US Election 2012

[Kristatos]

So let me see if I've got this straight:

The 99% demanding that the 1% actually pay their fair share=unacceptable class hatred and the politics of envy.
Poor people wanting to put the squeeze on slightly less poor people=fiscal responsibility.

[Kristatos]

Dirty tricks in Wisconsin

Even if Walker wins, he may still end up in jail or impeached on corruption charges.

[bjmdds]

So let me see if I've got this straight:

The 99% demanding that the 1% actually pay their fair share=unacceptable class hatred and the politics of envy.
Poor people wanting to put the squeeze on slightly less poor people=fiscal responsibility.

HALF this country pays ZERO federal income tax.....ZERO. You cannot do much better than that Fair share? Tell the Kennedys and the Kerry-Heinz families to stop cheating the government with off shore tax shelters. People in their 40s should NOT be allowed to retire on the dime of the tax payers. Make them work until 62 like EVERYONE else does. I'll show you how fake unions are. In this economy, why not lay off ZERO government workers.........ZERO, BUT, lower their salaries across the board 5% a year for 2-3 years until the economy straightens out under Mitt's tutelage and then revisit what to do? The union biggies would say NO way The upper union heads want the same salary so screw their union underlings and lay them off. It's all fraud and greed, no common good, as you desire from society.

[bjmdds]

Walker and the 4 other Republicans involved easily won in Wisconsin. The liberal losers at MSNBC are besides themselves. They are trying to find something to explain the unions wasted efforts. Oh-bama is next baby http://cowboybyte.com/8289/obamas-top-c ... -meetings/ In addition to Axelrod sitting in on national security matters(he raises money for the moron in chief), Democrats are furious that the little O has leaked Iran and Israeli secret ongoings to the press. This crumb will go down in flames. Carter was better than this shmuck. http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/0 ... rs-140101/ http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03 ... jan-video/

[bjmdds]

The average Joe's are speaking now: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... n-support/

[bjmdds]

It seems that Barack Obama has, once again, been caught in a pretty big lie, not that we can actually trust what comes out of his mouth in the first place. Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, released a piece at National Review Online showing that Obama was, in fact, a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s and sought its endorsement for the Illinois senate. This is contradiction to the claims of the Obama campaign in 2008.

Kurtz writes,

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

According to the meeting minutes on January 11, 1996, the Chicago chapter of the New Party read:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

The 2008 Obama presidential campaign was not the only one to lie to the public concerning Obama’s ties to a socialist party. The 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate also denid these accusations. Carol Harwell, who headed the 1996 campaign was quoted by the Fight the Smears website as saying, “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”

[bjmdds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ekZ7wW_Tbc Disgrace in chief.

[bjmdds]

http://www.voanews.com/content/congress ... 04778.html

[Dr. No]

Is Clinton running for Romney's running mate?

I do think the leaks in Washington coming from the white house deserve a special prosecutor. The CIA gal who's husband years earlier put she is "Jane Bond" on his website got a witch hunt so why not when real secrets are leaked. He did put that on his website it was a open secret she worked for the CIA.

[bjmdds]

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is beginning to take leads in several key states and increase his margins in other states he had been leading in. Overall, the polls are showing momentum going to Romney as the campaign is about four weeks into the general election phase that began after Romney was the last remaining GOP candidate in the race.

Rasmussen Reports released a poll today showing former Romney leading President Obama 47 percent to 44 percent. While this is within the margin of error, it is significant because it is the first time Romney had lead in Wisconsin over Obama and it illustrates momentum going in his direction. In some previous polls in Wisconsin, Obama had more than 50 percent.

Missouri is usually a swing state one side wins by one or two percent, and the latest Rasmussen polling shows Romney leading 49 percent to 42 for Obama. Iowa, a state Democrats have won more often than Republicans, is leaning to Romney by 47 percent to 46 percent. Many pundits believe President Obama would need to carry Iowa to win in November.

Ohio is widely believed to have decided the 2004 race in favor of George W. Bush over John Kerry. The latest Rasmussen survey numbers has Romney taking a two point lead in Ohio, 46 to 44 over Obama. Most believe Ohio remains a must-win state for both candidates. While Obama could possibly reach 270 without Ohio, it would mean he would have to hold on to Pennsylvania (where he leads 47 to 41 percent) and win Florida. The June “Purplepoll” by Purple Strategies shows Romney 49 percent to 45 percent in Florida.

Other swing states are showing similar movement as well. The candidates are tied in both Colorado (45 percent each) and Virginia (47 percent each) while Romney has taken a 48 percent to 42 percent lead in Indiana and a 51 percent to 43 percent in North Carolina. Barack Obama won both of those states narrowly in 2008.

President Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008. In 11 key swing states that Obama won in 2008, Romney either leads or is tied with Obama. If those states were won by Romney, totalling 144 electoral votes, this would leave Obama with only 221 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win. An additional 6 states Obama won in 2008 are likely to be in play in November, since current polling shows Obama well below 50 percent in those states and narrowly leading over Romney.

