you are basically saying "screw America."


You might want to do a little research before making a comment like that. Most economists see a rate of growth in the 2.5% - 3% range as being healthy. When it gets into higher numbers like 7% - 10%, it's definitely a boom, and that can be bad down the line.

So yeah, I agree with him that a rate of growth of 2% is a good thing for the country, but 3% would be better.
 
2012-11-06 10:54:51 AM

BeesNuts: Thunderpipes: This text is now purple: Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

It's not even uncommon for Philly. It was a problem in the last election, too.

Slavery was a problem in the South some time ago, guess they should have let is slide?

Point of order: While we can argue about whether they should have, it's worth noting that they, in fact, DID let is slide. Specifically to save the fledgling republic. And it worked. Also off the table was "What do we do with all the Indians?" Good thing, too, or we would all be speaking french now.

But that has nothing to do with anything, really. So I guess I'm wondering what the flying fark you think you're saying?


It's just the first of many election day epiphany-implosions.

Regardless of who wins, if we can stop pandering to voters and start solving problems, we should be in great shape as a country. Let's hope that whoever wins can make some progress with that in the next four years.
 
2012-11-06 10:55:50 AM

Thunderpipes: Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

So does cutting funding to NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't stop the GOP from harping on about it acting like it would make a big difference in the budget. 

So you can either admit that both things make very little impact on the budget or admit that both things will help pay off the deficit/debt one step at a time.

Anything else makes you look like a dishonest partisan shill.

To solve this requires cuts all over the place, those are just two small examples. The big thing is SS, medicare reform, reduce military spending, and encourage growth. Remember, we have Obamacare looming in 2014 and it so far keeps costing more and making business even more wary.

Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

Obama has no plan whatsoever, but to tax the rich, make success an evil word. CBO projections are just dismal and get worse each year. Compounding interest cannot be wished away by starry eyes kids. What do we do in a decade when interest payment on the debt alone are in the 1 trillion dollar range? Tax the rich?


Who do you think these "lazy" people are? The fact is, if you want to separate out the takers from the makers in America, you are talking about 2 groups: the elderly and members of our armed forces. I wouldn't call either of those groups "lazy".

Look, our economy tanked 4 years ago for two reasons: one, we deregulated our financial industries and allowed them to essentially gamble, knowing if they lost the taxpayer would pick up the check. Two, we took on a massive amount of debt in order to pass a huge regressive tax cut that created zero jobs, and generated zero growth. Think about that for a minute: we literally borrowed money from the Chinese and from our children in order to give the wealthy a massive handout, and in return they tanked the economy and pushed unemployment up to 9%.

Mitt Romney wants to do both of these again, deregulate and cut taxes. That's the choice today. Do we want the policies that created the slow growth and modest employment gains of the last 4 years, or the policies that created the recession?
 
2012-11-06 10:56:49 AM
Fark, people, we were having an amusing thread and you had to go fingerpaint on the walls with the threadshiatter. Well done, well done.
 
2012-11-06 10:58:01 AM
Waaah I voted for Bush and support tax cuts and war but the spending is just too much!!!
 
2012-11-06 11:00:09 AM

BeesNuts: Thunderpipes: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.

The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?


According to CNN just now, "all reports" so far say the only reason was that he was a black man and working for the GOP as a poll inspector. No campaigning, a certified inspector. Shout downs of Uncle Tom and violence have ensued. A judge ordered that all 12 wards that removed the GOP inspectors be reinstated and dispatched deputies at each site to insure compliance.

No harm I can see to the process in general, in fact the Black Panthers just caused panic and delay in areas that Obama should win 95% of the vote - so kind of dumb. Maybe they should drive out to the suburbs next time and cause this drama.

It seems you are supporting the removal of polling place inspectors? Can you elaborate? Why do you think any of this is okay?
 
2012-11-06 11:00:15 AM

Leeds: Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials


Anything from a reputable news source?
 
2012-11-06 11:04:10 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Leeds: Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

Anything from a reputable news source?


From The Philadelphia Inquirer (seriously, I have no idea - are they "reputable"). Also just a story on CNN in our lobby...

Judges issue court orders to re-instate the GOP officials in the polling places..Deputies there to make sure... Philly locations where R poll inspectors were barred (ctd.): ,Div 17; W 39, D 1; W 24, Div 9; W 18, D 25; W 43, D14;
 
2012-11-06 11:04:27 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Leeds: Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

Anything from a reputable news source?


I linked two articles. You disapprove of the first one, fine. Look at the second one.

// In short- yes. This is verified.
 
2012-11-06 11:05:05 AM

Thunderpipes: crazyeddie: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that...

So no response to hugram's post, then? No rejoinder for the wall of facts that contradicts you at every turn? Ok then. If you can't play by the rules of civil and moral discourse, where each side actually presents evidence and reasons for believing things, then you can be dismissed for what we all know you are.

Either address the facts, or keep snivelling. The choice is yours. Do you have the backbone to do the right thing?

Nobody made any logical argument whatsoever, when they do, I respond.


Here is what you quoted... "math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good"...

I then posted a whole bunch of stuff that no one with a straight face can say they are not good... Car sales are up... home prices are up... stock markets are up... unemployment rate trending down... well, you can go back to look at them again.

Anyway, if you still feel all that data I posted is still not good... and you want to blame the bad situation on the Gov, and more specifically on Obama for it, why don't you first start with congress... and to be specific, the GOP members of congress.

US presidents are not dictators. They do not create and pass laws all by themselves. Congress creates laws, and then they vote on them. If a bill is passed via the voting process, it is here that the President only signs them into law. Since the GOP congress blocked every bills the Dems tried to pass, including ideas they used to championed, then go ahead and blame them. 

Including on the many links I provided to you, one was a 10% tax cut for companies that hire someone new. The GOP congress blocked that bill. Since when are they against a tax cut?
 
2012-11-06 11:07:00 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Leeds: Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

Anything from a reputable news source?


The Inquirer (grudgingly) reported on it, too.
 
2012-11-06 11:09:02 AM
Came here for Palpatine references ... left incredibly disappointed!
 
2012-11-06 11:10:14 AM

hugram: Thunderpipes: crazyeddie: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that...

So no response to hugram's post, then? No rejoinder for the wall of facts that contradicts you at every turn? Ok then. If you can't play by the rules of civil and moral discourse, where each side actually presents evidence and reasons for believing things, then you can be dismissed for what we all know you are.

Either address the facts, or keep snivelling. The choice is yours. Do you have the backbone to do the right thing?

Nobody made any logical argument whatsoever, when they do, I respond.

Here is what you quoted... "math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good"...

I then posted a whole bunch of stuff that no one with a straight face can say they are not good... Car sales are up... home prices are up... stock markets are up... unemployment rate trending down... well, you can go back to look at them again.

Anyway, if you still feel all that data I posted is still not good... and you want to blame the bad situation on the Gov, and more specifically on Obama for it, why don't you first start with congress... and to be specific, the GOP members of congress.

US presidents are not dictators. They do not create and pass laws all by themselves. Congress creates laws, and then they vote on them. If a bill is passed via the voting process, it is here that the President only signs them into law. Since the GOP congress blocked every bills the Dems tried to pass, including ideas they used to championed, then go ahead and blame them. 

Including on the many links I provided to you, one was a 10% tax cut for companies that hire someone new. The GOP congress blocked that bill. Since when are they against a tax cut?


Unemployment ticked back up to 7.9%. Wow, that is awesome. Oh, that includes the fact that 4-5% of the entire workforce dropped out. Home prices and the stock market are very slowly rising after a stark recession? Oh boy howdy, Obama is a Savior! Could have elected a monkey and done as well. You are here arguing that 7.9% unemployment, exploding deficit, drastically shrunk workforce is okay because home prices and the stock market have rebounded. Wow.

