No wonder this guy is so unpopular

[Kithus]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/no-wonder-the-guy-so-unpopular



David Letterman’s monologue last night included some observations that stood out for me:
“This is what happens when we have the midterm elections. The Republicans, of course, have turned against Obama, and the Democrats have also turned against Obama. That’s a lonely, lonely gig being president, ladies and gentlemen.

“Take a look at this: gas under $3 a gallon – under $3 a gallon. Unemployment under 6%, whoever thought? Stock market breaking records every day. No wonder the guy is so unpopular.”
As the saying goes, it’s funny because it’s true.

In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, respondents were asked, “All in all, do you think things in the nation are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are off on the wrong track?” The good news: the “right direction” number inched to a six-month high. The bad news: the overall results were lopsided, with 63% of Americans believing the country is on the wrong track, and only 27% believing the opposite. Other recent national polling found very similar results.

And with so much of the country in a dour, pessimistic mood, much of the electorate is blaming President Obama, whether or not that makes sense.

Indeed, over the last several months, countless hours of attack ads have aired, hammering home a simple Republican message: “You should hate the president and vote accordingly against everyone in his party.” The pushback from Democrats, defending the president and the White House’s popular policy agenda? Well, that never really happened this year. The political results were predictable.

But this only helps underscore why Letterman’s quip is memorable: there’s reason for some national optimism. Voters just haven’t heard much about it.

In her latest Washington Post column, Rachel highlighted the role of fear as a campaign theme this year, adding, “For all the end-of-the-world clamor around this year’s elections, you’d never guess that the economy is growing at 3.5 percent, unemployment is below 6 percent and gas prices are way, way down. Even Halloween candy was cheap this year. But good news, schmood news. This year, we’ve decided to be miserable and afraid.”

At this point, I’m not even sure what conditions would have to look like for the mainstream to see the nation as being on the right track. We have falling unemployment, increasing growth, rising stock indexes, a shrinking deficit, and increasing economic confidence. More Americans are gaining access to affordable medical care. More Americans are graduating from high school and entering higher ed. Gas prices keep dropping. Even the federal response to the Ebola threat has turned out to be pretty darn effective, and Joni Ernst’s opinions notwithstanding, only one guy in the country actually has the virus.

Putting aside whether the White House gets credit for any of the developments, what exactly would a country moving “in the right direction” look like? Shouldn’t current conditions meet that standard?


So what indicators would say the country was moving in the right direction?

[Atlanteax]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/no-wonder-the-guy-so-unpopular

So what indicators would say the country was moving in the right direction?

Lower healthcare premiums ...

The Democrats tried to delay the release of insurance premiums being jacked up until after the elections ... wonder how much more of a landslide it would had been if the gruesome details of Obamacare premiums were released prior.

[~Rocktar~]

I would say the country was moving in the right direction if they didn't use synthetic numbers to generate statistics like unemployment. In the long past, they took the number of working age people, removed those on disability and then did the percentage without an above board job based as the unemployment rate. Now, it's simply the suposed work force that is not working. Keep in mind that if you stop filing unemployment and you don't have a job, you are no longer counted in the work force. Real unemployment is much much higher than 6%.

Then there is debt vs GDP, percentage deficit spending, unfunded future liabilities vs income and GDP, percentage tax burden and other things like that I would measure the economy on. All of these signs are not great.

[Kaldonis]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/no-wonder-the-guy-so-unpopular



So what indicators would say the country was moving in the right direction?

That I was kind of thinking with legalized pot somewhat becoming a thing, Bush having fucked off years ago, any sense at all of a health care system up to the standards of industrialized democracies, and gay marriage starting to be considered reasonably okay several places: Hey I might ever move back to the US.

Voting in record amounts of republicans to office? Yeah, I could spend another decade abroad probably.

[Wrathbringer]

In as much as we are moving toward the end of his presidency, we are on the right track.

[Tgo01]

The stock market being high doesn't help the average Joe much, if at all.

Unemployment being "low" at 6% doesn't mean much these days considering a lot of jobs that have been created lately have been minimum wage jobs or worse.

Gas under 3 dollars a gallon at 2.90 a gallon doesn't help much either. I think Letterman needs to stop fanboying over Obama already like most of the country has.

[Parkbandit]

The stock market being high doesn't help the average Joe much, if at all.

Unemployment being "low" at 6% doesn't mean much these days considering a lot of jobs that have been created lately have been minimum wage jobs or worse.

Gas under 3 dollars a gallon at 2.90 a gallon doesn't help much either. I think Letterman needs to stop fanboying over Obama already like most of the country has.

The stock market is artificially inflated by al the QE programs. It's a bubble that will burst like all the others.

Unemployment is mostly bullshit, given how many people left the workforce.

But gas being low helps this economy tremendously.. But it happened IN SPITE of Obama, through the private sector.

[Atlanteax]

But gas being low helps this economy tremendously.. But it happened IN SPITE of Obama, through the private sector.

Particularly considering it was the Obama Adminstration's policy of encouraging higher gas prices, to make solar/wind/etc 'more competitive'.
Of course, cronies were invested in green tech...

[Tgo01]

Why didn't Letterman end his spiel about how awesome Obama is by saying "you didn't build that!"

[Kithus]

Why didn't Letterman end his spiel about how awesome Obama is by saying "you didn't build that!"

He didn't have to. PB said it for him.

[AnticorRifling]

I thought gas was dropping as a result of Russia being so heavily dependent on the price of oil so other countries were dropping the price per barrel to F them.

[Latrinsorm]

I would say the country was moving in the right direction if they didn't use synthetic numbers to generate statistics like unemployment. In the long past, they took the number of working age people, removed those on disability and then did the percentage without an above board job based as the unemployment rate. Now, it's simply the suposed work force that is not working. Keep in mind that if you stop filing unemployment and you don't have a job, you are no longer counted in the work force. Real unemployment is much much higher than 6%.

