PDA

View Full Version : U.S. to Stop Deporting Some Illegal Immigrants



JamesBW43
06-15-2012, 02:12 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?hp



WASHINGTON — Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children will be able to obtain work permits and be safe from deportation under a new policy announced on Friday by the Obama administration.

SnakeoilSeller
06-15-2012, 02:59 PM
Just another shameless election year stunt. It shows that Obama and his campaign look at the electorate as a bunch of special interest groups that he can buy their votes with promises and favors. It is sad and pathetic. **** laws and the Constition, right. Further, it shows that he could care less about the economy and how much actual Americans are hurting. With over 23 million legal Americans unable to find work, he thinks it's best to add a few more million to the unemployment rolls? It is sad to see how this administration is just out of ideas, other than pandering. This is going to blow up in his face - he is clueless.

Tetragrammaton
06-15-2012, 03:37 PM
Hopefully we are starting to see a more sensible immigration policy. The Obama Administration has been the worst in terms of deporting people.

JamesBW43
06-15-2012, 05:35 PM
Just another shameless election year stunt. It shows that Obama and his campaign look at the electorate as a bunch of special interest groups that he can buy their votes with promises and favors. It is sad and pathetic. **** laws and the Constition, right. Further, it shows that he could care less about the economy and how much actual Americans are hurting. With over 23 million legal Americans unable to find work, he thinks it's best to add a few more million to the unemployment rolls? It is sad to see how this administration is just out of ideas, other than pandering. This is going to blow up in his face - he is clueless.

:rolleyes2: That's called republican government (specifically, the more popular approach to it)... Were you born the day of the President's inauguration or something?

JamesBW43
06-15-2012, 05:37 PM
Hopefully we are starting to see a more sensible immigration policy. The Obama Administration has been the worst in terms of deporting people.

I was quite surprised. This was one of the last things I expected them to do, behind some kind of attempt at gun control.

SnakeoilSeller
06-15-2012, 08:34 PM
:rolleyes2: That's called republican government (specifically, the more popular approach to it)... Were you born the day of the President's inauguration or something?

Instead of editing it, you should have just deleted it.

CedarPhin
06-15-2012, 09:52 PM
Just another shameless election year stunt. It shows that Obama and his campaign look at the electorate as a bunch of special interest groups that he can buy their votes with promises and favors. It is sad and pathetic. **** laws and the Constition, right. Further, it shows that he could care less about the economy and how much actual Americans are hurting. With over 23 million legal Americans unable to find work, he thinks it's best to add a few more million to the unemployment rolls? It is sad to see how this administration is just out of ideas, other than pandering. This is going to blow up in his face - he is clueless.
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/artthouangeredmybrethren-1.jpg

JamesBW43
06-15-2012, 10:38 PM
Instead of editing it, you should have just deleted it.

I simply added what's in the parenthesis because acting as a trustee instead of a delegate is an equally valid approach. However, the vast majority of our representatives have been operating as the latter for quite some time. But as always, your ignorant hatred of all things the President does/is led to yet another rant against a common, basic, and frankly legitimate thing in politics.

WSE
06-15-2012, 11:55 PM
these kids are not criminals. You have no control where your parents bring you as a child.

Prosecutorial discretion is a very normal thing.

The Confessor
06-16-2012, 07:17 AM
Just another shameless election year stunt. It shows that Obama and his campaign look at the electorate as a bunch of special interest groups that he can buy their votes with promises and favors. It is sad and pathetic. **** laws and the Constition, right. Further, it shows that he could care less about the economy and how much actual Americans are hurting. With over 23 million legal Americans unable to find work, he thinks it's best to add a few more million to the unemployment rolls? It is sad to see how this administration is just out of ideas, other than pandering. This is going to blow up in his face - he is clueless.



No way that Obama would stop everything just to garner votes. I just don't see it happening.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-hosts-lgbt-pride-reception-vows-advocate/story?id=16581701#.T9xrC7XOx8E



Obama hosts LGBT Pride reception, vows to be ‘advocate'

JamesBW43
06-16-2012, 10:13 AM
No way that Obama would stop everything just to garner votes. I just don't see it happening.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-hosts-lgbt-pride-reception-vows-advocate/story?id=16581701#.T9xrC7XOx8E

What did he stop doing in order to "garner votes"?

LANGER72
06-16-2012, 10:45 AM
His announcement was expected and predictable. He has a speaking engagement with a Latino organization in a few days. It was deliberate and timed to focus in on the Latino vote. It is just a temporary measure that can be ended at any time. However most Latinos will not realize that fact in the short run, but in time, over the next couple of months, they will realize that they are being misled. It will backfire IMHO.
Romney gave a great reply during an interview following Obama's announcement. The children of illegals in some cases should be allowed to stay, especially if either of their parents has served in the armed forces.
Each case should be reviewed in terms of a longer term and comprehensive plan. If the families are established and working, let them stay. If they are sucking off the welfare teat, send them back. They will be fine in their native countries.
Jan Brewer looked completely baffled in a Fox interview. She loses this round and there is nothing she can do until Romney get's into office.
That state undoubtedly will be the first(if not already) to implement drones to track all the illegals.
Just my .02

Gonzo
06-16-2012, 11:27 AM
His announcement was expected and predictable. He has a speaking engagement with a Latino organization in a few days. It was deliberate and timed to focus in on the Latino vote. It is just a temporary measure that can be ended at any time. However most Latinos will not realize that fact in the short run, but in time, over the next couple of months, they will realize that they are being misled. It will backfire IMHO.
Romney gave a great reply during an interview following Obama's announcement. The children of illegals in some cases should be allowed to stay, especially if either of their parents has served in the armed forces.
Each case should be reviewed in terms of a longer term and comprehensive plan. If the families are established and working, let them stay. If they are sucking off the welfare teat, send them back. They will be fine in their native countries.
Jan Brewer looked completely baffled in a Fox interview. She loses this round and there is nothing she can do until Romney get's into office.
That state undoubtedly will be the first(if not already) to implement drones to track all the illegals.
Just my .02Sweet, talk about cutting government spending! And Brewer looks completely baffled 90% of the time. That's just her face.

LANGER72
06-16-2012, 01:34 PM
Sweet, talk about cutting government spending! And Brewer looks completely baffled 90% of the time. That's just her face.


Yea. She looks like she is in severe pain, sweating and contorted. Her facial expressions look like she has suffered a stroke. Still, she has a lot of conviction and guts. I admire her fighting spirit.
Those drones sound like some kind of sweetheart deal. It is a great time to be politically connected and powerful(sarc). The money tap is wide open.

Gonzo
06-16-2012, 01:49 PM
Yea. She looks like she is in severe pain, sweating and contorted. Her facial expressions look like she has suffered a stroke. Still, she has a lot of conviction and guts. I admire her fighting spirit.
Those drones sound like some kind of sweetheart deal. It is a great time to be politically connected and powerful(sarc). The money tap is wide open.

So long as that money isn't spent on the health of our citizens. I'm sure it all "trickles down," or whatever. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Bush = Obama = Ker...er, Romney

CedarPhin
06-16-2012, 01:54 PM
This is just a bizarro 2004 election.

Obama's playing Bush, the seemingly vulnerable incumbent.
Romney's playing Kerry, the flip flopper who has "expertise" in some areas. (For Romney, it's business at a time of economic downturn, for Kerry, it was being a soldier in Vietnam during a "war" effort)
The GOP, like the Dems in 2004, have made it their resolve to vote for "Anyone but Obama", just as the Dems kind of made it their thing to vote for "Anybody but Bush"
In both times, they get stuck (or are stuck with) a half assed candidate. Both times, both sides have deluded their selves into thinking they've got their election in the bag.

Obummer probably wins re-election. It may be close, but I don't think he's going to lose unless something drastic happens.

felhandkra
06-16-2012, 02:24 PM
what is confusing about the word illegal...its even the same in Spanish

Locke
06-16-2012, 04:03 PM
This is just a bizarro 2004 election.