Bambam had two years to do anything he wanted, he passed a ridiculous health care law that half the country doesn't want and will cost trillions. That is all he has done, that and campaign. Have the Dems bothered to passa budget lately?
 
2012-11-06 11:10:32 AM

Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.



Y9u know the Dems have it in the bag when Tunderpipes chimes in for thm.
 
2012-11-06 11:11:04 AM

Leeds: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Leeds: Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

Anything from a reputable news source?

I linked two articles. You disapprove of the first one, fine. Look at the second one.

// In short- yes. This is verified.


http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/cityhall/Election-Day----Committee - of-Seventy-reports-problems-at-the-polls.html

Their live bloggers are commenting on it, too.

\Also about NBP at 12th & Fairmount.
 
2012-11-06 11:11:06 AM

Leeds: BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

Please reconsider your position. At present you are basically saying "screw America."


No one is content with 2% growth. But, at present, you are basically saying that you would prefer recession.

If Romney had said he would do anything differently from what Bush did economically, you would have a valid argument, but his entire platform was tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, and a general return to regressive governance. That's what caused the recession in the first place! You bet I'll take 2% growth over that. I'll take the economic conditions of 2012 over those of 2008 any day of the week.
 
2012-11-06 11:11:54 AM
Actually, other than the very unwarranted physical confrontation, this seems "normal" for Philly, read this...

Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love.

"It happens all the time," Voigt said. He said court-appointed Republican officials typically show up on Election Day and end up squaring off against stand-in officials at the polling sites filling in the open seats. Part of the problem, he said, is that the Republican inspectors are appointed on relatively short notice, leading to a string of confrontations on Election Day.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/06/judge-issuing-order-to-rein state-booted-philadelphia-election-officials/#ixzz2BSYDyIHj
 
2012-11-06 11:11:54 AM

Thunderpipes: Unemployment ticked back up to 7.9%. Wow, that is awesome. Oh, that includes the fact that 4-5% of the entire workforce dropped out. Home prices and the stock market are very slowly rising after a stark recession? Oh boy howdy, Obama is a Savior! Could have elected a monkey and done as well. You are here arguing that 7.9% unemployment, exploding deficit, drastically shrunk workforce is okay because home prices and the stock market have rebounded. Wow.

Bambam had two years to do anything he wanted, he passed a ridiculous health care law that half the country doesn't want and will cost trillions. That is all he has done, that and campaign. Have the Dems bothered to passa budget lately?


You seem to be ignoring the fact that the alternative isn't any better and wants to increase defense spending and tax cuts which will result in a much bigger deficit.

How come?
 
JW
2012-11-06 11:12:06 AM

Leeds: JW: Leeds:

The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.

I don't mean to be condescending, but you are all over the place with your comments- almost like you didn't understand my post at all.

We were speaking of deficits. Your statements about recouping long term investments is interesting, but a complete red herring. Money in and money out - that's how you determine if you have a deficit or a surplus. The integral of that answer is called the national debt. These numbers have nothing to do with whether or not the deficit is "good" because it was part of an investment in infrastructure or "bad" because it's throwing money at people to discourage them from working. debt is debt.

You aren't by any chance a Democrat, are you?

Ok, perhaps I didn't understand your post. Let me be more clear as to what I thought you meant:

1) You stated "the deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan. If you look at the budgets like you look at a company's prospectus and you remove the non-recurring one time charge that year, your claim that the deficit has been shrinking can be shown to be false.

2) The deficit is revenue - expenditures, when revenue exceeds expenditures, and you've got to borrow the rest.

3) You're stating that it only got smaller because of the one time charge of the stimulus. For your argument to be true, the one-time charge would have to be additional revenue. But the stimulus was more expenditures, not more revenue. It's not a windfall.

4) Companies often don't count one-time charges because it's not recurring, true. But that's almost always because it makes their books look worse, not better. This is the counter argument.

5) In trying to understand what you were saying -- that the stimulus is a one-time charge that makes the books look BETTER, not worse, I tried to understand the statement from the point of view that it had somehow increased revenues in a non-recurring fashion. Thus the statement about increasing tax revenue, since that's the only thing I could guess that you meant.

Now if all that is wrong, please help me understand what you mean when you say that the stimulus, as a non-recurring expenditure, is somehow making the deficit appear smaller than it really is. I'd appreciate it if you did so without trying to label me as a Democrat or similar, since that 1) is false, and 2) is in no way pertinent to the discussion.
 
2012-11-06 11:14:10 AM
Mr. Obama could secure the Electoral College by winning Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania, along with Ohio.

I think it's very presumptious to predict some of these states given the extremely tight polling especially OH. Anyone who would even try to predict OH is a kook. I see NV possibly going to Obama but FL most likely will go to Romney.
PA is also a toss up.
VA is leaning slightly Romney. If Romney loses VA and OH even if he wins Fl I think it's pretty much game over. OTOH If Obama loses both states he will also be in big trouble especially if CO goes to Romney which at this point is quite likely.
 
2012-11-06 11:20:06 AM

JW: Leeds: JW: Leeds:

The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.

I don't mean to be condescending, but you are all over the place with your comments- almost like you didn't understand my post at all.

We were speaking of deficits. Your statements about recouping long term investments is interesting, but a complete red herring. Money in and money out - that's how you determine if you have a deficit or a surplus. The integral of that answer is called the national debt. These numbers have nothing to do with whether or not the deficit is "good" because it was part of an investment in infrastructure or "bad" because it's throwing money at people to discourage them from working. debt is debt.

You aren't by any chance a Democrat, are you?
Ok, perhaps I didn't understand your post. Let me be more clear as to what I thought you meant:

1) You stated "the deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan. If you look at the budgets like you look at a company's prospectus and you remove the non-recurring one time charge that year, your claim that the deficit has been shrinking can be shown to be false.

2) The deficit is revenue - expenditures, when revenue exceeds expenditures, and you've got to borrow the rest.

3) You're stating that it only got smaller because of the one time charge of the stimulus. For your argument to be true, the one-time charge would have to be additional revenue. But the stimulus was more expenditures, not more revenue. It's not a windfall.

4) Companies often don't count one-time charges because it's not recurring, true. But that's almost always because it makes their books look worse, not better. This is the counter argument.

5) In trying to understand what you were saying -- that the stimulus is a one-time charge that makes the books look BETTER, not worse, I tried to understand the statement from the point of view that it had somehow increased revenues in a non-recurring fashion. Thus the statement about increasing tax revenue, since that's the only thing I could guess that you meant.

Now if all that is wrong, please help me understand what you mean when you say that the stimulus, as a non-recurring expenditure, is somehow making the deficit appear smaller than it really is. I'd appreciate it if you did so without trying to label me as a Democrat or similar, since that 1) is false, and 2) is in no way pertinent to the discussion.


IT'S MAKING THE DEFICITS OF THE FOLLOWING YEARS APPEAR TO HAVE SHRUNK

ARE YOU A F*****G MORON????

God damnit stupid people piss me off. Go re-read everything so you can feel appropriately bad about yourself.
 
2012-11-06 11:20:44 AM

Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.


face it.. you are voting Romney because you hate Obama. Let go of your hate. Let your anger flow through you....just get it off your chest.. you hate Obama becvause he is black and you absolutely cannot stand the thought of a POTUS ever being a colored.
 
2012-11-06 11:22:13 AM
I'm hoping for an electoral college tie, would be fascinating to watch congress choose the next president.
 
2012-11-06 11:23:19 AM

Zoidfarb: I'm hoping for an electoral college tie, would be fascinating to watch congress choose the next president.


I like the way you think.
 
