Who elected Obama........

[SavageOrangeJug]

I don't have to!!!!!! Seeing as gsvol posted it, this will be another anti-Obama thread, in which he will try to say, like the rest of you all, that the WASP people are being discriminated against, and "woe is us, the conservatives. Nobody likes us."

Actually, with that last comment, I've summed up the whole politics forum on VN. A bunch of wackos trying to 1-up each other on who can be the most irrational in a single thread.

He posted statistical facts. Your rebuttal is without merit.

You have only proved one thing. The Obamasheep will say BAA, BAA, BAA.

 

[Brog]

It only takes three lines for this article to lie. Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

 

[utvolpj]

It only takes three lines for this article to lie. Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

Gore did not win a majority in 2000

 

[Brog]

How much is needed for a majority in the popular vote?

 

[utvolpj]

majority is >50%

 

[Brog]

Gore won the popular vote then, not the majority. My bad.

 

[volinbham]

While I won't disagree with you on that for some, the Republicans have built entire campaigns off of fear mongering.

I think that's a false premise. Part of the Dem strategy is to accuse Reps of using fear and division.

No doubt the Reps use them but I'd argue that it is the core of the Dem strategy as well.

The entire "Change" strategy was a fear strategy - all the bad things that will happen if we don't change. Economic fear, civil rights fear, healthcare fear, economic equity fear, etc.

 

[joeydupree]

By income, 52 percent of voters with more than $200,000 in annual income voted for Obama.

So, his victory was largely due to support from... those with the lowest income...

Help me understand this. If the answer is simply $200,000 a year and under is considered low income, I'm sorry to bother you...

 

[Nash270]

i agree with joey, whats the deal with that statement? Gsvol stop whining, and please tell me you just copy and pasted all those "facts" and didnt type all that out. i bet your a party animal on Friday night

 

[utvolpj]

i agree with joey, whats the deal with that statement?

Help me understand this. If the answer is simply $200,000 a year and under is considered low income, I'm sorry to bother you...

The stat you quoted said that 52% of those making more than $200k voted for Obama. It didn't say 52% of Obama's votes came from those making over $200k.

Which is greater, the number of people making more than $200k or less than $200k? I would guess the under is a much larger voting block.

 

[dickens821]

How much is needed for a majority in the popular vote?

You should probably learn the difference between majority and plurality.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

While I won't disagree with you on that for some, the Republicans have built entire campaigns off of fear mongering.

The entire Dem platfm for the entirety of my life has been pacifism, free gov't cheese, govt't solutioona for everything, greedy rich will destroy this place and should share because it will make everyone happy. Call it fear mongering or whatever you wish, but it's a european socialist platform and should be disgusting to Americans.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

I think that's a false premise. Part of the Dem strategy is to accuse Reps of using fear and division.

No doubt the Reps use them but I'd argue that it is the core of the Dem strategy as well.

The entire "Change" strategy was a fear strategy - all the bad things that will happen if we don't change. Economic fear, civil rights fear, healthcare fear, economic equity fear, etc.

OK. But which is worse really?

"If Republicans get elected, you will be poor your entire life and lose your civil rights"

...or....

"If Democrats get elected, you will be attacked by terrorists, maybe even die."

It's all stupid, but at least the Dems never had some silly color coding for the daily "Terrorism Threat Advisory Scale" that conveniently went up and down with major political agenda pushes by the Bush administration. Including raised "terror alerts" for: (The bolded ones are really good)

1. On May 18, 2002, we first learned that President Bush had been warned in August 2001 that some sort of terror attack on the U.S. was imminent. The warnings weren't acted upon, bringing into question intelligence failures prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. On May 22, President Bush went on the record opposing the formation of an independent 9/11 commission. Later that day, FBI Director Robert Mueller declared that another terrorist attack was "inevitable" and the following day, the Department of Homeland Security issued a terror alert.

2. On June 6, 2002, FBI agent Coleen Rowley testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. She said she tried to warn her superiors about the specialized flight training taken by some of the men who eventually were part of the 9/11 attacks, but she was ignored. On June 10, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that a major terrorist plot was disrupted with the arrest of Jose Padilla, accused of plotting a radiation bomb attack. However, Padilla had been in custody for more than a month before Ashcroft's announcement.

3. On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations Security Council and detailed the extent of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs — information that later proved to be untrue. Two days later, as massive demonstrations against a planned U.S. attack on Iraq were building, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge raised the nation's color-coded terror alert level to orange — the second highest level — and Americans were advised to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect against a radiological or biological attack.

4. On July 23, 2003, the White House admitted that the CIA cast doubts on its claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. On the 24th, the congressional report on the 9/11 attacks criticized the government for its failures and stated that Iraq had no links to al-Qaida. On the 26th, American troops were accused of beating Iraqi prisoners. On the 29th, Homeland Security issued another round of warnings of terrorist attacks on the United States.

