Senate Races 2014
I see the GOP ending up with a 52-48 majority though multiple races are still in play. This assumes you count Sanders and King as a (D).
NC could still go the GOP way since Hagan has not gotten close to 50% yet and even if Kansas the GOP they will still be in control with a 51-49 majority.
I see this as 2006 all over again where the Presidents few remaining supporters stay home and the GOP comes out. Even when he was popular, many of the Obama voters stayed home in 2010.
I know Bob will agree with this, but what do others think and is anyone willing to wager on the outcome? Because at the end of the day, I am up for wagers on anything interesting and this should prove to be a nail biter to early in the morning after Alaska or even into December with LA.
Can an independent unseat an incumbent republican in Kansas.
2016 things turn around for dems.
Republicans gotta defend a ton of seats in 2 years.
Quote: terapined
2016 things turn around for dems.
.
Sure, after 2 more years of no leadership
in Obama, we'll just be chomping at the bit
to stick another Dem in there. You betcha..
What I don't get is the polls. Silver has the
Right winning the senate at a 60% chance,
yet others have it as high as 95%. RCP has
it a dead heat. Polls are worthless.
On the day after the election, go to amazon.com and order a pallet of duck food for next day delivery to the White House. Obama has proven himself incapable of getting anything done unless he has a supermajority. To work with the other party when they are in power will be impossible. He knows only how to attack the other side or take his ball and go home. Of course he will blame the GOP for "not doing its job" as if it is the job of Congress to just do what POTUS wants.
Meanwhile, the economy is right on the edge and the financial markets are going to have to learn to do without their meth connection that has been the Fed since 2008. Loss of easy credit will slow auto sales and the housing market. Obama's popularity will be near Bush levels by 2016. History will not be kind to him as far as foreign policy goes.
Quote: EvenBobSure, after 2 more years of no leadership
in Obama, we'll just be chomping at the bit
to stick another Dem in there. You betcha..
What I don't get is the polls. Silver has the
Right winning the senate at a 60% chance,
yet others have it as high as 95%. RCP has
it a dead heat. Polls are worthless.
95%? Who failed statistics? I really hope this year's race winds up in a 50-50 tie so that Biden has to hang out and ask every day if he gets to actually be useful.
2016's races are interesting because of who the incumbents are and where they're from. Republicans have to defend seats in WI, OH, IA, IL, NH, FL, and PA. 2016 has the GOP defending seats in blue and purple states, like how the dems are defending seats in red states in this cycle.
Quote: rdw4potus95%? Who failed statistics? .
I was wrong, it's 98%. And some Dems are
screaming bloody murder at Silver and his
60%. No worries, I'm sure he'll back it down
the just over 50 a few days before the election.
Polls are worthless.
Quote: rdw4potus
2016's races are interesting because of who the incumbents are and where they're from. Republicans have to defend seats in WI, OH, IA, IL, NH, FL, and PA. 2016 has the GOP defending seats in blue and purple states, like how the dems are defending seats in red states in this cycle.
2016 will go to whoever has the most energy in their POTUS candidate. If history is a guide that will be the GOP. So far Obama has strangely paralleled Bush in very many things. I predict a similar collapse to Bush in approval rating. ISIS can only hurt him as the libs are anti-any-war and the conservatives will not support paying for the same real estate twice. Ebola is nothing to worry about but watch the media keep hyping it. The economy keeps just crawling, ready to sputter.
It will be more interesting times.
Quote: rdw4potusI really hope this year's race winds up in a 50-50 tie so that Biden has to hang out and ask every day if he gets to actually be useful.
No thanks...Biden doesn't need to prove his uselessness...
Quote: RonCNo thanks...Biden doesn't need to prove his uselessness...
Please tell him to stop doing so then.
Quote: EvenBobI was wrong, it's 98%. And some Dems are
screaming bloody murder at Silver and his
60%. No worries, I'm sure he'll back it down
the just over 50 a few days before the election.
Polls are worthless.
Nobody on the left is screaming bloody murder at Silver. On the left, his predictions are viewed the bell weather of where the voting public stands factoring in all the available data.
You hear nothing on the left regarding skewed polls.
The skewed polls is a Fox/right issue whenever they don't like the results.
If you look Nate's display
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/
8 leading republicans have a chance of losing, yes polls are somewhat worthless
4 leading Dems have a chance of losing.