Obama's playing Bush, the seemingly vulnerable incumbent.
Romney's playing Kerry, the flip flopper who has "expertise" in some areas. (For Romney, it's business at a time of economic downturn, for Kerry, it was being a soldier in Vietnam during a "war" effort)
The GOP, like the Dems in 2004, have made it their resolve to vote for "Anyone but Obama", just as the Dems kind of made it their thing to vote for "Anybody but Bush"
In both times, they get stuck (or are stuck with) a half assed candidate. Both times, both sides have deluded their selves into thinking they've got their election in the bag.

Obummer probably wins re-election. It may be close, but I don't think he's going to lose unless something drastic happens.

The real campaigning hasn't even begun, and our resident Neo-cons are already convinced that Romney is a shoe-in. Once the flip-flopping and crazy sh*t Mormons do hits the spotlight, we'll see how well Romney polls. his isn't to say Obama has re-election in the bag; no one is ever safe when the economy is doing as bad as it is. But the arrogance of some of the people here in regards to Romney is only seen when someone is delusional beyond all reason. I simply can't understand how someone can look at everything objectively and think that Romney is a shoe-in. The guys is barely competitive right now, and the Obama campaign team hasn't even started yet...

Tetragrammaton
06-16-2012, 04:06 PM
Someone made a good point the other day. If the Democrats hit Romney's Mormonism and their beliefs, the fallout will be far worse than any that came from Obama and Reverend Wright. Obama simply attended that church; Romney was a leader of his.

When the PACs start to come out, people are going to be bombarded with it.

CedarPhin
06-16-2012, 04:42 PM
The real campaigning hasn't even begun, and our resident Neo-cons are already convinced that Romney is a shoe-in. Once the flip-flopping and crazy sh*t Mormons do hits the spotlight, we'll see how well Romney polls. his isn't to say Obama has re-election in the bag; no one is ever safe when the economy is doing as bad as it is. But the arrogance of some of the people here in regards to Romney is only seen when someone is delusional beyond all reason. I simply can't understand how someone can look at everything objectively and think that Romney is a shoe-in. The guys is barely competitive right now, and the Obama campaign team hasn't even started yet...

A lot of polls had Kerry ahead of Bush too in the early going, then Bush gained some traction at the end of the summer, and Kerry caught up a little bit to make it a "photo finish" type thing that really wasn't so close in reality. Same thing will happen this time, just more money will be spent, IMO.

Locke
06-16-2012, 06:17 PM
A lot of polls had Kerry ahead of Bush too in the early going, then Bush gained some traction at the end of the summer, and Kerry caught up a little bit to make it a "photo finish" type thing that really wasn't so close in reality. Same thing will happen this time, just more money will be spent, IMO.

I agree. Except I don't think it'll be as close, despite the media portraying it that way. I say this fully aware that Bush beat Kerry pretty handily. Romney comes off as sleazy, slimy, and dishonest. I trust him about as far as I can throw him, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that. Once campaign season hits full steam and the flip-flopping that has been alluded actually comes to light, I think it'll come through pretty obviously in the polls. It'll be an entertaining year to read the PoFo though, that's for sure. We'll be getting some good laughs in the coming months...

rob19
06-17-2012, 03:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

jared81
06-17-2012, 06:07 AM
This is just election year bs. I remember in 2004 when the bush administration made us believe that if Kerry got elected, that the gays were gonna take over. Obama has no shame and only cares about gays and Latinos to get their votes. This is just another example of how morally bankrupt politicians are.

The Confessor
06-17-2012, 07:37 AM
What did he stop doing in order to "garner votes"?


Good point. It's not like he's doing a damn thing to begin with :up:

Dolphins9954
06-17-2012, 08:47 AM
Our immigration policies need to reformed from top to bottom. It's full of double standards and hypocrisy. (Obama has actually deported more illegals at a higher rate than Bush ever did). What I think is BS about this is that it's a slap in the face to those that are doing it legally and have paid lots of money for it. I know a couple from the UK who have invested tons of money to become citizens and have gone through years of the legal process. Still to this day the government hasn't granted them citizenship and they are forced to leave the country every 6 months then come back to get their visas. There really is no incentive to do it legally.

Gonzo
06-17-2012, 09:25 AM
Our immigration policies need to reformed from top to bottom. It's full of double standards and hypocrisy. (Obama has actually deported more illegals at a higher rate than Bush ever did). What I think is BS about this is that it's a slap in the face to those that are doing it legally and have paid lots of money for it. I know a couple from the UK who have invested tons of money to become citizens and have gone through years of the legal process. Still to this day the government hasn't granted them citizenship and they are forced to leave the country every 6 months then come back to get their visas. There really is no incentive to do it legally.LOTS of money, time, and an insane amount of paperwork. It definitely caters to those that have money (not us, blew our entire savings on it and a considerable amount of debt) and are educated. If you are neither of those, you stand almost zero chance of doing it legally thanks to the cost and the insane amount of bureaucracy. And now we already have to start working on renewing it.

Neither side addresses the true issue. It's nothing but saber-rattling bull****. Investing billions in attempting to stop illegals (which won't work) vs granting all illegals amnesty. Neither is a legitimate solution. Simplify the process, make it reasonable to pay for, and increase background checks, etc. to prevent criminals from coming in. It will never happen though, because lawyers make a KILLING off the process, and what are most politicians? Funny that medicine and immigration suffer from the same rotting disease.

jared81
06-17-2012, 09:42 AM
I agree. Except I don't think it'll be as close, despite the media portraying it that way. I say this fully aware that Bush beat Kerry pretty handily. Romney comes off as sleazy, slimy, and dishonest. I trust him about as far as I can throw him, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that. Once campaign season hits full steam and the flip-flopping that has been alluded actually comes to light, I think it'll come through pretty obviously in the polls. It'll be an entertaining year to read the PoFo though, that's for sure. We'll be getting some good laughs in the coming months...

You think with over 8% unemployment and an economy expected to get worse over the summer that Obama is going to destroy Romney? I think any candidate that doesn't complete slip has a chance against an incumbent that has obamas record. Regardless if you (who I consider liberal) like Romney, independents will be split. It will be a close election.

LANGER72
06-17-2012, 10:19 AM
This executive order is pathetic. Obama said it himself that it was temporary.
The plans to attack Romney over his Morman religion is the 2012 version of swift boats. That will be a great entry point to start hammering Obama about Wright.
I would rather they talk about how to resuscitate the economy and country.
Weak, pathetic and sad.

Locke
06-17-2012, 11:26 AM
You think with over 8% unemployment and an economy expected to get worse over the summer that Obama is going to destroy Romney? I think any candidate that doesn't complete slip has a chance against an incumbent that has obamas record. Regardless if you (who I consider liberal) like Romney, independents will be split. It will be a close election.

I don't think he is going to destroy Romney, but I think he will beat him handily. I think similarly to how Bush beat Kerry, but a little wider margin. The economy is bad regardless, but Obama has a built in excuse, and already has ammunition that Romney would have been in the exact same boat with the Massachusetts bill he passed. Honestly, the flip-flopping is going to bury Romney, as well as the religion. Personally, I think the fact that his religion shouldn't make a difference. The government is set up in a way that the religion of a President would have a minimal effect, if any, on their legislation. However, it does matter to the populace, and Romney comes from one of the more bat-sh*t crazy ones. You're right in that I'm liberal (socially), and I agree that the Independents will be split. However, I don't think it'll be down the middle, and I think they will lean Obama...

Dogbone34
06-17-2012, 01:51 PM
The tolerant social left only silences themselves attacking a religion. People recognize and turn away from the hypocrisy.

Political flip flopping is now called evolution. It's not a game changer when both candidates do it.

This EO is so amerifornia.

Locke
06-17-2012, 08:23 PM
The tolerant social left only silences themselves attacking a religion. People recognize and turn away from the hypocrisy.

Political flip flopping is now called evolution. It's not a game changer when both candidates do it.

This EO is so amerifornia.

To try to paint liberals as religiously intolerant is disingenuous. You talk to a conservative about Islam, then come and tell me that liberals are the intolerant ones. Everyone is weary of something different from them, and especially when that difference is as ****ing weird as Mormonism is.

