• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
Oldgateboatdriver said:
To be fair, Technoviking, all of the examples you give fall within the realm of international relations, which is the purview of the executive without any need for domestic law making to come into play.

Nixon went to China? All he had to do is decide to do so, then set it up with the Chinese: all diplomacy.

Carter got SALT II? It was never ratified by congress as you know, and therefore never bound the USA (though both side did abide by it - again purely executive matter)

Etc. Etc.

None of these examples involve trying to get Congress to do what the President wishes to institute as internal reforms in the country. That record is a lot murkier for all the recent Presidents (say from Nixon on), save maybe for Reagan who was a little more successful than most in getting things trough.

But that's my point.  Even though it's international relations, even Carter got shit done.  Mr. Obama has done what in his four years?  Internally or externally?  Or is it all Bush's fault?

(Interesting side note about SALT II, how the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan stopped the official ratification, but both sides abided by it, until 86 when Reagan accused the USSR of not abiding by it, and withdrew from it.  But he ended up winning the Cold War anyway, so....)
 
[sarcasm]
Mr. Obama should maybe have a new slogan?  Instead of "Yes we can!"  it should perhaps be "No I couldn't...but it's not my fault!"

[/sarcasm]
 
Just to show that I'm not here to throw my support for one side or the other, here is a bit of quote mining (aiming to win me the internets, as was previously suggested)

120717-president-willard-mitt-romney.jpg


(Although the analogy in this one is a false one, the point is valid)
 
Haletown said:
Yes he did.  He set a record for rounds of golf played.

:facepalm: Not. Even. Close. That would be Woodrow Wilson. President Obama, even if he tries hard during his second term, isn't likely to catch up to Ike's record even. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/18/155279361/obamas-played-100-rounds-of-golf-which-presidents-beat-that (It cites Good Morning America, but you can also consult Van Natta, Don Jr. (2003), First Off the Tee: Presidential Hackers, Duffers, and Cheaters from Taft to Bush PublicAffairs

Even better, why it's totally, utterly irrelevant: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-president-obamas-golf-habit-doesnt-matter/2012/06/18/gJQAzPYZlV_blog.html - Simply stated, no one who's likely to have an undecided vote cares, nor are they likely to.

Haletown said:
And ridiculous deficits . . . Can you imagine the screaming if Harper had run deficits of $150 billion for three years?

Maybe you should look at the link I posted above. Where was the screaming when Reagan caused the deficit to explode? Or Bush 43? President Obama's been reversing that trend. Read the link. Consult the sources. If you can counter, go ahead.
 
Examples of authoritarian/absolutism exercise of power in the executive branch.  Obama isn't selectively enforcing deportations to manage scarce resources; he is doing so to subvert the intended effects of congressional authority with which he disagrees.  It is insulting and impolite to pretend otherwise.

Republicans are not responsible for the spending liabilities engendered by the New Deal, Great Society, or PPACA.

Whether Palin is strong/weak material for VP is irrelevant to the depths of character assassination to which people stooped.  The discreditable behaviour is compounded by the way in which those attacks continued after the election because she was a popular figure to some on the political right.  I have never seen that level of vitriol directed against a Democratic presidential or vice presidential candidate.  And it is a fact that rumours of Edwards's behaviour surfaced during the 2008 campaign, and on balance of probability those rumours were at best ignored and at worst deliberately quashed until such time as the issue was moot.

Romney is not the target of "reasonable questions".  Romney is, like Obama, the target of a fishing expedition for embarrassing information (ie. how much money he makes, how much tax he successfully avoids).  And, again, it is difficult to give credence to any belief that Democratic candidates are subjected to a weight of inquiry equivalent to Republican candidates.  In view of the candidacy of Kerry in 2008, there is no reason anyone should be troubled by Romney, except that they are beset by the most egregious hypocrisy.

There has been no waste of time in Congress.  What is the non-time-wasting alternative which is not a slate of items drawn from the Democratic wish-list?  For those who think the House should submit to the agenda of the president or Senate, I have a counter-proposal of equal merit: the Senate and president submit to the agenda of the House.

