Despite What You May WANT To Believe. Liking Obama is Now The Minority Opinion

[Locke4God]

They Don't Like His Economics. They Know They Don't Work.
Trust on Issues: Obama v. Romney - Rasmussen Reports™
And They Don't Want Him To Win
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™
They Also Don't Like His Terrible Health Care Plan
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™


An Awful President. It was easy to see how bad he was going to be 4 years ago if you'd just listened to what he said he was planning to do.

[Martin]

Please stop. It's getting close to flooding now - and stop quoting Rasmussen. You need so much more evidence than you provide to make a proper argument. It's borderline obsession, and I think you need to calm down and stop badmouthing. If you dislike your President that much then fair enough, prove it at the ballot box - Not by creating threads on a gaming forum every other day. You just end up looking silly. I find it really very sad.

For the record, I'm a supporter of free speech. Badmouth as you will, but confine it to one thread - not multiple. It's borderline spamming.

[Locke4God]

and stop quoting Rasmussen. You need so much more evidence than you provide to make a proper argument.

Fair enough on flooding issue, although each topic is a little different, But anyway Rasmussen is the most accurate polling center for general elections. Including other sources like NBC polls or others, would just be watering down the reality of what's actually going on. The Rasmussen poll is a fair and accurate assessment by itself.

[Martin]

But based on what evidence? You're not viewing objectively whatsoever. To provide an accurate assessment you have to see both sides of the coin. If the Rasmussen polls didn't agree with your view, you wouldn't have used them. A constructive argument has two sides and you make an informed decision upon the evidence presented. You present one side, so no informed decision will be made.

[Locke4God]

No you're missing the key factor here.

Rasmussen is the most accurate poll. It has had the last few elections within half a point. It's not biased in other words. I'm viewing it completely objectively because Rasmussen is objective, and the evidence I'm basing my statement on is the poll itself. You were asking for a 2nd side, but what I've shown you is what's happening. There is no 2nd side to it. This is what is going on.

Now sure I want him to and think he should lose, but the data is accurate. There isn't a 2nd side to the data. It is what it is.

[Alpha]

Well actually there is a second side to the data. Rasmussen Reports use a 'likely voter' model for their polls, rather than including all adults. This means two things. Firstly, in general, this results in a slight conservative bias. I read a university study once which concluded that Rasmussen typically has a ~3.9% Republican bias. Similarly in New Zealand; likely voter polls follow the same trend. Secondly, it means you need to stop saying that the majority dislike Obama. Given American voter turnout is dismal, nearly half of the country doesn't care or is indifferent.

Subtracting 3.9% from the result of the healthcare poll puts it at less than 50% favouring repeal (...and it was already within the margin of error, so you're premature to say most people favour repeal). Not using a likely voter model would most likely knock this down further.

[Locke4God]

Even so if you look at the number who support the Health Plan it's only around 40%, so even in conceding your deductions it is clear far more want it repealed than don't.

Further study shows that around 42% strongly want repeal, while only about 28% strongly support it. Again, a clear margin, even if you conceded that the poll is 3% biased.

Regardless of bias though, Rasmussen consistently picks results within 1%, so whether a sampling of likely voters could be considered a "bias" or not, it is remains the most accurate polling center.

[Alpha]

Yeah I'll give you that on balance, but just tone down on the hyperbole a bit eh? Only serves to hurt your own argument

[Locke4God]

I will try.

I have to admit I do legitimately, on principle disagree with his policies, so i won't pretend that I'm not excited to see him go. Regardless, I would not attempt or desire to provide inaccurate information for the sake of deluding myself or others, so as proud as I would be to see a referendum against what he's doing, I am far far more proud to say that I'm aware of the reality of the situation, whichever way that is leaning.

[Order]

Locke,
You really don't need to convince any of us that Obama is not going to be re-elected.
First, he was a novelty.
Second, most Americans now remember that democrats arent so great, either.
Third, looking at the alternative, who gives a s**t?

As long as my taxes don't triple, Ill be happy with whoever is in office (or equally discontent).
Yes, Obama must be removed in order for this to happen, but it won't be a victory for the american people.
Romney is still a pencil-neck douche who represents none of the qualities which define the US.

Since there is little gained from electing a new president, the only reasons I can imagine for you spewing all over this forum are these:
You're trying to convince yourself.
You are a rightwing fanatic as much as Obama is a socialist douche.
Or...
You're just trying to annoy our resident lefties.

They may be silly, but they don't need to be poked with a new thread every day.

[Locke4God]

The 1 thing that has to happen is the repeal of Obama Care. That must go. So Obama must lose.

The next thing that must happen is a complete overhaul of the budget. Obama is spending his ass off, Bush spent his off, but believe it or not, Obama is spent more. All he's done is slow the economic downturn by financing it with massive debt. That's not solving our issue. The economic issues have never been solved, just postponed. He doesn't now how to solve it. So Obama must lose.

[Martin]

No you're missing the key factor here.

Rasmussen is the most accurate poll. It has had the last few elections within half a point. It's not biased in other words. I'm viewing it completely objectively because Rasmussen is objective, and the evidence I'm basing my statement on is the poll itself. You were asking for a 2nd side, but what I've shown you is what's happening. There is no 2nd side to it. This is what is going on.

