|
Post by halftheworld on May 8, 2011 11:24:19 GMT -5
I don't even know where to start. Tons? Hardly. I think you mean TONS of people worldwide supported the endeavorer..... Sorry, but that is pure bullshit. Over here in Europe most governments either won their reelection by saying no and those who decided to become a part of the coalition were thrown out of government! As for Saddam, he violated several UN Resolutions, that's enough to go to war there, regardless of WMD. What the hell? I guess the US should invade Israel then... Saddam no connections to 9/11? Ok, strictly speaking you may have a point. But there were connections. Saddam did meet OBL several times. I can't believe you mention that. Yes Saddam met OBL, and Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam, the CIA met OBL, too! That is truly the most stupid point to bring forward! What in the world does that proof? And sorry, obviously you still believe that Saddam hat wmds... you fit your own definition of ignorant so well! Political scientist? Ridiculous! You completely missed the point in science! The fact you finished university doesn't make you a scientist.
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on May 9, 2011 23:21:43 GMT -5
Where's Donald Trump gone?
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 10, 2011 21:33:41 GMT -5
Where's Donald Trump gone? hopefully away. it won't start until we all stop giving him the attention he so desperately wants. so let's start.... riiiiiiiiiiiight..... now!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 11, 2011 15:11:24 GMT -5
Where's Donald Trump gone? hopefully away. it won't start until we all stop giving him the attention he so desperately wants. so let's start.... riiiiiiiiiiiight..... now! He's going to demand a death certificate soon!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 13, 2011 12:30:30 GMT -5
I thought this was well done. The Friday reference had me in a fit of laughter. The conclusion reached is wrong for reasons already discussed, but other than that it's a great clip.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 17:26:03 GMT -5
Just an FYI, Obama has now dropped to 46-44 in Gallup, after a peak of 51% from the OBL bump. Told you.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 16, 2011 17:26:43 GMT -5
Just an FYI, Obama has now dropped to 46-44 in Gallup. Told you. now i know you're trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 16, 2011 18:54:10 GMT -5
Just an FYI, Obama has now dropped to 46-44 in Gallup, after a peak of 51% from the OBL bump. Told you. Someone really wants attention.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 19:35:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 16, 2011 20:29:04 GMT -5
Just an FYI, Obama has now dropped to 46-44 in Gallup, after a peak of 51% from the OBL bump. Told you. Unfortunately there is no one who has a viable shot of beating him, even with a crap economy. Whose going to beat him? Not Palin. Not Bachmann. Not Gingrich. I hope you're not hoping on Romney. The same guy who made the same health care bill that Obama did. The bill that his own base hates. And his own bill, which he won't back down from. For someone to lose, there has to be someone to beat him. I never thought that those numbers would hold, and I said so myself in this thread. But as I said before, with the Republican party split into 2, and no unifying candidate that can actually raise the money, and get the independent vote like Obama can, then Obama will probably win re-election. Even though, there is still a lot to be decided. You don't win elections with fractured bases, you especially don't win when you can't get the independent vote. And the Republicans won't get that vote because in order for their candidate to keep their base intact, that person has to appeal to the far right. Which is not good when you need votes from the center.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 16, 2011 20:58:15 GMT -5
I don't know why i'm responding, considering i know you're probably smoking a pipe with a stupid grin on your face thinking you got one over on everyone here, when you really didn't. I can only speak for myself here as I refuse to read back through this thread, but I know i never argued that Obama would get a boost in the polls and sustain it. My argument was only that it would have SOME sort of effect on the upcoming campaigns and election. I still think it will, mainly in the form of the GOP not being able to say Obama has no backbone militarily. The killing of OBL will be brought up during the campaigns without a doubt, hence it will have SOME effect on things. That was my point to counter yours that it will have 0 effect. Will the main issue be the economy? Of course it will, but by killing OBL, Obama essentially eliminated the weak military argument from discussion come election time. I don't recall anyone saying Obama was going to ride the OBL wave from here to the election and win in a landslide. That's just ridiculous. If they did, then they're stupid. If no one said that, then it just illustrates how grossly you twist things so you can stick your tongue out at people and say "told you so".
