2016 Election

Quote: ams288

You've followed the standard right-wing template of responding to Fox News criticism:

1) Brag about the ratings
2) Bring up MSNBC for some reason

MSNBC is liberal. They don't try to hide and claim to be "fair and balanced." That is the difference. FNC is the media arm of the Republican party.

As for the ratings, yes they're number 1 in cable. That equates to what? 2-3 million viewers on average? Big whoop.

No, I haven't followed anything. I have an opinion about it and it is just as valuable, or maybe more, valuable than yours...who knows. I typed my opinion, not someone's talking points. AZ asked someone to take a news report and show it as biased; none have taken him up on it.

Commentators? They are conservatives. It is just like a newspaper--some newspapers lean one way on the front page and another in the editorial section.

Being #1 in cable is better than #2...it is validation by actual viewers...

Quote: RonC

AZ asked someone to take a news report and show it as biased; none have taken him up on it.

I'm pretty sure Jon Stewart takes him up on it several times a month on The Daily Show....

Quote: ams288

I'm pretty sure Jon Stewart takes him up on it several times a month on The Daily Show....

I didn't know he was posting here! Was he the real Jerry Logan? MKL?

Meanwhile if you want to show FNC news as biased feel free. If they were as biased as you say they would have burried not broken a meaningless 25 year old DUI arrest of GWB.

Quote: ams288

I'm pretty sure Jon Stewart takes him up on it several times a month on The Daily Show....

He's a comedian with a point of view...he doesn't count...he even uses the comedian excuse when he gets something totally wrong...

Quote: AZDuffman

OK, so lets compare her resume to that of Obama when he ran at the top of the ticket, where you arguably have to have better experience than as VEEP.

Community Organizer, is that really a job?
State Senator in Illinois, a place where he voted "present" more than anyone else in the chamber.
US Senator for a whopping 145 days before he "quit" and "didn't fulfill his responsibility" by seeking a new job 145 days into a 6 year term.

So he had no executive experience, no management experience not even managing a Subway. He had no leadership positions in any legislative chamber, and when he had to vote he was too stupid to even know how he wanted to vote so he voted "present." Explain again how Obama was more qualified than Palin. I seriously do not see how.

First, let's address your 'facts'. 145 days into a 6 year term? Obama was elected to the US senate in November 2004 and began serving as US senator on January 3, 2005. On February 7, 2007, more than 2 years later, he announced his candidacy for President. How is that 145 days? It is 765 days by my count. Doesn't change the fact that he probably wasn't as qualified as one should be, but at least get your facts correct. Don't 'amend' facts to fit your position.

Secondly, I don't have to explain how Obama was more qualified that Palin, because I never claimed that. What I claimed is that it was ridiculous to say that Palin was more qualified than Obama.

Now back to the topic of the thread, 2016 election. Let me start briefly with 2014. The republicans are likely to gain seats in the senate as most forecasters predict. Personally, I don't think they will pick up the 7 seats needed to win control of the Senate, which by the way, they would already have, had they picked more sensible candidates in some recent senate elections, instead of far right tea-partier that had no chance to win a majority outside their own party. In several cases, their tea party candidate beat an incumbent republican senator, who was likely to win re-election, only to have the further right tea party candidate lose, thus handing over a republican Senate seat to the democrats. Anyway, I don't believe Republicans senate candidates will win in Iowa, nor Colorado, as they need to. Both places have demographic shifts that are turning them more blue. Also, the fiasco in Kansas is just another case of republicans screwing up one of their own races that they were almost assured of winning and giving away a seat.

Now, back to 2016. Likely democratic candidate, Hillary, who I supported in 2008, but would prefer someone else in 2016, has a ceiling of about 52%, because there are so many that just despise her. That isn't all that different than most party candidates on either side in todays world. Any Democrat or Republican has at least 45% that will not vote for them, just because of party lines. Hillary's case is just a little more extreme. I haven't figured out the republican side yet, but Chris Christy is damaged goods. Even cleared of wrongdoing in the bridge-gate scandal, most people figure that he at least knew about it, contrary to what he claimed. If he didn't, that shows pretty poor management of the people under him.

Mitt Romney? I don't see where he would have any less baggage than in 2012. He would continue to be viewed as an elitist, out of touch with reality by most American's standards. In my mind, the likely candidate and probably the Republican with the best chance of winning is Jeb Bush. He has the 'Bush' name working both for him and against him as he is immediately known, but I am not sure that small sliver of the electorate that actually decides elections, the moderates in the middle, are ready to go through another Bush ordeal.