Now sure I want him to and think he should lose, but the data is accurate. There isn't a 2nd side to the data. It is what it is.

But you're missing MY key factor. Data can be interpreted in as many different ways as you want it to! The fact is that you're quoting one source, where as you need a variety. I don't mind if you don't like Obama - that's your opinion. But your arguing your opinion and coming up with a source to back it. My objection is that the source you've chosen supports that - and it would make more sense if you can at least find some support for that source. A different website that also agrees, or perhaps something not necessarily online. Data can be manipulated - and the only way it's going to happen one way or the other is at the ballot.

As far as slowing the economic downturn - you cannot say that Mitt will be any different until he is potentially elected. This is a GFC that no-one seems to have really anticipated (with the exception of perhaps Australia but even then, their banks are still weathering a storm) and the IMF wholly endorse American fiscal policy as it stands. Not to mention, the New Deal was spending your way out of recession: and although it only delayed the problem, the only way America recovered from that crisis was the Second World War. So what gives? What would be your answer? That's the real debate here - you don't like stimulus, but what do you suggest?

[Order]

Shut down all departments aside from the DoD and DoJ.
Turn washington into a universal studios theme park.
Hire local hobos to scrub down sidewalks and buildings.
Put on a massive advertising campaign globally.
Tourists roll in, bringing foreign money and BOOM.
America is back on top (well, we never stopped, but as far on top as we should be).

Well,
I'm serious about cutting out huge chunks of the fed.
How do you think the US recovered when all we were doing was building aircraft, buying government bonds and blowing stuff up?
We funded the war with funny money. Companies were paid in IOUs which magically turned into paychecks and tanks.
We recovered because we won the war.
The countries who lost were pinned with the debt.

The only way outside of that to improve income and reduce federal spending is to first remove entire departments from the fed, then lower taxes, then encourage corporations to export as hard as they can.
Because the only way a country gains money is to recieve it from another.
The only way a country makes an honest effort at spending less is to stop funding wheel-spinning departments.

You don't spend your way out of debt.
When I was a poor teen, I didn't take out loans and buy up expensive crap. I stopped spending money on anything that wasnt food and gas and I found a way to make money by EARNING it.
That is the concept which nobody wants to think about. Its not "how do we restart america's economy?".
It is, "How do we start earning money?"
You dont do it by printing bills, borrowing, IOUs or taking it out of the magical "Obama Stash".

People who represent the fed dont want anyone to think its as simple as that.
They want you to think that we need to keep giving them money. That they need to keep buying nice crap and earning twenty times what I do for four hour days three days a week.
There are so many unnessicary departments in the fed that I doubt if any american could name them all, even after studying a list, much less their purpose.

So, butcher the fed; sell computers to england, nuclear turbines to aus, missiles to japan and sit back and watch the money roll in.
People dont realize the our GNP is so high that if we stopped accruing debt now, we'd be fine in a matter of days.
It is because we continue to take out title loans on our repo'd car that we will never get our car back.

[Hobaginator]

Who's idea was it to elect the quasi-monkey in the first place? OHHHH that's right. First and last time for 90% of all african-american/black/whatever you call em i dont give a god damn they're not going to vote again.

Obama paved the way for white america, we just have to deal with the remainder of his term.

[sayian]

Who's idea was it to elect the quasi-monkey in the first place? OHHHH that's right. First and last time for 90% of all african-american/black/whatever you call em i dont give a god damn they're not going to vote again.

Obama paved the way for white america, we just have to deal with the remainder of his term.

said with so much passion its scary...lol

[Hobaginator]

said with so much passion its scary...lol

I'm a passionate guy... but I speak the truth!

[Walter Sobchak]

I wish Obama was as diabolical as his opponents made him out to be. It would be more fun to watch, anyway.

[Lacquer Head]

Erhmergerd, a politician that's hurting the little guys? All my surprise :v Honestly, if you think a president makes the slightest difference, you're sadly misinformed. If you think one is better than the other, than you're even more misinformed. I still don't see why being the minority matters anyway. Last I checked, Obama was ahead of Romney in polls, and those polls are passed off of 1,000 people. Any thing you see in the media is misleading, ALL OF IT. The only thing you can rely on is what people have done/voted on in the past. If you believe even a shred of their campaign BS, god help you...

tl;dr two rich politicians that don't give a **** about the people. Same as always. Oh well.

Pic related:

[sayian]

Erhmergerd, a politician that's hurting the little guys? All my surprise :v Honestly, if you think a president makes the slightest difference, you're sadly misinformed. If you think one is better than the other, than you're even more misinformed. I still don't see why being the minority matters anyway. Last I checked, Obama was ahead of Romney in polls, and those polls are passed off of 1,000 people. Any thing you see in the media is misleading, ALL OF IT. The only thing you can rely on is what people have done/voted on in the past. If you believe even a shred of their campaign BS, god help you...

tl;dr two rich politicians that don't give a **** about the people. Same as always. Oh well.

Pic related:

strong observations that seems to just fly by the common people's train of thought...