Then there is debt vs GDP, percentage deficit spending, unfunded future liabilities vs income and GDP, percentage tax burden and other things like that I would measure the economy on. All of these signs are not great.Would you care to graph them from, say, 1940-present? It is easy to say "percentage deficit spending is high, that sounds bad!" but I would like empirical confirmation of it.

[Parkbandit]

I thought gas was dropping as a result of Russia being so heavily dependent on the price of oil so other countries were dropping the price per barrel to F them.

Haven't heard that as a contributing factor.. OPEC production is up and the US production is up were the main contributors.. that and switching to winter grade.

[Kembal]

The stock market being high doesn't help the average Joe much, if at all.

Unemployment being "low" at 6% doesn't mean much these days considering a lot of jobs that have been created lately have been minimum wage jobs or worse.

Gas under 3 dollars a gallon at 2.90 a gallon doesn't help much either. I think Letterman needs to stop fanboying over Obama already like most of the country has.

In other words, we should be looking at a) wage growth, relative to inflation and b) the U6 unemployment indicator and/or the labor force participation rate.

Both haven't improved that much. But they tell the real story economically, right now.

[SHAFT]

The stock market being high doesn't help the average Joe much, if at all.

Unemployment being "low" at 6% doesn't mean much these days considering a lot of jobs that have been created lately have been minimum wage jobs or worse.

Gas under 3 dollars a gallon at 2.90 a gallon doesn't help much either. I think Letterman needs to stop fanboying over Obama already like most of the country has.

It says something about the companies that the average joes work for however.

People always need a scapegoat. It doesn't matter who was in office or what was going on. With social media it's so much easier for people to complain.

[Latrinsorm]

The stock market being high doesn't help the average Joe much, if at all.

Unemployment being "low" at 6% doesn't mean much these days considering a lot of jobs that have been created lately have been minimum wage jobs or worse.While I was perusing that thread for PB posts, he pointed out that the economy in 2006 was good because unemployment was at an all-time low [dubious - discuss] and the stock market was at an all-time high. Ha! Ha! That only counts when a Republican is in charge, am I right folks?

[Tgo01]

That only counts when a Republican is in charge, am I right folks?

Finally you say something smart.

[rolfard]

Thanks Obama!

[~Rocktar~]

Would you care to graph them from, say, 1940-present? It is easy to say "percentage deficit spending is high, that sounds bad!" but I would like empirical confirmation of it.

Since it is my opinion, I empirically certify that it is my opinion and I don't like the conditions. I didn't like them much before, I don't like them now and it isn't a good direction to head. Please do try and contribute something of value. Just because something happened in the past or is popular, doesn't make it a good idea.

[Latrinsorm]

Finally you say something smart.One out of 29,884 ain't bad!
Since it is my opinion, I empirically certify that it is my opinion and I don't like the conditions. I didn't like them much before, I don't like them now and it isn't a good direction to head. Please do try and contribute something of value. Just because something happened in the past or is popular, doesn't make it a good idea.The point of graphing it is not to see merely whether it happened in the past, but whether it happened in the past and Good Things did too.

[~Rocktar~]

One out of 29,884 ain't bad!The point of graphing it is not to see merely whether it happened in the past, but whether it happened in the past and Good Things did too.

People were slaves in the past, women were not allowed to vote, people were prevented from voting based on race and still some pretty good things happened then. That doesn't make those ideas or actions right nor causal.

[Latrinsorm]

People were slaves in the past, women were not allowed to vote, people were prevented from voting based on race and still some pretty good things happened then. That doesn't make those ideas or actions right nor causal.That's why you graph a long time period, you would see that slavery is not correlated with whatever positive economic marker you like. Like when I graphed minimum wage increases, I didn't just say "well that sounds bad! sometimes bad things happened in the past!", I did math and proved it.

Nobody else cares about math, but still.

[Tgo01]

I did math and proved it.

Math never proves anything. Use math to prove me wrong.

[Back]

Stock market up, unemployment down, gas prices down, legalized marijuana, gay marriage accepted, affordable health care for everyone, seems like things are pretty darn good. Yes, the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us is pretty wide, still embroiled in conflicts across the globe, the cost of education is too high, so sure there are still issues to address.

[Tgo01]

Gas prices are down compared to when? Not when Obama was first elected.

[Androidpk]

Gas prices are down compared to when? Not when Obama was first elected.

Since before they came down, duh.

[Latrinsorm]

Math never proves anything. Use math to prove me wrong.eipi one oh.

[Methais]

Math never proves anything. Use math to prove me wrong.

Math proved that Wrathbringer is the shart repper.

[Tgo01]

Math proved that Wrathbringer is the shart repper.

Mind = blown


eipi one oh.

Mind = blown?

[Back]

Gas prices being down is indicative of our increased production and less reliance on foreign oil. This is a very good thing.

[Methais]

Gas prices being down is indicative of our increased production and less reliance on foreign oil. This is a very good thing.

And you're giving Obama credit for that?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/20140305/4994042/shart-o.gif

[Androidpk]

Rachael Maddow is a liberal hack, btw.

[Back]

And you're giving Obama credit for that?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/20140305/4994042/shart-o.gif

Actually all of these things should be credited to the voting public and our government in general.

[Androidpk]

Actually all of these things should be credited to the voting public and our government in general.

Gee, I would have thought massive shale deposits and private corporations mining them contributed to lower gas prices, not voters and incompetent elected officials.

[Tgo01]

Wait, aren't we trying to say oil corporations are evil for their fracking and yet when gas prices come down as a result we take credit for being voters and give credit to politicians?

What the fuck is happening in the world?

[Back]

Gee, I would have thought massive shale deposits and private corporations mining them contributed to lower gas prices, not voters and incompetent elected officials.

From what I understand many things contribute to it including consumer behaviour. So its our collective efforts.

[Tgo01]

From what I understand many things contribute to it including consumer behaviour. So its our collective efforts.