But the bigger problem for the republicans in 2016, is the senate. Even if they manage to take control of the senate this year, they will have a hard time holding it in 2016. As I am sure everyone knows, 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election every 2 years. In 2016, of the 33 seats up for election, the republicans will be 'defending' 24, while the democrats are defending 9. Almost the opposite of this year. That means the republicans start at a major dis-advantage. Any Senate cycle, you need only go back 6 years to see who is defending.

This year the Democrats are defending seats who, in the 2008 presidential year when Obama coattails won some traditionally red seats. 2016, is again just the opposite and even more extreme. In 2010, quite a few republicans won senate seats in the tea-party year, off presidential election year sweep. People like Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. Mr Toomey is unlikely to win again in a blue state like Pennsylvania during a presidential year, when all the 'sleeping' democrats come out to vote as they only do in presidential years. The republicans have numerous scenarios like that. I could see them winning the presidency and still losing control of the senate.

Kewlj, I think a lot of what you have written is very good but the one thing that I don't see factored in is how good or bad President Obama is for his side in the next two years. He can do a lot of damage to his party, and make the Republicans look like a better choice...or he can do well and have the opposite happen.

I'm of the opinion he won't do very well because I don't believe he has been a good President, and I am sure others will believe just as strongly the other way.

Quote: RonC

He's a comedian with a point of view...he doesn't count...he even uses the comedian excuse when he gets something totally wrong...

I'm just saying if you want we can blow up this thread with tons of clips from The Daily Show highlighting the stupidity and bias of Fox News. But that'd be a waste of everyone's time, just like pretending Fox News isn't biased is....

Quote: AZDuffman

I didn't know he was posting here! Was he the real Jerry Logan? MKL?

Meanwhile if you want to show FNC news as biased feel free. If they were as biased as you say they would have burried not broken a meaningless 25 year old DUI arrest of GWB.

You said it yourself: meaningless.

Would they have broken a story that would have derailed his candidacy? Doubtful.

Quote: ams288

You've followed the standard right-wing template of responding to Fox News criticism:

1) Brag about the ratings
2) Bring up MSNBC for some reason

MSNBC is liberal. They don't try to hide and claim to be "fair and balanced." That is the difference. FNC is the media arm of the Republican party.

As for the ratings, yes they're number 1 in cable. That equates to what? 2-3 million viewers on average? Big whoop.

Yeah, not even. Looked this up last month to see what they're bragging about. Quick and approx. numbers for 2014:

Network News

NBC Nightly ~8 million viewers
ABC Nightly ~7 ""
CBS Nightly ~6.5 ""

Cable News
Fox ~ 1.8 ""
MSNBC ~1.2""
CNN ~.8""

So, Fox has, around 5% of the audience. But they're bragging like they're something, strongly implying they have a much larger chunk of the audience than they really do. It made me feel much better, actually, to know they're distorting their influence.

Quote: ams288

I'm just saying if you want we can blow up this thread with tons of clips from The Daily Show highlighting the stupidity and bias of Fox News. But that'd be a waste of everyone's time, just like pretending Fox News isn't biased is....

Jon Stewart is a comedian, not a journalist. His work is comedy... His stories "blowing up" anyone are often filled with inaccuracies to make his satire better. He is irritating, like a gnat, and just as worthless.

Fox has news and commentators. The news--Shep Smith, Bret Baier, etc. may lean towards the conservative side, but they are more "fair and balanced" than anyone else. If you want to say that them using "fair and balanced' as slogan is wrong, fine. Them saying that is not all that much different than NBC, CBS, and ABC plus others saying they treat the news fairly. None of them are straight down the middle. Not NPR. None.

The commentators, by and large, are conservative. They do have liberals around the place, though.

Then you go the name calling--stupidity? Really? Do they have a stupid report or a stupid reporter? Yes, sometimes they do. I'm sure you will agree with me that every other news outlet has the same.

They are not #1 in cable news by accident. They are as "fair and balanced" as any news outlet these days. They have news folks who do a good job and popular commentators. They have people watching them from both sides of the aisle.

You calling them names won't change any of that...

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: ams288

You've followed the standard right-wing template of responding to Fox News criticism:

1) Brag about the ratings
2) Bring up MSNBC for some reason

MSNBC is liberal. They don't try to hide and claim to be "fair and balanced." That is the difference. FNC is the media arm of the Republican party.

