The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I dunno, if he can't do good enough counter-intelligence on his affair, how can he do so for the country?

Ok. I'm glad I was not taking a drink of something when I read this. Well done!

[Shkspr]

He probably should have stopped the affair after finding out the woman's name was "Honey von Trapp."

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

No crap. There were already rumors he was leaving because of the investigation about Benghazi, but no one had any idea about this.

I wonder had this happened during a different presidency, would this be the bigger story of it all?

[Edward64]

Its good that you have conviction (and I agree with you) but lets not play chicken anymore and just compromise to get something done.

Obama Says Vote Validates His Efforts on Taxes - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.

In his first remarks from the White House since his re-election, Mr. Obama made it clear that he believed his victory had validated his relentless campaign call for wealthier Americans to pay more and that he expected Republicans to heed that message.

“I just want to point out this was a central question during the election,” he said in brief remarks in the East Room. “It was debated over and over again. And on Tuesday night, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach.”

[JPhillips]

There's no cliff to worry about. As long as something gets passed in the Spring we'll be fine. Obama absolutely shouldn't give in on taxes as he already has the winning hand. Let the Bush cuts expire and then propose a new tax cut bill that the GOP will have to support or risk alienating 90% of the country.

There needs to be a long term deficit deal too, but compromising just to get things done means allowing the GOP to set the terms.

[PilotMan]

Yeah Obama won Hamilton Co, Cincinnati proper, but don't let that fool you into thinking that this is some left wing, super haven. This is the pic right at the top of the e-edition of the paper that I got today. It's so flattering! My quote:

"I'm coming for your guns, HAHA! I'm coming for your guns, HOHO!"

[PilotMan]

Here's the cutout of the email. Looking at the next section I'd say someone is trying to pull a funny!

[Edward64]

Thank God we didn't have to wait on FL to decide the race.

Obama to win Florida, CNN projects, sweeping all battlegrounds – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(CNN) – President Barack Obama will narrowly win the presidential vote in Florida, CNN projected, based on updated vote totals provided by the counties to the state by Saturday’s noon deadline.

Obama won the state with 50.01% of the vote compared with 49.13% for GOP nominee Mitt Romney, according to those numbers. The incumbent's margin of victory was just shy of 74,000 votes.

With the Sunshine State's results in – the last undecided state - CNN projects Obama's electoral vote total comes to 332, well above the 270 required to win the presidency. CNN projects Romney to finish with 206 electoral votes.

The state's 29 electoral votes have proved decisive in the past and were expected to be important this year.

But Obama ran the board on Election Day, and it was another heavily contested battleground, Ohio, that put Obama over the top.

Obama's narrow victory in Florida means he has swept all eight of the states CNN, along with other media outlets, rated as "toss-ups," where the vote was within reach of either candidate.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Thank God we didn't have to wait on FL to decide the race.

Obama to win Florida, CNN projects, sweeping all battlegrounds – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

how can he sweep all battlegrounds when he lost North Carolina almost right away.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

how can he sweep all battlegrounds when he lost North Carolina almost right away.

I remember hearing on election night that he never set foot in North Carolina during the campaign season. I don't know if such things matter, and I'm not really sure why they would, but that's one possibility.

Edit: Also why N.C. was pretty much called right away, there was a moment there where it hadn't been yet, and that surprised the analysts on NBC or CBS, they said, "wow, if North Carolina is in play that's great news for Obama."

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by molson

I remember hearing on election night that he never set foot in North Carolina during the campaign season. I don't know if such things matter, and I'm not really sure why they would, but that's one possibility.

Edit: Also why N.C. was pretty much called right away, there was a moment there where it hadn't been yet, and that surprised the analysts on NBC or CBS, they said, "wow, if North Carolina is in play that's great news for Obama."

What I'm saying is when we went into this the press kept saying "THere are 9 battleground states" and NC was one of them. I'm no expert but it seems that was because Obama won it in 2008 and I think polls had it just leaning red and not fully sunburnt. Now they aren't even mentioning it as an original battleground. Probably so they can use the word "sweep" but they shall never attain the sacred patented title of threepeat!

[Swaggs]

I think it is just for news dialogue.

NC broke towards Romney in the last few weeks, but it was still within a few points and they held the Democratic Convention there, so the Dems were definitely hoping for it to be in play. They just didn't win it.

[Edward64]

Interesting article on polling accuracy.

In short, Rasmussen and Gallup sucked and Google did good.

Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race - NYTimes.com

Among the more prolific polling firms, the most accurate by this measure was TIPP, which conducted a national tracking poll for Investors’ Business Daily. Relative to other national polls, their results seemed to be Democratic-leaning at the time they were published. However, it turned out that most polling firms underestimated Mr. Obama’s performance, so those that had what had seemed to be Democratic-leaning results were often closest to the final outcome.

Conversely, polls that were Republican-leaning relative to the consensus did especially poorly.

Among telephone-based polling firms that conducted a significant number of state-by-state surveys, the best results came from CNN, Mellman and Grove Insight. The latter two conducted most of their polls on behalf of liberal-leaning organizations. However, as I mentioned, since the polling consensus underestimated Mr. Obama’s performance somewhat, the polls that seemed to be Democratic-leaning often came closest to the mark.

Several polling firms got notably poor results, on the other hand. For the second consecutive election — the same was true in 2010 — Rasmussen Reports polls had a statistical bias toward Republicans, overestimating Mr. Romney’s performance by about four percentage points, on average. Polls by American Research Group and Mason-Dixon also largely missed the mark. Mason-Dixon might be given a pass since it has a decent track record over the longer term, while American Research Group has long been unreliable.

FiveThirtyEight did not use polls by the firm Pharos Research Group in its analysis, since the details of the polling firm are sketchy and since the principal of the firm, Steven Leuchtman, was unable to answer due-diligence questions when contacted by FiveThirtyEight, such as which call centers he was using to conduct the polls. The firm’s polls turned out to be inaccurate, and to have a Democratic bias.

It was one of the best-known polling firms, however, that had among the worst results. In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six percentage points among likely voters, far different from the average of other surveys. Gallup’s final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row. In 2008, their polls overestimated Mr. Obama’s performance, while in 2010, they overestimated how well Republicans would do in the race for the United States House.

Instead, some of the most accurate firms were those that conducted their polls online.

The final poll conducted by Google Consumer Surveys had Mr. Obama ahead in the national popular vote by 2.3 percentage points – very close to his actual margin, which was 2.6 percentage points based on ballots counted through Saturday morning

[Edward64]

I was watching Fox Sunday to see what the conservative pundits would say. The post-election analysis was somewhat lacking, more focus on Petreaus.

But I did hear Bill Kristol say the below which I thought was interesting. I think it was out of frustation that Kristol said millionaires instead of anyone making more than $250K.

Brett Hume didn't show up and neither did Juan. No Karl Rove unfortunately, that would have been entertaining.

Bill Kristol: 'It Won't Kill The Country If We Raise Taxes' On Millionaires (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- Conservative commentator and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said Sunday the Republican Party should accept new ideas, including the much-criticized suggestion by Democrats that taxes be allowed to go up on the wealthy.

"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer."

"Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile?" he asked.

One of the biggest fights as Congress returns will be over taxes, as cuts put in place by former President George W. Bush are set to expire at the end of the year. Republicans want to extend those tax cuts for all income brackets, while Democrats want to raise revenue by allowing them to expire for wealthy Americans.

[gstelmack]

I don't get why those millionaire Democrats don't voluntarily raise their own taxes and fill in that line on their 1040s that lets them pay extra, if that's so good for the country...

[JPhillips]

I don't get why those warmongering Republicans don't voluntarily join the military and serve on the front lines, if that's so good for the country...

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I don't get why those millionaire Democrats don't voluntarily raise their own taxes and fill in that line on their 1040s that lets them pay extra, if that's so good for the country...

Because it wouldn't raise enough revenue?

I mean, using your logic then the only people that should pay taxes are the ones who think taxes are necessary and no one else should pay any taxes at all.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't get why those warmongering Republicans don't voluntarily join the military and serve on the front lines, if that's so good for the country...

I'm pretty sure a majority of enlisted men and women are actually right-leaning politically.

[molson]

Dola-

I know what you're saying and I don't think the "answer" to raising revenue is voluntary taxes, by any means - I'm just saying it's not insane to actually ACT in a way that backs up your political beliefs (beyond voting, I mean), plenty of Republicans and Democrats do.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I don't get why those millionaire Democrats don't voluntarily raise their own taxes and fill in that line on their 1040s that lets them pay extra, if that's so good for the country...

I Have this argument with my wife sporadically - I'm not a millionaire, but I'm happy to pay additional taxes for the betterment of those worse off ... however I think it should be something that society does a whole not reliant on the charity of individuals.