If flip-flopping is evolution, why does Kerry STILL get hammered for it? It is absolutely a game changer, and while all politicians do it, there are definitely varying degrees of it. Romney is the world champ of flip-flopping, with Obama being some guy sparring in his basement with a bean bag chair. It's not even close. Trying to pretend it is would be nothing but partisan hope...

LANGER72
06-18-2012, 10:16 AM
To try to paint liberals as religiously intolerant is disingenuous. You talk to a conservative about Islam, then come and tell me that liberals are the intolerant ones. Everyone is weary of something different from them, and especially when that difference is as ****ing weird as Mormonism is.

If flip-flopping is evolution, why does Kerry STILL get hammered for it? It is absolutely a game changer, and while all politicians do it, there are definitely varying degrees of it. Romney is the world champ of flip-flopping, with Obama being some guy sparring in his basement with a bean bag chair. It's not even close. Trying to pretend it is would be nothing but partisan hope...


Romney Flip-flopping? That is the message that wins? :lol:
I believe the state of the nation economically and financially is the game changer. Obama has failed to make anything better. Just blame Bush. No answers. All that shovel did was dig us a deeper hole. All of the other topics are just noise. Nothing will change until after the election.
This executive order is pure politics in an attempt to win a few more votes from a segment of the population that he has strong support(mainly from poor immigrants who depend on the government) in some states. I think he played this card to early...there is plenty of time for Romney to underscore his words "temporary". This action is totally without precedent. He is throwing out federal law and acting like a dictator.
Romney is in no way the optimal candidate in this mess of affairs, but he stands above Obama. Obama is an embarrassment to the USA. Changes have to be, and I am confident will be made.

MadDog 88
06-18-2012, 10:49 AM
Although this was a bad decision by Obama, as an independent it doesn't change my support for him over Romney. Call it the lesser of two evils.

SnakeoilSeller
06-18-2012, 11:34 AM
IMHO, it is funny that anyone really cares about flip flopping on whatever minor thing the Obama campaign can dig up. The #1 issue is the economy. Obama can talk about flip flops and the wonderful socially tolerant left can go after another religion, but it will backfire - that happens when the campaigner and chief wants to talk about anything other than the economy. Obama's only hope is if the takers overcome the producers, than Obama can win, promising them more of the same. BTW, people are paying attention, they have been for 3 1/2 years and they dont like what they see. The meme that the "campaign" has not heated up is a joke, Obama started campaigning on election night 2008, and has never stopped. And the people are aware and they dont like it, and have constantly shown Obama they don't like it at the ballot box. Mass, NJ, Virginia, the 2010 mid terms, and Wisconsin. If the election were held today, Romney wins in a landslide. Not because Romney is looked at at some great savior, but he could not be as incompetent as Obama.

LANGER72
06-18-2012, 11:49 AM
IMHO, it is funny that anyone really cares about flip flopping on whatever minor thing the Obama campaign can dig up. The #1 issue is the economy. Obama can talk about flip flops and the wonderful socially tolerant left can go after another religion, but it will backfire - that happens when the campaigner and chief wants to talk about anything other than the economy. Obama's only hope is if the takers overcome the producers, than Obama can win, promising them more of the same. BTW, people are paying attention, they have been for 3 1/2 years and they dont like what they see. The meme that the "campaign" has not heated up is a joke, Obama started campaigning on election night 2008, and has never stopped. And the people are aware and they dont like it, and have constantly shown Obama they don't like it at the ballot box. Mass, NJ, Virginia, the 2010 mid terms, and Wisconsin. If the election were held today, Romney wins in a landslide. Not because Romney is looked at at some great savior, but he could not be as incompetent as Obama.


The funny thing to me is that Obama has done plenty of flip flipping himself. The statements, video and sound bites of both men reversing and "evolving" and explaining away their opinions are numerous. The whole issue is a wash. No one cares about that.
Romney is has enough smart people in his campaign to keep him on message and prevent him from entering debate on any created diversions. He will keep hammering Obama with his own record. Obama will climb out on his branch, and Romney will saw it off.
Instead of talking about Romney's flip flopping, he should be taking steps to reduce waste fraud and come up with a budget that begins to reverse the deficit. Stop being a politician and start doing the job(even at this late stage) as president. He has ran out of time.

SnakeoilSeller
06-18-2012, 11:49 AM
I simply added what's in the parenthesis because acting as a trustee instead of a delegate is an equally valid approach. However, the vast majority of our representatives have been operating as the latter for quite some time. But as always, your ignorant hatred of all things the President does/is led to yet another rant against a common, basic, and frankly legitimate thing in politics.

I just took the President and Big Sis on their words when they said last year there was nothing that they could do alone. Luckily for the legal citizens of the United States, the President and our Justice Department have been working feverishly on a way they can circumvent Congress and the Constitution. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that our DOJ is burning the midnite oil on the difficult cases like suing Arizona and Florida and now finding ways where the President can just change laws on his own.

LANGER72
06-18-2012, 11:52 AM
Although this was a bad decision by Obama, as an independent it doesn't change my support for him over Romney. Call it the lesser of two evils.


I see it the other way around. Time for a new plan and another fresh start.

SnakeoilSeller
06-18-2012, 12:31 PM
Although this was a bad decision by Obama, as an independent it doesn't change my support for him over Romney. Call it the lesser of two evils.

What part of the last 4 years do you want more of?

MadDog 88
06-18-2012, 02:28 PM
Obama has been far from an ideal president but Romney refuses to get into the meat and potatoes of what he'll do. He had 36 hours to prepare for Face the Nation and had no answer for Obama's action and when asked about which tax deductions he'll eliminate, his response was they'd take it up with congress. With Romney, flip flopping is a minor issue when compared to his ability to effectively communicate his ideas for fear of pissing some one off.

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------


What part of the last 4 years do you want more of?
I am not overly happy with the last four years but the alternative looks far worse IMO.

LANGER72
06-18-2012, 02:51 PM
Obama has been far from an ideal president but Romney refuses to get into the meat and potatoes of what he'll do. He had 36 hours to prepare for Face the Nation and had no answer for Obama's action and when asked about which tax deductions he'll eliminate, his response was they'd take it up with congress. With Romney, flip flopping is a minor issue when compared to his ability to effectively communicate his ideas for fear of pissing some one off.

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------


I am not overly happy with the last four years but the alternative looks far worse IMO.


He is being smart. This is a poker game, and he will not put all of his cards on the table until it is time. No matter which way he answers, the media will try to help Obama with it. Anyway, who watches "Face the Nation" anymore..

Consulting with congress is actually a good idea. Obama has no use for congress or the senate, or for federal laws for that matter..

MadDog 88
06-18-2012, 02:59 PM
He is being smart. This is a poker game, and he will not put all of his cards on the table until it is time. No matter which way he answers, the media will try to help Obama with it. Anyway, who watches "Face the Nation" anymore..

Consulting with congress is actually a good idea. Obama has no use for congress or the senate, or for federal laws for that matter..
Sorry but making yourself looking like a floundering idiot is not very sound strategy. If you saw it you would recognize just how idiotic he looked trying not to take a stance for fear of pissing off those for or opposed.

Tetragrammaton
06-18-2012, 03:09 PM
Big Sis

Gay baiting was never attractive, but it is altogether out of style now. If you can spell President, you can spell Napolitano.

LANGER72
06-18-2012, 03:53 PM
Sorry but making yourself looking like a floundering idiot is not very sound strategy. If you saw it you would recognize just how idiotic he looked trying not to take a stance for fear of pissing off those for or opposed.

I have not watched it, but you are entitled to your opinion. IMHO, Romney is stiff and sometimes "off" and awkward, but I would not call him an idiot.
If he was unsure that answering the question would cause him political harm, then he was correct to not take a stance on that show.
He will pick the time and place of his choosing to make his points, not the other way around.

SnakeoilSeller
06-18-2012, 06:12 PM
Gay baiting was never attractive, but it is altogether out of style now. If you can spell President, you can spell Napolitano.

Didn't realize that Big Sis was a gay term, but then again I didn't realize that cool was racist until last week. Nor did I realize that you were now the monitor of political correctness. I will keep it under advisement.

