so we are parsing polling data now? we'll all know how it plays out in a matter of days...then MLJ can leave us again until the next damn election or GOP outrage...until then can we all agree to fucking ignore all the strategists, talking heads, pundits, pollsters, trolls etc...
The polls are pretty humorous on both sides and guaranteed to get a rise out of the right folks.....I posted the "politcal strategist" poll in jest.
b/w
I'm really not looking forward to all the cheating / lying / stealing accusations that will surely come from the losing side.
cool. it's one thing to follow the events leading up to the election and be engaged in the process but my issue is that we shouldn't be reacting on a moment-to-moment basis to the crap put out there by the two campiagns' surrogates and polling firms or for that matter the loud-mouths at msnbc or fox news (neither of which is a journalistic enterprise)...the spin doctors are running rampant.
Every campaign is making their closing arguments right now and everyone is spinning the numbers in favor of their candidate.
So, looking at a single poll (or cherry picking a group of polls) will either fill you with irrational exuberance or soul crushing despair. A lot is going to hinge on Ohio and Obama's lead is near the margin of error so its not a sure thing. Romney is not a good bet in Ohio, but he has a "credible" chance of taking the state. If Romney takes Ohio, all bets are off.
Read Nate Silver's blog at fivethirtyeight, get his new book (I will be getting it when I can budget some spare cash), and revel in the uncertainty that is the prediction biz.
I'm really not looking forward to all the cheating / lying / stealing accusations that will surely come from the losing side.
Ohio is likely to be very close.
The state is doing a very poor job organizing/managing a fair election.
Expect cheating / lying / stealing accusations if Ohio is close and deciding.
People put Christie down. But I give the guy credit, at least he doesn't shit talk the federal government and disaster relief and talk about cutting it.
Well only one candidate is going to open the doors for the Jesus rode a dinosaur, anti-science, rape is a gift from God crowd to start writing laws and only one candidate will put more Scalias on the bench... You can be cynical all you want, talk about how they are both the same, how both are corporate shills, blah blah blah blah...but only one candidate wants to takes us back a hundred years. That's why I voted for Obama again, at least it will be four more years of keeping the gay for Jesus crowd at bay and no "Constituonal originalists" put on the supreme court.
Well only one candidate is going to open the doors for the Jesus rode a dinosaur, anti-science, rape is a gift from God crowd to start writing laws and only one candidate will put more Scalias on the bench... You can be cynical all you want, talk about how they are both the same, how both are corporate shills, blah blah blah blah...but only one candidate wants to takes us back a hundred years. That's why I voted for Obama again, at least it will be four more years of keeping the gay for Jesus crowd at bay and no "Constituonal originalists" put on the supreme court.
I actually have one car too many, gonna sell one and take a vacation. Life is good under Obama.
Your piece of shit candidate campaigned today when he said he wouldn't. He collected a few cans of Lima beans under the guiise of charity. Canned goods don't help rebuild homes. He said FEMA was immoral in the GOP debates. Did I say he was a piece of shit? He is a piece of shit.
Cmon Rock, are we living in the same country? One of R-dogs most fundamental beliefs was that FEMA shoudl be, at the minimum, given back to the states and at best a privatized industry. That way we can make sure that we are charged 10$ for bottles of water in an emergency.
Ryan???s 2012 budget took a similar approach to disaster funding. As The Hill noted in May 2012, Ryan???s budget called for any disaster relief funding to ???be fully offset within the discretionary levels provided in this resolution.??? In other words, Congress would have to agree on cuts elsewhere in the budget if it wanted to dole out funds after a disaster.
The real world consequence of this type of policy decision will mean that your ability to survive or recover from a natural disaster will be based on where you live, the severity of the event, and whether or not your state decided to budget for disaster relief. It will be 50 different states doing it 50 different ways. This is the inevitable result of the Republican ???starve the beast??? plan; Romney and other Republicans promise to cut the size of government but don???t say what. Well ??? this is the kind of ???government waste??? that Republicans are talking about.
Governor Romney???s campaign was asked about this and here was their response:
???Gov. Romney wants to ensure states, who are the first responders and are in the best position to aid impacted individuals and communities, have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters.???
Romney has a history of saying he???s going to cut government. When you ask him what ??? he says ???We???re going to work that out with Congress???. He never says what. When he actually slips up and says something like what he said in plain day on video when he was trying to win over conservatives, the Romney campaign just back tracks ??? shakes the etch-a-sketch and says we didn???t say we???re going to cut that. So ??? he wants everyone to think that everyone gets everything and no one has to pay for it. Believe me ??? someone is going to pay for it.