Overall Nate still has Repubs at 60.1 %
What's fascinating is Kansas, almost a toss up with an Independent in a slight lead.
Quote: terapined
Overall Nate still has Repubs at 60.1 %
NYT is 75%, Wash Post is 94%, one of
the big 3 networks has it a tossup. Yup,
polls are sooooo accurate.
Quote: EvenBobYup,
polls are sooooo accurate.
Didn't you also say this leading up to 2012's election? And then the polls were right and you were ridiculously wrong. Why try again?
say 95% when another says 50/50?
You have a different definition of
'accurate' than I do. It won't matter,
3 days before the election they'll cover
their asses and tighten them all up anyway.
I personally don't care which side wins,
with Obummer in office we're all screwed
anyway, no matter which side you're on.
Long live the King..
Quote: EvenBobSo you think it's accurate for a poll to
say 95% when another says 50/50?
You have a different definition of
'accurate' than I do. It won't matter,
3 days before the election they'll cover
their asses and tighten them all up anyway.
I think it's laughably inaccurate to refer to those models as "polls." Maybe we can start with that?
Nate Silver's method lookssolid to me. He's predicting the -most- likely result is 52/48, right now. I would expect the 60% number to increase over the next few days provided everything stays the same... the error bars get smaller, which narrows the range of results, giving it more and more likely to end in a Republican Majority. I would be -very- surprised if he bows to any external call to change his numbers. It's his stock in trade to report accurate statistics, not to pander to spin.
"This year, Democrats have been upset with Silver’s predictions that Republicans are likely to retake the Senate. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) mocked Silver at a fundraising luncheon in Seattle that was also addressed by Vice President Biden, according to a White House pool report on Thursday.
More generally, Democratic strategist Brent Budowsky, a columnist for The Hill, recently wrote, “There are so many razor-thin Senate races that confident predictions of which party holds Senate control are, to paraphrase a line from Jack Nicholson in ‘Chinatown’, wind from a duck’s derriere.”"
http://www.electionnewschannel.com/index.php/97-top-news/10408-dems-don-t-trust-the-polls
Quote: thecesspitI can't find anyone predicting a 95% chance of the Republicans having a majority.
"The Washington Post Election Lab. The Monkey Cage's political scientists forecast the House and Senate races. Republicans are favored to control the Senate. 93% chance."
They give the house 99%.
Quote: EvenBob"The Washington Post Election Lab. The Monkey Cage's political scientists forecast the House and Senate races. Republicans are favored to control the Senate. 93% chance."
They give the house 99%.
Cheers, the reason seems clear :
"At Election Lab, we have always had a smaller margin of error than the other modelers."
The polls are one thing, the way the modellers use that poll data to create a probability is another. There's more moving parts than a straight up presidential election. Does seem that some Dems are as naive about polling as some Reps... I dunno why they get so upset about 'bad numbers'. They are what they are... attacking the opinion poll seems to be spending energy in the wrong direction. Are they REALLY worried that people won't vote due to the poll values? Well, that's probably because it means they are fuggering up their campaigns, and people just don't care.
To bad, so sad.
Quote: thecesspitI dunno why they get so upset about 'bad numbers'. They are what they are...
Depends on how and why they're bad for me. Some firms poll registered voters, others poll likely voters. Some firms don't call cell phones. Some firms call all area codes equally, others load-weight by area code utilization. Some firms poll in multiple languages, some firms poll in english only.
Could probably create an artificial 10-15 point spread in the FL governor's race polling by doing one poll of registered voters and calling cell phones and polling in spanish, and then doing another poll of likely voters and calling only landlines and only polling in english.
Quote: RonCSome Democrats are a bit upset about Nate Silver's projections:
"This year, Democrats have been upset with Silver’s predictions that Republicans are likely to retake the Senate. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) mocked Silver at a fundraising luncheon in Seattle that was also addressed by Vice President Biden, according to a White House pool report on Thursday.
More generally, Democratic strategist Brent Budowsky, a columnist for The Hill, recently wrote, “There are so many razor-thin Senate races that confident predictions of which party holds Senate control are, to paraphrase a line from Jack Nicholson in ‘Chinatown’, wind from a duck’s derriere.”"
http://www.electionnewschannel.com/index.php/97-top-news/10408-dems-don-t-trust-the-polls
This is so absurd.
Pick 2 dems out of million, Heitkamp and Budowsky. WTF. I never heard of these 2 clowns but of course the right uses their views to paint an entire party.