2012-11-06 11:25:14 AM

Thunderpipes: Unemployment ticked back up to 7.9%. Wow, that is awesome. Oh, that includes the fact that 4-5% of the entire workforce dropped out. Home prices and the stock market are very slowly rising after a stark recession? Oh boy howdy, Obama is a Savior! Could have elected a monkey and done as well. You are here arguing that 7.9% unemployment, exploding deficit, drastically shrunk workforce is okay because home prices and the stock market have rebounded. Wow.

Bambam had two years to do anything he wanted, he passed a ridiculous health care law that half the country doesn't want and will cost trillions. That is all he has done, that and campaign. Have the Dems bothered to passa budget lately?


Let's talk about the unemployment rate... It is at 7.9%. When Obama took office, it was at 7.8%.

Here is Bush's number... You can see that Obama has a better record on that.

Bush
01/20/2001: 4.2%
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 85.71% increase

Let's talk about your comment about the stock market slowly recovering... The fact that it doubled since March 9th of 2009 is no way considered a slow return.

Obama never had 2 years of Congress. Al Franken was sworn into the Senate on July 7, 2009... a full six months after winning the seat. Ted Kennedy died soon after (on August 25, 2009)... so yea, your two year majority comment is not valid.

The ridiculous healthcare law you are referring too was first championed by the extreme leftist group called The Heritage Foundation in 1994. The boy you voted for implemented it in Massachusetts when he was the governor. Do you think Romneycare sucks too? 

You did not make any comments about the GOP congress blocking anything. At least they should own up to the blocking... instead of blocking everything and then blame Obama for not getting anything done. Why don't you own up to that?
 
2012-11-06 11:26:00 AM

Zoidfarb: I'm hoping for an electoral college tie, would be fascinating to watch congress choose the next president.


"The Aristocrats!"

lol, for pure TV entertainment, it would be pretty spectacular.
 
2012-11-06 11:26:42 AM

SuperNinjaToad: Mr. Obama could secure the Electoral College by winning Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania, along with Ohio.

I think it's very presumptious to predict some of these states given the extremely tight polling especially OH. Anyone who would even try to predict OH is a kook. I see NV possibly going to Obama but FL most likely will go to Romney.
PA is also a toss up.
VA is leaning slightly Romney. If Romney loses VA and OH even if he wins Fl I think it's pretty much game over. OTOH If Obama loses both states he will also be in big trouble especially if CO goes to Romney which at this point is quite likely.


Virginia is one of the first States that will be called tonight. If Romney doesn't win it by a healthy margin, he's lost the election.

I say Obama takes Virginia by 2 points. Romney loses every other major battleground State.
 
JW
2012-11-06 11:27:12 AM

Leeds: IT'S MAKING THE DEFICITS OF THE FOLLOWING YEARS APPEAR TO HAVE SHRUNK


How? Stimulus money was money out, not money in. How? How did it make the deficits look smaller? You've stated that it does, but you don't state HOW it made them look smaller, except by saying I'm a Democrat and an idiot.
 
2012-11-06 11:31:45 AM

JW: Leeds: IT'S MAKING THE DEFICITS OF THE FOLLOWING YEARS APPEAR TO HAVE SHRUNK

How? Stimulus money was money out, not money in. How? How did it make the deficits look smaller? You've stated that it does, but you don't state HOW it made them look smaller, except by saying I'm a Democrat and an idiot.


By farking comparison you god-damned idiot.

The initial poster said that obama's deficits have been getting smaller since the first year he took office.

I pointed out that the fact that the first year's deficit was super huge by comparison was entirely due to the stimulus package that was part of that year's deficit.

Then idiots started responding with posts that have no bearing on the thread. Farking idiots like you. Learn to farking read and you won't be called out for being an idiot.
 
2012-11-06 11:36:34 AM

mrshowrules: SuperNinjaToad: Mr. Obama could secure the Electoral College by winning Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania, along with Ohio.

I think it's very presumptious to predict some of these states given the extremely tight polling especially OH. Anyone who would even try to predict OH is a kook. I see NV possibly going to Obama but FL most likely will go to Romney.
PA is also a toss up.
VA is leaning slightly Romney. If Romney loses VA and OH even if he wins Fl I think it's pretty much game over. OTOH If Obama loses both states he will also be in big trouble especially if CO goes to Romney which at this point is quite likely.

Virginia is one of the first States that will be called tonight. If Romney doesn't win it by a healthy margin, he's lost the election.

I say Obama takes Virginia by 2 points. Romney loses every other major battleground State.


I think all Republicans AND Democrats see this as true.

1. Obama gets VA called early, then lights out. Romney is the scapegoat for years to come for bitter Republicans.

2. Romney has a 2-3% win in VA? Make some coffee, it'll be a long night with Obama eventually winning.

3. Romney wins VA outright (5%+)... oh snap. The polls WERE skewed - Obama is a one-term failure in the history books.
 
2012-11-06 11:38:36 AM

Purdue_Pete: mrshowrules: SuperNinjaToad: Mr. Obama could secure the Electoral College by winning Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania, along with Ohio.

I think it's very presumptious to predict some of these states given the extremely tight polling especially OH. Anyone who would even try to predict OH is a kook. I see NV possibly going to Obama but FL most likely will go to Romney.
PA is also a toss up.
VA is leaning slightly Romney. If Romney loses VA and OH even if he wins Fl I think it's pretty much game over. OTOH If Obama loses both states he will also be in big trouble especially if CO goes to Romney which at this point is quite likely.

Virginia is one of the first States that will be called tonight. If Romney doesn't win it by a healthy margin, he's lost the election.

I say Obama takes Virginia by 2 points. Romney loses every other major battleground State.

I think all Republicans AND Democrats see this as true.

1. Obama gets VA called early, then lights out. Romney is the scapegoat for years to come for bitter Republicans.

2. Romney has a 2-3% win in VA? Make some coffee, it'll be a long night with Obama eventually winning.

3. Romney wins VA outright (5%+)... oh snap. The polls WERE skewed - Obama is a one-term failure in the history books.


Pretty much. The Republican Virginia Governor was on CNN this morning. Let's just say his optimism for a Romney win was very muted.
 
2012-11-06 11:46:55 AM

Leeds: BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

Please reconsider your position. At present you are basically saying "screw America."


I'm more content with consistent, stable 2% growth (last year we actually saw more along the lines of 5% growth, but I thought you'd appreciate being a little conservative in my estimate. Guess not.) than I'd be with two years of 6% growth followed by a year of 3% decline. But 2% growth in a recession? YOU DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE I AM CONTENT WITH THAT.

People are NOT entering the workforce faster than they are leaving it. In fact, quite the opposite. Labor participation is falling because 4 years ago, a bunch of people were ready to retire, then they lost everything. The market has recovered, and so has their retirement nest-egg. So 4 years worth of people are confident enough to start leaving the workforce. This is a good thing. Not a bad thing. And it's precisely counter to what you believe to be the case.

Ok, Fark this. Go look up hugram's post. All the anecdotal "OMG I FEEL SO SAD" bullshiat doesn't disprove the data. If you wanna vote based on how Obama makes you feel or how Romney makes you feel, go ahead. But don't pretend to lean on numbers and facts when you flat out don't. Things are getting better. We can keep on that path, or we can do something else because you aren't satisfied with how fast things are getting better.
 
2012-11-06 11:47:42 AM
Why don't we just have a civil war like decent people and end this nonsense?
 
2012-11-06 11:50:10 AM

mrshowrules: Virginia is one of the first States that will be called tonight. If Romney doesn't win it by a healthy margin, he's lost the election.


Obama won VA in 2008 by 234,000 votes (WTOP this morning), mostly from NoVA, where the libs live. That's the hurdle Romney has to clear - he needs 234,001 more votes from NoVA than McCain got.

How likely is that?

// also, I thought Romney had given up on PA
// and isn't FL moving Obama-ward in the polls?
 