No.

[Androidpk]

From what I understand many things contribute to it including consumer behaviour. So its our collective efforts.

Consumer behavior such as...

[Back]

Consumer behavior such as...

Buying electric and more fuel efficient cars would probably be numero uno. Is it really such a stretch of the imagination?

[Androidpk]

Buying electric and more fuel efficient cars would probably be numero uno. Is it really such a stretch of the imagination?

Do you have anything to back up this connection or are you just posturing? It's an interesting idea but I'm going to say you are wrong. The price per barrel of oil is dropping worldwide, mainly due to the shale deposits that have come online, especially in the Dakotas.

[Tgo01]

Do you have anything to back up this connection or are you just posturing?

I think you mean postulating

[Back]

Do you have anything to back up this connection or are you just posturing? It's an interesting idea but I'm going to say you are wrong. The price per barrel of oil is dropping worldwide, mainly due to the shale deposits that have come online, especially in the Dakotas.

Recall I am not saying it's the sole reason. One of many including increased domestic production.

http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm



Reliance on petroleum imports has declined U.S. dependence on imported oil has declined since peaking in 2005. This trend is the result of a variety of factors including a decline in consumption and shifts in supply patterns.1 (http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm#ftnote) The economic downturn after the financial crisis of 2008, improvements in efficiency, changes in consumer behavior, and patterns of economic growth all contributed to the decline in petroleum consumption. At the same time, increased use of domestic biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel), and strong gains in domestic production of crude oil and natural gas plant liquids expanded domestic supplies and reduced the need for imports.

[Androidpk]

I think you mean postulating

This is America. I mean what I want.

[Wrathbringer]

I think you mean postulating

I think you mean masterbating. Loudly.

[Warriorbird]

I thought gas was dropping as a result of Russia being so heavily dependent on the price of oil so other countries were dropping the price per barrel to F them.

The last time anybody was right in this discussion.

[Wrathbringer]

The last time anybody was right in this discussion.

Except for this:


I think you mean masterbating. Loudly.

[Methais]

I think you mean masterbating. Loudly.

http://media-azeroth.cursecdn.com/attachments/15/828/634861908222320451.jpg

[Wrathbringer]

http://media-azeroth.cursecdn.com/attachments/15/828/634861908222320451.jpg

Safe bet he's loud.

But this bear is better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnw7dhh5uWQ

[TheEschaton]

Unemployed but not in the labor force (IE, the people often claimed as not being counted):

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Measure U-5 (total unemployed + discouraged workers + marginally attached workers): Down 1.3% over the last year. That's down from 9.3% in 2009, to 7.4%, average, this year, and this year's Q4 isn't in yet, and will probably push that 7.4% number down further. Still hasn't gone down to 5.8% where it was in 2008 when the recession hit. And yes, that 7.4% number includes that U-5 measurement I mentioned and linked in the top link.

[TheEschaton]

Even the TOTAL total number, which includes part time/underemployed folks is down to 11.3% from when it spiked to 18% in January 2010: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm

But I mean, since no one has ever used that metric in any meaningful conversation ever, who fucking cares?

Edit: Just go to: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm and select the rates you want to see. They're all down. It's funny when you actually look at the measures you claim are so dire. Did you know this number reached 11% under G.W. Bush?!? It went consistently down from 1994 to 2000....then it went up from 2000 to 2003, til Bush got it under control and pushed it back down to 7.6% in 2006, still about a percentage point higher than Clinton's low...and then in January 2009, Bush's last month in office, it was up to 15.4 with the hit of the recession. And then spiked, like I mentioned earlier. I wish these tables went back more than 20 years, they're fun. Here's a graphical representation, with my edits for when these guys came into office:

http://i.imgur.com/8iuZoqm.gif

Weird, how it does that.

[Atlanteax]

I thought gas was dropping as a result of Russia being so heavily dependent on the price of oil so other countries were dropping the price per barrel to F them.

It is known, but not spoken.

Increased US / etc production certainly helps avoid it being spoken.

[waywardgs]

Gas is dropping because oil is profitable to frack at 85$ a barrel and above. At less than that it's not worth it. Traditional oil producers know this, see the increase in fracking in the US, want to undermine our production, and are dropping the price to accomplish that. 80$ a barrel is not worth a frack. Giggity.

[Androidpk]

Gas is dropping because oil is profitable to frack at 85$ a barrel and above. At less than that it's not worth it. Traditional oil producers know this, see the increase in fracking in the US, want to undermine our production, and are dropping the price to accomplish that. 80$ a barrel is not worth a frack. Giggity.

Sounds plausible but the US isn't going to slow down production anytime soon, regardless of the price of oil.

[Parkbandit]

Gas is dropping because oil is profitable to frack at 85$ a barrel and above. At less than that it's not worth it. Traditional oil producers know this, see the increase in fracking in the US, want to undermine our production, and are dropping the price to accomplish that. 80$ a barrel is not worth a frack. Giggity.

I think that's more of the start up costs associated with fracking and small well exploration. If the operation is already in place and has been going on for a while, they can make a profit on less than $80 a barrel.

[Kembal]

I think that's more of the start up costs associated with fracking and small well exploration. If the operation is already in place and has been going on for a while, they can make a profit on less than $80 a barrel.

Correct. A lot of smaller producers are about to get hammered, since they can't spread out their fixed costs over a large number of wells. If the price keeps going down, it's going to get interesting around here in Houston.

[Back]

Anyone else notice how the fear propaganda has died down after the election?

[Parkbandit]

Anyone else notice how the fear propaganda has died down after the election?

Like "REPUBLICANS ARE WAGING A WAR ON WOMEN!"

or

"IF YOU ELECT REPUBLICANS, THE KKK WILL BE BACK!"

or

"IF YOU DON'T ELECT DEMOCRATS, BIRTH CONTROL WILL BE ABOLISHED!"

or

"IF YOU ELECT REPUBLICANS, CIVIL RIGHTS FOR BLACKS AND GAYS WILL BE SENT BACK TO THE CIVIL WAR ERA!"