People already know what the exact tax rates are.  People already know exactly where the Democrats and Republicans stand on whether or not to extend the current taxation regime.  The immigration issue is not sorted out because Democrats will not agree to "enforcement, then amnesty".  They consider naturalized illegals to be part of their voting bloc; they want a "permanent Democratic majority" and have no apparent ethical or moral qualms about how they obtain it; they will continue to advance "amnesty, then enforcement" schemes and continue to forget the second phase in the same way they have advocated "raise taxes, then cut spending" since Reagan's administration.  The Democrats are, regrettably, not to be trusted on these issues.

The editors entitled Unger's article incorrectly.  Unger's valid point is that the rate of increase of spending is not dramatic.  That is trivially meaningless: the rate of increase and the gross amount are two different things, and Obama has stood behind (and increased) the Bush-submitted levels of spending authorized (and increased) by a Democratic-controlled Congress.  US federal spending has jumped, and remains at high (and unsustainable) levels.  The administration has had several budgets to propose to rein in those high levels, but has not done so.  Ergo, the administration is overseeing the largest government spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars, as a percentage of GDP, per capita adjusted dollars, per capita percentage of GDP) with the exception of extraordinary (wartime - WWII) intervals.
 
>Reagan caused the deficit to explode? Or Bush 43? President Obama's been reversing that trend. Read the link. Consult the sources.

If by "the link" you mean Unger's article, it does not support a conclusion that "Obama has been reversing the trend for the deficit to explode".  Unger's article supports a conclusion that spending growth has not increased dramatically.  The deficit, however, is a measure of revenue/expenditure imbalance.  The deficit exploded due to the current recession and has remained at high levels.  Projections seem to agree the deficit should fall to something above 2008 levels for a few years from 2013 onward, but regrettably those levels are still much higher than the 2007 level.  The trend in the US deficit from about 2004 onward predicted a surplus in 2009 (which of course failed to materialize due to the recession).  That prompts the question: why?  The taxation levels of 2007 still apply.  When the recession ends, revenues should be restored.  So what has changed on the spending side of the equation to warrant such high deficit projections?
 
The incredible shrinking deficit and under  President Obama.

  " The U.S budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 is $1.299 trillion, the second largest shortfall in history.

    The nation only ran a larger deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, which included the dramatic collapse of financial markets and a huge bailout effort by the government. The nation's deficit that year was $1.412 trillion.

    This year's deficit is slightly higher than fiscal year 2010, when the nation ran a $1.293 trillion deficit. Fiscal years run through Sept. 30.

Obama will likely make it four in a row one year from now as his own budget shop is estimating a $1.1 trillion deficit for 2012.

The 2009 deficit still holds the record at $1.412 trillion.  In 2010 the deficit reached $1.293.  In just three years, more than $4 trillion of red ink has been added to the debt. The government's fiscal year ends September 30.

Prior to the Obama Administration, the largest nominal deficit ever recorded was $458 billion in 2008, the last year of the Bush Administration.  That is barely one-third of each of the Obama Administration's dubious deficit records. 

Barely a month into office back in 2009, the ever-confident Obama promised "to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office."

That looks like yet another promise he won't be keeping. "

Because some people believe "President Obama's been reversing that trend".

Some people are also challenged by basic arithmetic.




http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2011/10/16/official_obama_owns_three_largest_deficits_ever
 
The mask slips yet again. Brad has already detailed what the government's role and purpose in infrastructure is (and once again, a great deal of infrastructure spending simply takes of\ver what the private sector used to do, i.e. toll roads, railways, canals etc. since the late Middle Ages.) One thing which hasn't been raised as the legitimate role in State sponsored infrastructure is military use; the Roman roads were built to enable the passage of the Legions, and The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was explicitly designed for the quick transportation of military forces across the United States (mooted by the time the project was actually underway due to America's increasing commitments overseas, which demanded sea and airlift capabilities). I'm sure small business will be <sarc> extremely supportive</sarc> of this notion and flock to the Dems come November:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-obama-believes-success-is-a-gift-from-government/article/2502410