2012-11-06 11:53:13 AM

Purdue_Pete: BeesNuts: Thunderpipes: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.

The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?

According to CNN just now, "all reports" so far say the only reason was that he was a black man and working for the GOP as a poll inspector. No campaigning, a certified inspector. Shout downs of Uncle Tom and violence have ensued. A judge ordered that all 12 wards that removed the GOP inspectors be reinstated and dispatched deputies at each site to insure compliance.

No harm I can see to the process in general, in fact the Black Panthers just caused panic and delay in areas that Obama should win 95% of the vote - so kind of dumb. Maybe they should drive out to the suburbs next time and cause this drama.

It seems you are supporting the removal of polling place inspectors? Can you elaborate? Why do you think any of this is okay?


Details are extraordinarily light on the poll inspector thing. Having voted in Philly, I find it hard to believe that the actual poll workers would kick somebody out for ... also being a poll worker. In fact, I *NEVER KNEW THE POLITICAL IDENTITY* of the poll inspectors I met (and spoke to on several occassions that year [it was my first election :D]) The story smells funny, and the fact that it's coming from the poison well of ThunderPipes makes it all the more questionable. But no, I do not support kicking out poll inspectors. I DO support letting poll watchers do *their* jobs as well, and for the most part, I trust poll watchers more than I trust Thunderpipes and WND so... that's where I'm at. Withholding judgment and not being especially outraged since it appears to already be undone, for better or worse.

Again, the only way you can think that a NBP is causing "panic and delay" by standing in proximity to a polling place is if you're a farking racist dickwaffle. Are you a racist dickwaffle? I'm withholding judgment on that too.
 
2012-11-06 11:54:50 AM

BeesNuts: Leeds: BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

Please reconsider your position. At present you are basically saying "screw America."

I'm more content with consistent, stable 2% growth (last year we actually saw more along the lines of 5% growth, but I thought you'd appreciate being a little conservative in my estimate. Guess not.) than I'd be with two years of 6% growth followed by a year of 3% decline. But 2% growth in a recession? YOU DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE I AM CONTENT WITH THAT.

People are NOT entering the workforce faster than they are leaving it. In fact, quite the opposite. Labor participation is falling because 4 years ago, a bunch of people were ready to retire, then they lost everything. The market has recovered, and so has their retirement nest-egg. So 4 years worth of people are confident enough to start leaving the workforce. This is a good thing. Not a bad thing. And it's precisely counter to what you believe to be the case.



One in 2 recent college graduates can't even find a job. And yet you pretend that this is indicative of adequate economic growth? I don't think that you are an evil person or anything, I just think that you're out of touch.

// And yes, that's a liberal link to the huffington post.
 
2012-11-06 11:56:51 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Why don't we just have a civil war like decent people and end this nonsense?


It wouldn't be a fair fight. One side doesn't even believe in guns.
 
2012-11-06 12:02:20 PM

Leeds: It wouldn't be a fair fight. One side doesn't even believe in guns.


I hope you're joking.
 
2012-11-06 12:08:35 PM
Does Nate use some kind of Monte Carlo method to process the poll info and arrive at his results?

With a picture of a Monte Cristo sandwich so my tiny question does not get lost:

www.mightysweet.com

You are welcome.
 
JW
2012-11-06 12:13:45 PM

Leeds: JW: Leeds: IT'S MAKING THE DEFICITS OF THE FOLLOWING YEARS APPEAR TO HAVE SHRUNK

How? Stimulus money was money out, not money in. How? How did it make the deficits look smaller? You've stated that it does, but you don't state HOW it made them look smaller, except by saying I'm a Democrat and an idiot.

By farking comparison you god-damned idiot.

The initial poster said that obama's deficits have been getting smaller since the first year he took office.

I pointed out that the fact that the first year's deficit was super huge by comparison was entirely due to the stimulus package that was part of that year's deficit.

Then idiots started responding with posts that have no bearing on the thread. Farking idiots like you. Learn to farking read and you won't be called out for being an idiot.

Oh, I see what you're saying now. Sorry, that was not clear, even though you thought it was. (What you had actually said was: "The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.", which I assumed to mean spread over multiple years, because, you know, that's what happened).

In which case, that's great! I'm sure you have data to back all this up, right? So either stimulus spending is falling on a year-by-year basis, but not by very much, or it fell dramatically but non-stimulus spending increased, or government revenues dropped precipitously, or some combination of these three. So you definitely have sources and data to back this up.

Because I sure haven't seen oodles of data claiming the opposite. Especially things like "Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. So the one-time bump in spending amounted to about 4 percent of fiscal 2009 spending."

Or alternatively you can bask in your anger and delusional self satisfaction that somehow you're an intelligent and informed individual, but the people you don't know, or who disagree with you, are not.
 
2012-11-06 12:14:06 PM

Leeds: BeesNuts: Leeds: BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

Please reconsider your position. At present you are basically saying "screw America."

I'm more content with consistent, stable 2% growth (last year we actually saw more along the lines of 5% growth, but I thought you'd appreciate being a little conservative in my estimate. Guess not.) than I'd be with two years of 6% growth followed by a year of 3% decline. But 2% growth in a recession? YOU DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE I AM CONTENT WITH THAT.

People are NOT entering the workforce faster than they are leaving it. In fact, quite the opposite. Labor participation is falling because 4 years ago, a bunch of people were ready to retire, then they lost everything. The market has recovered, and so has their retirement nest-egg. So 4 years worth of people are confident enough to start leaving the workforce. This is a good thing. Not a bad thing. And it's precisely counter to what you believe to be the case.


One in 2 recent college graduates can't even find a job. And yet you pretend that this is indicative of adequate economic growth? I don't think that you are an evil person or anything, I just think that you're out of touch.

// And yes, that's a liberal link to the huffington post.


That statistic doesn't disagree with my statistic, or my general point. You're now just throwing out the weird stats used to make shiat sound awful. Is it all sunshine and rainbows? No. Is it getting better? Yes.

That study looks at bachelors degrees, whereas the stat I was referencing looks at professional certs, Graduate degree holders and doctorates. These stats, put together, are indicative of a problem that has nothing to do with growth. We're light on middle-skill level jobs. Manufacturing, assembly, design... you know, precisely the kind of jobs Obama gets made fun of for trying to focus on.

But you know what, you're just doing your damnedest to paint the most dismal image of a recovering economy possible on election day. So I can only assume you're a shill.

"The recovery is anemic!"
"not according to all typically used metrics."
"Is so! Look at this one specific metric! How can you be satisfied?"

Do the one about U6 now. That's always a good one. -_-
 
2012-11-06 12:34:22 PM

Leeds: It wouldn't be a fair fight. One side doesn't even believe in guns.


It looks like I'd mistakenly responded to you as if you were a rational, honest person. Thank you for making my error in judgement clear.
 
2012-11-06 12:34:27 PM

maniacbastard: Does Nate use some kind of Monte Carlo method to process the poll info and arrive at his results?


Some Farker explained it perfectly about 2 days ago. It is neither rocket-science or magic. Just the application of sound statistical principles.

My summary which is not as thorough:
1) weight and adjust polls based on house-bias and other factors such as historical performance and sample size
2) calculate State probabilities of wins
3) use a random generator function to produce likely voting scenarios and measure EV outcomes
4) run 10,000 random scenarios (random numbers are weighted towards likelihood) count how may times each candidate wins.

Based on current predictions, Obama wins in about 9,200 simulations in 10,000.
 
2012-11-06 12:46:49 PM

Thunderpipes: Unemployment ticked back up to 7.9%. Wow, that is awesome. Oh, that includes the fact that 4-5% of the entire workforce dropped out. Home prices and the stock market are very slowly rising after a stark recession? Oh boy howdy, Obama is a Savior! Could have elected a monkey and done as well. You are here arguing that 7.9% unemployment, exploding deficit, drastically shrunk workforce is okay because home prices and the stock market have rebounded. Wow.