CedarPhin
06-18-2012, 06:19 PM
Didn't realize that Big Sis was a gay term, but then again I didn't realize that cool was racist until last week. Nor did I realize that you were now the monitor of political correctness. I will keep it under advisement.

Does Drudge tell you what to eat for lunch too?

SnakeoilSeller
06-18-2012, 06:24 PM
Obama has been far from an ideal president but Romney refuses to get into the meat and potatoes of what he'll do. He had 36 hours to prepare for Face the Nation and had no answer for Obama's action and when asked about which tax deductions he'll eliminate, his response was they'd take it up with congress. With Romney, flip flopping is a minor issue when compared to his ability to effectively communicate his ideas for fear of pissing some one off.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am always curious as to why. That is why I always ask someone what has happened over the last 3 1/2 years that you want more of it. 8%+ unemployment? A couple more credit downgrades? Runaway spending? Government run health care? I know what Obama can do. And I know what Obama will do if given another 4 years without the threat of another election holding him back.

CedarPhin
06-18-2012, 06:31 PM
I want a return to the Bush years. GOAT AFAIC.

SnakeoilSeller
06-18-2012, 06:33 PM
Does Drudge tell you what to eat for lunch too?

No, I am not a liberal, I can make my own decisions.

I have heard the term "Big Sis" for the last couple of years and she even joked about getting her own nickname on Drudge during a Press conference. I have seen it used on plenty of websites and blogs, but never heard it as a gay slur - until today so it must be true. But I did read last week that "cool" was racist, from the executive director of the Congressional Black caucus, so I just may not be up to date on all the lingo.

CedarPhin
06-18-2012, 06:37 PM
No, I am not a liberal, I can make my own decisions.

I have heard the term "Big Sis" for the last couple of years and she even joked about getting her own nickname on Drudge during a Press conference. I have seen it used on plenty of websites and blogs, but never heard it as a gay slur - until today so it must be true. But I did read last week that "cool" was racist, from the executive director of the Congressional Black caucus, so I just may not be up to date on all the lingo.

Do you get your orders from Rush, then?

LANGER72
06-18-2012, 09:00 PM
I want a return to the Bush years. GOAT AFAIC.





You too?

I thought you were running a three legged race with Pelosi? :hitit:

Locke
06-18-2012, 09:04 PM
This thread is turning into pure gold...

MadDog 88
06-19-2012, 12:58 PM
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am always curious as to why. That is why I always ask someone what has happened over the last 3 1/2 years that you want more of it. 8%+ unemployment? A couple more credit downgrades? Runaway spending? Government run health care? I know what Obama can do. And I know what Obama will do if given another 4 years without the threat of another election holding him back.He inherited 9+% unemployment, a war with 2 fronts and billions being spent on homeland security and the Bush tax cuts. I'll give him credit for at least getting us out of Iraq and the removal of troops from Afghanistan in the near future as well as at least starting the unemployment trending downward.

I honestly think no matter who wins in November the country is in for several more years of recovery.

SnakeoilSeller
06-19-2012, 01:11 PM
He inherited 9+% unemployment, a war with 2 fronts and billions being spent on homeland security and the Bush tax cuts. I'll give him credit for at least getting us out of Iraq and the removal of troops from Afghanistan in the near future as well as at least starting the unemployment trending downward.

I honestly think no matter who wins in November the country is in for several more years of recovery.

Your facts are not correct on the unemployment rate. When President Obama was sworn in unemployment rate was at 7.8%. It did not cross 9% until May of 2009. 4 months after the Stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8% was passed. It was above 9% until October of last year. Well after the recession had ended (July 2009 - if you believe that.) and over 2 1/2 years after they had passed the stimulus. The unemployment rate is currently going up, not down. And if they used the same statistics in calculating the unemployment rate in 2009 as they do today, unemployment would be closer to 10.9%. Not that the facts will change your mind or anyone else's.


http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Spesh
06-19-2012, 01:40 PM
This thread is turning into pure gold...

Fuel for the fire:


President Barack Obama's high-profile shift on immigration last week—announcing plans to grant temporary legal status to as many as 800,000 undocumented people brought to American soil as children—has the overwhelming support of likely voters in a new Bloomberg poll released Tuesday (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/obama-immigration-policy-favored-2-to-1-by-likely-voters.html).
Sixty-four percent of them—and 66 percent of independents, the frequently up-for-grabs voters thought to decide elections—support the president's decision. The White House has forcefully (and rather implausibly) denied that Obama sought political gain from his announcement. But as recently as March 2011, he had said publicly that he lacked the power to halt such deportations (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-univision-town-hall).
The Bloomberg survey found that just 30 percent of likely voters disagreed with the president's plan. Fifty-six percent of likely Republican voters opposed it, while 86 percent of Democrats supported it. Just 26 percent of independents sided with the Republican majority in the poll.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-immigration-shift-hit-voters-says-poll-144334585.html

This is the part where people will calmly inform those viewing this thread about how wrong this poll is and how Romney is charging forward to a landslide victory(by "calmly" i mean, they will tell me how the liberal media is full of crap and doesnt know jack).

SnakeoilSeller
06-19-2012, 01:56 PM
I wonder if they polled the 23 million Americans who are still unemployed if they thought it was a good idea to add hundreds of thousands if not millions to the work force?

Gonzo
06-19-2012, 03:12 PM
I wonder if they polled the 23 million Americans who are still unemployed if they thought it was a good idea to add hundreds of thousands if not millions to the work force?

I wonder how many of them would also be willing to do the work most immigrants do and how many are "holding out for management positions." I wonder how many of them would also realize that an increase in the number of people entering the workforce also results in an increase in the number of available jobs.

My wife came here from Canada (legally) and had zero problem getting a job. Hell, she's still getting offers. She terk er jerbs! Oh, wait, no she didn't. She came in legally, applied for the job, beat out the competition (citizens) and the company got the best employee.

Capitalism > nationalism

LANGER72
06-19-2012, 09:00 PM
I wonder how many of them would also be willing to do the work most immigrants do and how many are "holding out for management positions." I wonder how many of them would also realize that an increase in the number of people entering the workforce also results in an increase in the number of available jobs.

My wife came here from Canada (legally) and had zero problem getting a job. Hell, she's still getting offers. She terk er jerbs! Oh, wait, no she didn't. She came in legally, applied for the job, beat out the competition (citizens) and the company got the best employee.

Capitalism > nationalism


I am sure some of the uneducated and unskilled would have no choice but to take those jobs or retrain for other careers. I would bet that a sizable portion of skilled and educated workers that have seen their companies close or lay off because of the economy.
Craftsmen, office workers, accountants, managers, etc. Adding another million illegals(skilled or unskilled) to the already unemployed does nothing to help.
My wife is from Europe. We paid all the money and she emigrated here legally. She is a citizen now. She had no problems finding work as a linguist.
Why only the Hispanics? While we are at it, why don't we add another million Europeans, Canadians, and Asians. Let them come in for free with no documents.

Tetragrammaton
06-19-2012, 09:11 PM
I wonder if they polled the 23 million Americans who are still unemployed if they thought it was a good idea to add hundreds of thousands if not millions to the work force?

Who cares what they think? Anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that immigration either increases employment or has no net effect.

JamesBW43
06-19-2012, 10:06 PM
IMHO, it is funny that anyone really cares about flip flopping on whatever minor thing the Obama campaign can dig up. The #1 issue is the economy. Obama can talk about flip flops and the wonderful socially tolerant left can go after another religion, but it will backfire - that happens when the campaigner and chief wants to talk about anything other than the economy. Obama's only hope is if the takers overcome the producers, than Obama can win, promising them more of the same. BTW, people are paying attention, they have been for 3 1/2 years and they dont like what they see. The meme that the "campaign" has not heated up is a joke, Obama started campaigning on election night 2008, and has never stopped. And the people are aware and they dont like it, and have constantly shown Obama they don't like it at the ballot box. Mass, NJ, Virginia, the 2010 mid terms, and Wisconsin. If the election were held today, Romney wins in a landslide. Not because Romney is looked at at some great savior, but he could not be as incompetent as Obama.