As for the ratings, yes they're number 1 in cable. That equates to what? 2-3 million viewers on average? Big whoop.

Yeah, not even. Looked this up last month to see what they're bragging about. Quick and approx. numbers for 2014:

Network News

NBC Nightly ~8 million viewers
ABC Nightly ~7 ""
CBS Nightly ~6.5 ""

Cable News
Fox ~ 1.8 ""
MSNBC ~1.2""
CNN ~.8""

So, Fox has, around 5% of the audience. But they're bragging like they're something, strongly implying they have a much larger chunk of the audience than they really do. It made me feel much better, actually, to know they're distorting their influence.

I've heard them say they were the most watched news channel on cable...where is the distortion in that?

On cable, they have at least 50% more viewers than MSNBC and one million more than CNN, using your numbers. In their space, they are very influential. ABC, CBS, and NBC each have 22 minutes or so of tightly controlled news (not much time for in depth stories). They have a vastly larger audience; no one disputes that.

It is obvious they are important to many...why would so many attack them if they were unimportant?

Quote: AZDuffman

FNC was recently the highest rated cable network, not just news but all of cable. That is a broad audience. I always ask for evidence of bias at FNC but never get any examples. FNC is watched because the most people like the fair and balanced product.

No idea if Hillary was on Greta. I am a cord-cutter and never much was into Greta so I would not know. I do know Hillary refused to be on FNC in 2012 just as all dems refused a debate hosted by same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB0vaZQ2EE8&list=PLA3BD2524FE99BD4D here is evidence of bias. Roughly 200+ clips showing distortion on FNC including on some of their straight news programs. I will admit not 100% sure I have watched all of those but I have watched at least a significant percentage and there are some clear biases there. So there you go someone on the board giving you evidence of bias.

Quote: RonC

Then you go the name calling--stupidity? Really? Do they have a stupid report or a stupid reporter? Yes, sometimes they do. I'm sure you will agree with me that every other news outlet has the same.

They are not #1 in cable news by accident. They are as "fair and balanced" as any news outlet these days. They have news folks who do a good job and popular commentators. They have people watching them from both sides of the aisle.

You calling them names won't change any of that...

Yes, they have lots of stupid reporters... just look at the crew from Fox and Friends! Not a bright crayon in that box...

As for people watching from both sides of the aisle, nobody on the left watches Fox News for any other reason that to mock it. For example, on election night 2012 after MSNBC had called it for Obama I switched over to FOX and I was treated to Karl Rove's infamous on-air meltdown. It was glorious.

Quote: ams288

nobody on the left watches Fox News

Right. If the left wants a LIV to have an opinion they give it to him.

Quote: ams288

Yes, they have lots of stupid reporters... just look at the crew from Fox and Friends! Not a bright crayon in that box...

As for people watching from both sides of the aisle, nobody on the left watches Fox News for any other reason that to mock it. For example, on election night 2012 after MSNBC had called it for Obama I switched over to FOX and I was treated to Karl Rove's infamous on-air meltdown. It was glorious.

Was that after you listened to Chris Matthews equally infamous thrill down the leg comments?

You don't care for fair and balanced at all--you took my comments and only acknowledged Fox's reporters not ones from other organizations that are equally as bad but with a liberal bias.

Since we are not really having a discussion, there is no sense in even trying to talk reasonably with you...

Quote: RonC

Since we are not really having a discussion, there is no sense in even trying to talk reasonably with you...

+1000

Quote: RonC

Was that after you listened to Chris Matthews equally infamous thrill down the leg comments?

Equally infamous? I'd have to disagree with that.

And yes it was obviously after I listened to that because Karl Rove's meltdown came long after the thrill down the leg comment (not comments).

Quote: RonC

You don't care for fair and balanced at all--you took my comments and only acknowledged Fox's reporters not ones from other organizations that are equally as bad but with a liberal bias.

Since we are not really having a discussion, there is no sense in even trying to talk reasonably with you...

Because I disagree that they are equally as bad.

Find me an MSNBC reporter as stupid as any of the Fox and Friends people.

Quote: Twirdman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB0vaZQ2EE8&list=PLA3BD2524FE99BD4D here is evidence of bias. Roughly 200+ clips showing distortion on FNC including on some of their straight news programs. I will admit not 100% sure I have watched all of those but I have watched at least a significant percentage and there are some clear biases there. So there you go someone on the board giving you evidence of bias.