We tried that eight years ago... It didn't turn out so well.
 
2012-11-06 12:49:55 PM

BeesNuts: Details are extraordinarily light on the poll inspector thing. Having voted in Philly, I find it hard to believe that the actual poll workers would kick somebody out for ... also being a poll worker. In fact, I *NEVER KNEW THE POLITICAL IDENTITY* of the poll inspectors I met (and spoke to on several occassions that year [it was my first election :D])


See, there's your problem. You live in Delaware. You only thought it was Philly.

\Biden makes the same mistake
 
2012-11-06 12:54:16 PM

Thunderpipes: eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.

Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


Because, by and large, democrats are just more trustworthy than republicans, that's why.
 
2012-11-06 12:57:48 PM

BeesNuts: Purdue_Pete: BeesNuts: Thunderpipes: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.

The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?

According to CNN just now, "all reports" so far say the only reason was that he was a black man and working for the GOP as a poll inspector. No campaigning, a certified inspector. Shout downs of Uncle Tom and violence have ensued. A judge ordered that all 12 wards that removed the GOP inspectors be reinstated and dispatched deputies at each site to insure compliance.

No harm I can see to the process in general, in fact the Black Panthers just caused panic and delay in areas that Obama should win 95% of the vote - so kind of dumb. Maybe they should drive out to the suburbs next time and cause this drama.

It seems you are supporting the removal of polling place inspectors? Can you elaborate? Why do you think any of this is okay?

Details are extraordinarily light on the poll inspector thing. Having voted in Philly, I find it hard to believe that the actual poll workers would kick somebody out for ... also being a poll worker. In fact, I *NEVER KNEW THE POLITICAL IDENTITY* of the poll inspectors I met (and spoke to on several occassions that year [it was my first election :D]) The story smells funny, and the fact that it's coming from the poison well of T ...



You must have missed this part where your own city legal team said "yeah, it happens all the time, totally normal" then?

Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love.

"It happens all the time," Voigt said. He said court-appointed Republican officials typically show up on Election Day and end up squaring off against stand-in officials at the polling sites filling in the open seats. Part of the problem, he said, is that the Republican inspectors are appointed on relatively short notice, leading to a string of confrontations on Election Day.


I don't think it's a big deal, it's just a shame that there might have been some pushing and shoving. I'm glad the GOP workers stood their ground and refused to be intimidated. This hasn't suppressed votes, hasn't altered the election.

Oh and yes, I'm obviously a racist. I'm voting Romney so he can put black people back in the fields where they belong. Along with legalizing legitimate rape and banning abortions of course. That's what anyone like me who voted Obama in '08 but thinks he did a crappy job leading our country is, right? A racist? 

/sarcasm off
/pro choice
/pro gay marriage
/anti crappy president
 
2012-11-06 12:59:54 PM

Purdue_Pete: Oh and yes, I'm obviously a racist. I'm voting Romney so he can put black people back in the fields where they belong. Along with legalizing legitimate rape and banning abortions of course. That's what anyone like me who voted Obama in '08 but thinks he did a crappy job leading our country is, right? A racist? 

/sarcasm off
/pro choice
/pro gay marriage
/anti crappy president


Delusional at best. Misinformed? The word 'wrong' works as well.
 
2012-11-06 01:00:36 PM

Leeds: Smeggy Smurf: Why don't we just have a civil war like decent people and end this nonsense?

It wouldn't be a fair fight. One side doesn't even believe in guns.


I know, it would be like shooting candyasses in a barrel. I figure half would need a Pb injection before they give up.

/expect to get ignored by half of the remaining candyasses before the end of the day
 
2012-11-06 01:06:03 PM

Leeds: BeesNuts: Leeds: BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

Please reconsider your position. At present you are basically saying "screw America."

I'm more content with consistent, stable 2% growth (last year we actually saw more along the lines of 5% growth, but I thought you'd appreciate being a little conservative in my estimate. Guess not.) than I'd be with two years of 6% growth followed by a year of 3% decline. But 2% growth in a recession? YOU DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE I AM CONTENT WITH THAT.

People are NOT entering the workforce faster than they are leaving it. In fact, quite the opposite. Labor participation is falling because 4 years ago, a bunch of people were ready to retire, then they lost everything. The market has recovered, and so has their retirement nest-egg. So 4 years worth of people are confident enough to start leaving the workforce. This is a good thing. Not a bad thing. And it's precisely counter to what you believe to be the case.


One in 2 recent college graduates can't even find a job. And yet you pretend that this is indicative of adequate economic growth? I don't think that you are an evil person or anything, I just think that you're out of touch.

// And yes, that's a liberal link to the huffington post.


You know, it could be that 1 in 2 college graduates are unemployable. College has changed from an institution to teach job skills into an excuse to put off being an adult for 4 years. Maybe if some of these grads had tried finding a job during college they would have more to put in their resume other than "first place beer pong champions."
 
2012-11-06 01:06:06 PM
Witness the power of a fully optional Obama reelection machine
 
2012-11-06 01:06:19 PM

Alphax: Purdue_Pete: Oh and yes, I'm obviously a racist. I'm voting Romney so he can put black people back in the fields where they belong. Along with legalizing legitimate rape and banning abortions of course. That's what anyone like me who voted Obama in '08 but thinks he did a crappy job leading our country is, right? A racist? 

/sarcasm off
/pro choice
/pro gay marriage
/anti crappy president

Delusional at best. Misinformed? The word 'wrong' works as well.


Alphax: Purdue_Pete: Oh and yes, I'm obviously a racist. I'm voting Romney so he can put black people back in the fields where they belong. Along with legalizing legitimate rape and banning abortions of course. That's what anyone like me who voted Obama in '08 but thinks he did a crappy job leading our country is, right? A racist? 

/sarcasm off
/pro choice
/pro gay marriage
/anti crappy president

Delusional at best. Misinformed? The word 'wrong' works as well.

 
2012-11-06 01:09:43 PM

Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?


Just *look* at how willfully ignorant you are.
 
2012-11-06 01:10:02 PM

Tman144: People are NOT entering the workforce faster than they are leaving it. In fact, quite the opposite. Labor participation is falling because 4 years ago, a bunch of people were ready to retire, then they lost everything. The market has recovered, and so has their retirement nest-egg. So 4 years worth of people are confident enough to start leaving the workforce. This is a good thing. Not a bad thing. And it's precisely counter to what you believe to be the case.


One in 2 recent college graduates can't even find a job. And yet you pretend that this is indicative of adequate economic growth? I don't think that you are an evil person or anything, I just think that you're out of touch.

// And yes, that's a liberal link to the huffington post.

You know, it could be that 1 in 2 college graduates are unemployable. College has changed from an institution to teach job skills into an excuse to put off being an adult for 4 years. Maybe if some of these grads had tried finding a job during college they would have more to put in their resume other than "first place beer pong champions."


I agree that a lot of liberal arts degrees are worthless. But even accepting for that, those people used to get jobs after they graduated.

We need to have stronger economic growth so that we can create jobs for these people to fill.
 
2012-11-06 01:12:17 PM

mrshowrules: maniacbastard: Does Nate use some kind of Monte Carlo method to process the poll info and arrive at his results?

Some Farker explained it perfectly about 2 days ago. It is neither rocket-science or magic. Just the application of sound statistical principles.

My summary which is not as thorough:
1) weight and adjust polls based on house-bias and other factors such as historical performance and sample size
2) calculate State probabilities of wins
3) use a random generator function to produce likely voting scenarios and measure EV outcomes
4) run 10,000 random scenarios (random numbers are weighted towards likelihood) count how may times each candidate wins.