Cmon Rock, are we living in the same country? One of R-dogs most fundamental beliefs was that FEMA shoudl be, at the minimum, given back to the states and at best a privatized industry. That way we can make sure that we are charged 10$ for bottles of water in an emergency.
I listen very carefully...he did not say "Fema is immoral".dude said " It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we???ll all be dead and gone before it???s paid off. It makes no sense at all."
That statement, on it's own, is one I agree with 100%.....spinning it into a quote he did not make is wrong.
Whatever, when asked over a dozen times today about FEMA, he refused to answer. Why is that? Because he wants to dismantle it, and he couldn't give his views on it today for obvious reasons, he is runnIng for office for Pete's sake.
That is absolutely not true. Romney doesn't want to pass on debt to younger generations. Obama has borrowed from China at unprecedented times, instead of raising taxes (putting his own self in it), to try to play both sides and it just isn't fair to the youth who will have to repay the debt.
We borrow $1.6 trillion more than we take in to pay for FEMA (amongst other things)
Borrowing $1.6 trillion more than we take in is immoral.
Therefore, FEMA (amongst other things) is immoral.
Maybe it doesn't fit perfectly with the rules of logic, but this is politics.
Not a giant, unreasonable leap, IMO, to credit Romney with calling FEMA immoral.
As opposed to taking some responsibility for the spending by raising taxes. Romney has got a point. Otherwise, why not raise the taxes instead of borrowing?
Considering Mitt made his fortune by borrowing obscene amounts of money and sticking the debt to others, I find it immoral that he said what he said. Being a hypocrite is immoral, no?
Cmon Rock, are we living in the same country? One of R-dogs most fundamental beliefs was that FEMA shoudl be, at the minimum, given back to the states and at best a privatized industry. That way we can make sure that we are charged 10$ for bottles of water in an emergency.
I listen very carefully...he did not say "Fema is immoral".dude said " It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we???ll all be dead and gone before it???s paid off. It makes no sense at all."
That statement, on it's own, is one I agree with 100%.....spinning it into a quote he did not make is wrong.
Right here, right now, I want to thank my parents and my grandparents.
I want to thank my parents and my grandparents for passing on their debt to me.
When I started working I had to pay taxes that paid off debts going back to WWII.
I had to pay off the Marshall Plan.
I had to pay off the GI Bill.
I had to pay off school construction costs.
I had to pay into a SSI system so my grandparents and parents could collect.
I had to pay off the Federal Interstate Highway System.
And on and on.
I do not think my parents and grandparents were immoral for passing that debt on to me.
I do not think borrowing is immoral.
With out borrowing I wouldn't have my home, my new kitchen, my business. Borrowing is not immoral.
Right now the best thing the government can do is borrow.
China and every other major investor, is currently lending us money at almost zero interest.
To not borrow money at those terms would be foolish.
Our grandchildren are not going to thank us for leaving them crumbling schools, highways, bridges and broken safety net.
Our grandchildren our not going to thank us for not rebuilding after Sandy.
Considering Mitt made his fortune by borrowing obscene amounts of money and sticking the debt to others, I find it immoral that he said what he said. Being a hypocrite is immoral, no?
It's like how these people wanna roll back regulation... Financial markets? Roll it back! FEMA? Immoral!
Borrowing $1.6 trillion more than we take in is immoral.
If you believe the above statement to be true you can be accused of being against everything that every penny of that money goes towards.
I believe it to be true based on common sense and logic.....apparently two things that are absent from politics.
I don't believe that statement to be true.
Plenty of good reasons to borrow money. Emergencies come to mind.
How about WW2? As a percentage of GDP we were much deeper in debt after that war than we are now.
I know a few fringe lunatics think borrowing money to fight that war was immoral.
This time we exploded the debt in order to give tax breaks to rich people and overspend on defense when there was no actual threat to our existence. $2 trillion for Iraq. I'll bet Dumbya was one of the GOP candidates Rock voted for, at least once.
The 1.6 trillion deficit figure was the one from 2009, Dumbya's last budget. Obama's has been, by far, the most fiscally conservative era in the last 30 years:
But I guess none of that matters. Right-wingers are barking about Obama loudly.