Cmon, how about a quote from a KNOWN Dem.
You ask your average informed voter about Heitkamp or Budowsky, you get, never heard of them, answer.
Gotta search deep and far to finds dems dissing Silver. Its a big party. Tons on clowns on the right and left, but those clown views are their own.
Just because a clown on the left or right has an extreme view, it doesn't paint an entire party with that view.
coming in 2 weeks. The experts say if the
Right wins the WH in 2016, Obama will
have screwed the Dem party for the next
15 to 20 years. It will take them that long
to ever get the congress and WH at
the same time again. If Hillary gets the
nomination, she'll lose. We can only hope
she gets it and not some electable lib..
If Obama continues to work his magic
for the next 2 years, it won't matter who
they nominate.
Quote: EvenBobThe experts say if the
Right wins the WH in 2016, Obama will
have screwed the Dem party for the next
15 to 20 years.
I don't think this is true. In 2008, it looked pretty bleak for repubs, having been trounced with Dems controlling both chambers of congress and the presidency. And this on the heels of 2006 midterms, which also was a big win for dems, many thought it would be decades before the repubs would rebound and mount any kind of opposition. Instead it took 2 years. The public has a very short leash and memory for both sides. We are living in an era where people want instant results and if they don't get them, they can turn on a dime.
I am still holding hope that dems hold the senate this year but the gap between what I hope for and what is likely reality seems to be growing wider by the day. I am a realist and I recognize this, not like the repubs in 2012, who held this delusionary alternate reality based on 'skewed polls', only to find out that the polls where pretty accurate (as long as you dismiss any outliers).
I hope for your sake, EB, that you get the big win you are hoping for in 2 weeks. I would hate to see you disappear again for another year. :)
Quote: EvenBobThe best part of this isn't what's probably
coming in 2 weeks. The experts say if the
Right wins the WH in 2016, Obama will
have screwed the Dem party for the next
15 to 20 years. It will take them that long
to ever get the congress and WH at
the same time again. If Hillary gets the
nomination, she'll lose. We can only hope
she gets it and not some electable lib..
If Obama continues to work his magic
for the next 2 years, it won't matter who
they nominate.
The 'experts' are mere talking heads and full of nonsense. Obama may have screwed his party for eight years, but no president will have a effect over two decades in making them unelectable for that long. US politics is so close between the parties, there will be a rebound at some point. Plus, it completely disregards the possibility of the next Republican president being a screw up as well.
Quote: thecesspitPlus, it completely disregards the possibility of the next Republican president being a screw up as well.
And also not quite foreseen but pivotal events that change the trajectory. A pandemic of Ebola could be one. 9/11 was for Bush.
You can never be sure what or if the next thing will be. China could go bust. Some nation could nuke another nation. Peace could break out.
Quote: terapinedThis is so absurd.
Pick 2 dems out of million, Heitkamp and Budowsky. WTF. I never heard of these 2 clowns but of course the right uses their views to paint an entire party.
Cmon, how about a quote from a KNOWN Dem.
You ask your average informed voter about Heitkamp or Budowsky, you get, never heard of them, answer.
Gotta search deep and far to finds dems dissing Silver. Its a big party. Tons on clowns on the right and left, but those clown views are their own.
Just because a clown on the left or right has an extreme view, it doesn't paint an entire party with that view.
This response is "absurd"...I said some Dems and quoted some Dems. They don't think Silver is right. They think the margins are thinner than predicted. I didn't paint the whole party anything...I painted a few Dems that way.
There is room for differences among how Dems feel about things...and some do feel differently. That is all I said.
**facepalm**
Quote: EvenBobThe best part of this isn't what's probably
coming in 2 weeks. The experts say if the
Right wins the WH in 2016, Obama will
have screwed the Dem party for the next
15 to 20 years. It will take them that long
to ever get the congress and WH at
the same time again. If Hillary gets the
nomination, she'll lose. We can only hope
she gets it and not some electable lib..
If Obama continues to work his magic
for the next 2 years, it won't matter who
they nominate.
This post is HILARIOUS.
And wrong on so so so many levels.
Let's all take political advice from EvenBob, the man who was so wrong in 2012 he disappeared from the boards for months and months because it took that long to wipe the egg off his face.
Quote: ams288This post is HILARIOUS.
And wrong on so so so many levels.