5. On Dec. 17, 2003, the 9/11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Keane stated that the attacks were preventable. The next day, a federal appeals court ruled that Jose Padilla cannot be detained indefinitely without charges. David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, announced that no weapons of mass destruction were found there and that he would resign his post. On Dec 21, Homeland Security raised the threat level to orange, claiming that terrorists were plotting to fly jetliners into skyscrapers.

6. On March 30, 2004, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission. The next day, four Blackwater USA civilian contractors were murdered in Fallujah, and their burnt, mutilated bodies were dragged through the streets. On April 2, Homeland Security issued a warning that terrorists were plotting to blow up trains and buses with fertilizer bombs.

7. On May 16, 2004, Powell appeared on NBC's "Meet The Press" and admitted the presentation he made to the U.N. Security Council the year before was "inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases, deliberately misleading." On the 21st, the first pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib were released. On the 24th, AP Television video confirmed that U.S. forces mistakenly bombed a wedding party, killing more than 40 people. On 26th, Ashcroft and Mueller announced they have credible information that al-Qaida was planning a major attack on the United States. Interestingly, the color-coded alert system didn't change.

8. On July 6, 2004, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry selected John Edwards as his running mate. The Democratic campaign got a bump in the polls and in media coverage. Two days later, Ridge warned that al-Qaida was moving forward with its plans to launch a major attack on the United States. Also, about the same time, federal election official Deforest Soaries confirmed he wrote to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming presidential election in the event it was interrupted by terrorist attacks.

9. On July 29, 2004, Kerry was formally nominated at the Democratic candidate for president. Again, he garners plenty of media attention. Three days later, Ridge raised the terror threat level to orange and warned of possible attacks on financial centers in New York and New Jersey. The evidence that prompted the warning was later found to be four years old and outdated. Oddly enough, Bush's daughters, Barbara and Jenna, visited the Citicorp Building in New York the same day as Ridge's warning.

10. In Oct. 6, 2005, at 10 a.m., President Bush gave a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy. He said the U.S. government had foiled at least 10 major terrorist plots since 9/11, but offered no evidence. At 3 p.m., the AP reported that Karl Rove, Bush's chief political advisor, would testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity and that there was no guarantee that Rove would not be indicted. Just after 5 p.m., New York City officials revealed details of a bomb threat to the city's subway system based on information supplied by the federal government. This information was eventually found to be bogus.

....But I'm sure that is all coincidence, based sound and credible intelligence. :crazy:

 

[therealUT]

OK. But which is worse really?

"If Republicans get elected, you will be poor your entire life and lose your civil rights"

...or....

"If Democrats get elected, you will be attacked by terrorists, maybe even die."

It's all stupid, but at least the Dems never had some silly color coding for the daily "Terrorism Threat Advisory Scale" that conveniently went up and down with major political agenda pushes by the Bush administration. Including raised "terror alerts".



....But I'm sure that is all coincidence, based sound and credible intelligence. :crazy:

You, most definitely, sunk your credibility with your first bullet. There is no possible way that a nation can effectively prevent an attack based solely on a report that "an attack is imminent". Without any other information accompanying such a report, it is absolutely worthless.

To prevent the attacks that occurred on 9/11 the US would have needed moles inside both AQ and the Taliban. That process takes years...not months!

 

[volinbham]

OK. But which is worse really?

"If Republicans get elected, you will be poor your entire life and lose your civil rights"

...or....

"If Democrats get elected, you will be attacked by terrorists, maybe even die."

It's all stupid, but at least the Dems never had some silly color coding for the daily "Terrorism Threat Advisory Scale" that conveniently went up and down with major political agenda pushes by the Bush administration. Including raised "terror alerts".

It's impossible to judge which is worse because different people have different fear buttons. The Repubs know that the terrorism button works well with their base while the Dems know the civil rights/economic equity ones work with their base.

If you believe the fear is real (e.g. that Republican leadership will destroy your civil rights) you don't perceive those messages as "FEAR" you see them as the Dems "telling it like it is".

Likewise if you see terrorism as a major threat to the country, you see Republican messaging as telling it like it is rather than use of fear tactics.

The big difference is that the Dems have adopted the mantra that the Republicans are the party of fear -- it is part of their messaging. Their message is only partially right -- they are both parties of fear and division. It's how you get elected.

 

[rjd970]

You, most definitely, sunk your credibility with your first bullet. There is no possible way that a nation can effectively prevent an attack based solely on a report that "an attack is imminent". Without any other information accompanying such a report, it is absolutely worthless.

To prevent the attacks that occurred on 9/11 the US would have needed moles inside both AQ and the Taliban. That process takes years...not months!