The graphic above (Rex Nutting) is misleading and anyone who basis arguments off of it, or shows it as a stand alone item is overstating the facts. First off it shows the annual rate of increase for spending, not how much is being spent. All it shows is that Obama has been consistent with his spending, and has consistently spent a shit load of money. Secondly the 2009 stimulus spending increase is attributed soley to Bush....yes bush had outlined for the most part the 2009 spending plan, but Obama oversaw and contributed to the same spending. Lastly the numbers are influence by lawmakers who for the second half of the term concentrated to reduce Obama's spending. If you paid attention during this tome you will remember that Obama asked for lots more money but was blocked by republicans.
You need to look at Obama's spending as a percentage of GDP to understand the context of how much money he spent. These numbers are several percentage points higher than any other president in history 24-25%.
You can ignore all of this or you can research the above graph and see both the AP and Washington Posts fact checking of Rex Nuttings claim.
Say what you will, argue what you will, but at the end of the day Mitt Romney is a lying sack of shit. This isn't even about partisanship anymore, he's an outright sociopath. If you think he's gonna hold up ANY of what he has said that doesn't directly benefit him and his ilk, you are fooling yourself.
Out of sensitivity for the millions of Americans in the path of Hurricane Sandy, we are canceling tonight's events with Governor Romney in Wisconsin and Congressman Ryan in Melbourne and Lakeland, Florida. We are also canceling all events currently schedule for both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan on Tuesday.
It's time to cut away the bullshit and call this guy for what he is. A disconnected, blatant liar who does not give a fuck about the American public as a whole.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Comments
The polls are pretty humorous on both sides and guaranteed to get a rise out of the right folks.....I posted the "politcal strategist" poll in jest.
b/w
I'm really not looking forward to all the cheating / lying / stealing accusations that will surely come from the losing side.
Fixed and
Every campaign is making their closing arguments right now and everyone is spinning the numbers in favor of their candidate.
So, looking at a single poll (or cherry picking a group of polls) will either fill you with irrational exuberance or soul crushing despair. A lot is going to hinge on Ohio and Obama's lead is near the margin of error so its not a sure thing. Romney is not a good bet in Ohio, but he has a "credible" chance of taking the state. If Romney takes Ohio, all bets are off.
Read Nate Silver's blog at fivethirtyeight, get his new book (I will be getting it when I can budget some spare cash), and revel in the uncertainty that is the prediction biz.
Ohio is likely to be very close.
The state is doing a very poor job organizing/managing a fair election.
Expect cheating / lying / stealing accusations if Ohio is close and deciding.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/30/christie-praises-obama-doesnt-give-a-damn-about-romney-photo-op/?
Washington Examiner? They're the ones that said Jeep was moving all production to China.
Not credible.
I'll also be glad when this is over. Can't remember a nastier campaign.
Well only one candidate is going to open the doors for the Jesus rode a dinosaur, anti-science, rape is a gift from God crowd to start writing laws and only one candidate will put more Scalias on the bench... You can be cynical all you want, talk about how they are both the same, how both are corporate shills, blah blah blah blah...but only one candidate wants to takes us back a hundred years. That's why I voted for Obama again, at least it will be four more years of keeping the gay for Jesus crowd at bay and no "Constituonal originalists" put on the supreme court.
Yes.
Then you can walk to work and elsewhere.
I actually have one car too many, gonna sell one and take a vacation. Life is good under Obama.
Your piece of shit candidate campaigned today when he said he wouldn't. He collected a few cans of Lima beans under the guiise of charity. Canned goods don't help rebuild homes. He said FEMA was immoral in the GOP debates. Did I say he was a piece of shit? He is a piece of shit.
Please to show where this happened.
http://seattletimes.com/html/edcetera/2019559387_hurricane_sandy_forces_mitt_ro.html
@1:02
Ryan???s 2012 budget took a similar approach to disaster funding. As The Hill noted in May 2012, Ryan???s budget called for any disaster relief funding to ???be fully offset within the discretionary levels provided in this resolution.??? In other words, Congress would have to agree on cuts elsewhere in the budget if it wanted to dole out funds after a disaster.
The real world consequence of this type of policy decision will mean that your ability to survive or recover from a natural disaster will be based on where you live, the severity of the event, and whether or not your state decided to budget for disaster relief. It will be 50 different states doing it 50 different ways. This is the inevitable result of the Republican ???starve the beast??? plan; Romney and other Republicans promise to cut the size of government but don???t say what. Well ??? this is the kind of ???government waste??? that Republicans are talking about.
Governor Romney???s campaign was asked about this and here was their response:
???Gov. Romney wants to ensure states, who are the first responders and are in the best position to aid impacted individuals and communities, have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters.???