[Back]

Uh, no. More like...

ISIS! EBOLA! PUTIN!

But now that you mention it some of those issues you tried to be sarcastic about actually are already happening.

[Gelston]

Uh, no. More like...

ISIS! EBOLA! PUTIN!

But now that you mention it some of those issues you tried to be sarcastic about actually are already happening.

I saw something just the other day about Russia sending in armored columns into Ukraine.

[Methais]

Uh, no. More like...

ISIS! EBOLA! PUTIN!

But now that you mention it some of those issues you tried to be sarcastic about actually are already happening.

Like what? Which of the following are you referring to? Is it:

A) "REPUBLICANS ARE WAGING A WAR ON WOMEN!"

or

B) "IF YOU ELECT REPUBLICANS, THE KKK WILL BE BACK!"

or

C) "IF YOU DON'T ELECT DEMOCRATS, BIRTH CONTROL WILL BE ABOLISHED!"

or

D) "IF YOU ELECT REPUBLICANS, CIVIL RIGHTS FOR BLACKS AND GAYS WILL BE SENT BACK TO THE CIVIL WAR ERA!"

?

WHICH ONE(S) BACK?!?!?!?

[Androidpk]

I saw something just the other day about Russia sending in armored columns into Ukraine.

Yup. 32 tanks, a bunch of mobile artillery, and transport trucks with troops. Just a humanitarian mission of course.

[Gelston]

Artillery is obviously used to fire food and democracy into harder to get to areas.

[Tgo01]

We are going to Democracy the shit out of you!

[Parkbandit]

Uh, no. More like...

ISIS! EBOLA! PUTIN!

But now that you mention it some of those issues you tried to be sarcastic about actually are already happening.

http://media0.giphy.com/media/lbgruqLVxzn4k/giphy.gif

[Tgo01]

Uh, no. More like...

ISIS! EBOLA! PUTIN!

But now that you mention it some of those issues you tried to be sarcastic about actually are already happening.

It's funny you're being so vague about this because I was just reading a news article about how to tell if someone is lying and of the signs was people tend to be very vague when they lie because it's easier to remember the lie.

So I guess saying "Some of these things are already happening" is easy to lie about because you're not providing any details at all.

This also explains a lot of Latrin's shit...

[Androidpk]

Putin is definitely a cause for concern giving his actions this year. Western sanctions and the rapid crash of the ruble aren't going to make things better either.

[Back]

It's funny you're being so vague about this because I was just reading a news article about how to tell if someone is lying and of the signs was people tend to be very vague when they lie because it's easier to remember the lie.

So I guess saying "Some of these things are already happening" is easy to lie about because you're not providing any details at all.

This also explains a lot of Latrin's shit...

Whatever Mr. A-gm-intimidated-me-but-I-wont-post-the-non-self-redacted-emails.

[Tgo01]

Whatever Mr. A-gm-intimidated-me-but-I-wont-post-the-non-self-redacted-emails.

I thought you had me on ignore? Must be another lie :p

[Tgo01]

Whatever Mr. A-gm-intimidated-me-but-I-wont-post-the-non-self-redacted-emails.

Oh yeah, this is another tactic of liars. When confronted about their lies they immediately start talking about someone else.

[Methais]

Oh yeah, this is another tactic of liars. When confronted about their lies they immediately start talking about someone else.

Backlash is a stereotype of all kinds of things that are made of fail.

[Parkbandit]

It's funny you're being so vague about this because I was just reading a news article about how to tell if someone is lying and of the signs was people tend to be very vague when they lie because it's easier to remember the lie.

So I guess saying "Some of these things are already happening" is easy to lie about because you're not providing any details at all.


To be fair to Packlash.. I honestly don't think he's lying. He's simply too dumb to know any better. This is what happens when you are a low information voter: You just believe whatever bullshit they are feeding you.

[Latrinsorm]

It's funny you're being so vague about this because I was just reading a news article about how to tell if someone is lying and of the signs was people tend to be very vague when they lie because it's easier to remember the lie.

So I guess saying "Some of these things are already happening" is easy to lie about because you're not providing any details at all.

This also explains a lot of Latrin's shit......you want me to type MORE words and numbers?

[Tgo01]

...you want me to type MORE words and numbers?

Yes. I also want you to take a firm stance on things instead of being vague and trying to drown out the vagueness with links and math and nonsense.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes. I also want you to take a firm stance on things instead of being vague and trying to drown out the vagueness with links and math and nonsense.When have I been infirm? How is math vague? Math is the opposite of vague, not to mention vogue. 4 = 4, not 1 or 2 or 3.

[Back]

If you republican fan-boys wonder why people don't like you it's because of what you just did in this thread. I asked a fairly innocuous question and no less than a few minutes later I'm being called dumb, a loser, and a liar.

Stay classy guys. Keep this kind of shit up and there is no way in hell you will win 2016.

[Tgo01]

People hate Republicans yet they just won like 40 seats?

[Gelston]

People hate Republicans yet they just won like 40 seats?

You didn't know that? You have to be hated to gain the majority of Congress.

[Ravenwood]

People hate Republicans yet they just won like 40 seats?

Correction: People dont hate Republicans, sub-human, degenerate, delusional, liberals do.

Theres a difference.

[Latrinsorm]

People hate Republicans yet they just won like 40 seats?And people call me a troll.
Correction: People dont hate Republicans, sub-human, degenerate, delusional, liberals do.

Theres a difference.Every time you post I think "Ravenbird's back! And his grammar has suffered terribly!" but no.

[Methais]

If you republican fan-boys wonder why people don't like you it's because of what you just did in this thread. I asked a fairly innocuous question and no less than a few minutes later I'm being called dumb, a loser, and a liar.