Barone: Obama believes success is a gift from government
July 17, 2012

President Barack Obama greets the crowd after a campaign stop at the historic Fire Station No.1, in downtown Roanoke, Virginia, Friday, July 13, 2012. Obama traveled to southwest Virginia to discuss choice in this election between two fundamentally different visions on how to grow the economy, create middle-class jobs and pay down the debt. (AP Photo/Don Petersen)

Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
The Washington Examiner

@michaelbarone
Popular in PoliticsBarone: Obama believes success is a gift from government
How did vaunted Romney Death Star break down?
Obama has investments in companies that ship jobs overseas
James O’Keefe strikes again: Video features hidden cameras with Union bosses
Dem Senator will not support his party going over the ‘fiscal cliff’

Perhaps the rain made the teleprompter unreadable. That's one thought I had on pondering Barack Obama's comments to a rain-soaked rally in Roanoke, Va., last Friday.

Perhaps he didn't really mean what he said. Or perhaps -- as is often the case with people when unanchored from a prepared text -- he revealed what he really thinks.

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back," he began, defending his policy of higher tax rates on high earners. "They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, 'well, it must be because I was just so smart.' There are a lot of smart people out there. 'It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.' Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

In other words, Steve Jobs didn't make Apple happen. It was the work of a teacher union member -- er, great teacher -- and the government agencies that paved I-280 and El Camino Real that made Apple happen.

High earners don't deserve the money they make, Obama apparently thinks. It's the gift of government, and they shouldn't begrudge handing more of it back to government.

And that's true, as he told Charlie Gibson of ABC News in 2008, even if those higher tax rates produce less revenue for the government, as has been the case with rate increases on capital gains. The government should take away the money as a matter of "fairness."

The cynical might dismiss Obama's preoccupation with higher tax rates as an instance of a candidate dwelling on one of his few proposals that tests well in the polls. Certainly, he doesn't want to talk much about Obamacare or the stimulus package.

Cynics might note that he spurned supercommittee Republicans' willingness last year to reduce tax deductions so as to actually increase revenue from high earners, without discouraging investment or encouraging tax avoidance as higher tax rates do.

But maybe Obama's Captain-Ahab-like pursuit of higher tax rates just comes from a sense that no one earns success and that there's no connection between effort and reward.

That kind of thinking also helps to explain the approach taken by Sen. Patty Murray in a speech at the Brookings Institution on Monday. She wants a tax rate increase on high earners so badly she said she'd prefer raising everyone's taxes next year to maintaining current rates.

Murray was first elected in 1992 as a state legislator, who had been dismissed by a lobbyist as "just a mom in tennis shoes." But in 20 years she's become an accomplished appropriator and earmarker.

"Do no harm," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told members of Congress at a hearing yesterday, urging them to avoid the sharp spending cuts and tax rate increases scheduled for year's end.

But Murray is threatening to do exactly that kind of harm. Those prattling about how irresponsible Republicans are might want to ponder her threat.

And to consider that Republicans remember what happened to the last Republican who agreed to such rate increases, George H.W. Bush in 1990. Seeking re-election in 1992, he won only 37 percent of the vote. Republicans won't risk that again.

The Obama Democrats seem to believe there's no downside risk in threatening huge tax increases for everyone and in asserting that if you're successful "someone else made that happen."

But the Wall Street Journal's Colleen McCain Nelson reported yesterday how affluent Denver suburbanites have soured on Obama. Obama tied John McCain 49 to 49 percent among voters with more than $100,000 income in 2008, but in NBC/WSJ polls this year, they've favored Mitt Romney 50 to 44 percent.

Affluent voters trended Democratic over two decades on cultural issues. But economic issues dominate this year, and they may not appreciate Obama's assertion that they don't deserve what they've earned.

Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.