Romney has a history of saying he???s going to cut government. When you ask him what ??? he says ???We???re going to work that out with Congress???. He never says what. When he actually slips up and says something like what he said in plain day on video when he was trying to win over conservatives, the Romney campaign just back tracks ??? shakes the etch-a-sketch and says we didn???t say we???re going to cut that. So ??? he wants everyone to think that everyone gets everything and no one has to pay for it. Believe me ??? someone is going to pay for it.
http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/12327/20121029/hurricane-sandy-plan-mitt-romney-fema-immoral.htm
I listen very carefully...he did not say "Fema is immoral".dude said " It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we???ll all be dead and gone before it???s paid off. It makes no sense at all."
That statement, on it's own, is one I agree with 100%.....spinning it into a quote he did not make is wrong.
Borrowing $1.6 trillion more than we take in is immoral.
Therefore, FEMA (amongst other things) is immoral.
Maybe it doesn't fit perfectly with the rules of logic, but this is politics.
Not a giant, unreasonable leap, IMO, to credit Romney with calling FEMA immoral.
As opposed to taking some responsibility for the spending by raising taxes. Romney has got a point. Otherwise, why not raise the taxes instead of borrowing?
If you believe the above statement to be true you can be accused of being against everything that every penny of that money goes towards.
I believe it to be true based on common sense and logic.....apparently two things that are absent from politics.
I don't believe that statement to be true.
Plenty of good reasons to borrow money. Emergencies come to mind.
Besides, the deficit has been lowered under Obama. Romney wants to explode it. That's not logical or common sensical to me.
You're not wrong. I was kinda paraphrasing.
So we meet again...
You both are wrong. Rock is correct.
Right here, right now, I want to thank my parents and my grandparents.
I want to thank my parents and my grandparents for passing on their debt to me.
When I started working I had to pay taxes that paid off debts going back to WWII.
I had to pay off the Marshall Plan.
I had to pay off the GI Bill.
I had to pay off school construction costs.
I had to pay into a SSI system so my grandparents and parents could collect.
I had to pay off the Federal Interstate Highway System.
And on and on.
I do not think my parents and grandparents were immoral for passing that debt on to me.
I do not think borrowing is immoral.
With out borrowing I wouldn't have my home, my new kitchen, my business. Borrowing is not immoral.
Right now the best thing the government can do is borrow.
China and every other major investor, is currently lending us money at almost zero interest.
To not borrow money at those terms would be foolish.
Our grandchildren are not going to thank us for leaving them crumbling schools, highways, bridges and broken safety net.
Our grandchildren our not going to thank us for not rebuilding after Sandy.
Thank you Mom, Dad, Zeda, Baba, Maxie, Anya.
It's like how these people wanna roll back regulation... Financial markets? Roll it back! FEMA? Immoral!
Or even better example.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/romneys_lax_regulation_fueled_meningitis_outbreak/
Let's hear Romney & Ryan talk about how spending money for this stuff is bad for America!
The graphic above (Rex Nutting) is misleading and anyone who basis arguments off of it, or shows it as a stand alone item is overstating the facts. First off it shows the annual rate of increase for spending, not how much is being spent. All it shows is that Obama has been consistent with his spending, and has consistently spent a shit load of money. Secondly the 2009 stimulus spending increase is attributed soley to Bush....yes bush had outlined for the most part the 2009 spending plan, but Obama oversaw and contributed to the same spending. Lastly the numbers are influence by lawmakers who for the second half of the term concentrated to reduce Obama's spending. If you paid attention during this tome you will remember that Obama asked for lots more money but was blocked by republicans.
You need to look at Obama's spending as a percentage of GDP to understand the context of how much money he spent. These numbers are several percentage points higher than any other president in history 24-25%.
You can ignore all of this or you can research the above graph and see both the AP and Washington Posts fact checking of Rex Nuttings claim.
Say what you will, argue what you will, but at the end of the day Mitt Romney is a lying sack of shit. This isn't even about partisanship anymore, he's an outright sociopath. If you think he's gonna hold up ANY of what he has said that doesn't directly benefit him and his ilk, you are fooling yourself.
Or not.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/romney-donating-sandy-supplies-only-to-gop-swing-states-not-nj-or-ny/politics/2012/10/30/52648
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/30/mixed-messages-at-romney-storm-relief-event-in-ohio
It's time to cut away the bullshit and call this guy for what he is. A disconnected, blatant liar who does not give a fuck about the American public as a whole.