Based on current predictions, Obama wins in about 9,200 simulations in 10,000.


and hence lies the flaw of polling. to get very very accurate predictions you needs like 10000 variables. Most polls use 20! and these are the good reputable ones.
Historical performance is pretty much useless mainly because of EV. Swing states are what determine the outcome. The fact that they are swing in itself means past historical data is meaningless.

The odds of Louisiana going to Romney is about the same as the odds that OH will be close.
 
2012-11-06 01:12:57 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: Even With A Chainsaw: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

Or a queen, king, knight, rook, pawn?

[i.imgur.com image 328x640]


*snerk*

/Nice.
 
2012-11-06 01:26:57 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Game metaphors? Why?

/Obama has a terminator save and Feel no Pain.


That didn't help my meganobz this week. I do not feel reassured.
 
2012-11-06 01:28:33 PM

SuperNinjaToad: The odds of Louisiana going to Romney is about the same as the odds that OH will be close.


Not sure I understand. Ohio won't be close?
 
2012-11-06 01:32:46 PM
Am I going to have to post the actual bookie odds? OK. Ladbrokes has Obama at 1.20, +6 over the other guy.
 
2012-11-06 01:40:36 PM

JSam21: have a feeling that slight changes of voter turnout will swing some blue states red, especially with all the talk of an Obama run away. That talk could keep some Obama supporters from turning out.


For the life of me, I do not understand this oft-repeated pearl of wisdom.

Why on earth would Politics be the only place where the Bandwagon Effect is inoperative?

It's where the bloody concept comes from in the first place!
 
2012-11-06 01:49:07 PM
Nice headline subby.
 
2012-11-06 01:53:09 PM

This text is now purple: Go read some about how 1860 played out.

\Democrats committing open treason is how it ended...



You know, no matter how you dress up that pig...

It's still a pig.

mitEj: "Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love.

"It happens all the time," Voigt said. He said court-appointed Republican officials typically show up on Election Day and end up squaring off against stand-in officials at the polling sites filling in the open seats.


Anybody else wondering if the Veritas Project was there?
 
2012-11-06 01:55:00 PM

hugram: Thunderpipes: ... math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good...

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.

Horrific math and such below...

In case you don't remember the financial crisis, here is an article explaining the financial crisis timeline, which started on Feb of 2007.

A basic illustration of what was going on in late 2008...
[budget.senate.gov image 776x600]

A link showing a few newspaper headlines during the crisis...

A few September 2008 links from CNBC

Anyway, those scary headlines are no longer appearing.

Maybe it is because GDP performance during the Obama Administration has gone into positive growth.
[www.tradingeconomics.com image 700x300]

Many US corporate profits after tax are at an all-time high.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...
DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09
DOW in 11/01/2012: 13,232.62
Rate of Return: 66.47%

S&P 500 in 01/20/2009: 805.22
S&P 500 in 11/01/2012: 1,427.59
Rate of Return: 77.29%

NASDAQ in 01/20/2009: 1,440.86
NASDAQ in 11/01/2012: 3,020.06
Rate of Return: 109.60%


US stock markets performance since hitting the bottom on March 9th of 2009...
DOW in 03/09/2009: 6,547.05
DOW in 11/01/2012: 13,232.62
Rate of Return: 102.12%

S&P 500 in 03/09/2009: 676.53
S&P 500 in 11/01/2012: 1,427.59
Rate of Return: 111.02%

NASDAQ in 03/09/2009: 1,268.64
NASDAQ in 11/01/2012: 3,020.06
Rate of Return: 138.05%

Private jobs hemorrhage slowed down during the Obama Administration and eventually went into positive territory.
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 658x412]

Unemployment claims has been dropping, especially since the start ...


Marry me. Pump me full of your gametes this instant.
 
2012-11-06 02:01:38 PM

Leeds: Tman144: People are NOT entering the workforce faster than they are leaving it. In fact, quite the opposite. Labor participation is falling because 4 years ago, a bunch of people were ready to retire, then they lost everything. The market has recovered, and so has their retirement nest-egg. So 4 years worth of people are confident enough to start leaving the workforce. This is a good thing. Not a bad thing. And it's precisely counter to what you believe to be the case.


One in 2 recent college graduates can't even find a job. And yet you pretend that this is indicative of adequate economic growth? I don't think that you are an evil person or anything, I just think that you're out of touch.

// And yes, that's a liberal link to the huffington post.

You know, it could be that 1 in 2 college graduates are unemployable. College has changed from an institution to teach job skills into an excuse to put off being an adult for 4 years. Maybe if some of these grads had tried finding a job during college they would have more to put in their resume other than "first place beer pong champions."

I agree that a lot of liberal arts degrees are worthless. But even accepting for that, those people used to get jobs after they graduated.

We need to have stronger economic growth so that we can create jobs for these people to fill.


fark "these people." "These people" used to get jobs because at 4.5% unemployment, all job qualifications are "has a pulse." I disagree that we need stronger growth so that every drunken jerk-off who slept through college can be guaranteed a job. What we need is a balanced budget. And the Republican party, since Reagan, has proven themselves unwilling, or unable, to do it.
 
2012-11-06 02:06:04 PM

This text is now purple: 1. They were Republicans in a city that's 90% Democrat. That's the only reason.


And I'm sure they were behaving with the utmost decorum and respect for the process, not frivilosly challenging Democratic voters will-nilly, you betcha!

Like those long summer car rides to the beach: your little sister keeps on pinching you and pinching you and when you finally haul off and slug her, you're the one who gets in trouble.

And then she sticks her tongue out at you for the rest of the ride.

Leeds: And yes, that's a liberal link


How can a link, nothing more than a simple tool, be "liberal", if you please?
 
2012-11-06 02:10:16 PM

Purdue_Pete: You must have missed this part where your own city legal team said "yeah, it happens all the time, totally normal" then?

Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love.


And apparently, you missed the part where it is "face-offs" that happen with regularity, not people being thrown out, which is what Mr. Bees actually said.
 
2012-11-06 02:13:35 PM

mrshowrules: SuperNinjaToad: The odds of Louisiana going to Romney is about the same as the odds that OH will be close.

Not sure I understand. Ohio won't be close?


What?! No I mean it's a sure thing that OH will be close just like LA is a sure thing for Romney.
 
2012-11-06 02:17:30 PM

SuperNinjaToad: mrshowrules: SuperNinjaToad: The odds of Louisiana going to Romney is about the same as the odds that OH will be close.

Not sure I understand. Ohio won't be close?

What?! No I mean it's a sure thing that OH will be close just like LA is a sure thing for Romney.


Got it. Anyways, one of Romney's biggest problems is didn't have enough sure things in terms of EV. To few ways to win compared to Obama even if all the battle ground States were coin flips.
 
2012-11-06 02:26:09 PM

Deucednuisance: Purdue_Pete: You must have missed this part where your own city legal team said "yeah, it happens all the time, totally normal" then?

Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love.

And apparently, you missed the part where it is "face-offs" that happen with regularity, not people being thrown out, which is what Mr. Bees actually said.


Happened as well in 2010.
http://www.seventy.org/OurViews_Improving_Philadelphias_Elections_Nov e mber_2010.aspx
 
2012-11-06 02:32:52 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: Even With A Chainsaw: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

Or a queen, king, knight, rook, pawn?

[i.imgur.com image 328x640]


That last one should be a tiddlywink.
 
2012-11-06 02:35:58 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Earpj: theorellior: I'm not gonna unclench until the magic number 270 show up and corks start flying at the Obama campaign HQ.

I'll be clenching right along with you.

I am Toby right now:


I'm stepping outside right now to spin around 3 times and spit. Or curse. I'LL DO BOTH
 
2012-11-06 02:37:44 PM
Obama. Book it. Done.
 