A "liberal Viewer" making youtube videos is your evidence? Hell, any conservative is going to think a liberal is biased and vice versa.

Quote: ams288

Yes, they have lots of stupid reporters... just look at the crew from Fox and Friends! Not a bright crayon in that box...

As for people watching from both sides of the aisle, nobody on the left watches Fox News for any other reason that to mock it. For example, on election night 2012 after MSNBC had called it for Obama I switched over to FOX and I was treated to Karl Rove's infamous on-air meltdown. It was glorious.

That meltdown was glorious to watch. Everything about that night was amazing especially Romney's lack of concession speech. He was so deluded as to think a win was guaranteed even though the vast majority of election predictors placed Obama's win at something like 90+%. The right wings view on that election differed so far from reality. Not sure whether I liked George Wills prediction more as supposedly someone in the know or unskewed polls ridiculous amature hour. Just wondering how wrong they can end up being this election cycle and even better 2016. Will someone out there predict a Republican will get 400 electoral votes. Or maybe a prediction of a Republican supermajority in 2016. Who knows but you can bet there will be some mathematically challenged people out there who say incredibly stupid things.

Quote: RonC

A "liberal Viewer" making youtube videos is your evidence? Hell, any conservative is going to think a liberal is biased and vice versa.

Keep moving those goalposts...

Quote: RonC

A "liberal Viewer" making youtube videos is your evidence? Hell, any conservative is going to think a liberal is biased and vice versa.

This is a pure case of ad hominem. So simply because the person is liberal he cannot possibly have any evidence of bias in news and clearly all the evidence he has is wrong. Going by that I could never hope to convince you since any evidence I brought up would be dismissed since I've made myself known as a liberal. Heck you could dismiss anyone who brought up bias as themselves biased and then no one could possibly prove you wrong.

So rather then attack the person as being biased you should find fault in his evidence. His evidence was not merely that they said things that happened to be conservative it was they said things that fit an agenda even though those things were often times misleading or even factually incorrect.

Quote: ams288

Find me an MSNBC reporter as stupid as any of the Fox and Friends people.

I don't even know who you are talking about, since I don't watch the show, but do you really believe that the staff on Fox and Friends are 'stupid'? My guess is you don't agree with their right leaning viewpoints. Are you sure you have a higher IQ than all those stupid reporters?
I sometimes listen to Rush or Hannity, and say to myself, "gee, that's stupid", but then I always come back to their job is to get ratings, not be fair or unbiased. I wish we could put a lie detector on those on the extreme right or left when they talk.....

Quote: SOOPOO

I don't even know who you are talking about, since I don't watch the show, but do you really believe that the staff on Fox and Friends are 'stupid'?

Yes I do.

Quote: SOOPOO

My guess is you don't agree with their right leaning viewpoints.

Correct. But I also don't agree with Glenn Beck's right leaning viewpoints and I think he is quite intelligent, so it's not a blanket "I think all right leaning news people are stupid" generalization I'm making.

Quote: SOOPOO

Are you sure you have a higher IQ than all those stupid reporters?

I'm pretty certain I have a higher IQ than the Fox and Friends reporters.

Quote: SOOPOO

I sometimes listen to Rush or Hannity, and say to myself, "gee, that's stupid", but then I always come back to their job is to get ratings, not be fair or unbiased. I wish we could put a lie detector on those on the extreme right or left when they talk.....

Yes, that would be nice.

Quote: Twirdman

This is a pure case of ad hominem. So simply because the person is liberal he cannot possibly have any evidence of bias in news and clearly all the evidence he has is wrong. Going by that I could never hope to convince you since any evidence I brought up would be dismissed since I've made myself known as a liberal. Heck you could dismiss anyone who brought up bias as themselves biased and then no one could possibly prove you wrong.

So rather then attack the person as being biased you should find fault in his evidence. His evidence was not merely that they said things that happened to be conservative it was they said things that fit an agenda even though those things were often times misleading or even factually incorrect.

Actually, I found some of the things he reported as being "unbiased" just as biased as he said that Fox News was. So I do not view him as a good source. Unlike many around here, I'd say the same thing about someone from the other side. I don't expect an unbiased opinion piece from Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity.