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 21:15:51 GMT -5
Just an FYI, Obama has now dropped to 46-44 in Gallup, after a peak of 51% from the OBL bump. Told you. Unfortunately there is no one who has a viable shot of beating him, even with a crap economy. Whose going to beat him? Not Palin. Not Bachmann. Not Gingrich. I hope you're not hoping on Romney. The same guy who made the same health care bill that Obama did. The bill that his own base hates. And his own bill, which he won't back down from. For someone to lose, there has to be someone to beat him. I never thought that those numbers would hold, and I said so myself in this thread. But as I said before, with the Republican party split into 2, and no unifying candidate that can actually raise the money, and get the independent vote like Obama can, then Obama will probably win re-election. Even though, there is still a lot to be decided. You don't win elections with fractured bases, you especially don't win when you can't get the independent vote. And the Republicans won't get that vote because in order for their candidate to keep their base intact, that person has to appeal to the far right. Which is not good when you need votes from the center. IF, and it is a big IF, unemployment is 9% or above, anyone will beat him, and that includes Palin. Presidential campaigns don't matter. How many times do I have to go through this.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 21:19:40 GMT -5
I don't know why i'm responding, considering i know you're probably smoking a pipe with a stupid grin on your face thinking you got one over on everyone here, when you really didn't. I can only speak for myself here as I refuse to read back through this thread, but I know i never argued that Obama would get a boost in the polls and sustain it. My argument was only that it would have SOME sort of effect on the upcoming campaigns and election. I still think it will, mainly in the form of the GOP not being able to say Obama has no backbone militarily. The killing of OBL will be brought up during the campaigns without a doubt, hence it will have SOME effect on things. That was my point to counter yours that it will have 0 effect. Will the main issue be the economy? Of course it will, but by killing OBL, Obama essentially eliminated the weak military argument from discussion come election time. I don't recall anyone saying Obama was going to ride the OBL wave from here to the election and win in a landslide. That's just ridiculous. If they did, then they're stupid. If no one said that, then it just illustrates how grossly you twist things so you can stick your tongue out at people and say "told you so". Go watch the first Republican debate from about 1.5 weeks ago, following OBL's killing. Obama got criticized still for foreign policy. Why? Because one event doesn't exclude him from so many mistakes that many people criticize him for.....(NB: Bush got Saddam, but was criticized for Iraq regardless. Pretty much a perfect analogy. One success doesn't mitigate all the previous wrong doings) And the numbers do prove that he won't get extra support for it. The bounce came mainly from Republicans, which, of course, wouldn't (and didn't) hold. Also, foreign policy isn't the issue of contention right now, it's the economy, and jobs, and gas prices, inflation, and the prospects of a double dip recession....Frankly, he needs unemployment below 8.5% to have any chance, and below 8% for a good chance of victory. Watch the unemployment number as we inch closer to Nov 2012, it will be the deciding factor.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 16, 2011 21:27:40 GMT -5
Unfortunately there is no one who has a viable shot of beating him, even with a crap economy. Whose going to beat him? Not Palin. Not Bachmann. Not Gingrich. I hope you're not hoping on Romney. The same guy who made the same health care bill that Obama did. The bill that his own base hates. And his own bill, which he won't back down from. For someone to lose, there has to be someone to beat him. I never thought that those numbers would hold, and I said so myself in this thread. But as I said before, with the Republican party split into 2, and no unifying candidate that can actually raise the money, and get the independent vote like Obama can, then Obama will probably win re-election. Even though, there is still a lot to be decided. You don't win elections with fractured bases, you especially don't win when you can't get the independent vote. And the Republicans won't get that vote because in order for their candidate to keep their base intact, that person has to appeal to the far right. Which is not good when you need votes from the center. IF, and it is a big