By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why Is The Left Lying To Itself?

Ail on 06 October 2012
thismeintiel said:
theprof00 said:
snyps said:
Romney, Obama, bush, Clinton all work for Goldman sacs.. Don't believe me? Look at their treasury secretaries!,,


More than half the presidents cabinets are always Goldman sacs employees.


Look at their donors!,,, www.opensecrets.com. ( Goldman sacs and Blue cross own both sides )


There is no left or right, just two wings of the same bird of prey. Look into it or you are lying to YOURSELF

Which is why Obama is sucha greta overlooked choice.

Obama's greatest accomplishment was getting the world to respect us once again. NOBODY likes a dictatorial potus except ourselves. Oh jfk was such a hero!!! jism. Sure. He was. I agree. But we let it get to our heads and now we bully because everyone has to have their jfk moment.

We earn the world's respect by doing what they're incapable of, not by pretending to be something they're much better at.

I'm guessing the news channels you watch haven't been covering all the turmoil that's going on in the Middle-east.  We are not more respected in the world by any means, especially by the Islamic world.  Not only do they still not like us, but they also view us as weak.

@ Tigerlure

I didn't skew the poll to favor Romney.  Check again, it only now reflects the exact turn out of the '08 election.  But if you wish to think '12 is going to be more favorable for Obama (even more Democrats voting than Republicans and even Independents) then you go right ahead.  You're only fooling yourself.

@ Ali

And Reagan had a pretty shitty economy to handle when he got into office, too.  Unemployment was 7.5%.  We had the Cold War going on.  And GDP growth in 1980 was -0.3%.  While unemployment had only dropped to 7.2% (it was 5.3% his last year in office) the year he was reelected, the country was actually growing rather quickly.  The year prior, 1983, had a growth rate of 4.5%, with a couple of quarters ~8% growth.  Flash to now, in 2011 we grew a measly 1.7%.  And the 2nd quarter of 2012, growth was adjusted down to just 1.3%, from the previously believed 1.7%.  Let's keep in mind Reagan only added ~1.85T (~3.46T if adjusted for inflation) to the debt in 8 years, while Obama will have added ~6T after just 4 years in and not even come close to having 4.5% growth.  It's not the economy you are handed, but what you do to fix it that counts.  And the election will illustrate this.

I don't think you will find anyone that will will compare the state of the economy when Reagan came into power and the one when Obama was elected.

Reagan did not have to manage the fallout of the second worse economic crisis of the last 110 years...

As for the cold war, it had been going on for 35 years when Reagan was elected and it was far from being at its worse...



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
thismeintiel on 06 October 2012
Tigerlure said:


Of course it won't reflect 2008. Many people are now independents instead of Democrats or Republicans. That doesn't mean they won't vote for Obama again though. Also, I'm definitely going to put my stock in Gallup or another professional polling agency than unskewedpolls.com or some random right wing guy or who didn't like the fact that Romney was losing. You simply don't change polls just to put your guy in the lead. The two links I posted explain exactly why that is wrong. Democrats complained of the polling samples back in 2004 using the same excuse Republicans are making and they still lost. Republicans are just doing the same now.

So let me get this straight.  You're saying the turnout of the 2012 election isn't going to be like the one in 2008, because there are more Independents than Democrats and Republicans (which I agree), yet you put your faith in a poll that uses a model that says there will be a much higher turn out of Democrats this election than there was even in 2008?  A higher turnout of them than Independents, too?  Makes no sense, whatsoever. 

And again, I didn't change the poll "just to put my guy in the lead."  I changed it so that it reflected the turnout of 2008, a best case scenerio for Obama in my opinion, with 31% Democrats, 29% Republicans, and 40% Independents (instead of the poll's 37% Democrat, 29% Republican, and 34% Independent).  Just putting the Democrats back down to the 31% of 2008 puts Romney up by 3 points.  And then in every poll I've seen, Romney is up by at least 8 points, some as high as 15 points, with Indepedents.  Now if I were a Democrat and I saw a poll has that big of an advantage for Democrats, but Obama is only up by 3%, I'd be a little worried. 



 

Mr Khan on 06 October 2012

Why, i may ask, does the Right seem to think that everything needs to be revised? Revisionist history, revisionist science, revisionist media, and now revisionist statistics?

There's a reason why one side is categorically wrong in all of this.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.