[bjmdds]

GALLUP DAILY
Jun 11-13, 2012
Obama Approval 46%
Obama Disapproval 48%

[bjmdds]

This clinches it for Romney: the final straw: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... rants?lite

[Kristatos]

GALLUP DAILY
Jun 11-13, 2012
Obama Approval 46%
Obama Disapproval 48%

You forgot this bit:

Obama - 46%
Romney - 45%

Funny how you never mention polls that don't produce the results you want to see. The seven most recent Obama v Romney polls on RCP show five with Obama (narrowly) in the lead, one with Romney and one tie. Average lead is Obama ahead by 1.2% (which I believe is called a statistically insignificant lead). In other words, it's a toss-up.

[bjmdds]

Let me explain something to you Kris about the USA's media. They are liberal bums who live in a eutopian fantasy world and are politically sick individuals. As long as they are the rich ones, they preach fairness but never practice it. These RCP polls you follow are mostly an average of liberally biased polling groups. ABC, NBC, NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, etc., are IRRELEVANT. They do NOT poll LIKELY voters. Rasmussen ONLY polls LIKELY voters. Rasmussen had Oh-bama way ahead 2 months ago in the swing states against Romney........that concerned me.......NOW, with the economy here horrible, the true same-sex marriage and illegal amnesty beliefs of Oh-bama now coming to the surface, there is NO way he will win this election. Rasmussen had the following poll 1 month before the Wisconsin recall vote.......read it clearly Kris:"Embattled Republican Governor Scott Walker holds a five-point lead over his newly nominated Democratic challenger Tom Barrett in Wisconsin’s special recall election. A new Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey shows that 50% of the state’s Likely Voters prefer Walker while 45% choose Barrett. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate and another two percent (2%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) The survey of 500 Likely Voters in Wisconsin was conducted on May 9, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports." He nailed it and Walker actually won by more than that and the 2% undecides went for Walker, making up his 7 point win! The DAY of the recall, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, et., had it at a 50/50 tie I do not care what Jon Stewart thinks, nor bill Maher, nor your polling sites. They were ALL wrong and why? They are both liberally delusional for one thing, and they do not poll LIKELY voters, which is all that counts. AP is a liberal hatchet team too. You keep wasting your valuable time reading up on the American polling system Kris. You will see that IF Rasmussen has Romney ahead the day before the election, it's all over, no matter what your RCP polls tell you.

[Kristatos]

Yeah, yeah, any information source that tells you something you don't want to hear must be part of the Great Liberal Conspiracy.

[bjmdds]

Those are NOT new sources Kris. They are pro Oh-bama factions in cahoots with him and Hollywood. I deal in FACTS Kris and results. I have no time for BS. ABC,NBC,and CBS two nights ago never mentioned the new scandal about the national security leaks........not one minute on it They participate in your RCP polls with the NY Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal polling. How can any sane person care what that type of poll would say? Facts Kris, just facts. Show me any of those RCP polls that nailed the Wisconsin recall like Rasmussen did. You won't find it. Keep hoping Kris for fairness with your liberal USA media. You will never get it. Romney goes on Face The Nation Sunday on CBS with Bob Schieffer, who is as liberal as they come. Bad move and not necessary. Romney should stay clear of all liberal news shows for all Schieffer will do is try and get him off message and say stupid things. Move back here Kris so you can vote in November. I know it won't be for Mitt.

[Kristatos]

Move back here Kris so you can vote in November. I know it won't be for Mitt.

I couldn't vote when I lived there (not a US citizen), and if I could, I wouldn't. As a non-billionaire, there isn't a candidate who represents me, and if there was, they would never win. And if they did win, they would quickly go the way of JFK.

As for the WI recall, Rasmussen had Walker at +5%, the RCP average was +6.7% and the final result was Walker at +6.8% (Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... html#polls). So, who is better, Rasmussen or RCP? It is RCP.

[Kristatos]

Dealing with "just facts": you tout Rasmussen as the only credible pollster, yet you posted a Gallup poll when it told you what you wanted to hear, but ignored the part of THE SAME POLL that you didn't like. I hope you enjoy the taste of those freshly-picked cherries.

[bjmdds]

President Obama delivered a campaign speech Thursday in an attempt to reinvigorate his base and present a gleaming vision of America’s economic future.

How did it go? Well, considering the fact that even a very liberal MSNBC panel on “News Nation with Tamron Hall” agreed that the speech fell flat – it probably could’ve gone better.

“I thought this, honestly, was one of the least successful speeches I’ve seen Barack Obama give in several years,” Newsweek editor Jonathan Alter said. “It was long winded. He had a good argument to make, and at the beginning of the speech he seemed to be making it in a fairly compelling way but then he lost the thread.”

He continued, “And the speech was way too long and I think he lost his audience by the end.”

Zachary Karabell, Daily Beast columnist and economist, echoed many of Alter’s sentiments, saying the president started his speech well, but it quickly went off the rails.

“When he went, sort of, away from offense and on to defense, ‘what we’ve done and what we’re going to do,’ it became unbelievably diffuse and, in some sense purely as a political phenomenon it was very ineffective in that respect because it very well characterized the opponents as ‘this is not going to work’ but it didn’t really give you the sense of what will,” Karabell said.

While the panel was seemingly on the same page, Hall continually attempted to clarify and prop up Obama’s statements. (Even the MSNBC liberals have turned on him.)

[Kristatos]

Interesting graphic re: media bias.



Whilst some of these media outlets may be liberal on social issues like gay marriage etc, don't expect to hear any serious challenges to corporate power on them.