"Minor thing" = a myriad of issues, among them: health care reform and anti-terrorism strategy.

Last time I checked, President Obama's name wasn't on any of those ballots, and if the election were held today or yesterday, the President would have 4 more years.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Jun18.html


I just took the President and Big Sis on their words when they said last year there was nothing that they could do alone. Luckily for the legal citizens of the United States, the President and our Justice Department have been working feverishly on a way they can circumvent Congress and the Constitution. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that our DOJ is burning the midnite oil on the difficult cases like suing Arizona and Florida and now finding ways where the President can just change laws on his own.

How are they circumventing the Constitution with this? I guess I'm forgetting something because I keep seeing conservatives say this (although I never hear how).


Government run health care?

Still singing that tune?



And I know what Obama will do if given another 4 years without the threat of another election holding him back.

You do? Is it anything like all the stuff you knew he'd do the first time, like gun control, socialized medicine, legalizing drugs, capitulating to terrorists, or redistributing wealth?

JamesBW43
06-19-2012, 10:09 PM
He is being smart. This is a poker game, and he will not put all of his cards on the table until it is time. No matter which way he answers, the media will try to help Obama with it. Anyway, who watches "Face the Nation" anymore..

Consulting with congress is actually a good idea. Obama has no use for congress or the senate, or for federal laws for that matter..

I disagree that it's being smart. It was fine for the Republican primary because, frankly, all the other candidates were comically weak, if not outright silly. But in the general election, you need to provide some degree of a vision or plan you have for the country. It's an essential part of a Presidential campaign, or at least that's what I was taught.

I also disagree that consulting with Congress is a good idea, Congress sucks :chuckle:

Gonzo
06-19-2012, 11:12 PM
I am sure some of the uneducated and unskilled would have no choice but to take those jobs or retrain for other careers. I would bet that a sizable portion of skilled and educated workers that have seen their companies close or lay off because of the economy.
Craftsmen, office workers, accountants, managers, etc. Adding another million illegals(skilled or unskilled) to the already unemployed does nothing to help.
My wife is from Europe. We paid all the money and she emigrated here legally. She is a citizen now. She had no problems finding work as a linguist.
Why only the Hispanics? While we are at it, why don't we add another million Europeans, Canadians, and Asians. Let them come in for free with no documents.Funny, you answered that in your very first sentence. My wife and I are both well educated, as I'm sure your wife and you are. We can understand at least some of the documentation required to apply for a visa and have the means to pay for it. The same can't be said for the vast majority of illegal immigrants.

Also, Hispanics are no longer the leading immigrants. That title belongs to Asians, and they certainly aren't coming over legally. Europeans and Canadians don't come over illegally because why the hell would they? :lol: Most come over looking for a better life, not higher healthcare costs, **** education, and endless war-funding.

The "millions flooding the job market" line has been used since the beginning of the country and remains just as nonsensical. It's pretty simple, millions flooding the job market creates more of a market. New immigrants need houses. They need food. They need all the same things we do to survive and it all needs to be produced. Basic supply and demand.

The problem most people have isn't that it's illegal and it isn't even based on race. Immigration has always been a class issue, whether that was the poor Irish immigrating during the potato famine or Mexicans wanting to get out of that nightmare of a country. The legal immigration process is a bureaucratic monstrosity designed to prevent the uneducated and poor from immigrating. That's not how it should be. More emphasis should be on stopping criminals from coming over than the current system of preventing the poor. No amount of drones, fences, or other nonsense will curb illegal immigration like proper reform will.

SnakeoilSeller
06-20-2012, 09:35 AM
I disagree that it's being smart. It was fine for the Republican primary because, frankly, all the other candidates were comically weak, if not outright silly. But in the general election, you need to provide some degree of a vision or plan you have for the country. It's an essential part of a Presidential campaign, or at least that's what I was taught.

I also disagree that consulting with Congress is a good idea, Congress sucks :chuckle:

What a joke. In the general election you need to provide a plan? You mean like Hope and Change. That was a really clear plan wasn't it. Or how about the plan presented for the Stimulus. Because that was all about "shovel ready jobs", that was a good plan. Or maybe another plan that has worked well, like not sticking up for our Allies in Egypt or Israel, that plan seems to have worked, doesn't it. Obama has had lots of great plans. And we have lots to show for them like record unemployment, record amount of people on food stamps, record foreclosures, record debt and the first time ever the USA's credit was downgraded. We see the results of Obama's plans everywhere

LANGER72
06-20-2012, 10:30 AM
Funny, you answered that in your very first sentence. My wife and I are both well educated, as I'm sure your wife and you are. We can understand at least some of the documentation required to apply for a visa and have the means to pay for it. The same can't be said for the vast majority of illegal immigrants.

Also, Hispanics are no longer the leading immigrants. That title belongs to Asians, and they certainly aren't coming over legally. Europeans and Canadians don't come over illegally because why the hell would they? :lol: Most come over looking for a better life, not higher healthcare costs, **** education, and endless war-funding.

The "millions flooding the job market" line has been used since the beginning of the country and remains just as nonsensical. It's pretty simple, millions flooding the job market creates more of a market. New immigrants need houses. They need food. They need all the same things we do to survive and it all needs to be produced. Basic supply and demand.

The problem most people have isn't that it's illegal and it isn't even based on race. Immigration has always been a class issue, whether that was the poor Irish immigrating during the potato famine or Mexicans wanting to get out of that nightmare of a country. The legal immigration process is a bureaucratic monstrosity designed to prevent the uneducated and poor from immigrating. That's not how it should be. More emphasis should be on stopping criminals from coming over than the current system of preventing the poor. No amount of drones, fences, or other nonsense will curb illegal immigration like proper reform will.

We cannot afford to care for the world's(or Mexico's) poor at this time. Why does the US tax payer become responsible for the condition of people living in poverty in a neighboring country? Once our house is in order, we can be charitable.

The southern borders must be fenced and every foot of our southern border must be guarded with men and technology.
IMHO, there should be fairness and equal access for all countries. All must play by the rules(sponsorship or lottery) and wait until it is their time to immigrate. I think the costs are ridiculous and should be lowered. Some of the poor would be shut out because of the cost.

I think the person's education and skill should be considered as well. We do not need 1M laborers, 1M massage parlor and nail girls (lol), 1M doctors or 1M accountants all at once. At the border states, the influx of new unemployed can overwhelm the states budget.

And...they should not be allowed to vote in any election until they become 18 years old and US citizens!

Getting back to the original post. I think that giving a path to citizenship is the right thing to do for the children of the illegals. They were brought here through no fault of their own. If they are staying out of trouble, attending school, in the armed forces, or working, they should be welcomed. The issue is that Obama circumvented the congress and might have broken some laws or failed to uphold the constitution..that is some serious stuff. I am no expert, but it will be interesting to see it all play out.

Just my .02

JamesBW43
06-20-2012, 06:28 PM
What a joke. In the general election you need to provide a plan? You mean like Hope and Change. That was a really clear plan wasn't it. Or how about the plan presented for the Stimulus. Because that was all about "shovel ready jobs", that was a good plan. Or maybe another plan that has worked well, like not sticking up for our Allies in Egypt or Israel, that plan seems to have worked, doesn't it. Obama has had lots of great plans. And we have lots to show for them like record unemployment, record amount of people on food stamps, record foreclosures, record debt and the first time ever the USA's credit was downgraded. We see the results of Obama's plans everywhere

I know this is hard for you to believe, but there aren't enough people that share your blind hatred of the President to carry the election for Romney. Romney will still need to run a good campaign.

LANGER72
06-20-2012, 07:35 PM
I know this is hard for you to believe, but there aren't enough people that share your blind hatred of the President to carry the election for Romney. Romney will still need to run a good campaign.

And there are less than a few that still show blind love for Obama. Romney could probably take a vacation at this point and still beat him.

JamesBW43
06-20-2012, 09:59 PM
And there are less than a few that still show blind love for Obama. Romney could probably take a vacation at this point and still beat him.

The current outlook says differently.

By the way, I'm not saying the President won't have to run a good campaign as well. But the polls and the math don't even come close to supporting this notion you guys are shipping that Romney is a favorite in this election, let alone a heavy favorite...