Stay classy guys. Keep this kind of shit up and there is no way in hell you will win 2016.

You quoted PB's post, said some of the things he mentioned are already happening, I asked you which ones, you wouldn't answer, get called out for your usual tap dancing, and then whine about being called stupid saying that's why people hate Republicans.

Even the super liberal Democrats on here think you're a moron of epic proportions. What's your excuse for that? Is that why people hate liberals?

I also can't help but notice that lately, saying "stay classy" seems to be the choice phrase for people after saying something really stupid and then being called out on it.

[Androidpk]

>This suggests that, apart from everybody's hate of Congress, people hardly "hate" either party.

Please clarify this statement.

[Methais]

People don't like either party. They just get forced to vote for the other side when the party in control hits the red zone on the fail scale.

[Gelston]

I hate all the parties. I also hate all Earthlings.

[Tgo01]

And people call me a troll.

What? Between governor seats, House seats, Senate seats, not to mention state congress seats I was actually probably underestimating.

Just working on my Latrin vagueness line of attack.

[Methais]

...you want me to type MORE words and numbers?

More words doesn't = more meaning.

Haven't you ever listened to an Obama speech?

[Tgo01]

Math is the opposite of vague, not to mention vogue. 4 = 4, not 1 or 2 or 3.

.999... = 1 so...yeah. Sometimes x != x

[Back]

You quoted PB's post, said some of the things he mentioned are already happening, I asked you which ones, you wouldn't answer, get called out for your usual tap dancing, and then whine about being called stupid saying that's why people hate Republicans.

Even the super liberal Democrats on here think you're a moron of epic proportions. What's your excuse for that? Is that why people hate liberals?

I also can't help but notice that lately, saying "stay classy" seems to be the choice phrase for people after saying something really stupid and then being called out on it.

PB's first response was an all out flame to my simple question. C'mon man.

My response to PB was honest then abridged to point out that even though he was trying to be sarcastic he is probably right. Gay marriage is already going back to the courts. The ACA is already going back to the courts. I think we stand to see some of our progress marched back a decade or so. It's no secret or a surprise either.

My original point is that leading up to the election there we all kinds of things to be afraid of and now its awfully quiet.

[Latrinsorm]

.999... = 1 so...yeah. Sometimes x != xYou're not good at this.

[Tgo01]

You're not good at this.

Take a stance and prove me wrong!!!111!.999...= 1!!!

[Parkbandit]

This is a great pointless discussion and I'm going to let all of you finish but Republicans pretty clearly control Congress and the Democrats pretty clearly control the White House. This suggests that, apart from everybody's hate of Congress, people hardly "hate" either party. If the power of third parties was really rising all of you might have more of a point.

Speaking of pointless......

[Parkbandit]

PB's first response was an all out flame to my simple question. C'mon man.

It was a retarded "question" though, given I gave you ample evidence of the type of propaganda you conveniently gobble up faster than a Packer at a Chippendale "Guys Get In Free" night.


My response to PB was honest then abridged to point out that even though he was trying to be sarcastic he is probably right. Gay marriage is already going back to the courts. The ACA is already going back to the courts.

Gay marriage has been going "back to the courts" for years now.. nothing to do with the election.

No one mentioned the ACA. At all.

So, when I gave you 4 examples of fear mongering that went on through this election and you said "derp, derp But now that you mention it some of those issues you tried to be sarcastic about actually are already happening", maybe you should be specific of which ones you believe started because of the results of the election...


I think we stand to see some of our progress marched back a decade or so. It's no secret or a surprise either.

You understand your idea of "progress" and normal people's idea are two completely different things, right?


My original point is that leading up to the election there we all kinds of things to be afraid of and now its awfully quiet.

It's because the election is over. This happens every 2 years in this country.

[Parkbandit]

Right up there with being insulting when someone doesn't even take a position against anyone.


I know you attempted to post something intelligent to make people really believe you have a useful brain.. but I think we can both agree you fell flat and contributed nothing more than anyone else.

Well.. maybe slightly more than Packlash.. but not by much.

:sorry:

[Vorpos]

Anyone else notice how the fear propaganda has died down after the election?

Anyone notice how Obama waited until after the election to wage more war in Iraq?

[Androidpk]

Anyone notice how Obama waited until after the election to wage more war in Iraq?

Not particularly, no. Troop levels and operations have steadily been increasing ever since the first 300 "advisors" were deployed.

[Warriorbird]

I know you attempted to post something intelligent to make people really believe you have a useful brain.. but I think we can both agree you fell flat and contributed nothing more than anyone else.

Well.. maybe slightly more than Packlash.. but not by much.

:sorry:

What fills you with so much bile? Is it that not everybody else thinks the way you do? I'm sorry that you feel this is how you have to carry out your life.

[Parkbandit]

What fills you with so much bile?

Stupid people.


Is it that not everybody else thinks the way you do? I'm sorry that you feel this is how you have to carry out your life.

I must be doing something right... I honestly don't have too many dumb people in my life.

[Warriorbird]

Stupid people.



I must be doing something right... I honestly don't have too many dumb people in my life.

Even in Florida Democrats poll above 40%. Since you think everybody who doesn't agree with you is stupid you do a pretty terrible job. You're surrounded.

Have a pleasant evening.

[Wrathbringer]

Stupid people.



I must be doing something right... I honestly don't have too many dumb people in my life.

Um, sir, you frequent the PC. You have plenty of dumb people in your life.

[Haldrik]

People hate all politics in general. 10% approval rate in congress. But it was really about voter turn out this year. Only old people vote in midterm and they tend to be republican. Which is weird cuz republicans would probably cut off their medical and SSI.

[Warriorbird]

People hate all politics in general. 10% approval rate in congress. But it was really about voter turn out this year. Only old people vote in midterm and they tend to be republican. Which is weird cuz republicans would probably cut off their medical and SSI.

Spot on. Obama also did a crap job of any meaningful immigration reform.