Quote: RonC

A "liberal Viewer" making youtube videos is your evidence? Hell, any conservative is going to think a liberal is biased and vice versa.

But they are videos. Its proof. Who cares if say "Bozo the clown" made the videos.
They are still videos of Fox news bias. Its video proof.
Its evidence.
Of course you can close your eyes and say you see no proof :-)

Quote: terapined

But they are videos. Its proof. Who cares if say "Bozo the clown" made the videos.
They are still videos of Fox news bias. Its video proof.
Its evidence.
Of course you can close your eyes and say you see no proof :-)

That was already asked and answered:

Actually, I found some of the things he reported as being "unbiased" just as biased as he said that Fox News was. So I do not view him as a good source. Unlike many around here, I'd say the same thing about someone from the other side. I don't expect an unbiased opinion piece from Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity.

Quote: RonC

Interesting comments about Hillary from people that seem to be on both sides of the aisle. She seems to be the "candidate in waiting" and not at all unhappy about it or resisting it but also not deeply popular in the sense that people in her party favor her at this point but are by no means tied to her being the candidate. She has more experience in politics and in positions in government than the President did BUT her experiences are not all that positive, so they are not helpful.

I think she'll be a very beatable front runner again. She hasn't distinguished herself since running last time. If anything, she has diminished her stature a good bit.

We don't hear anything about other candidates on the Democrat side; I think that will change shortly after the election.

I think there will be plenty to talk about on both sides...

I think this sums up another point well. Hillary is in the mold of Kerry and Romney. There's nothing really good about her, she's just kind of there by default. She's sort of a political robot. It's very hard to convince people that such candidates are running out of a drive to improve the country, as opposed to a drive to win elections. Also, one of her main credentials at this point is that she's accumulated a lot of bribe money and will be able to accumulate even more. That's helpful, but it also contributes to her being an entrenched, insider candidate. If nobody better comes along, she'll get the nod. The Dems then must hope that the Reps don't produce someone in the Reagan/Clinton/Obama mold, or anything close to it.

Quote: AZDuffman

Palin summed it up best I ever heard when she said Obama was "book smart and street stupid." I have been around many "smartest people in the room" and they are usually not very effective leaders. It is for the reason Palin mentioned. They see what happens in books and theory but they do not understand that is not how the world works. Obama thinks if he passes a bill or makes a speech all is done. He thinks people will not change their behavior based on him changing outside inputs (e.g.: raises taxes, threatens action but does not follow up.) Harry Truman I believe did not even attend college yet he is a POTUS who is rising in esteem as history unfolds.

I would be on a team Palin was leading any day of the week. If I was on a team Obama was leading I would ask to be traded.

I doubt that Truman would have viewed the Flintstones as being a more or less accurate depiction of the prehistoric world. He certainly knew the political world inside out. I gather that he was an intelligent, reflective persson. Again, you don't have to be a brainiac. Not ALWAYS the smartest person in the room, just sometimes. If I turn around and start asking some questions to the person standing behind me in line at the grocery store, there should be less than a 50/50 chance they are smarter and more knowledgeable than the president. I think constantly saying embarrassingly ignorant things, probably undercuts your leadership ability at some point. The leadership issue always goes nowhere anyway. People love it because it's intangible, so they always think their candidate has it and the other one doesn't.

As for being Savvy or having street smarts, I sometimes think of these people playing poker, especially since Nixon was great at it. I think Obama would be OK. Palin would be a massive fish. She's not exactly what I imagine when I think of "street smarts." It's hard to imagine a better insulation from the realities of the streets than her life and her approach to thinking about things.

Quote: Rigondeaux

As for being Savvy or having street smarts, I sometimes think of these people playing poker, especially since Nixon was great at it. I think Obama would be OK. Palin would be a massive fish. She's not exactly what I imagine when I think of "street smarts." It's hard to imagine a better insulation from the realities of the streets than her life and her approach to thinking about things.

I would have to say that Palin would clean up the poker table because so many people would misunderestimate her abilities. Obama would get cleaned out because he would fold the minute he got re-raised. Heck, he is too stupid to know how the game is even played. Remember when he said, "don't call my bluff?" And he is supposed to be smarter than Sarah?

Quote: AZDuffman

I would have to say that Palin would clean up the poker table because so many people would misunderestimate her abilities. Obama would get cleaned out because he would fold the minute he got re-raised. Heck, he is too stupid to know how the game is even played. Remember when he said, "don't call my bluff?" And he is supposed to be smarter than Sarah?