LANGER72
06-20-2012, 10:30 PM
The current outlook says differently.

By the way, I'm not saying the President won't have to run a good campaign as well. But the polls and the math don't even come close to supporting this notion you guys are shipping that Romney is a favorite in this election, let alone a heavy favorite...

The current outlook is a toss up with Obama trending down steadily. Most of the polls are liberal leaning, so the averages are skewed. I do not any faith in them on a daily basis...including the conservative ones. But the trend is interesting.
Some of the states that he won in 2008 will flip by November.
With all the controversy on Obama's plate, it is very reasonable to predict a poor showing and a new president.
The way things are going, the US and the world will be relieved if Romney took office. I do not look at him as any savior, but he will start to turn the country around.
Back to point..The executive order on the immigration policy, who Obama himself describes as "temporary", will not fool anyone. They know he doesn't care about the plight of the minor illegals, he is just trying to buy a few more votes in some of the swing states.

Locke
06-20-2012, 10:42 PM
:sidelol:

JamesBW43
06-20-2012, 11:09 PM
The current outlook is a toss up with Obama trending down steadily. Most of the polls are liberal leaning, so the averages are skewed. I do not any faith in them on a daily basis...including the conservative ones. But the trend is interesting.
Some of the states that he won in 2008 will flip by November.
With all the controversy on Obama's plate, it is very reasonable to predict a poor showing and a new president.
The way things are going, the US and the world will be relieved if Romney took office. I do not look at him as any savior, but he will start to turn the country around.
Back to point..The executive order on the immigration policy, who Obama himself describes as "temporary", will not fool anyone. They know he doesn't care about the plight of the minor illegals, he is just trying to buy a few more votes in some of the swing states.

The aggregate data of all the polls for the last two elections were as close to dead accurate as you can get. So I'm not sure why or how you'd think they are liberal leaning. But to be honest, the polls mean little right now because there is still a lot of time left before Election Day. I only brought them up because you can Snake seem to think Romney is currently the favorite, when in fact, he is not.

Also, these temporary deportation reprieves can be renewed.

SnakeoilSeller
06-21-2012, 09:41 AM
I could care less what polls say. Most of the polls that I see have a breakdown that favors the President big time. They need to over poll Democrats just to get Obama in the 40"s. Thinking that 38% of the electorate on election day will be Democratic is ridiculous. But that's what lots of polls need to get him over 45% All I need to do is look at the last several elections to know he is in trouble. And don't kid yourself with the meme that "Obama was not on the ballot". The President is always on the ballot. That is why President Bush picked up gains in Congress in 2002, and why he lost them in 2006. If Obama was not "on the ballot", then why not go to Wisconsin and help Union members that he counts on so much? Because he did not want to be associated with another loss. Besides, I have a theory that lots of anti - Obama voters dont tell the pollsters the truth because of fear of being attacked by liberals and or being called a racist.

Obama's hope, IMHO, are the takers. The people that do not produce, that do not pay taxes, that are perfectly happy to live off the government. And that is who is trying to appeal to. His hope is he can string enough special interest groups together, along with people voting illeagally to string a victory together. He can do, but right now I have my doubts. People are tired of the BS. They are tired of the failed promises, and they are tired of the blame game. He has seemed overwhelmed since day 1 and people sense that. Lots of people that were fooled in 2008 certainly will not be fooled again.

The biggest poll that Obama lovers need to worry themselves with IMHO is direction of the country. With so many people thinking the direction is negative, why would you think you would continue with the person in charge? You wouldn't with a publicly traded company, nor would you with a sports franchise. I don't think the country is any different.

LANGER72
06-21-2012, 10:36 AM
The Obama cartel wants to expand the public sector work force too. Lots of redundant and unnecessary jobs...I mean votes.
Like snake alluded to, the polls are targeted in most instances to achieve the results that they expect to see.

SnakeoilSeller
06-21-2012, 01:35 PM
If we are going to start citing polls, this is another the Kool Aid drinkers should be worried about. BHO's approval rating is at 43% according to Gallup. 49% disapprove. With even more bad economic numbers out today - Jobless claims up, US manufacturing growing at it's slowest pace in 11 months, I doubt that approval rating is going to rocket it's way to 50 any time soon.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Tetragrammaton
06-21-2012, 02:26 PM
If we are going to start citing polls, this is another the Kool Aid drinkers should be worried about. BHO's approval rating is at 43% according to Gallup. 49% disapprove. With even more bad economic numbers out today - Jobless claims up, US manufacturing growing at it's slowest pace in 11 months, I doubt that approval rating is going to rocket it's way to 50 any time soon.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

We are getting multiple state polls every single weekday. Why would we go back to approval polls?

SnakeoilSeller
06-21-2012, 03:12 PM
We are getting multiple state polls every single weekday. Why would we go back to approval polls?

I think polls are worthless. My only point is that if we are going to start citing polls, the ones I would be most worried about if I still had a belief in President Obama keeping his job - the 2 I would look at the most right now is direction of the country and his approval rating. I think those are the most telling of where Obama stands.

Tetragrammaton
06-21-2012, 03:38 PM
I think polls are worthless. My only point is that if we are going to start citing polls, the ones I would be most worried about if I still had a belief in President Obama keeping his job - the 2 I would look at the most right now is direction of the country and his approval rating. I think those are the most telling of where Obama stands.

I guarantee that national approval ratings are getting maybe ten percent of the campaign directors' attention. The election is a state-by-state game, and we deliver them polls by seven a.m. each day for each campaign to pour over. This goes from the central figures in the Obama and Romney campaigns, all the way down to county campaign chairpersons.

LANGER72
06-21-2012, 06:06 PM
I think polls are worthless. My only point is that if we are going to start citing polls, the ones I would be most worried about if I still had a belief in President Obama keeping his job - the 2 I would look at the most right now is direction of the country and his approval rating. I think those are the most telling of where Obama stands.

Stop it...whether or not the voters like Romney's Mormon religion, or who the college students think is more cool is much more important to the future of this country.

JamesBW43
06-21-2012, 06:47 PM
I could care less what polls say. Most of the polls that I see have a breakdown that favors the President big time. They need to over poll Democrats just to get Obama in the 40"s. Thinking that 38% of the electorate on election day will be Democratic is ridiculous. But that's what lots of polls need to get him over 45% All I need to do is look at the last several elections to know he is in trouble. And don't kid yourself with the meme that "Obama was not on the ballot". The President is always on the ballot. That is why President Bush picked up gains in Congress in 2002, and why he lost them in 2006. If Obama was not "on the ballot", then why not go to Wisconsin and help Union members that he counts on so much? Because he did not want to be associated with another loss. Besides, I have a theory that lots of anti - Obama voters dont tell the pollsters the truth because of fear of being attacked by liberals and or being called a racist.

Obama's hope, IMHO, are the takers. The people that do not produce, that do not pay taxes, that are perfectly happy to live off the government. And that is who is trying to appeal to. His hope is he can string enough special interest groups together, along with people voting illeagally to string a victory together. He can do, but right now I have my doubts. People are tired of the BS. They are tired of the failed promises, and they are tired of the blame game. He has seemed overwhelmed since day 1 and people sense that. Lots of people that were fooled in 2008 certainly will not be fooled again.

The biggest poll that Obama lovers need to worry themselves with IMHO is direction of the country. With so many people thinking the direction is negative, why would you think you would continue with the person in charge? You wouldn't with a publicly traded company, nor would you with a sports franchise. I don't think the country is any different.

As James already pointed out, the election is decided by the states, more specifically the swing states. It's one thing to argue that the polls don't matter (even though I don't see how you could make such an argument) but if any polls matter it's the state polls. There is no arguing that. It doesn't matter how many people approve of the President in California or disapprove in Texas.

And even if the election was won by the popular vote, the election isn't a choice between what they disapprove of and what they approve of. It is between two men, of whom, many people will have varying opinions on.

Yes, presidential coattails can affect local elections, but it really depends on the election itself and the area. Politics are different depending on where you are, and individual candidates bring their own baggage with them. Plus, the campaigns themselves can play a major role.