IF, unemployment is 9% or above, anyone will beat him, and that includes Palin. Presidential campaigns don't matter. How many times do I have to go through this. Palin would not get the independent vote. If you think that just anyone can beat him, even with a bad economy, then you're more bias than I thought. Any republican who runs while have the same problem that McCain had, and that's trying to appeal to a far right base, while missing the boat on Independents. You can't deny NL4E, no matter how bias you are. You need more than a base to win an election, but you also need your base to win. It's going to be really hard for any of the republican contenders to get either. But I'm done arguing with a person who doesn't understand pure logic. if you're political scientist and you don't understand what I've just said, then you might want to hand that degree back. And it's possible to win re-election with a bad economy, check Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 21:29:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 21:37:40 GMT -5
IF, and it is a big IF, unemployment is 9% or above, anyone will beat him, and that includes Palin. Presidential campaigns don't matter. How many times do I have to go through this. Palin would not get the independent vote. If you think that just anyone can beat him, even with a bad economy, then you're more bias than I thought. Any republican who runs while have the same problem that McCain had, and that's trying to appeal to a far right base, while missing the boat on Independents. You can't deny NL4E, no matter how bias you are. You need more than a base to win an election, but you also need your base to win. It's going to be really hard for any of the republican contenders to get either. But I'm done arguing with a person who doesn't understand pure logic. if you're political scientist and you don't understand what I've just said, then you might want to hand that degree back. And it's possible to win re-election with a bad economy, check Ronald Reagan. Incorrect on so many levels. 1. I don't want Palin to be president, so I'm not bias in putting her name in there. If she was nominated (which she won't be), and unemployment was above 9%, she would win. Trust me. 2. Ronald Reagan won because the economy was getting better. That's why the trend is more important than the overall number, and why I keep stressing that the closer it gets to 7.5% - the number Obama entered office with - the better the chance he has, even though most incumbents would never win with a unemployment number that high. It's all about the trend. So far, the number has ticked back up to 9% this month, and the economic growth is very slow and pretty much stagnant with inflation occurring.....dare I say we're entering stagflation? See Jimmy Carter. Most presidents wouldnt even have a chance with unemployment at 8%, but Obama would, because he reached a peak of 10.2%, so 8% would be a vast improvement, and signs that things are going well. The trend is more important than the overall number, but if that number is too high he will automatically lose no matter what. Let us not forget, it took an economic crisis late on in 2008 to hand the presidency to Obama - and this is with the incumbent - Bush, and the Republicans being so out of favor in the first place. McCain was leading in the polls up until that point. The economy drives elections. The electorate votes with their pocketbook.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 16, 2011 21:37:47 GMT -5
The evidence that you brought, was of his own son saying what everyone expects him to say. In tomlivesforever statement, he said millions of Muslims. If you can get testimony from all of them, that would be great. All I see is opinion an conjecture. "This may be", "this might". No NL4E, you haven't been proven right. In trying so hard to prove that you might be right, all you have proven is how petty and pathetic you are. It takes years to know the impact of any of this. Not weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 21:39:13 GMT -5
The evidence that you brought, was of his own son saying what everyone expects him to say. In tomlivesforever statement, he said millions of Muslims. If you can get testimony from all of them, that would be great. All I see is opinion an conjecture. "This may be", "this might". No NL4E, you haven't been proven right. In trying so hard to prove that you might be right, all you have proven is how petty and pathetic you are. It takes years to know the impact of any of this. Not weeks. Well if it takes years to know this, then how is Tom right? How can you support him in calling me an idiot in this circumstance if there's no proof. As with other threads, you need consistency.....
