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.

(MyWay News)   New poll is clear. Barack Obama will not be re-elected next year. It also appears that None of the Above may finally get elected after years of trying to break into politics   (apnews.myway.com) divider line 53
    More: Obvious, Obama, GfK, The Republicans, midterm elections  
•       •       •

1183 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Oct 2013 at 11:19 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-11 10:24:35 AM
Silly, he's not up for re-election until 2016.
 
2013-10-11 10:38:15 AM
All of this hype about reelections based simply on these polls is garbage. The same people will be voted in across the board with the exception of maybe 3-5. The only thing that will change any of this is not opinion polling, it is if lobbies and PACs change who they back. It seems like there is a chance of that happening, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
2013-10-11 10:44:53 AM

simplicimus: Silly, he's not up for re-election until 2016.


[thatsthejoke.jpg]

/at least I think it is
 
2013-10-11 10:49:01 AM
Are you Not Sure?
 
2013-10-11 10:55:57 AM
Well, of course, if you study it out. The FEMA Mandatory Gay Marriage Camps open for business May 1st, 2014 so we can all have spring weddings to the same-sex spouses selected by genetic pairing using the government's "if you've touched a nickel we have your DNA" program.
 
2013-10-11 11:17:05 AM
 
2013-10-11 11:18:42 AM
Epic victory for Mitch McConnell.
 
2013-10-11 11:26:55 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-11 11:31:15 AM

simplicimus: Silly, he's not up for re-election until 2016.


That's what he WANTS you to think.

Come November 2015, Obama's not even on the ballot and then BAM!  Christie and Hill-dog give sign over all their votes to him and he gets a third term.
 
2013-10-11 11:34:30 AM
Of course he won't be re-elected.  He has abolished elections and declared himself dictator.  Or so I am reliably informed.

www.secretsofthefed.com
 
2013-10-11 11:36:41 AM
Your blog is mediocre, but clearly with poll numbers like this:

ak.imgfarm.com

It's Obama that has the image problem.
 
2013-10-11 11:39:56 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: simplicimus: Silly, he's not up for re-election until 2016.

[thatsthejoke.jpg]

/at least I think it is


I thought the joke was that he's not up for re-election at all: if you've been elected President twice, you cannot be elected President again. You can't take any office that would put you in the line of succession for the Presidency either.

If you serve more than half of another President's term (because your predecessor died in office, for example), then you can only be elected President once instead of twice, but I'm not sure this has come up since they made that rule.
 
2013-10-11 11:42:24 AM

Millennium: MaudlinMutantMollusk: simplicimus: Silly, he's not up for re-election until 2016.

[thatsthejoke.jpg]

/at least I think it is

I thought the joke was that he's not up for re-election at all: if you've been elected President twice, you cannot be elected President again. You can't take any office that would put you in the line of succession for the Presidency either.

If you serve more than half of another President's term (because your predecessor died in office, for example), then you can only be elected President once instead of twice, but I'm not sure this has come up since they made that rule.




So far, Gerald Ford is the only President that would have applied to. He could not have run for re-election in 1980 had he won in 1976. (That's a big reason why Reagan challenged him in the primary, in addition to the fact he seemed vulnerable.)
 
2013-10-11 11:43:40 AM

netweavr: He's running again.


I hope the people that made that get ass-raped by a rabid moose. Repeatedly.
 
2013-10-11 11:52:57 AM
As always, I support an Elder God presidency.  For too long our great nation has been without the gentle madness inducing hand of the Crawling Chaos.
 
2013-10-11 12:12:38 PM

Gergesa: As always, I support an Elder God presidency.  For too long our great nation has been without the gentle madness inducing hand of the Crawling Chaos.


Reminds me of a story by Neil Gaiman. "A Study in Emerald." Someone challenged him to write a Sherlock Holmes style detective story combined with an H. P. Lovecraft story.
 
2013-10-11 12:26:11 PM

Selena Luna: Gergesa: As always, I support an Elder God presidency.  For too long our great nation has been without the gentle madness inducing hand of the Crawling Chaos.

Reminds me of a story by Neil Gaiman. "A Study in Emerald." Someone challenged him to write a Sherlock Holmes style detective story combined with an H. P. Lovecraft story.


Ah yes, I read that.  Quite good.
 
2013-10-11 12:37:13 PM
img1.etsystatic.com
 
2013-10-11 12:42:58 PM
Consent of the governed is overrated.
 
2013-10-11 12:43:45 PM

Ambitwistor: Of course he won't be re-elected.  He has abolished elections and declared himself dictator.  Or so I am reliably informed. infromed.

[www.secretsofthefed.com image 569x740]


FTFY
 
2013-10-11 12:46:17 PM

Ambitwistor: Of course he won't be re-elected.  He has abolished elections and declared himself dictator.  Or so I am reliably informed.