2012-11-06 03:13:16 PM

Thunderpipes: eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.

Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


So let's replace him with the party who got us into the worst financial outlook in the first place? Are you hoping lightning doesn't strike twice? That trickle-down and taxing the middle class into poverty will, after a history of failing miserably, suddenly magically heal America? You have to deliberately ignore the economic and unemployment recovery, and the Republican attempts to stop it, in order to be this whiny about Obama.
 
2012-11-06 03:33:20 PM

MemeSlave: As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?


Aren't most justices Catholics or Jews? Dammit, it's always the Papists and Jooz farking things up!
/kidding, leave me alone...please?
 
2012-11-06 03:36:11 PM

aquigley: Obama. Book it. Done.


You. Are. KILLING ME!!!

/perhaps a bit superstitious
 
2012-11-06 03:47:40 PM

theorellior: MemeSlave: As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

Call me when a Catholic bishop, a rabbi or an imam are running for president.


Is this some kind of joke?
 
2012-11-06 03:48:58 PM
This election is gonna be far from close, and here's a list of reasons why Romney will win the election even though (almost) everyone and their grandma missed the signs:

-First off, according to Bickers and Berry (who are liberal academics from a liberal college institution), their research shows that both state and national economic factors have a tremendous impact on whether a president gets reelected or not. Their model at present shows that the economy has worsened and in such conditions Obama is slated to lose by a landslide to the challenger (Romney). Of course, there will be the people who will dismiss this with the "But polling is the best way to guess how the election is going to turn out!" Well, that brings us to the next point.

-Polling has been gradually getting less and less reliable in the last few elections, and ther are two big reasons for this. One is that polling and polling well costs money and resources. Various news media outlets and the like are going broke and losing ratings across the board. The result is less thorough polling leading to less comprehensive polls. The second reason is because voters are becoming less and less inclined to be polled in recent years, which in turn just compounds the first problem. The result is that only places with the money and resources and time to poll effectively can do so with any measure of accuracy and right now that would be Gallup and Rasmussen. Even then, in the future these two will probably continue to suffer from what the smaller media networks and outlets are going through. Oh yeah, and those two are showing a Romney win as well, matching up with the B&B projection.

-The third factor, of course, is the one that everyone (save the B&B people) is missing: Massive electorate rage. With the actual unemployment being closer to 15% and Obamacare being shoved down the electorate's vote despite vehement rejection of it, there are a lot of pissed off people in this country right now. A lot of them do not go on the internet but they are there. A big wild card this election has been the Tea Party, who has effectively hijacked Romney's campaign from the GOP and made it into their own (which the GOP itself is not happy about and is terrifying both parties). Romney was meant to lose against Obama so that Jeb Bush could run in 2016 but the Tea Party is tired of being presented with shiatty representation so they are hijacking the GOP and the election, especially with how weak Obama's position really is right now. Of course, there are already signs that victory is assured for Romney, so here they are:

-Both campaigns have their own internal polling that they don't share with the public. They pay through the nose for this polling as it has to be accurate. Back in 2008 McCain goes back to DC and Obama takes a vacation near the end of the election. Internal polling was showing the outcome of the election was already decided. Furthermore, keep in mind that Nate Silver was being fed this internal polling by the Obama campaign. He kept this fact to himself while doing "analysis" and claiming it to be his own. But I digress.

-In 2012 we have some signs of an Obama loss. First is the debates. Romney had a pissed off electorate behind him so he was very aggressive on subjects that the electorate was aggressive on (the economy), while Obama for the most part seemed to not want to be there. Likely internal polling is showing them what everyone else is missing and is what actually shaped the way the debates went. There's also Obama taking a random trip to the Hoover Dam. Why do that if he's a shoe-in for another 4 years? Finally, Obama bought a house in Hawaii recently, why? Because he's got somewhere to move to after this election is over. The only reason to keep campaigning now is to prevent the party from deteriorating further in future elections, which is likely to happen anyways as the factions inside the Democratic Party turn on each other after this election.

-Nate Silver's career is over after this election. His entire career was thanks to being fed internal polling data and claiming it was his own analysis, and he's gonna be skewered on this issue after the election results come in. Bill Clinton campaigning in swing states at the last minute alone shows how outrageous his numbers are how out of touch with the reality on the ground they are. He alone is going to be responsible for the meltdown of a lot of voters tomorrow and his credibility will be destroyed. Hopefully in the future we'll be relying on B&B's method of using economic factors to determine election outcomes as the economy fundamentally has greater control over how people vote than anything else.

I imagine I'll be laughed at for this but in a few hours reality is gonna bear this out.
 
2012-11-06 03:52:10 PM

Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.


Like all Republicans you are happy to tell me how i feel, what I am supposed to think and what is my motivation.
Nevermind that there were 16 graphs posted explaining why you are wrong.
Businessmen used to win by finding oppertunity in government action now they whine like little biaotches because of circumstances.
be a capitalist FFS and go make some money or just shut up.
 
2012-11-06 04:11:43 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: TOBY
By tempting fate!



Wouldn't want to draw down the wrath of whatever from high atop the thing.

/ Obama is going to hand Rmoney an epic smackdown. If a Republican could have won this race, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie would have run.
 
x23
2012-11-06 04:18:28 PM

barbu: He didn't say he didn't want religious people, he said he didn't want bishops or the equivalent. Probably because he suspects they would make awful decisions based on what was best for sky space jesus and not the usa.


fixed for accuracy. that this was barely mentioned in the campaign is appalling.

no problems jabbering on and on about Rev. Wright in 2008... but legitimately anti-christian space jesus? not a peep.
 
2012-11-06 04:20:53 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Leeds: Evidently it's because I don't read the New York Times.

// I just googled him, evidently he's one of those NYT folks.

He did baseball statistics prior to turning his attention to political statistics. He's so accurate that in the middle ages he'd probably have been accused of witchcraft. The move of his political statistics bloc, fivethirtyeight, was a relatively recent thing and his analysis factored heavily into reporting for the not only this election but the last two election cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver


And he weighs as much as a duck.

Is Nate Silver a Witch?
 
2012-11-06 04:25:58 PM

hugram: Thunderpipes: ... math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good...

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.

Horrific math and such below...


Hugram, do you have this compiled anywhere else that I may link to? Would really love to share.
 
2012-11-06 04:26:25 PM

BobBoxBody: I imagine I'll be laughed at for this but in a few hours reality is gonna bear this out.


You wanna bet?
 
x23
2012-11-06 04:30:13 PM

Thunderpipes: Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.



the children of willfully ignorant fact averse hillbillies rarely go to college.
 
2012-11-06 04:33:40 PM

narocroc: hugram: Thunderpipes: ... math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good...

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.

Horrific math and such below...

Hugram, do you have this compiled anywhere else that I may link to? Would really love to share.


give me you email address. I'll send you the html links to all of them.
 
2012-11-06 04:33:42 PM

Magnanimous_J: BobBoxBody: I imagine I'll be laughed at for this but in a few hours reality is gonna bear this out.

You wanna bet?


If I was sitting in a bar with you watching the election, yes. Unfortunately the idea of making bets on the internets is very iffy with me.
 
2012-11-06 04:55:43 PM

hugram: narocroc: hugram:...

give me you email address. I'll send you the html links to all of them.


narocroc at gmail
 
2012-11-06 04:56:00 PM

BobBoxBody: Magnanimous_J: BobBoxBody: I imagine I'll be laughed at for this but in a few hours reality is gonna bear this out.

You wanna bet?

If I was sitting in a bar with you watching the election, yes. Unfortunately the idea of making bets on the internets is very iffy with me.


Tell us why the flip-flopping coward businessman Mormon is better for the country.
 