As for the takers and the illegal voting nonsense, thanks for the laugh.

Tetragrammaton
06-21-2012, 07:19 PM
The other James alluded to this, but yes, approval rating is not indicative of opinions on a Presidential race. You can disapprove of the President's performance but still think he is better than Romney; conversely, you can approve of the President and think Romney would be better. Besides, since you think polls are biased, why cite any?

I always get a big kick out of your anti-reality arguments. Everything that doesn't conform to the narrative you push is biased.

SnakeoilSeller
06-21-2012, 08:29 PM
As James already pointed out, the election is decided by the states, more specifically the swing states. It's one thing to argue that the polls don't matter (even though I don't see how you could make such an argument) but if any polls matter it's the state polls. There is no arguing that. It doesn't matter how many people approve of the President in California or disapprove in Texas.

And even if the election was won by the popular vote, the election isn't a choice between what they disapprove of and what they approve of. It is between two men, of whom, many people will have varying opinions on.

Yes, presidential coattails can affect local elections, but it really depends on the election itself and the area. Politics are different depending on where you are, and individual candidates bring their own baggage with them. Plus, the campaigns themselves can play a major role.

As for the takers and the illegal voting nonsense, thanks for the laugh.

So your logic is that even though a national survey finds that most people disapprove of the Presidents job he has done, that has zero reflection in if he will be relected? So 49 percent disapprove of his job nationwide, but that does not reflect on any indivial state? It is a national survey, not just a survey from an individual state. So you do realize there could be people from swing states in it too, right? That's strange because liberals loved those polls on a weekly basis when it was W.'s aproval rating plummeting. Wolf Blitzer used to start updates on CNN with his approval ratings. I also remeber lots of the media hanging their hats on Obama's when he was in the 60's, I guess that has changed. Further, you figure that even though someone disapproves of the Presidents job, he still will vote for Obama why? Because he wants 4 more years of disapproval. And you think those people that think the country is moving in the WRONG direction, are going to vote to keep it moving in the same direction. Whatever you need to sleep at night.

And it is the takers who Obama is after. It certainly isn't the producers. He has waged war on the producers since day one, and the result - more people than ever in the US on food stamps for example. And if illegal voting is nonsense then why is the Obama Adminstration suing the state of Florida for removing the dead and the non citizens from the voting rolls? Why wouldn't Mr. Holder and or President Obama want to stop people for voting illeagally?

SnakeoilSeller
06-21-2012, 08:44 PM
The other James alluded to this, but yes, approval rating is not indicative of opinions on a Presidential race. You can disapprove of the President's performance but still think he is better than Romney; conversely, you can approve of the President and think Romney would be better. Besides, since you think polls are biased, why cite any?

I always get a big kick out of your anti-reality arguments. Everything that doesn't conform to the narrative you push is biased.

That's bull****. Do I think polls matter in June? No. Do I think polls are accurate, some are, some aren't. That's why I dont put a whole lot in them. Do you have to look at the pollster, you better. You put a lot of validity in a democratic polling firm that has Barrett tied the day before the election, and another Republican firm has Walker winning by 13. So by your rationale we should believe both?

And if you could read I said the polls I would be concerned about if I were an Obama supporter were approval rating and direction of the country. You are right about approval not equaling votes, but it does show disturbing trends in lots of areas. Fund raising, enthusiasm, volunteers, get out the vote. So yea just because some former kool aid drinker will not support Romney, he may not vote at all. Or he may not make phone calls for the Teleprompter In Chief. You can bet your ass it means something. And how about those that think the country is moving in the wrong direction. You think they are just going to bounce out of bed election day and go vote for 4 more years of misery? They may, but what are the odds.

Or maybe should ask your self this. Do you think the President would feel better if his approval rating was 43 or 53? And do you think David Axelrod would feel more comfortable if the majority of Americans thought the country was moving in the wrong direction or the right direction. And after you answered that, ask yourself if they don't matter.

JamesBW43
06-21-2012, 09:06 PM
So your logic is that even though a national survey finds that most people disapprove of the Presidents job he has done, that has zero reflection in if he will be relected? So 49 percent disapprove of his job nationwide, but that does not reflect on any indivial state? It is a national survey, not just a survey from an individual state. So you do realize there could be people from swing states in it too, right? That's strange because liberals loved those polls on a weekly basis when it was W.'s aproval rating plummeting. Wolf Blitzer used to start updates on CNN with his approval ratings. I also remeber lots of the media hanging their hats on Obama's when he was in the 60's, I guess that has changed. Further, you figure that even though someone disapproves of the Presidents job, he still will vote for Obama why? Because he wants 4 more years of disapproval. And you think those people that think the country is moving in the WRONG direction, are going to vote to keep it moving in the same direction. Whatever you need to sleep at night.

It doesn't have zero reflection on his re-election chances because obviously there are people in the swing states in those numbers too. It's just not nearly as strong of an indicator as the state polls. This is pretty basic stuff here, so I don't know how you can try to turn this into a liberal bias thing. If you can find someone claiming that President Bush's approval ratings were a stronger indicator of his re-election chances than the electoral map, I'll tell you outright that person is/was dead wrong.

James already said this as well, but someone "MIGHT" not vote against the President even though they disapprove because he/she may think the President would still be preferable to Romney, just as someone could approve of the President but also still prefer Romney. It has nothing to do with me sleeping at night, it's basic logic.




And it is the takers who Obama is after. It certainly isn't the producers. He has waged war on the producers since day one, and the result - more people than ever in the US on food stamps for example. And if illegal voting is nonsense then why is the Obama Adminstration suing the state of Florida for removing the dead and the non citizens from the voting rolls? Why wouldn't Mr. Holder and or President Obama want to stop people for voting illeagally?

What has the President done to wage war against "the producers"?

I don't know why the Justice Department halted Florida's voter purge, but it might have to do with the fact that the last time the state of Florida tried to purge the voter rolls of "felons" they ended up preventing thousands of law abiding citizens from voting in an election that was decided by ~500 votes.

Tetragrammaton
06-21-2012, 09:42 PM
That's bull****. Do I think polls matter in June? No. Do I think polls are accurate, some are, some aren't. That's why I dont put a whole lot in them. Do you have to look at the pollster, you better. You put a lot of validity in a democratic polling firm that has Barrett tied the day before the election, and another Republican firm has Walker winning by 13. So by your rationale we should believe both?

And if you could read I said the polls I would be concerned about if I were an Obama supporter were approval rating and direction of the country. You are right about approval not equaling votes, but it does show disturbing trends in lots of areas. Fund raising, enthusiasm, volunteers, get out the vote. So yea just because some former kool aid drinker will not support Romney, he may not vote at all. Or he may not make phone calls for the Teleprompter In Chief. You can bet your ass it means something. And how about those that think the country is moving in the wrong direction. You think they are just going to bounce out of bed election day and go vote for 4 more years of misery? They may, but what are the odds.

Or maybe should ask your self this. Do you think the President would feel better if his approval rating was 43 or 53? And do you think David Axelrod would feel more comfortable if the majority of Americans thought the country was moving in the wrong direction or the right direction. And after you answered that, ask yourself if they don't matter.

Of course I can read. You shouldn't waste our time with such stupid statements.

Your last paragraph is changing your original intention. Of course an incumbent would rather be at 53 than 43, but that isn't what you originally attempted to convey. You don't like state-by-state polls because they show a very healthy Obama lead in the electoral column, but you like the approval ratings because you think it suggests a more likely Romney victory. Approval ratings are an indicator, and they are very useful in the early years of a Presidency, but they become less important when you have a variety of polling data on candidates. The voter is not being asked if they approve or disapprove of Barack Obama as President; they are being asked if they want a second term of Obama or a first of Mitt Romney. I disapprove of the President, but if I had to pick between the two, I would pick Obama. This is the reality of approval ratings vs. electoral results. George Bush was polling in the forties as far as approval rating this time eight years ago, but of course he won a majority of the popular vote and increased his electoral state count.

One poll is largely meaningless; most people would look at an aggregate of all available polls. That is what the operatives look at and show their candidate every day. It is how they decide what states to target.