[www.secretsofthefed.com image 569x740]


What's in his hand?  Is he offering a mint?

Bareefer Obonghit: All of this hype about reelections based simply on these polls is garbage. The same people will be voted in across the board with the exception of maybe 3-5. The only thing that will change any of this is not opinion polling, it is if lobbies and PACs change who they back. It seems like there is a chance of that happening, but I wouldn't hold my breath.


Yup.  There's a long time until the election and people's memories are short.  Incumbents typically have name recognition and money advantages, and people don't vote for congress, they vote for their own senators and representatives.  True happy hour conversation last night with a couple of Republican coworkers:

RCW1:  This shutdown is just such a farce.  I'm disgusted.  Throw all of them out.  Every one of them.

RCW2: Right?  This is appalling, and I just don't think that monkeying with the debt ceiling is a smart way to do business. It's just going to be really bad for the markets if we default.  I think we need to just turn over everyone in Washington.  I hope this takes Udall down next year.

ME: So if you are disgusted with everyone, then I assume that you both will be voting against [Republican from CO-6] Mike Coffman, then?

RCW2: Oh, no way.  [Opponent] Andrew Romanoff scares the hell out of me, no way I'd vote for him.

RCW1: I've met the guy and I have no confidence in him whatsoever.  Nope.

ME:  So you see why nothing will change then, ri-----

RCW1:  So Broncos-Jags, eh?

Some version of that exact conversation will repeat thousands of times in every state in the union and in the end, roughly 80-90% of the incumbents will return.  And some of the new blood will be people who think Ted Cruz doesn't go far enough and will run on  a platform of exorcizing the demon that inhabits the body of the man called Obama.
 
2013-10-11 12:48:09 PM

paygun: Consent of the governed is overrated.


It's cute when people use phrases they heard once but have never bothered to understand.
 
2013-10-11 01:01:22 PM

BSABSVR: paygun: Consent of the governed is overrated.

It's cute when people use phrases they heard once but have never bothered to understand.


the government isn't going to sleep with you
 
2013-10-11 01:08:54 PM
it took 2 people to write that?
 
2013-10-11 01:10:23 PM

paygun: BSABSVR: paygun: Consent of the governed is overrated.

It's cute when people use phrases they heard once but have never bothered to understand.

the government isn't going to sleep with you


Are you asserting that, despite directly electing Congress and indirectly electing the President, the citizens of the United States have no say in their governance, or that these elections do not indicate "consent"?
 
2013-10-11 01:13:28 PM

qorkfiend: Are you asserting that, despite directly electing Congress and indirectly electing the President, the citizens of the United States have no say in their governance, or that these elections do not indicate "consent"?


WAAAAAA  HE'S CRITICIZING THE GOVERNMENT MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP
 
2013-10-11 01:18:29 PM

paygun: qorkfiend: Are you asserting that, despite directly electing Congress and indirectly electing the President, the citizens of the United States have no say in their governance, or that these elections do not indicate "consent"?

WAAAAAA  HE'S CRITICIZING THE GOVERNMENT MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP


WAAAA! PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH ME AND ALL I HAVE IS AD HOMINEMS!
 
2013-10-11 01:25:22 PM

grumpfuff: WAAAA! PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH ME AND ALL I HAVE IS AD HOMINEMS!


It's true, I didn't take the question seriously when someone asked me if I had heard about elections.
 
2013-10-11 01:32:12 PM
Funny, another one of my ex-military colleagues is running for office, in this case Maryland's 4th congressional district. I'm not sure if he's planning on primarying out Donna Edwards or she said she's retiring...all I know is she wanted to overturn Citizens United.

Second infantry LTC I know to run for office.
 
2013-10-11 01:40:01 PM

paygun: qorkfiend: Are you asserting that, despite directly electing Congress and indirectly electing the President, the citizens of the United States have no say in their governance, or that these elections do not indicate "consent"?

WAAAAAA  HE'S CRITICIZING THE GOVERNMENT MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP


That's your response? Alrighty then.
 
2013-10-11 01:41:08 PM

paygun: grumpfuff: WAAAA! PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH ME AND ALL I HAVE IS AD HOMINEMS!

It's true, I didn't take the question seriously when someone asked me if I had heard about elections.


My comment had nothing to do with this thread specifically. It's what you do in basically every thread. You post clearly wrong and/or partisan crap, then as soon as anyone calls you on it, you resort to ad hominems.
 
2013-10-11 01:51:06 PM
I am voting a straight ticket during the next elections.

Anyone without (incumbent) behind their name.
 
2013-10-11 01:53:37 PM

grumpfuff: You post clearly wrong and/or partisan crap, then as soon as anyone calls you on it, you resort to ad hominems.


Then I'm sure you could find some examples, right?
 