2012-11-06 05:23:17 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: BobBoxBody: Magnanimous_J: BobBoxBody: I imagine I'll be laughed at for this but in a few hours reality is gonna bear this out.

You wanna bet?

If I was sitting in a bar with you watching the election, yes. Unfortunately the idea of making bets on the internets is very iffy with me.

Tell us why the flip-flopping coward businessman Mormon is better for the country.


Because Clayton Christensen is good friends with him. Learning that swayed me to Romney. It's very likely Romney got his business chops from Christensen, who himself was a very successful businessman before going to Harvard and becoming world-reknowned for his research into innovation and turning failing businesses around with his disruption model. Nintendo (with the DS and Wii) and Intel (with the Celeron processor) are two companies that he's indirectly or directly turned around with his work. He's also written some very insightful books on how to fix the growing problems in both education and healthcare that has been tested successfully in the country.

Christensen's disruption model explains Schumpeter's "creative destruction" occurs and helps show how it allows that to happen. On top of that, he's also worked as a missionary, and is very much of the mind that business and management is about character and community building. He has a very strong ethical track record and an all-around decent human being. Which intuits to me that if he's friends with Romney, Romney may very well be as well.

One thing is for certain: Christensen's work will likely be molding our future economic policy under Romney, so if you wanna heads up on what that is, start reading

-The Innovator's Dilemma
-Blue Ocean Strategy
-Disrupting Class
-The Innovator's Prescription.
-Among other works he's done, you can also find seminars and interviews he's done on youtube very easily. Among my favorites is his talking about how solar power will likely take root in countries like Mongolia because they are mostly without electricity and using crappy solar cell-powered portable TVs because the alternative is better than nothing, which will gradually lead them work with it and improve it over time until it becomes good enough for the most demanding consumers of electricty (us), wherein solar power will take off into the mainstream.

I imagine you all will try to warp this into a bad thing, of course. If anything is gonna overhaul our shiatty infastructure and shiatty economy, it's his work. At least his work has been tested and found to be successful in this country and all over the world. Can't really say the same for Obama and economic policies. Oh wait, they just made things worse.
 
2012-11-06 05:23:57 PM
BobBoxBody:

Where did you get this idea that Obama bought a house in Hawaii? I looked it up and the first result is to the Weekly World News. Do you get your news from the checkout line at the grocery store?
 
2012-11-06 05:34:27 PM

BobBoxBody: Keizer_Ghidorah: BobBoxBody: Magnanimous_J: BobBoxBody: I imagine I'll be laughed at for this but in a few hours reality is gonna bear this out.

You wanna bet?

If I was sitting in a bar with you watching the election, yes. Unfortunately the idea of making bets on the internets is very iffy with me.

Tell us why the flip-flopping coward businessman Mormon is better for the country.

Because Clayton Christensen is good friends with him. Learning that swayed me to Romney. It's very likely Romney got his business chops from Christensen, who himself was a very successful businessman before going to Harvard and becoming world-reknowned for his research into innovation and turning failing businesses around with his disruption model. Nintendo (with the DS and Wii) and Intel (with the Celeron processor) are two companies that he's indirectly or directly turned around with his work. He's also written some very insightful books on how to fix the growing problems in both education and healthcare that has been tested successfully in the country.

Christensen's disruption model explains Schumpeter's "creative destruction" occurs and helps show how it allows that to happen. On top of that, he's also worked as a missionary, and is very much of the mind that business and management is about character and community building. He has a very strong ethical track record and an all-around decent human being. Which intuits to me that if he's friends with Romney, Romney may very well be as well.

One thing is for certain: Christensen's work will likely be molding our future economic policy under Romney, so if you wanna heads up on what that is, start reading

-The Innovator's Dilemma
-Blue Ocean Strategy
-Disrupting Class
-The Innovator's Prescription.
-Among other works he's done, you can also find seminars and interviews he's done on youtube very easily. Among my favorites is his talking about how solar power will likely take root in countries like Mongolia because they are mo ...


Which is why the economy has been steadily getting better and unemployment has been going down since mid-2009. And that's with the right doing everything they can to stop it.

If the right was that concerned with helping America recover, why didn't they help during the country's time of need?
 
2012-11-06 05:51:35 PM
"Unemployment" has gone down because people have stopped looking for them. Real figures is somewhere around 15%, maybe more.

You also seemed to mention the part where the Tea Party commenced a hostile takeover of the GOP. The Tea Party is mainly comprised of D/R/I voters from the Reagan era who are fed up with the GOP running from Reagan's approach to business and economics.

Obama and the Dems thought he was gonna be the next FDR. Unfortunately they didn't realize that the Industrial Revolution was dead and a new one had taken its place, one where Reagan's economic conservatism and a greater focus on financial and business learning among the electorate will make a greater fit. The old institutions of the New Deal and the Industrial Era are on the way out, and the old political machines that worked the levers are on the way out with them. Obamacare was just a bailout for the healthcare industry, and that's why it's so reviled, and that more than anything is why Obama will be getting tossed to the curb next year.
 
2012-11-06 06:15:07 PM

BobBoxBody: "Unemployment" has gone down because people have stopped looking for them. Real figures is somewhere around 15%, maybe more.

You also seemed to mention the part where the Tea Party commenced a hostile takeover of the GOP. The Tea Party is mainly comprised of D/R/I voters from the Reagan era who are fed up with the GOP running from Reagan's approach to business and economics.

Obama and the Dems thought he was gonna be the next FDR. Unfortunately they didn't realize that the Industrial Revolution was dead and a new one had taken its place, one where Reagan's economic conservatism and a greater focus on financial and business learning among the electorate will make a greater fit. The old institutions of the New Deal and the Industrial Era are on the way out, and the old political machines that worked the levers are on the way out with them. Obamacare was just a bailout for the healthcare industry, and that's why it's so reviled, and that more than anything is why Obama will be getting tossed to the curb next year.


What "Reagan's economic conservatism" looks like:
"From 1981 to 1989, nominal debt held by public nearly tripled." 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg
 
2012-11-06 06:46:37 PM

VendorXeno: I elected to ignore the pollsters and look at the bookies, people who are the most inclined to be objective. Currently Obama is pretty heavily favored.


Where do you think the bookies are getting their odds from?
 
2012-11-06 07:17:05 PM
I'm calling this now for Obama.
 
2012-11-06 07:37:13 PM
Anyone who panders to a religious base doesn't deserve to be elected to any political office.

I have very little respect for deeply religious people as they have no respect for anyone other than their fellow believers.

/Jesus would vote democrat.
 
2012-11-06 08:07:05 PM

Thunderpipes: Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


No, we just want to orgasm all over you.
 
2012-11-06 10:39:14 PM
As of 7:23pm Pacific Time
Let's take a look at the moment. You tell me if it's biased.
Romney:
Michigan (Home state) LOST
Massachusetts (former go) LOST
New Hampshire (Resident state) LOST
California (Resident state) LOST
Wisconsin (Paul Ryan's home state) LOST
OBAMA:
Illinois (Resident state) WIN
California (former resident) WIN
Hawaii (home state) WIN
Connecticut (college days) WIN

It's not only about arithmetic.
 
2012-11-06 11:55:44 PM

BobBoxBody: This election is gonna be far from close, and here's a list of reasons why Romney will win the election even though (almost) everyone and their grandma missed the signs:


So how did all this stupid BS work out for you?
 
2012-11-07 02:19:58 PM
growlersoftware.com
 
2012-11-08 04:29:10 PM

BobBoxBody: I imagine I'll be laughed at for this but in a few hours reality is gonna bear this out.


Why yes, yes you are.

Hahahahahahaha!

Not holding my breath that you'll ever show your face here again...
 
Displayed 302 of 302 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report