 
Another article which extracts part of a speech from its context. I have a feeling that undecided voters will similarly not care.

What I'm most waiting for now is the debates. I have this feeling Romney is going to get crushed.

To your point earlier Thuc, WHY the Interstate Highway System was built (and it wasn't solely for military use) is irrelevant. Completely, utterly irrelevant. It is one of the key pieces of infrastructure that allows the American economy to function.

And now, if you own a business, you didn't built that. Unless maybe you owned a paving business business in the 1950s, and the federal government paid you to. You didn't build it, but perhaps you took the initiative to start a business and that infrastructure is part of what made it succeed. Then you are what President Obama lauded in the rest of the speech, the part that media outlets aren't covering so much.

It saddens me that in an era when a ridiculous wealth of information is available literally anywhere anytime, including to me sitting with an iPad in a CHU in a third world country which has businesses that provide Internet access, that people can't be arsed to question what they read.
 
Haletown, buds, read the article. the growth of spending has slowed. That's a start to fixing a problem that has existed for a long time and that President Obama did not create.

Brad - as I understand it, one thing that changed the numbers is the way that the Obama accounted for the wars he inherited. President Bush kept them off the books. So that inflated the deficit but actually allowed for more honest accounting. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/ among other sources discusses it.
 
Redeye said:
It saddens me that in an era when a ridiculous wealth of information is available literally anywhere anytime, including to me sitting with an iPad in a CHU in a third world country which has businesses that provide Internet access, that people can't be arsed to question what they read.

One-cries-because-one-is-sad.jpg


Now, in all honesty, consider when you said this:

And now, if you own a business, you didn't built that.... but perhaps you took the initiative to start a business and that infrastructure is part of what made it succeed.

It's the blatant arrogance of the line of "you didn't build that" that gets people up in arms.  So, the person who put their life blood into a business is only part of what made it succeed?  Really? 

So, here is a message, saying the same thing, perhaps, but with the emphasis on personal initiative that drives the economy:

"You put your own personal blood, sweat and tears into that business, selling widgets.  The risks were great, but thanks to your own personal drive, initiative, ingenuity and dream of a better world for you and your family, you succeeded. 

That's why we put so much into making sure that you have the best chances of success.  Roads.  Rail.  Transportation.  Energy.  All working quietly in the background, helping you make your dreams come true"

 
Redeye said:
Haletown, buds, read the article. the growth of spending has slowed. That's a start to fixing a problem that has existed for a long time and that President Obama did not create.

Well now that is downright funny.  If massive increases in spending, paid for by stunning, historic levels of borrowing is the first step in "fixing the problem" then America is far worse off than anyone can imagine.

My gut feel says that Americans are getting more and more tired of Obama's speeches and lectures and there will be a blowout in November.

 
Technoviking said:
Now, in all honesty, consider when you said this:

It's the blatant arrogance of the line of "you didn't build that" that gets people up in arms.  So, the person who put their life blood into a business is only part of what made it succeed?  Really? 

So, here is a message, saying the same thing, perhaps, but with the emphasis on personal initiative that drives the economy:

"You put your own personal blood, sweat and tears into that business, selling widgets.  The risks were great, but thanks to your own personal drive, initiative, ingenuity and dream of a better world for you and your family, you succeeded. 

That's why we put so much into making sure that you have the best chances of success.  Roads.  Rail.  Transportation.  Energy.  All working quietly in the background, helping you make your dreams come true"

I like the wording, can't disagree that that's the same message better worded.
 
Redeye said:
I like the wording, can't disagree that that's the same message better worded.

Thank you. 


I believe that it's not so much the message, but the manner in which it's delivered, and the emphasis that irked people.  That was my point.  And unfortunately for Mr. Obama, there are a multitude of "you didn't build that" memes being generated by these same people.  The important thing isn't what he said, but what people heard him say.   
 