[Atlanteax]

Spot on. Obama also did a crap job of any meaningful immigration reform.

I thought Obama recently threatened to act unilaterally on immigration... bipartisanship be damned

[Warriorbird]

I thought Obama recently threatened to act unilaterally on immigration... bipartisanship be damned

Much like his threats to Syria, this was another one without balls to back it up. I'm sure the Hispanic population would have taken him acting unilaterally seriously if it had happened 2 years ago.

[Androidpk]

I thought Obama recently threatened to act unilaterally on immigration... bipartisanship be damned

He keeps saying he's going to use executive authority to pass immigration reform some time before the end of the year but it would be a huge mistake on his part.

[Parkbandit]

Since you think everybody who doesn't agree with you is stupid you do a pretty terrible job. You're surrounded.

This is where you are being stupid. Again.


Have a pleasant evening.

I did. I went to a birthday dinner for a friend, then went to the "casino" where I won $195. I would have won $220, but I talked my wife into playing $1 slots. NEVER talk your wife into playing $1 slots....

[Parkbandit]

People hate all politics in general. 10% approval rate in congress. But it was really about voter turn out this year.

You should have stopped right about here.. because all this is true...


Only old people vote in midterm and they tend to be republican.

This is when the Stupidity Train left the station, going full speed ahead....


Which is weird cuz republicans would probably cut off their medical and SSI.

And crashed right into MSNBC. Only the dumbest types of low information voters would even agree with this...


Spot on.

Oh...

[Parkbandit]

He keeps saying he's going to use executive authority to pass immigration reform some time before the end of the year but it would be a huge mistake on his part.

I agree it's the wrong move for the President.. but I don't think it would be as much of a 'huge mistake' as you think. The Republicans are mostly all talk when dealing with Obama and don't have the balls to do anything.

[Latrinsorm]

You should have stopped right about here.. because all this is true...

This is when the Stupidity Train left the station, going full speed ahead....

And crashed right into MSNBC. Only the dumbest types of low information voters would even agree with this...

Oh...I should probably know better than to ask, but which part specifically do you think is stupid: that the elderly skew Republican? that the elderly % is higher in midterms than proper elections? Let's see what facts have to tell us (I mean, I SAY "us" but...):

Do the elderly skew Republican?

We can track this phenomenon over time on this site (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx), and see that yes, the elderly do skew Republican by about 5% and have done so the last several elections.

Is the elderly % of the vote higher in midterms?

We find 16% (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/demographics-2010-vs-2008/) in 08 and 23% in 10 (ibid), 16% (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html) in 12, 22% (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/as-gop-celebrates-win-no-sign-of-narrowing-gender-age-gaps/) in 14. Please note that this third source says the elderly % was only 21% in 10, but obviously that's still much higher than 16%.

.

I'm glad we settled that. :)

[Warriorbird]

I should probably know better than to ask, but which part specifically do you think is stupid: that the elderly skew Republican? that the elderly % is higher in midterms than proper elections? Let's see what facts have to tell us (I mean, I SAY "us" but...):

Do the elderly skew Republican?

We can track this phenomenon over time on this site (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx), and see that yes, the elderly do skew Republican by about 5% and have done so the last several elections.

Is the elderly % of the vote higher in midterms?

We find 16% (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/demographics-2010-vs-2008/) in 08 and 23% in 10 (ibid), 16% (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html) in 12, 22% (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/as-gop-celebrates-win-no-sign-of-narrowing-gender-age-gaps/) in 14. Please note that this third source says the elderly % was only 21% in 10, but obviously that's still much higher than 16%.

.

I'm glad we settled that. :)

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

[Jeril]

I should probably know better than to ask, but which part specifically do you think is stupid: that the elderly skew Republican? that the elderly % is higher in midterms than proper elections? Let's see what facts have to tell us (I mean, I SAY "us" but...):

Do the elderly skew Republican?

We can track this phenomenon over time on this site (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx), and see that yes, the elderly do skew Republican by about 5% and have done so the last several elections.

Is the elderly % of the vote higher in midterms?

We find 16% (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/demographics-2010-vs-2008/) in 08 and 23% in 10 (ibid), 16% (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html) in 12, 22% (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/as-gop-celebrates-win-no-sign-of-narrowing-gender-age-gaps/) in 14. Please note that this third source says the elderly % was only 21% in 10, but obviously that's still much higher than 16%.

.

I'm glad we settled that. :)

What is the total number of elderly that voted in each? Not the %.

[Androidpk]

What is the total number of elderly that voted in each? Not the %.

42.

[Parkbandit]

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

There is no reality in the following statements:

"Only old people vote in midterm"

"republicans would probably cut off their medical and SSI"

But other than those glaring flaws in your "reality", yea.. it's "spot on"......

[Haldrik]

Sorry I didn't know I was writing an article for the New York times.

The majority of voters in midterms are republics. Most of them are elderly. Most of the young/women/minority which generally vote democrat, do not vote in the midterms.

Republicans would cut off medical, e.g. Affordable Care Act. Once someone is no longer elligable for medi-cal, (12K for single I believe) there is a good chance if they make 20-30k they won't be getting medical through their jobs. So any elderly where someone doesn't qualify for medi-cal and doesn't have insurance elsewhere and is making above $12k a year is boned.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry I didn't know I was writing an article for the New York times.

You don't have to write for a liberal rag to be an effective communicator.


The majority of voters in midterms are republics.

Wrong. If this was the case, Democrats would never have won so many seats in 2006.


Most of them are elderly.

Again, this is incorrect. Only 22% were "elderly". http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/11/05/midterm-election-turnout/18537907/


Most of the young/women/minority which generally vote democrat, do not vote in the midterms.

I don't have the stats available for people who vote but do not vote in any midterm elections. I guess you can give me a link and we can take a look.


Republicans would cut off medical, e.g. Affordable Care Act.