Let's all take political advice from EvenBob, the man who was so wrong in 2012 he disappeared from the boards for months and months because it took that long to wipe the egg off his face.
The Republican party was dead after 2012 (heck, some of us weren't so sure what happened to EB then, either...) and the Democrats will be dead in 2016 if they lose the Presidency.
Both are wrong--the country is too close to the middle for either one to happen. They may be in bad shape after big losses, but the other party always does just enough to screw things up to help bring them back to life.
Quote: RonCThe Republican party was dead after 2012 (heck, some of us weren't so sure what happened to EB then, either...) and the Democrats will be dead in 2016 if they lose the Presidency.
Both are wrong--the country is too close to the middle for either one to happen. They may be in bad shape after big losses, but the other party always does just enough to screw things up to help bring them back to life.
The two major parties are just different parts of the same system that like to fight with each other for ultimate power, the system was always set up to make things hard to get done so they are happy to collude. We have for the past 55 years been in a situation where the default POTUS is for the GOP to win unless they screw up or there are major winds against them.
The Democrat Party had it locked with FDR and Truman, but after that they would never get the same lock. JFK squeaked in, LBJ rode off that wave but when his turn came for re-election he didn't even run. If not for Watergate Carter would probably have not won. The 1980s were the peak of GOP power with Reagan crushing it then the first Bush. Clinton never got a majority of the vote. So from 1952-2008 you have only Carter getting a strong majority in his own right.
In 2008 you had the perfect storm of an old-school financial panic along with a very unpopular GOP incumbent. This was taken as "everything has changed" by the talking heads. In 2012 Obama was re-elected with a most unusual lesser support than he had four years earlier. Now he will if things hold out be at least as unpopular as Bush was in 2008, with an added racial-strain with blacks supporting him until the bitter end vs. the rest of the USA who will be 80% against him. 2016 will be bitter.
It will not, however, change the social and economic waves in the nation. Socially the USA is as split as it has been since 1855, and this will keep growing. It happens in any large society. Economically the structure is due for a change as the wave that began in the early 1980s ends up played out and a new way to run a good company needs to be found. It will be most fun in 2020 or 2024.
May you live in interesting times.
evidence is irrefutable that the cop was defending
himself and there will not be any charges, probably.
How will this affect the election. Obama went out
on a limb saying the beheadings were the same
as what happened in Ferguson. Now it turns out
he was totally wrong in what happened. Will he
open his big mouth again and insert his foot even
farther?
The Dems former lover Nate Silver has the Dems
losing the senate by almost 66% today, up 4
points in 2 days. Can Obama make it 70% by
working his magic?
Quote: EvenBob
Obama went out
on a limb saying the beheadings were the same
as what happened in Ferguson.
Please cite your source. I have a hard time believing this.
Source please for exact Obama quote regarding the statement above that I believe is false.
Quote: terapinedPlease cite your source. I have a hard time believing this.
.
You don't know about this? It was all over
the real news.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/092514-719049-obama-applies-moral-equivalence-between-cops-and-jihadists.htm
I'm sure this is the reason you're only hearing
about it now.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2014/09/24/networks-dodge-obama-comparing-isis-unrest-events-ferguson
Quote: terapinedPlease cite your source. I have a hard time believing this.
Source please for exact Obama quote regarding the statement above that I believe is false.
Thanks for the softball.
From Obama's September 24, 2014 speech to the UN (transcript as posted on http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/24/remarks-president-obama-address-united-nations-general-assembly):
Quote: President_ObamaI realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within its own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri -- where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So, yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.
This paragraph is about 3/4 of the way down the transcript, and is immediately preceded by topics including taking action against immediate threats, Gaza/West Bank, and, more generally, a discussion about religious tensions in various parts of the world, including the ideology of "ISIL," the beheadings, and associated videos.
The comparison is clear, present, and undeniable. ISIL beheads and videotapes it; in America, we have Ferguson as our tension.
The only possible work-around ... which he does not mention nor imply, and thus if you see it you would be doing exactly what you say EvenBob has done ... is to invent the dynamic that our version is much less important or extreme. It's certainly as lethal: Michael Brown is just as dead as Stephen Sotloff.
Of course, if you use that work-around, then you betray the myriad of election ads saying that Republicans/Conservatives are extreme, such as those going out in North Carolina.