Boy this is really going into the absurd.
Palin a great poker player? Obama a terrible poker player? Absurd meaningless conjecture
Ok, I'll play. Palin would fold, she is a quitter, Obama all in with Obamacare. lol. totally meaningless.
Hmm, Phil Hellmuth is a great poker player, Lets make him President :-)
The poker brat for President.

Quote: RonC

Kewlj, I think a lot of what you have written is very good but the one thing that I don't see factored in is how good or bad President Obama is for his side in the next two years. He can do a lot of damage to his party, and make the Republicans look like a better choice...or he can do well and have the opposite happen.

I'm of the opinion he won't do very well because I don't believe he has been a good President, and I am sure others will believe just as strongly the other way.

I would say President Obama's presidency has been a disappointment. You can translate that to mean a bad president if you want. Some of the fault is his own, as I think he is in over his head, especially on foreign policy. I also think that he really thought HE could make a difference. He found out that is not the way Washington works. :(

I really have a problem with people like Mitch McConnell, who's sole intent was to fight the president. naturally, there is some of that, as the two parties have different ideologies, but when an elected official comes out and states that his single goal is to make President Obama a one term president, that is a problem for me. Senator's and congressmen are elected to work for their constituents and again, while there is issues of disagreement, you find the common ground on things that you can agree on and work together for the good of the country and the people you represent when you can. If Mitch McConnell was my senator, representing me and said that, I would be furious. A little part of me was almost hoping the republicans won the senate this year, while at the same time, McConnell lost his seat, meaning he wouldn't be there to be majority leader. :) But that looks extremely unlikely.

My own idealogy has changed a bit in the last few years. I have always considered myself and independent, but find myself voting democratic the majority, the vast majority of the time. My big thing has been social issues, and gay marriage in particular. I believe have the right to get married if they love each other and have the same benefits and protections as anyone else, even though personally, it presents some problems in my own situation. :/ Now, with yesterday's action, or inaction by the supreme court, gay marriage will be allowed in 30 states, (up from 19 yesterday), so that topic is almost a done deal.

So now, with that issue pretty much off the table, I would like the government to be less intrusive in my life. People should be allowed to do as they please as long as they hurt no one else. And, selfishly, as my wealth has grown a little bit over the last 4 or 5 years, I would like to pay less taxes. (Ut oh....that sounds like a republican....lol).

Quote: kewlj

I would say President Obama's presidency has been a disappointment. You can translate that to mean a bad president if you want. Some of the fault is his own, as I think he is in over his head, especially on foreign policy. I also think that he really thought HE could make a difference. He found out that is not the way Washington works. :(

Not just Washington, virtually any organization. If you manage any kind of organization at all you will soon realize to change things you need to fire pretty much everyone who works there, or at least the leadership an senior people. I effected good change on my first assignment. To do so I had to replace about 12 of 15 people. In his book "Car Guys and Bean Counters" Bob Lutz states how it was so impossible to fix the culture at GM most senior managers would just give up and work the system.

What Obama did and does not understand is that POTUS' who "made a difference" did so because events were going that direction. Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Reagan all had great effect but only because society was cycling to allow change.

Quote:

I really have a problem with people like Mitch McConnell, who's sole intent was to fight the president. naturally, there is some of that, as the two parties have different ideologies, but when an elected official comes out and states that his single goal is to make President Obama a one term president, that is a problem for me.

I honestly do not understand why people are bothered by this. I attribute it to the feminization of American culture. But what else do people expect the other party wants.

-Did Obama say he wanted to work with the GOP after the election? NOPE. He said elections have consequences and to "let me drive."

-Did the Democrats reach out to find common ground with Bush? NOPE. They claimed he "was not elected" and would not agree to return tax money to the American taxpayer during times of surplus. It only got worse from there

-Did the Democrats try to work with Reagan? Not unless your idea of "common ground" is to say his budget will be DOA.

American politics has always been this way, and always will be. But it is not a world of men we live in anymore. It is a world of people afraid of reality.

Quote: AZDuffman

would not agree to return tax money to the American taxpayer during times of surplus. It only got worse from there

I still don't get how people think this is a good idea. What possible reason would we have for giving back money during an economic boon. One of the goals of government should be to try and tamper the natural wild swings of an economy. The way this is done is by lowering taxes and increasing spending during a downturn to make the valley less deep, this means the tax rate needs to start off high enough to be able to lower it. This consequently means you will also lower the peaks by having lowered government spending and increased taxes. This also means that during those boom times you can pay off the debt some since theoretically the deficit will be negative.