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 16, 2011 21:43:25 GMT -5
Incorrect on so many levels. 1. I don't want Palin to be president, so I'm not bias in putting her name in there. If she was nominated (which she won't be), and unemployment was above 9%, she would win. Trust me. 2. Ronald Reagan won because the economy was getting better. That's why the trend is more important than the overall number, and why I keep stressing that the closer it gets to 7.5% - the number Obama entered office with - the better the chance he has, even though most incumbents would never win with a unemployment number that high. It's all about the trend. So far, the number has ticked back up to 9% this month, and the economic growth is very slow and pretty much stagnant with inflation occurring.....dare I say we're entering stagflation? See Jimmy Carter. Most presidents wouldnt even have a chance with unemployment at 8%, but Obama would, because he reached a peak of 10.2%, so 8% would be a vast improvement, and signs that things are going well. The trend is more important than the overall number, but if that number is too high he will automatically lose no matter what. Let us not forget, it took an economic crisis late on in 2008 to hand the presidency to Obama - and this is with the incumbent - Bush, and the Republicans being so out of favor in the first place. McCain was leading in the polls up until that point. The economy drives elections. The electorate votes with their pocketbook. Do you not get the concept of a base. No she will not win a 9% unemployment, I'll guarantee you that. You need someone to beat him, before you can beat him. You have to have a united base to win an election. What really hurt Jimmy Carter, wasn't just that he had a crap economy and that he had the hostage situation, it was also because his base was splintered. NO ONE in the last 25 years has won an election without the Independent vote. And as of the moment, their is NO republican in the field that can have his cake and eat it too. There is no republican that has the base squarely behind him/her, or even has the independent vote. That's the main reason McCain lost. He was neck and neck with Obama, even with the bad economy, even with Republican brand name being down. It wasn't until he had to appeal to a republican base, that he lost the independent vote, and lost the election. If you argue with that, then you are truly overly bias.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 21:46:09 GMT -5
Let's end this now, and just look at who wins and what the unemployment number is at that time come Nov 2012. How about that? I'll leave you with this exert (which, if the 7.7 number is correct, I think Obama will win. But, as we've seen in the last 3 years, no one has predicted that number correctly so far): "Unemployment Rate: The U.S. jobless rate is forecasted to be 7.7 percent in November 2012, according to a Journal survey of economists. The Journal's Phil Izzo points out that this would be the highest rate in a presidential election month since Jimmy Carter bested Gerald Ford in 1976, but adds that how unemployment is trending--rather than the rate itself--often proves more decisive in an election. For example, Ronald Reagan beat President Carter in 1980 when the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent and rising, and won re-election by a huge margin in 1984 when the unemployment rate was 7.2 percent but falling." www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/obama-39-s-reelection-obstacles-unemployment-and-fundraising-20110314
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 16, 2011 21:46:23 GMT -5
The evidence that you brought, was of his own son saying what everyone expects him to say. In tomlivesforever statement, he said millions of Muslims. If you can get testimony from all of them, that would be great. All I see is opinion an conjecture. "This may be", "this might". No NL4E, you haven't been proven right. In trying so hard to prove that you might be right, all you have proven is how petty and pathetic you are. It takes years to know the impact of any of this. Not weeks. Well if it takes years to know this, then how is Tom right? How can you support him in calling me an idiot in this circumstance if there's no proof. As with other threads, you need consistency..... You just don't fucking get it!!!!!!!!!!!! Did I say he was right, NO! Learn to read. I didn't say he was right and I didn't say that he had proof, I said that you have no basis to say whether he's wrong or not. And you don't. It's not about being right or wrong. I'm talking about actually evaluating something with actual evidence, and not putting a flag on top of an ant hill, as if you've accomplished something. Again, you've proven that you can't read, and you fail to miss the point.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 21:50:27 GMT -5
Well if it takes years to know this, then how is Tom right? How can you support him in calling me an idiot in this circumstance if there's no proof. As with other threads, you need consistency..... You just don't fucking get it!!!!!!!!!!!! Did I say he was right, NO! Learn to read. I didn't say he was right and I didn't that he had proof, I said you have no basis to say he's wrong. And you don't. I'm not talking about being right or wrong. I'm talking about actually evaluating something with actual evidence, and not putting a flag on top of an ant hill, as if you've accomplished something. Again, you've proven that you can't read. Learn to read between the lines and the agenda of your post. You call me out on citing two sources, while you don't call Tom out on calling me stupid when he doesn't even offer any kind of evidence. CONSISTENCY, PLEASE.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 16, 2011 21:51:48 GMT -5
Go watch the first Republican debate from about 1.5 weeks ago, following OBL's killing. Obama got criticized still for foreign policy. Why? Because one event doesn't exclude him from so many mistakes that many people criticize him for.....(NB: Bush got Saddam, but was criticized for Iraq regardless. Pretty much a perfect analogy. One success doesn't mitigate all the previous wrong doings) Two issues with this. - 1. Republicans will nail him no matter what he does. It's the nature of politics. He could've come into office, turned the economy around, ended the wars and lowered gas prices down to $1/gallon and Republicans would still think he's the worst president ever.