That's not what you said. You said "Only old people vote in midterm and they tend to be republican. Which is weird cuz republicans would probably cut off their medical and SSI."

Elderly medical care tends to be taken care of by Medicare and Medicaid, not the ACA. And what happened to where you claimed Republicans want to ban Social Security?


Once someone is no longer elligable for medi-cal, (12K for single I believe) there is a good chance if they make 20-30k they won't be getting medical through their jobs.

What?


So any elderly where someone doesn't qualify for medi-cal and doesn't have insurance elsewhere and is making above $12k a year is boned.

Whatx2?

[Warriorbird]

There is no reality in the following statements:

"Only old people vote in midterm"

"republicans would probably cut off their medical and SSI"

But other than those glaring flaws in your "reality", yea.. it's "spot on"......

Paul Ryan would have most most certainly cut those things off if he could in spite of going to college based on Social Security disability payouts. He's like that.

Only old people vote in midterms is an exaggeration, obviously if you can read, but the lower youth turnout and lower Hispanic support most certainly damaged the Democrats.

[Androidpk]

Paul Ryan is irrelevant.

[Parkbandit]

Paul Ryan would have most most certainly cut those things off if he could in spite of going to college based on Social Security disability payouts. He's like that.

So, it's your contention that Paul Ryan wants to do away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Do you have a source?


Only old people vote in midterms is an exaggeration, obviously if you can read

This makes no sense, since that is exactly what I read.


but the lower youth turnout and lower Hispanic support most certainly damaged the Democrats.

That's what happens when you can't get your base mobilized to support your politics. You know that's what the whole point of campaigning is about.. right?

[Warriorbird]

So, it's your contention that Paul Ryan wants to do away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Do you have a source?



This makes no sense, since that is exactly what I read.



That's what happens when you can't get your base mobilized to support your politics. You know that's what the whole point of campaigning is about.. right?

You of course never read Paul Ryan's "budget" so it would be unsurprising that you asked for a source.

When you never speak with hyperbole for emphasis your nitpicking on the rest will make some sense.

[Parkbandit]

You of course never read Paul Ryan's "budget" so it would be unsurprising that you asked for a source.

I have read it... it says nothing about eliminating Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Which Paul Ryan Budget did you read?

Just give us the quote of where he wants to do away with those 3 programs.



When you never speak with hyperbole for emphasis your nitpicking on the rest will make some sense.

I have "never" said I "never" speak with hyperbole.

I have stated that I use it far less than you though.

I await the quote from Paul Ryan's Budget that he wants to eliminate the 3 programs we discussed. I can't believe I missed this breaking news.

[Warriorbird]

I have read it... it says nothing about eliminating Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Which Paul Ryan Budget did you read?

Just give us the quote of where he wants to do away with those 3 programs.



I have "never" said I "never" speak with hyperbole.

I have stated that I use it far less than you though.

I await the quote from Paul Ryan's Budget that he wants to eliminate the 3 programs we discussed. I can't believe I missed this breaking news.

Entirely changing what a program is while keeping the name the same is ending a program.

His stuff was so wacky that the Bush Administration called it "irresponsible."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB110496995612018199

Then he advocated total privatization twice more.

His most recent plan is decimating Medicare after he dismantles the ACA.

Let us not forget his 26% cut in Medicaid.

The last two I mentioned are just his most recent proposals. He has a long career of trying to screw the people who got the benefits he did.

[Parkbandit]

Entirely changing what a program is while keeping the name the same is ending a program.

His stuff was so wacky that the Bush Administration called it "irresponsible."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB110496995612018199

Then he advocated total privatization twice more.

His most recent plan is decimating Medicare after he dismantles the ACA.

Let us not forget his 26% cut in Medicaid.

The last two I mentioned are just his most recent proposals. He has a long career of trying to screw the people who got the benefits he did.

So.. you don't have a quote of where he wants to do away with Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid?

There's a shock...

[Warriorbird]

So.. you don't have a quote of where he wants to do away with Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid?

There's a shock...

In the course of three budget proposals he's advocated the complete change of our current Social Security system into something else. Most recently he's supported both removing the power of the ACA and simultaneously forcing people on Medicaid onto it.

He totally sounds like an advocate.

Carry on in your Paul Ryan is all about some entitlements fantasyland.

[Parkbandit]

In the course of three budget proposals he's advocated the complete change of our current Social Security system into something else. Most recently he's supported both removing the power of the ACA and simultaneously forcing people on Medicaid onto it.

He totally sounds like an advocate.

Carry on in your Paul Ryan is all about some entitlements fantasyland.

I don't consider Social Security an "entitlement".. and I never brought up Paul Ryan. That was you.

I wasn't expecting someone to actually try defend the ridiculous statement of "Which is weird cuz republicans would probably cut off their medical and SSI."

But leave it to you to do the ridiculous...

So.. still no quote on how he wants to eliminate these 3 programs?

[Warriorbird]

I don't consider Social Security an "entitlement".. and I never brought up Paul Ryan. That was you.

I wasn't expecting someone to actually try defend the ridiculous statement of "Which is weird cuz republicans would probably cut off their medical and SSI."

But leave it to you to do the ridiculous...

So.. still no quote on how he wants to eliminate these 3 programs?

Just because I don't want to rehash 3 budgets hardly removes the contents of them.

Carry on with the 1984 shtick.

[Parkbandit]

Just because I don't want to rehash 3 budgets hardly removes the contents of them.

Carry on with the 1984 shtick.

Of course.

So.. you still have nothing.

Sounds like the story of your life.

[Warriorbird]

Of course.

So.. you still have nothing.

Sounds like the story of your life.

We have you trying to paint Paul Ryan as a defender of programs that he doesn't want to exist.

Then we have you begging because you're unwilling to read or research yourself.

Then you try to somehow use grammar to make your argument convincing.

Then you make insults because you're unable to accept that anyone disagrees with you or you could be wrong.

Pretty standard magical thinking.