The reference was misplaced, but it doesn't really matter.  The Democrats have been trying to emphasize "you succeed because of government" for some time.  They are wrong, because they misunderstand the situation.  In the absence of infrastructure, people do not fail - they simply succeed differently.  Businesses were viable before the internet became a widely available tool for communicating, advertising, and sales.  Businesses were viable before the interstate highway system.  Does public investment in infrastructure make some things easier?  Of course.  But "expedites" <> "necessary".  Settlement and initial development precede infrastructure in almost all instance of human habitation.  Commerce is the precursor to infrastructure; taxation on commerce pays for infrastructure.  It is essentially capitalism: the reinvestment of capital in the means of production.  I am not sure people with Democratic "priors" (beliefs) understand this.

If the Obama adminstration was truly attached to its claims, it would not have misallocated so much money in 2009.  That failure compounds its misunderstanding of the relationship between private enterprise and government.
 
Key take away in this article is the "You didn't build that" quote will alienate something on the order of 20 million voters...And since there is ample video and audio evidence that this is indeed the quote, and adding it to scores of other statements and actions dating back to the "Spreading the Wealth around" moment with "Joe the Plumber" in the last election campaign, there is little doubt to what Mr Obama actually ment to say or to our understanding of what he was talking about:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/07/19/quote-me-as-saying-i-was-misquoted-2/

Quote Me as Saying I Was Misquoted
Posted By Ed Driscoll On July 19, 2012 @ 12:20 pm In Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal,God And Man At Dupont University,Liberal Fascism,Oh, That Liberal Media!,The Future and its Enemies,The Making of the President,The New Puritans | 2 Comments

“Obama Ad Accuses Romney of ‘Launching a False Attack’ for Quoting Obama,” Daniel Halper writes at the Weekly Standard:

Nevertheless, the Obama campaign, in the ad, says it’s not true. “The only problem?,” the ad text reads. “That’s not what he said.” It then turns to Obama, from the same Roanoke campaign speech, who said, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.”

Which is true. Obama did say that. But he also said the line that Romney says he said — “If you’ve got a business  — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.”

And, in fact, later in the ad the Obama campaign actually plays the clip that Romney quotes of Obama, at about :40 second spot.

“Mitt Romney will say anything,” the ad concludes. It turns out, he’ll even say Obama’s words when quoting him.

At Reason, Tim Cavanaugh explains “How ‘You didn’t build that’ became ‘He didn’t say that:’”

The popularization of Derridaian post-modernism since the 1990s has generally been a lot of fun, turning mainstream Americans into sharp observers of signs and meaning who are sure that either there’s nothing outside the text or everything is outside the text or both. But at some point it helps to look at that thing above the subtext, which is generally known as “the text.” Up to this point the presidential election has been Obama vs. Obama Junior. With “You didn’t build that,” which his campaign has made no effort to clarify or redirect, the president has drawn a line in the sand.

There is no nebulousness here. Beyond the paragraph quoted above, Obama calls government spending “the investments that grow our economy.” He ridicules the tendency of Americans to brag about being hard workers with a variant of “So’s your old man.” (“Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”) He instinctively names “a great teacher” when looking for somebody to credit for causing success in the working world. The president has boldly presented his view on how an economy works. His supporters should give him the respect of taking his words seriously.

And by doubling down on those of us who have started businesses and were raised in families with strong entrepreneurial spirits who take umbrage at the president’s words, Obama and his fellow elitist supporters are having yet another bitter clingers moment, as John Podhoretz recently wrote:

But when he extended it to personal and private endeavor, the president revealed the danger of this message—to him.  ”If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” Obama said. “Somebody else made that happen.” Aside from the fact that this isn’t even remotely true—if you’re a taxpayer and government funds were used to “make something happen,” then by definition you paid for it—it was profoundly stupid politically. In 2007, the last year for which we have data, according to the Census Bureau, there were 21.7 million businesses in the United States with no employees—meaning they were sole proprietorships, or free-lance businesses employing only their owner. Of the six million remaining businesses in the U.S., more than 3 million had 1 to 4 employees, and 1 million had 5 to 9. So, all in all, small businesses run by one person employing fewer than ten numbered an astonishing 25 million.