2013-10-11 02:07:45 PM

paygun: BSABSVR: paygun: Consent of the governed is overrated.

It's cute when people use phrases they heard once but have never bothered to understand.

the government isn't going to sleep with you


Actually, if you vote republican, apparently it will jump right in and start telling you what a dirty, dirty boy you are.
 
2013-10-11 02:09:56 PM

Millennium: MaudlinMutantMollusk: simplicimus: Silly, he's not up for re-election until 2016.

[thatsthejoke.jpg]

/at least I think it is

I thought the joke was that he's not up for re-election at all: if you've been elected President twice, you cannot be elected President again. You can't take any office that would put you in the line of succession for the Presidency either.

If you serve more than half of another President's term (because your predecessor died in office, for example), then you can only be elected President once instead of twice, but I'm not sure this has come up since they made that rule.


Are you sure about line of succession?

 I understand the argument as to VP in that it 12 amendment requires the VP to have the same qualifications as President. " But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States"

But I don't see any thing that would prevent someone inelligible from being Sec. of State for example or Speaker of the House, They just could not serve as president or an acting president.
 
2013-10-11 02:25:08 PM
It's funny how at the beginning of the shutdown, Obama wasn't much of a player in it (in fact it seemed like it was a Republican vs. Republican debate)..... but now he is in with both feet after coming on TV and telling the American people that the shutdown was the GOP's fault and only their fault.  A dangerous move that could backfire on him......the more he points his fingers at the Republican Party the harder it is for them to retreat and save face.
 
2013-10-11 02:33:27 PM

karnal: It's funny how at the beginning of the shutdown, Obama wasn't much of a player in it (in fact it seemed like it was a Republican vs. Republican debate)..... but now he is in with both feet after coming on TV and telling the American people that the shutdown was the GOP's fault and only their fault.  A dangerous move that could backfire on him......the more he points his fingers at the Republican Party the harder it is for them to retreat and save face.


I agree that any association with the GOP right now is a very dangerous move politically.  I mean, have you seen how unpopular they are?
 
2013-10-11 02:41:59 PM

mrshowrules: karnal: It's funny how at the beginning of the shutdown, Obama wasn't much of a player in it (in fact it seemed like it was a Republican vs. Republican debate)..... but now he is in with both feet after coming on TV and telling the American people that the shutdown was the GOP's fault and only their fault.  A dangerous move that could backfire on him......the more he points his fingers at the Republican Party the harder it is for them to retreat and save face.

I agree that any association with the GOP right now is a very dangerous move politically.  I mean, have you seen how unpopular they are?


You can see all the Democrats smiling - no worries that it is bad for our country as long as it is good for their party.
 
2013-10-11 02:55:57 PM

karnal: You can see all the Democrats smiling - no worries that it is bad for our country as long as it is good for their party.


John Boehner can end this at any time. The ball's in his court. Obama can't end this, since he's not Speaker of the House and cannot bring a call to vote. The Democrats in the House or the Senate can't end this, since they can't bring a call to vote either. It's all Boehner from here.
 
2013-10-11 02:56:30 PM

karnal: You can see all the Democrats smiling - no worries that it is bad for our country as long as it is good for their party.


That is the part of the GOP strategy that failed.  They assumed the Democratic party cared so much about their country that they would not let King Solomon split the proverbial child in two.

It reminds me of the movie Ransom with Mel Gibson.

The whole world now knows... my son, Sean Mullen, was kidnapped, for ransom, three days ago. This is a recent photograph of him. Sean, if you're watching, we love you. And this... well, this is what waits for the man that took him. This is your ransom. Two million dollars in unmarked bills, just like you wanted. But this is as close as you'll ever get to it. You'll never see one dollar of this money, because no ransom will ever be paid for my son. Not one dime, not one penny. Instead, I'm offering this money as a reward on your head. Dead or alive, it doesn't matter. So congratulations, you've just become a two million dollar lottery ticket... except the odds are much, much better. Do you know anyone that wouldn't turn you in for two million dollars? I don't think you do. I doubt it. So wherever you go and whatever you do, this money will be tracking you down for all time. And to ensure that it does, to keep interest alive, I'm running a full-page ad in every major newspaper every Sunday... for as long as it takes. But... and this is your last chance... you return my son, alive, uninjured, I'll withdraw the bounty. With any luck you can simply disappear. Understand... you will never see this money. Not one dollar. So you still have a chance to do the right thing. If you don't, well, then, God be with you, because nobody else on this Earth will be.
 
2013-10-11 03:08:30 PM
Came for the Brewster's Millions reference, left happy.
 
2013-10-11 03:14:17 PM

paygun: grumpfuff: You post clearly wrong and/or partisan crap, then as soon as anyone calls you on it, you resort to ad hominems.