I mean here is the thing if you always return money when there is a surplus it becomes very difficult to pay off the debt since at times you will have deficits where you are accumulating debt not to mention the currently accumulated debt.

I'd wager Fox and Friends spent 2 minutes talking about the "latte" salute and 1 minute talking about the drop in unemployment.

If it had been Romney, we already would have heard how Romney was a job creator when unemployment figures came out lower and how he was offering hot coffee to the marine.

Quote: beachbumbabs

So, Fox has, around 5% of the audience. .

These stats are meaningless because a network
like NBC has 20min a day of news, 5 days a week,
FOX is getting to people people 24/7. Seriously,
which do you think has the most influence? When
was the last time FOX was quoted in the news,
and the last time NBC Nightly was? There's no
comparison.

Here's a new low in political advertising. This (unprintable) Republican challenger is using a clip of James Foley's beheading to attack her opponent in a commercial. Without permission of the family or anybody. How DARE she!?!?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Here's a new low in political advertising. This (unprintable) Republican challenger is using a clip of James Foley's beheading to attack her opponent in a commercial. Without permission of the family or anybody. How DARE she!?!?

Because it works. While this one is probably going to cause more grief than it was worth, all candidates push the line on negative ads. Think about how many negative ads we see compared to positive ones. its only a matter of time before someone getting desperate late in an election cycle went this low.

Quote: Boz

Quote: beachbumbabs

Here's a new low in political advertising. This (unprintable) Republican challenger is using a clip of James Foley's beheading to attack her opponent in a commercial. Without permission of the family or anybody. How DARE she!?!?

Because it works. While this one is probably going to cause more grief than it was worth, all candidates push the line on negative ads. Think about how many negative ads we see compared to positive ones. its only a matter of time before someone getting desperate late in an election cycle went this low.

I'm going to say it was a desperate move by a candidate who was well behind, and it will backfire into a landslide. However, it's Arizona, and I don't get that state's politics even a little bit, so I could be wrong.

The larger question is, who could possibly think this was acceptable practice?

Quote: Twirdman

I still don't get how people think this is a good idea.

Why is it a good idea? Because why should the government be taking $1.10 when it only needs to be taking $1? The money belongs to the people, not the government.

I have to say I find it amusing that the same politicians who cry about "excess profits" of corporations they do not like in industries they do not like are fine stealing even more money from the people than is needed to fund basic government services.

Quote:

I mean here is the thing if you always return money when there is a surplus it becomes very difficult to pay off the debt since at times you will have deficits where you are accumulating debt not to mention the currently accumulated debt.

The national debt will never be paid off nor should it be paid off. It needs to be kept to a manageable level of say 70% of GDP. As we paid it down too fast under Clinton we got a stock market bubble. Let the people keep their money. If you want to pay more, send it in.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Palin is also an ignoramus of perhaps slightly above average intelligence. Obama, who I am not much of a fan of, is a Harvard lawyer of obvious intelligence and all that stuff. Not that you have to be an ultra-brainiac, but you should know more about the political world and the world in general than the average person and be the smartest person in the room once or twice over the course of your life.

Gov. Sarah Palin was an exceptional governor with a record of accomplishment that exceeded, by far, the governing accomplishments of Obama. As a governor she served as the chief executive officer of her state. She knew what it meant to be a leader, to meet a payroll, and how to actually govern. Obama did not. Some have cited that he was qualified to lead because he was an attorney. Unfortunately, being attorney simply means that you're an attorney, not an experienced leader. (Where I live, there are more attorneys than there are people licensed to work on my air conditioner).

Currently we have a president that doesn't lead. He's doing nothing to address the Ebola crisis and want's our borders wide open to illegal immigration, including to those that could be infected with Ebola, while blatantly lying, or while being grossly incompetent, about the seriousness of the outbreak..

Just recently he has naively stated, "
Obama: "You Can't Get Ebola 'Sitting Next to Someone on a Bus."



At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is advising Americans who travel to the Ebola-stricken nations to "avoid public transportation."


Experienced leaders, don't govern in this way. And it appears that the "on the job training program" isn't working out so well for President Obama.