- 2. I never said his foreign policy decisions wouldn't be questioned. One of the big knocks on Obama in 08 was that he was weak and wouldn't have the balls to pull the trigger if he had a shot at OBL or if he had to make a tough decision militarily (specifically if he would rush into Pakistan to get OBL). He proved that wrong. To me that shows he's capable of dropping the hammer, where in 08 people didn't think he would.
It's not about numbers. Everything isn't about stats. The ONLY point i've ever tried to make on this is that OBL will be brought up constantly during the lead up to the election. It will NOT win the election for Obama, but it IS an achievement that can be tied to him during the campaign and i would guess a lot of people in the middle will see that as a positive. Ok Mr. Stat Cruncher. Here's an idea...let's forget about the campaigns and we'll just appoint a new President if the unemployment rate is over 9%. Why even have an election or campaign when its a foregone conclusion? I mean you MUST be correct and there must be 0% chance that it doesn't happen this time for you to so boldly proclaim your own genius. If the wrong person runs against Obama, they are going down. We saw it in 2004 with Kerry. Bush should've been blown off the political landscape that year but Kerry was just about the only person alive who could've lost that election - with his face that didn't move and his inability to answer questions with actual thoughts. If Sarah Palin runs against Obama there is NO WAY she wins unless we fall into a really deep economic depression. She is too polarizing a figure to win outside of extreme circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 16, 2011 21:53:23 GMT -5
You just don't fucking get it!!!!!!!!!!!! Did I say he was right, NO! Learn to read. I didn't say he was right and I didn't that he had proof, I said you have no basis to say he's wrong. And you don't. I'm not talking about being right or wrong. I'm talking about actually evaluating something with actual evidence, and not putting a flag on top of an ant hill, as if you've accomplished something. Again, you've proven that you can't read. Learn to read between the lines and the agenda of your post. You call me out on citing two sources, while you don't call Tom out on calling me stupid when he doesn't even offer any kind of evidence. CONSISTENCY, PLEASE. Oh, the big mad poster called you stupid. Well, I'll cry a river for you. Whether he called stupid or not doesn't matter. Has nothing to do with the fact that you prematurely called yourself correct, when you haven't been proven right. That's the point. Whether he called you a name or not, I don't care. Get over it. It's a forum, you will be called names. The names aren't the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 21:56:16 GMT -5
Also, you keep banging on about Independents:
1. Obama is polling so badly with them right now. He's about 10% lower with them than when he got elected, if my memory serves me correctly. That's quite substantial.
2. Ok, Carter lost the independents. But why? That's the question you're missing, and the answer I'm providing. If Carter had a strong economy he wouldn't have lost. Sure, the hostage crisis only compounded his misery, but it wasn't the overarching reason why he lost. (Likewise, if Obama wins re-election, it won't be because of OBL, even though it's a positive on his resume).
And what should be even scarier for Obama supporters is that the approval rating tends to be higher than approval ratings for policies, as the overall rating takes into account likeability (personality). You can be liked as a person, but if your policies aren't there, you won't be elected president.
|
|