Ah, North Carolina, where, ESPN reports, liberal African-American professors passed many African-American athletes with mickey mouse courses to the point where they can't read or think. So ... which group is knowingly keeping African-Americans in ignorance and publishing vile, race-baiting ads? Answer ... liberal Democrats. It's the modern political version of "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant."
So ... either acknowledge Obama compares beheadings to Ferguson, or expose yourself to be intellectually dishonest with yourself and failure to take even a cursory look into the reality of what's going on.
FWIW, I know this won't convince you, and that's OK. It's just that anyone who's capable of critical thought who reads this will know where you're coming from and what you're about. You and the rest of your ilk.
Quote: MrWarmth
The comparison is clear, present, and undeniable. .
This was an important story for days and
yet the low info voters are just hearing
about it. The mind boggles.
Quote: MrWarmthYou and the rest of your ilk.
Wow, chill out dude :-)
Anyway, I don't see the comparison.
The gist is that there are a lot of problems in the world.
We need to solve these problems.
We here in the USA also have problems.
That's about it.
Its a UN speech. BORING.
As to North Carolina, this was for football and basketball glory for the University.
What has happened at North Carolina is sad and unfortunate. It has nothing to do with "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant."
Its about corruption of big time college athletics.
Its about MONEY.
I still cant get over "You and the rest of your ilk"
wow.
Quote: EvenBobThis was an important story for days and
yet the low info voters are just hearing
about it. The mind boggles.
So if I choose not to watch Fox therefore I am a low info voter. lol
Quote: terapined
Anyway, I don't see the comparison.
.
How could you, it's the truth and it
involves Obama. Ignorance is a
kind of bliss in politics. Have another
toke on the pipe, you say you're a
lifetime dope smoker. No worries
have you..
Quote: terapinedSo if I choose not to watch Fox therefore I am a low info voter. lol
Well, yeah. But to be truly "informed" you can only watch Fox News. If you should happen to also watch CNN or MSNBC, you'd be a fool for taking precious time away from your indoctrin...er...informing.
Quote: MrWarmth
FWIW, I know this won't convince you, and that's OK. It's just that anyone who's capable of critical thought who reads this will know where you're coming from and what you're about. You and the rest of your ilk.
The fact that President Obama mentioned Ferguson in a UN address does not make that event the moral equivalent of the beheadings. He was defusing any possible charges of hypocrisy in acknowledging that we do have our own problems, while speaking to every Muslim nation and neutral nations he was hoping to reach in coalition building against ISIL. It was a diplomatic necessity to acknowledge our own racial issues, partly in order to distinguish them from what ISIL is doing, which is ethnic cleansing, hostage executions, thievery, and wholesale murder for financial gain.
The discerning ear capable of critical thought would have understood this, knowing the audience of many different cultures and values would need that acknowledgement in order to work with this President, after the residue of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld years of Imperialistic World Police has yet to clear the palates of most other governments. But you and "your ilk", in your efforts to discredit and undermine this administration, will stop at nothing to mischaracterize the statement or the reasons for its inclusion at that place and time. Thanks for nothing, there, MrWarmth.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe fact that President Obama mentioned Ferguson in a UN address does not make that event the moral equivalent of the beheadings. .
Sure it does.
That's
why
he
said it.
His goal is always to make the US look
as bad or worse than the worst country
in the world. He hates the US.
wow. "
Get used to it. Typical response from people who have all of the answers and none of the solutions !
Quote: beachbumbabsThe fact that President Obama mentioned Ferguson in a UN address does not make that event the moral equivalent of the beheadings. He was defusing any possible charges of hypocrisy in acknowledging that we do have our own problems, while speaking to every Muslim nation and neutral nations he was hoping to reach in coalition building against ISIL. It was a diplomatic necessity to acknowledge our own racial issues, partly in order to distinguish them from what ISIL is doing, which is ethnic cleansing, hostage executions, thievery, and wholesale murder for financial gain.
I'm sorry, explain again how a suspect being shot by a cop after said suspect attacked the cop is the same as ISIS exactly how again?
But lets look at history here. Did FDR mention anti-Semitism in the USA when he was building the case for war with Germany?
In any case, why is Obama even worried about ISIS? ISIS didn't attack us on 9/11. They pose no threat to us. But let the Nobel Peace Prize winner bomb yet more countries.