[Haldrik]

We have you trying to paint Paul Ryan as a defender of programs that he doesn't want to exist.

Then we have you begging because you're unwilling to read or research yourself.

Then you try to somehow use grammar to make your argument convincing.

Then you make insults because you're unable to accept that anyone disagrees with you or you could be wrong.

Pretty standard magical thinking.

Nicely done. I was just going to ignore him as a delusional lunatic but you summed it up nicely.

[~Rocktar~]

Nicely done. I was just going to ignore him as a delusional lunatic but you summed it up nicely.

Don't feed the troll.

[Parkbandit]

We have you trying to paint Paul Ryan as a defender of programs that he doesn't want to exist.

Actually, this is incorrect. You decided to defend a stupid comment with a stupid example. I'm only asking you to provide the quote of Paul Ryan saying he wanted to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Nothing more.

There was no defense, because one isn't required.


Then we have you begging because you're unwilling to read or research yourself.

The way forums work is: You make a retarded claim.. I simply ask that you back it up. You haven't. Until you do, I can continue to make fun of you.

Those are the rules.


Then you try to somehow use grammar to make your argument convincing.

Not really at all. I'm merely pointing out stupidity and then sitting back and watching more as you try to defend it.


Then you make insults because you're unable to accept that anyone disagrees with you or you could be wrong.

Poor thing. I bet your feeling are pretty hurt at this point.


Pretty standard magical thinking.

Not really.

[Warriorbird]

Actually, this is incorrect. You decided to defend a stupid comment with a stupid example. I'm only asking you to provide the quote of Paul Ryan saying he wanted to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Nothing more.

There was no defense, because one isn't required.



The way forums work is: You make a retarded claim.. I simply ask that you back it up. You haven't. Until you do, I can continue to make fun of you.

Those are the rules.



Not really at all. I'm merely pointing out stupidity and then sitting back and watching more as you try to defend it.



Poor thing. I bet your feeling are pretty hurt at this point.



Not really.

Clutch grammar based argument. Get back to me with how that works out for you.

I'm also deeply interested in how Paul Ryan supports entitlements.

[Parkbandit]

Clutch grammar based argument. Get back to me with how that works out for you.

I'm also deeply interested in how Paul Ryan supports entitlements.

So, in summary:

Haldrick - Republicans probably want to eliminate Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
Warriorbird - SPOT ON!
Parkbandit - You're an idiot, no they don't.
WB - Yes they do! Paul Ryan most certainly cut off those programs off if he could.
PB - Do you have a quote?
WB - Yes, just read his budgets. It's in there.
PB - Um, I don't think you understand what eliminate or cut off means. Just provide us with the quote.
WB - I don't have to! I said it, it's your responsibility to disprove my claims!
PB - Um, that's not the way forums work. You're an idiot.
WB - STOP CALLING ME NAMES! Is too how it works.
PB - You are mistaken.
WB - You said Paul Ryan supports entitlements! YOU SAID IT!
PB - WTF?

[Warriorbird]

So, in summary:

Haldrick - Republicans probably want to eliminate Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
Warriorbird - SPOT ON!
Parkbandit - You're an idiot, no they don't.
WB - Yes they do! Paul Ryan most certainly cut off those programs off if he could.
PB - Do you have a quote?
WB - Yes, just read his budgets. It's in there.
PB - Um, I don't think you understand what eliminate or cut off means. Just provide us with the quote.
WB - I don't have to! I said it, it's your responsibility to disprove my claims!
PB - Um, that's not the way forums work. You're an idiot.
WB - STOP CALLING ME NAMES! Is too how it works.
PB - You are mistaken.
WB - You said Paul Ryan supports entitlements! YOU SAID IT!
PB - WTF?

Please convince me of your clutch Paul Ryan pro entitlement argument. I'm curious to hear it.

[Parkbandit]

Please convince me of your clutch Paul Ryan pro entitlement argument. I'm curious to hear it.

Can you show me where I said Paul Ryan is pro entitlement? It's probably on the same website where Paul Ryan's quoted about trying to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Or did you mean I should convince you of your concoction of how I said Paul Ryan is pro entitlement?

Holy Hell, you're on fire in this thread! You might be pitch hitting for Tsa'ah and batting .2000 again.

[Latrinsorm]

What is the total number of elderly that voted in each? Not the %.Well, we can get total turnout here (www.electproject.org) and just multiply through:

132.6 * .16 = 21.2m
90.9 * .22 = 20.0m
130.3 * .16 = 20.8m
82.6 * .22 = 18.2m (projected)

Why do you ask?
Wrong. If this was the case, Democrats would never have won so many seats in 2006.It is the case that midterm elections favor the opposition party, therefore the statement "the majority of voters in midterms are [Republicans]" is correct because we currently have a Democratic President: card-carrying member of the Socialist Party is just an expression, he's still a registered Democrat. If you want to read further into his statement than what it actually says, you're the one who is wrong.

[Jeril]

Well, we can get total turnout here (www.electproject.org) and just multiply through:

132.6 * .16 = 21.2m
90.9 * .22 = 20.0m
130.3 * .16 = 20.8m
82.6 * .22 = 18.2m (projected)

Why do you ask?

Well to me saying the elderly have a greater voter turn out during midterms seems a bit misleading. The elderly seem to be rather consistent in their turn out going by your numbers. A greater percent of them may show up compared to everyone else but only because less of everyone else shows up not because more of them are voting.

[Latrinsorm]

Well to me saying the elderly have a greater voter turn out during midterms seems a bit misleading. The elderly seem to be rather consistent in their turn out going by your numbers. A greater percent of them may show up compared to everyone else but only because less of everyone else shows up not because more of them are voting.The original comment merely notes that mid-term demographics are skewed to the elderly. That this can be accomplished in two ways arithmetically (more elderly or less of everyone else) is interesting in its own right but not really relevant to the original claim, which only takes a position on whether the skew occurs at all.