Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Obama won not because of people who thought he'd be better, he won because of people who thought he'd be less bad.

2. I got your back, Hank!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

Relax. Senator Blutarsky has this covered.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

To have preferred Dukakis over HW but not Clinton is pretty mind-blowing.

Dukakis had the better hair.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"President Obama hasn't gotten much credit for reining in the deficit, probably because a big part of the deficit progress has come from the unwinding of extraordinary government supports that he helped put in place. Stimulus programs have come and mostly gone; the end of stimulus to states led them to enact Medicaid curbs; jobless benefits in recent months have fallen by 50% since early 2010 (due to both job gains and extended benefits being exhausted)."

Am I missing something, or shouldn't this be titled, "In Large Part Due to Stimulus Unwinding, the Federal Deficit Has Fallen Fast"? Or perhaps, "Enormous One-Off Spending Over, Deficit (Shockingly) Falls at Rapid Clip."

Sure.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Dukakis had the better hair.

Good Lord, you are one of those undecided swing voters.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I voted for a Dem in 1980, 1988, 2008 and 2012. 4/9. I admit that 3 of those were votes against the R, and the 4th was my stupidest vote ever, but I am surely capable of being swayed.

I remain unconvinced and unimpressed, given all the republican bullshit I read in your posts. It seems to me all the evidence your vote for president proves is that your candidates truly suck.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I voted for a Dem in 1980, 1988, 2008 and 2012. 4/9. I admit that 3 of those were votes against the R, and the 4th was my stupidest vote ever, but I am surely capable of being swayed.

I don't know what innate party affiliation this evidences, but it proves you tend to get drunker than Richard Burton on election day.

Carter, Dukakis, Dole, and W (2004)?*

The two Presidents of the last thirty years who'll be recalled fondly, and presided, very well, over times of prosperity - Clinton and Reagan - you voted against.
_____
* I concede H.W was a good president. And that I also voted for W in his first term. (I did not make that same mistake in 2004, even though I thought Kerry an absolute buffoon.)

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

2. I got your back, Hank!

And what exactly are you agreeing with? You and Hank aren't saying anything when that is true of every single candidate (please name one this isn't true of). And since I'm sure there are just as many people (and probably way more) who voted for Obama because they thought he was the better candidate as there were who thought he was less bad, I could easily say that's why he got elected.

Or are you only considering your own vote (and people like you) in drawing this brilliant conclusion when you devalue the votes of those of us who believe in Obama?

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't know what innate party affiliation this evidences, but it proves you tend to get drunker than Richard Burton on election day.

Carter, Dukakis, Dole, and W (2004)?*

The two Presidents of the last thirty years who'll be recalled fondly, and presided, very well, over times of prosperity - Clinton and Reagan - you voted against.
_____
* I concede H.W was a good president. And that I also voted for W in his first term. (I did not make that same mistake in 2004, even though I thought Kerry an absolute buffoon.)

I voted for Reagan in 1984. Clinton had it easy. Anyone would have done fine those 8 years (and would have stepped on Al Q (hi Ty!))

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

To have preferred Dukakis over HW but not Clinton is pretty mind-blowing.

Not voting for Clinton in '92 is understandable. He was an unknown, up from nowhere. Voting for Dole in '96 can only be attributed to an absurd amount of whisky, or temporary loss of all cognitive faculties.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I voted for Reagan in 1984. Clinton had it easy. Anyone would have done fine those 8 years (and would have stepped on Al Q (hi Ty!))

My bad.

Bullshit on your other point. A liberal Democrat would've used the internet money to start some utopian basket of programs called "The Ultimate War on Poverty, Inequity, and General Meanness." This new breed of idiot we call "Republicans" would've pissed it away on some pre-emptive, mismanaged war in God only knows where. Clinton did nothing but balance the budget. No insane regulation, no curbs on free trade, no efforts to "put the wealth to good use," and no unaffordable tax cuts. He did what government should do - leave a humming economy alone and interfere only when absolutely needed.*
_______
* That he learned this the hard way, after getting his ass handed to him on HCReform, is not a rebuttal.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And what exactly are you agreeing with? You and Hank aren't saying anything when that is true of every single candidate (please name one this isn't true of).

True of every race in my voting life, except perhaps the second Reagan and second Clinton elections.

And since I'm sure there are just as many people (and probably way more) who voted for Obama because they thought he was the better candidate as there were who thought he was less bad, I could easily say that's why he got elected.

Or are you only considering your own vote (and people like you) in drawing this brilliant conclusion when you devalue the votes of those of us who believe in Obama?

TM

No one devalues your vote*, and I'm sure there were more who voted for Obama (and for that matter Romney) because they believed in him, than those voting for Obama because they feared/disliked the other guy. But those are mostly the solid Dem and R blocks-

Are you saying more swing voters went for Obama because they thought he was a good president and deserved a second shot, than voted for him because they thoguht the Rs really cannot get any power? You may be right, I'm actually one of the few swing voters I know, and I never talk politics outside this.

But the vote was close enough it still took people voting against the R's for him to win.

*and both parties devalued all of our votes- they campaigned in 10 states- that really bothers me. i know it won't change, but it just seems wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But his party owns the next four years, and if things keep rolling along as they are, they're fucked.

FWIW, a different view about the economy.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And what exactly are you agreeing with? You and Hank aren't saying anything when that is true of every single candidate (please name one this isn't true of). And since I'm sure there are just as many people (and probably way more) who voted for Obama because they thought he was the better candidate as there were who thought he was less bad, I could easily say that's why he got elected.

Or are you only considering your own vote (and people like you) in drawing this brilliant conclusion when you devalue the votes of those of us who believe in Obama?

TM

Is "devaluing a vote" a thing? I don't see how I've done that, and if I have, I don't see why you would care.

And yes, this is generally true of almost every candidate.

As for there being just as many people "who voted for Obama because they thought he was the better candidate as there were who thought he was less bad" - I don't think there is a distinction. If he is less bad, then he is the better candidate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I remain unconvinced and unimpressed, given all the republican bullshit I read in your posts.

Much of what he says here is just trolling, trying to incite a reaction.