SnakeoilSeller
06-22-2012, 10:41 AM
Of course I can read. You shouldn't waste our time with such stupid statements.

Your last paragraph is changing your original intention. Of course an incumbent would rather be at 53 than 43, but that isn't what you originally attempted to convey. You don't like state-by-state polls because they show a very healthy Obama lead in the electoral column, but you like the approval ratings because you think it suggests a more likely Romney victory. Approval ratings are an indicator, and they are very useful in the early years of a Presidency, but they become less important when you have a variety of polling data on candidates. The voter is not being asked if they approve or disapprove of Barack Obama as President; they are being asked if they want a second term of Obama or a first of Mitt Romney. I disapprove of the President, but if I had to pick between the two, I would pick Obama. This is the reality of approval ratings vs. electoral results. George Bush was polling in the forties as far as approval rating this time eight years ago, but of course he won a majority of the popular vote and increased his electoral state count.

One poll is largely meaningless; most people would look at an aggregate of all available polls. That is what the operatives look at and show their candidate every day. It is how they decide what states to target.

So many false stements, it reminds me why I stopped even posting here. The state polls have actually been closer than they should for an incumbent who won so big last time. According to the real clear avg, which takes in all the polls that you hold so dear. FLorida for example is currently 1.8% for Obama. Within the margin of error and a state that Obama won last time.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html

Ohio, 1.8 percent as well. With the last 2 polls showing Romney as being up:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

Virginia Obama is up 3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html

Michigan. (Michigan of all places) Obama is up by 3.5. With the last 2 polls taken, one has Obama up 1, the other shows Romney up 2.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_romney_vs_obama-1811.html

So your idea that I dont like the state polls because it favors Romney is ridiculous. All those polls are within the margin of error. All are very close. They do not show any big lead for either candidate. That's why then you have to look at the breakdown and how they are playing with the numbers. That is why I said they are meaningless at this point.

Tetragrammaton
06-22-2012, 11:15 AM
So your idea that I dont like the state polls because it favors Romney is ridiculous.

What? I said...


You don't like state-by-state polls because they show a very healthy Obama lead in the electoral column

I will assume an error on your part.


The state polls have actually been closer than they should for an incumbent who won so big last time.

That is just Republican spin. Democrats would argue that Obama is doing better than expected given the continued high unemployment and slow economic growth. Given how you rant and rave about how Obama is the worst thing ever, he is doing extremely well. What happened in the last election has little bearing on this one; George H.W. Bush won 40 states and then lost his re-election.

I am not so much interested in why the numbers are what they are; I can go to you for the Republican response or I can go to MSNBC for the Democratic response. Neither one really matters in the grand scheme of things. I am interested in what the numbers mean; Obama is competitive in so many states that there are many paths to victory. When you look at states that are considered safe, and then take them out of the equation, Romney needs a near-sweep of the swing states to win, while Obama can afford to lose several. Romney is likely to have the money advantage, but I doubt he can build the network or grassroots voters that Obama has.

SnakeoilSeller
06-22-2012, 11:36 AM
What? I said...



I will assume an error on your part.



That is just Republican spin. Democrats would argue that Obama is doing better than expected given the continued high unemployment and slow economic growth. Given how you rant and rave about how Obama is the worst thing ever, he is doing extremely well. What happened in the last election has little bearing on this one; George H.W. Bush won 40 states and then lost his re-election.

I am not so much interested in why the numbers are what they are; I can go to you for the Republican response or I can go to MSNBC for the Democratic response. Neither one really matters in the grand scheme of things. I am interested in what the numbers mean; Obama is competitive in so many states that there are many paths to victory. When you look at states that are considered safe, and then take them out of the equation, Romney needs a near-sweep of the swing states to win, while Obama can afford to lose several. Romney is likely to have the money advantage, but I doubt he can build the network or grassroots voters that Obama has.

So what you post is fact and what you disagree with is Republican spin. Keep moving the goal posts all you want, and continue to believe you know more than you obviously do. Your claim was the swing states show Obama with a healthy lead, that's why I dont like them, but they dont show that at all. I showed 2 of the big swing states Florida and Ohio, both within the margin of error. In fact, states that were not even swing states, like Wisconsin and Michigan are close according to the polls. So proven wrong, you change your tune, and move those goalposts.

Tetragrammaton
06-22-2012, 11:50 AM
So what you post is fact and what you disagree with is Republican spin. Keep moving the goal posts all you want, and continue to believe you know more than you obviously do. Your claim was the swing states show Obama with a healthy lead, that's why I dont like them, but they dont show that at all. I showed 2 of the big swing states Florida and Ohio, both within the margin of error. In fact, states that were not even swing states, like Wisconsin and Michigan are close according to the polls. So proven wrong, you change your tune, and move those goalposts.

What goalposts are you talking about? I have been saying exactly the same thing all along.

This is exhausting. Your posts never have any original ideas or thought-provoking concepts. I can't do this anymore.

SnakeoilSeller
06-22-2012, 12:48 PM
What goalposts are you talking about? I have been saying exactly the same thing all along.

This is exhausting. Your posts never have any original ideas or thought-provoking concepts. I can't do this anymore.

It's me. I have no original thoughts, you do. I move the goal posts, you don't. It will just be easier if everyone see things exactly the way you see them. You know all. Even though I showed you the state polls that disppoved your statement, I am still wrong.

CedarPhin
06-22-2012, 01:31 PM
It's me. I have no original thoughts, you do. I move the goal posts, you don't. It will just be easier if everyone see things exactly the way you see them. You know all. Even though I showed you the state polls that disppoved your statement, I am still wrong.

Your "original" thoughts come from form letters at Drudge, what with all of your witty nicknames for people, such as "Big Sis" and "Bam". Thought-provoking, really.

SnakeoilSeller
06-22-2012, 02:53 PM
Your "original" thoughts come from form letters at Drudge, what with all of your witty nicknames for people, such as "Big Sis" and "Bam". Thought-provoking, really.

Do I have to keep proving you wrong and incompetent? Actually you do that every time you post something.

LANGER72
06-22-2012, 03:25 PM
It's me. I have no original thoughts, you do. I move the goal posts, you don't. It will just be easier if everyone see things exactly the way you see them. You know all. Even though I showed you the state polls that disppoved your statement, I am still wrong.


You are arguing with the pollster guy with greasy hair holding the clip board at the local mall...this is a professional political roadie. He is all knowing.

Time will tell, and we will all know in November. The polls mean nothing now, and 4 months from now.
In the long run, this country is going to hell. Once these 20 somethings PL's start running the show..I will be watching the turmoil from another free country...lol

CedarPhin
06-22-2012, 03:28 PM
Do I have to keep proving you wrong and incompetent? Actually you do that every time you post something.

Is Russia a superpower yet? Will China take over the world? When will Obama have thought police and gulags?

JamesBW43
06-22-2012, 08:03 PM
So what you post is fact and what you disagree with is Republican spin. Keep moving the goal posts all you want, and continue to believe you know more than you obviously do. Your claim was the swing states show Obama with a healthy lead, that's why I dont like them, but they dont show that at all. I showed 2 of the big swing states Florida and Ohio, both within the margin of error. In fact, states that were not even swing states, like Wisconsin and Michigan are close according to the polls. So proven wrong, you change your tune, and move those goalposts.

He's saying that the reason the President is favored by looking at the state polls is because of the electoral math. Like you mentioned, many states are competitive, and within the margin of error. However, when you look at the map, the amount of electoral votes that the President will get from safe states is greater than what Romney will receive. And if you look at likely victories too, the President typically only needs 30-40 votes from swing states while Romney typically needs 80-90. It's a tougher road for Romney to get to 270 than it is for President Obama.

JamesBW43
06-22-2012, 11:16 PM
Your "original" thoughts come from form letters at Drudge, what with all of your witty nicknames for people, such as "Big Sis" and "Bam". Thought-provoking, really.

Cedar that is so unfair. And we were gonna elect you King of the Winter Carnival.

rob19
06-23-2012, 01:32 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqW-Fv1eLCU&feature=g-all-f