During that same intelligence briefing, Bush was quoted as saying to the analysts who briefed him (for the second time to drive the point home) "OK, you've covered your a$$, what's next?"

You would think a briefing that had the words, "A terrorist attack on the US is imminent" would at least garner a "What else do we know? Maybe we should put somebody on this." from the president.

We all know what hingsight is though.

 

[joevol320]

It's impossible to judge which is worse because different people have different fear buttons. The Repubs know that the terrorism button works well with their base while the Dems know the civil rights/economic equity ones work with their base.

If you believe the fear is real (e.g. that Republican leadership will destroy your civil rights) you don't perceive those messages as "FEAR" you see them as the Dems "telling it like it is".

Likewise if you see terrorism as a major threat to the country, you see Republican messaging as telling it like it is rather than use of fear tactics.

The big difference is that the Dems have adopted the mantra that the Republicans are the party of fear -- it is part of their messaging. Their message is only partially right -- they are both parties of fear and division. It's how you get elected.

the problem with the whole terrorism is that it happened back on 2001. the Dems have been using fear, race and class warfare tactics since the mid 60's. you can't even compare the "terrorist fear" that republicans are accused to saying. there were 6 attacks on US interests and nothing was done until a republican was in office.

the dems have a long history of being anti military and defense. (since they spat on our troops coming back from vietnam) so it is accurate to say that electing a liberal could cause us to be more open for an attack.

 

[volinbham]

During that same intelligence briefing, Bush was quoted as saying to the analysts who briefed him (for the second time to drive the point home) "OK, you've covered your a$$, what's next?"

You would think a briefing that had the words, "A terrorist attack on the US is imminent" would at least garner a "What else do we know? Maybe we should put somebody on this." from the president.

We all know what hingsight is though.

Do you have something to back up this claim that Bush did nothing other than say the quote above?

 

[therealUT]

During that same intelligence briefing, Bush was quoted as saying to the analysts who briefed him (for the second time to drive the point home) "OK, you've covered your a$$, what's next?"

You would think a briefing that had the words, "A terrorist attack on the US is imminent" would at least garner a "What else do we know? Maybe we should put somebody on this." from the president.

We all know what hingsight is though.

Having sat in on one or two intel briefs and command briefs, GWB's response is the norm. If you are going to bring a completely useless report, lacking any pertinent or actionable information, then any commander is going to basically reprimand you and move on.

 

[rjd970]

The big difference is that the Dems have adopted the mantra that the Republicans are the party of fear -- it is part of their messaging. Their message is only partially right -- they are both parties of fear and division. It's how you get elected.

And the Repubs haven't done this to the Dems? Look at any debate on Social Security and it is rampant from the right. I can point to any number of posts on this board claiming blatant fear tactics are used by Dems. Joevol is the poster child for doing this.

Both sides have accused the other of fear tactics, equally IMO. It is not about one's mantra better than the other. It's just when you have things like ridiculous color coded terror alerts, and warnings for people to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape...the label kind of fits a little better.

 

[rjd970]

Do you have something to back up this claim that Bush did nothing other than say the quote above?

Read Ron Suskind's book, "The One Percent Doctrine". Sources who were at the meeting confirmed it in separate, independent interviews.

 

[joevol320]

And the Repubs haven't done this to the Dems? Look at any debate on Social Security and it is rampant from the right. I can point to any number of posts on this board claiming blatant fear tactics are used by Dems. Joevol is the poster child for doing this.

Both sides have accused the other of fear tactics, equally IMO. It is not about one's mantra better than the other. It's just when you have things like ridiculous color coded terror alerts, and warnings for people to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape...the label kind of fits a little better.

so you're comparing a color code altert to decades of liberal fear tactics that republicans are going to starve kids and old people. that's funny:lolabove:

 

[rjd970]

so you're comparing a color code altert to decades of liberal fear tactics that republicans are going to starve kids and old people. that's funny:lolabove:

volinbham....

I rest my case.

 

[volinbham]

And the Repubs haven't done this to the Dems? Look at any debate on Social Security and it is rampant from the right. I can point to any number of posts on this board claiming blatant fear tactics are used by Dems. Joevol is the poster child for doing this.

Both sides have accused the other of fear tactics, equally IMO. It is not about one's mantra better than the other. It's just when you have things like ridiculous color coded terror alerts, and warnings for people to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape...the label kind of fits a little better.

You use one example (Ridge's response as HLSD) to show that Republicans use fear more than Democrats?

I just don't buy the premise. Both parties are fear mongers.

 

[volinbham]

volinbham....

I rest my case.

Joe is not a Republican party operative. If we're using Internet postings to demonstrate, I suggest you spend 5 minutes at the Huffpost, Moveon or Democratic Underground and you'll see more fear and extremism than has ever been posted here...