Then I'm sure you could find some examples, right?


Sure.


paygun: BSABSVR: paygun: Consent of the governed is overrated.

It's cute when people use phrases they heard once but have never bothered to understand.

the government isn't going to sleep with you



paygun: qorkfiend: Are you asserting that, despite directly electing Congress and indirectly electing the President, the citizens of the United States have no say in their governance, or that these elections do not indicate "consent"?

WAAAAAA  HE'S CRITICIZING THE GOVERNMENT MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP


Well, that was hard.
 
2013-10-11 04:04:05 PM
Nobody will lower your taxes.
Nobody will reduce crime.
Nobody will end poverty.
Nobody '16
 
2013-10-11 04:10:45 PM

Lando Lincoln: karnal: You can see all the Democrats smiling - no worries that it is bad for our country as long as it is good for their party.

John Boehner can end this at any time. The ball's in his court. Obama can't end this, since he's not Speaker of the House and cannot bring a call to vote. The Democrats in the House or the Senate can't end this, since they can't bring a call to vote either. It's all Boehner from here.


I was under the assumption that Harry Reid could bring it up for a vote at anytime....no?
 
2013-10-11 04:15:38 PM

karnal: Lando Lincoln: karnal: You can see all the Democrats smiling - no worries that it is bad for our country as long as it is good for their party.

John Boehner can end this at any time. The ball's in his court. Obama can't end this, since he's not Speaker of the House and cannot bring a call to vote. The Democrats in the House or the Senate can't end this, since they can't bring a call to vote either. It's all Boehner from here.

I was under the assumption that Harry Reid could bring it up for a vote at anytime....no?


Not in the House. The Senate's passed all kinds of things, including a budget.
 
2013-10-11 04:23:53 PM

simplicimus: karnal: Lando Lincoln: karnal: You can see all the Democrats smiling - no worries that it is bad for our country as long as it is good for their party.

John Boehner can end this at any time. The ball's in his court. Obama can't end this, since he's not Speaker of the House and cannot bring a call to vote. The Democrats in the House or the Senate can't end this, since they can't bring a call to vote either. It's all Boehner from here.

I was under the assumption that Harry Reid could bring it up for a vote at anytime....no?

Not in the House. The Senate's passed all kinds of things, including a budget.



That budget still has to pass congress?  Then end the shutdown and increase or extend the debt ceiling deadline, then set up negotiations for the budget
 
2013-10-11 04:32:13 PM

karnal: Lando Lincoln: karnal: You can see all the Democrats smiling - no worries that it is bad for our country as long as it is good for their party.

John Boehner can end this at any time. The ball's in his court. Obama can't end this, since he's not Speaker of the House and cannot bring a call to vote. The Democrats in the House or the Senate can't end this, since they can't bring a call to vote either. It's all Boehner from here.

I was under the assumption that Harry Reid could bring it up for a vote at anytime....no?


Oh, if only. Nope. We're all waiting for Boehner to do his damn job.
 
2013-10-11 04:34:52 PM

karnal: simplicimus: karnal: Lando Lincoln: karnal: You can see all the Democrats smiling - no worries that it is bad for our country as long as it is good for their party.

John Boehner can end this at any time. The ball's in his court. Obama can't end this, since he's not Speaker of the House and cannot bring a call to vote. The Democrats in the House or the Senate can't end this, since they can't bring a call to vote either. It's all Boehner from here.

I was under the assumption that Harry Reid could bring it up for a vote at anytime....no?

Not in the House. The Senate's passed all kinds of things, including a budget.


That budget still has to pass congress?  Then end the shutdown and increase or extend the debt ceiling deadline, then set up negotiations for the budget


The budget has been sitting in the House for 2 years. Boehner won't even set up a reconciliation group, much less bring the bill to a vote.
 
2013-10-11 04:59:42 PM

karnal: Lando Lincoln: karnal: You can see all the Democrats smiling - no worries that it is bad for our country as long as it is good for their party.

John Boehner can end this at any time. The ball's in his court. Obama can't end this, since he's not Speaker of the House and cannot bring a call to vote. The Democrats in the House or the Senate can't end this, since they can't bring a call to vote either. It's all Boehner from here.

I was under the assumption that Harry Reid could bring it up for a vote at anytime....no?


On the shutdown, the Senate has already passed a bill funding the government (at sequestration levels, so no increase from the budget in effect on Sep 30). If Boehner brings this to the floor, holds a vote, and it passes, it goes to Obama's desk, he signs it, and the government reopens. No further action from the Senate is required.

On the (much more dangerous) debt ceiling issue, I don't know what the Senate's done already, if anything.
 
2013-10-11 05:26:33 PM

grumpfuff: Well, that was hard.


Oh okay, I get it.  When you say ad hominem, you mean things you don't like.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report