Sarcasm aside, I am against doing anything because I do not want to spill blood to pay for the same real estate again. Unless USA citizens accept that we need to have a hard not benevolent occupation for a decade or more and then have several bases in Irag for 100 years or more after then we are kidding ourselves about "doing something."
Quote: MrWarmthThanks for the softball.
From Obama's September 24, 2014 speech to the UN (transcript as posted on http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/24/remarks-president-obama-address-united-nations-general-assembly):Quote: President_ObamaI realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within its own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri -- where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So, yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.
This paragraph is about 3/4 of the way down the transcript, and is immediately preceded by topics including taking action against immediate threats, Gaza/West Bank, and, more generally, a discussion about religious tensions in various parts of the world, including the ideology of "ISIL," the beheadings, and associated videos.
The comparison is clear, present, and undeniable. ISIL beheads and videotapes it; in America, we have Ferguson as our tension.
The only possible work-around ... which he does not mention nor imply, and thus if you see it you would be doing exactly what you say EvenBob has done ... is to invent the dynamic that our version is much less important or extreme. It's certainly as lethal: Michael Brown is just as dead as Stephen Sotloff.
Of course, if you use that work-around, then you betray the myriad of election ads saying that Republicans/Conservatives are extreme, such as those going out in North Carolina.
Ah, North Carolina, where, ESPN reports, liberal African-American professors passed many African-American athletes with mickey mouse courses to the point where they can't read or think. So ... which group is knowingly keeping African-Americans in ignorance and publishing vile, race-baiting ads? Answer ... liberal Democrats. It's the modern political version of "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant."
So ... either acknowledge Obama compares beheadings to Ferguson, or expose yourself to be intellectually dishonest with yourself and failure to take even a cursory look into the reality of what's going on.
FWIW, I know this won't convince you, and that's OK. It's just that anyone who's capable of critical thought who reads this will know where you're coming from and what you're about. You and the rest of your ilk.
You and the rest of your ilk POY!!!
Quote: chickenmanYou and the rest of your ilk POY!!!
POY = Proud Of You !!!
Thanks Chickenman
Our problems are just that--problems that need addressed. Making them sound the same as what ISIS wants is not a good thing and that is what happens when you state them so closely in a speech.
But now the danger for Republicans is Georgia, Kansas and South Dakota. These are the races that should have been in the bag but now pose the greatest danger of them not retaking the senate. Who would have thought? :)
Quote: EvenBobIf Hillary gets the
nomination, she'll lose. We can only hope
she gets it and not some electable lib.
How much do you want to bet? I will limit my action to $100,000.
Quote: AZDuffmanI'm sorry, explain again how a suspect being shot by a cop after said suspect attacked the cop is the same as ISIS exactly how again?
But lets look at history here. Did FDR mention anti-Semitism in the USA when he was building the case for war with Germany?
In any case, why is Obama even worried about ISIS? ISIS didn't attack us on 9/11. They pose no threat to us. But let the Nobel Peace Prize winner bomb yet more countries.
Sarcasm aside, I am against doing anything because I do not want to spill blood to pay for the same real estate again. Unless USA citizens accept that we need to have a hard not benevolent occupation for a decade or more and then have several bases in Irag for 100 years or more after then we are kidding ourselves about "doing something."
It's not remotely the same. However, in the eyes of the Middle East, there is a parallel. He disarms that counter-argument by acknowledging it happened. It has everything to do with who he is speaking to and why. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand for you, MrW, RonC, or chickenman.
Quote: EvenBob. If Hillary gets the
nomination, she'll lose. We can only hope
she gets it and not some electable lib..
I'll take some of that action also.
I am generally a low roller but for a bet like this, I'm willing to go up alot, a whole lot.
How about it?
How about giving me odds since you are convinced Hillary will lose if she gets the nomination.
Money talks, let see if Bob's money also talks :-)
Quote: beachbumbabsIt's not remotely the same. However, in the eyes of the Middle East, there is a parallel. He disarms that counter-argument by acknowledging it happened. It has everything to do with who he is speaking to and why. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand for you, MrW, RonC, or chickenman.
While the others you mentioned may disagree with me, my statement was not that he should have ignored the issues we face completely but that they should not have been in any way stated so as to lead someone to believe that the United States feels we have problems similar to that of ISIS. "Tensions" are completely different from "beheadings"... He fed into the counter-argument by stating it in the way he did, if the speech is as it was quoted.
It sounds something like "you've got ISIS and we've got this thing in Ferguson"...