I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like someone that's "obviously intelligent" to me. (I think we now may no why they never released his transcripts from college)


For the record, I do NOT want Palin to become president. I want someone that's even more qualified to LEAD the country.

I hope in the next election that more people vote based on the qualifications of the candidate, rather than voting based on their feelings and emotions.

-Keyser

Quote: Keyser

Gov. Sarah Palin was an exceptional governor

OBAMA PRESIDENCY



~
PALIN PRESIDENCY

Palin was a great governor.


However, would you say that Obama has been a great President?






I didn't think so.

I believe most people would rather see Bush back in there at this point.

Quote: Keyser

Gov. Sarah Palin was an exceptional governor

Ok, list her accomplishments in the final 2 years of the 4 year term she was elected to serve?

The question was, "Would you say that Obama has been a great President?"


By the way, how he makes you feel doesn't count. If more people would have voted using logic, rather than based on their feelings, then we'd have a great president in there right now. (Romney)

Quote: terapined

Ok, list her accomplishments in the final 2 years of the 4 year term she was elected to serve?

As soon as you list the accomplishments of Obama in the US Senate in the final 2 years he was elected to serve.

Quote: AZDuffman

As soon as you list the accomplishments of Obama in the US Senate in the final 2 years he was elected to serve.

LOL!

Quote: AZDuffman

As soon as you list the accomplishments of Obama in the US Senate in the final 2 years he was elected to serve.

LOL!

Quote: terapined

Ok, list her accomplishments in the final 2 years of the 4 year term she was elected to serve?

What she did do is stick up to the oil company's and try to get a larger "pittance" in royalty's from them for the people of her state. I'm no republican and it's hard for me to say anything good about any politco, but I want to give credit where it's do.

She also did it with dignity. I don't believe she wavered on her positions, so when she was voted governor what you see is what you get comes to mind. Also, I believe she was actually against my interests?

Also her husband is a commercial fisherman, and works in the oil fields, so they know for certain up close and personal what work is. She had 5 kids and none of them are bad people. They were fed a diet of largely fish and game they caught themselves, so they had a lot of nights as a family processing meat and fish. There is a hell of a lot of hours right there. Yeah this is probably getting to hokey.

I don't think she was sick enough for Washington, wasn't prepared for the political poisons in the lower 48 and was apparently caught off guard by McCain when asked to run with him. I thought is was a pretty slick move by ole Johnny boy really? She probably thought she owed it to the party and was overwhelmed. She isn't "Hillary" material and thank God for that. You can have her but don't forget, she will eat her young if necessary to keep her power.

So, that's what I think Sarah did. I voted for her for governor.

edit: I should have added "at least she did", they still have the most expensive state legislature per capita, [Jersey might have them beat?] you can't even get to the capitol by road. To go be a part of the process you either have to take a boat ride or a plane.

Quote: AZDuffman

As soon as you list the accomplishments of Obama in the US Senate in the final 2 years he was elected to serve.

The American people promoted Obama to President and he got a big raise.
The American people said no raise for Sarah Palin. The American deemed her not qualified for a promotion.

Palin quit her job after only 2 years.

The real story is that Palin ran for Govenor so she could fire her sister in-laws estranged Alaska trooper ex-husband simply due to a family grudge.
Once Gov, she was shocked that she had no power to fire an Alaska trooper simply due to a grudge.
You can only fire a state employee due to performance issues, not family grudges.
Then she quit.

Quote: petroglyph

What she did do is stick up to the oil company's and try to get a larger "pittance" in royalty's from them for the people of her state. I'm no republican and it's hard for me to say anything good about any politco, but I want to give credit where it's do.

Much of the Republican party(and Tea Party) would excoriate a democrat for "robbing" a corporation, and/or interfering with the free market, if they did the same thing.

It's government legislating against private industry -- no spinning it any other way.

Quote: terapined

The American people promoted Obama to President and he got a big raise.
The American people said no raise for Sarah Palin. The American deemed her not qualified for a promotion.

Palin quit her job after only 2 years.

The real story is that Palin ran for Govenor so she could fire her sister in-laws estranged Alaska trooper ex-husband simply due to a family grudge.
Once Gov, she was shocked that she had no power to fire an Alaska trooper simply due to a grudge.
You can only fire a state employee due to performance issues, not family grudges.
Then she quit.

Half-truths can be very effective political fodder so....do you mean the Alaska State Trooper who admitted to tasering his eleven year old step-son?