This is probably the matter of greatest pride for each and every one of the people who runs that business. He or she views himself or herself as a hard-working, go-getting, scrappy individualist. And it’s likely that many of them—many, many of them—are independent voters. Certainly that was the case 20 years ago when Ross Perot scored 20 percent of the vote, overwhelmingly from small businessmen who were angered by George H.W. Bush and yet couldn’t pull the lever for Bill Clinton. America is different demographically, but the class of people to whom Perot appealed is far larger than it was then.

Obama hates that notion — truly hates it with a passion. He’d much rather an economy dominated by a handful of “too big to fail” enterprises such as Government Motors and Solyndra — far easier to herd that millions of small businesses — that he can throw money — our money — to, a mindset that was on its way out when John Kenneth Galbraith espoused it a half century ago. Or to put it another way:

In a video appearance from 2009, venture capitalist Paul Holland — who had given the maximum legal contribution to Obama, and whose companies received over 6 million in government dollars — described his feelings when heard about the billions up for grabs.

“He came in to do his talk and opened his talk with, ‘I’m Matt Rogers I am the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Energy and I have $134 billion that I have to disperse between now and the end of December,’” Holland told the audience. “So upon hearing that I sent an email to my partners that said Matt Rogers is about to get treated like a hooker dropped into a prison exercise yard.”

Joe the Plumber’s simple question to Obama, which led the candidate to admit that his style of governing is “spread the wealth around” — the result of which can be seen in his crony’s “pimp” anecdote above — came far too late for an exhausted McCain campaign to capitalize on it.  In contrast, as Podhoretz writes in a follow-up post, “Romney Should Send Obama a Fruit Basket” for having this gift dropped into his lap to define the stark choice voters will face this fall.

Or perhaps a copy of Pow Wow Chow.

(Headline inspired by the dialectics of Marx.)

Update: Speaking of Bush #41, “The chart that shows just how much reelection trouble Obama is in.”

Article printed from Ed Driscoll: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/07/19/quote-me-as-saying-i-was-misquoted-2/
 
This is an email circulating around that pretty obviously paints a biased picture of a right wing point of view.

I am interested in the the left side rebuttal of some of the statistics being used. (source unknown)



Start of quote:

I know statistics are for losers, but some of these are quite interesting.

Certainly gives an indication of how demographically based Special Interest Groups can control the outcome of elections.


Scary Obituary
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always
temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from
the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a
dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200
years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.         
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in
St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning
the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:            Obama: 19                McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by:      Obama: 580,000        McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:    Obama: 127 million  McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens
of the country.



Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low
income tenements and living off various forms of government
welfare..."



Olson believes the  United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population
already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million
criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say
goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how

End of quote

much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our
freedom..
 
I'll start: The first stat is completely wrong.

Jed said:
Number of States won by:            Obama: 19                McCain: 29

States where all electoral votes went to McCain = 21

States where all electoral votes went to Obama = 29

States where McCain took greater number of electoral votes when distributed by popular vote = 1

And before anyone points out that the total is 51, the District of Columbia has 3 electoral votes of it's own.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf
 
Jed said:
Square miles of land won by:      Obama: 580,000        McCain: 2,427,000

Second error, the total land area of the United States = 5,497,179 sq. mi. The creator of this e-mail is missing some significant land area.

Jed said:
Population of counties won by:    Obama: 127 million  McCain: 143 million

Error number 3, total population of US in 2008 = 305 million. What happened to the missing 35 million?

Since the first three facts were bogus, I'll just assume the rest are too.
 
And my point for rebutting all of that:

Don't believe everything you read in your inbox.

http://www.snopes.com/fraud/advancefee/nigeria.asp

And just for poops and giggles, I checked on Snopes, and it seems this same e-mail  was circulated after the 2000 election, with the names of Bush and Gore, instead of McCain and Obama. Which would explain some of the data errors.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
 
Back
Top