The reasoning behind this is:

(1) If you set society up to look after the worse off I believe it has a positive effect on peoples mindset generally, that is they realize they have a responsibility to others within society.
(2) Why should selfish people benefit from the generosity of others without actually ever helping (ie. if things are purely charity based then you reward people for being selfish - ie. they never give anything, but will receive in times of need).
(3) Charity tends to act as a 'stop gap' because its got an unpredictable flow and ebb (ie. they never know how much income is going to arrive) - a set level of taxation isn't, that means that instead of just giving money to people it can be put to work creating/improving infrastructure, retraining and educating people etc. ... which helps people to help themselves not just prop them up until that last lot of money you gave them is spent.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by molson

Dola-

I know what you're saying and I don't think the "answer" to raising revenue is voluntary taxes, by any means - I'm just saying it's not insane to actually ACT in a way that backs up your political beliefs (beyond voting, I mean), plenty of Republicans and Democrats do.

That's the main point I was trying to make. And you watch, when they do get around to "raising taxes on the rich", there'll be more loopholes for Congress that they can take advantage, continuing to prove their hipocracy.

FWIW, my taxes have already been raised this year. I missed the part of Obamacare that limited medical FSAs to $2500, so that's $2500 more taxable income this year from me. To those of you who needed Obamacare to get coverage, you're welcome.

Having said that, I'd love for Obama to step up and call Jim Boehner's bluff. Say "fine, we'll take away deductions instead of raising rates" and strip the tax code to the bones. Make it much simpler (and cheaper) to fill out tax forms and audit them.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(1) If you set society up to look after the worse off I believe it has a positive effect on peoples mindset generally, that is they realize they have a responsibility to others within society.
(2) Why should selfish people benefit from the generosity of others without actually ever helping (ie. if things are purely charity based then you reward people for being selfish - ie. they never give anything, but will receive in times of need).

My main problem with our approach to this is that #1 turns into #2, or they become the same. One of the key debates we continually have on this forum is how many people out there are like the welfare lottery winner, who took her lottery money yet continued to receive welfare because it was "her right". I think there are way too many people who think government money is "their right", while others on here think those folks are an aberration. We'll never agree, I just keep running into too many examples of people who think their government money is their due rather than the helping hand it should be to be anything but jaded over this.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

My main problem with our approach to this is that #1 turns into #2, or they become the same. One of the key debates we continually have on this forum is how many people out there are like the welfare lottery winner, who took her lottery money yet continued to receive welfare because it was "her right". I think there are way too many people who think government money is "their right", while others on here think those folks are an aberration. We'll never agree, I just keep running into too many examples of people who think their government money is their due rather than the helping hand it should be to be anything but jaded over this.

I think people are inherently selfish. That's just the way it is. So, really, it just depends on which end of the spectrum you're on. Are you among the wealthy that's "selfish" and wants to hold on to the money you've earned, or are you "selfish" and want to keep the benefits you have while, hopefully, moving up the economic ladder.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I think people are inherently selfish. That's just the way it is. So, really, it just depends on which end of the spectrum you're on. Are you among the wealthy that's "selfish" and wants to hold on to the money you've earned, or are you "selfish" and want to keep the benefits you have while, hopefully, moving up the economic ladder.

This is exactly why you don't rely on peoples charity to ensure people look after each other - you ingrain it within law and taxes ...

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

My main problem with our approach to this is that #1 turns into #2, or they become the same. One of the key debates we continually have on this forum is how many people out there are like the welfare lottery winner, who took her lottery money yet continued to receive welfare because it was "her right". I think there are way too many people who think government money is "their right", while others on here think those folks are an aberration. We'll never agree, I just keep running into too many examples of people who think their government money is their due rather than the helping hand it should be to be anything but jaded over this.

I can understand that - however for me personally while I realise a proportion of people will attempt to milk/exploit a system I think not supporting those who need it is more important.

Not just from the humanitarian/moral perspective - but also for society, if you help them by giving them opportunities for education, improvements etc. then they'll get better paying jobs and pay more taxation etc. ... decreasing the number of people requiring help in the future.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I can understand that - however for me personally while I realise a proportion of people will attempt to milk/exploit a system I think not supporting those who need it is more important.

Not just from the humanitarian/moral perspective - but also for society, if you help them by giving them opportunities for education, improvements etc. then they'll get better paying jobs and pay more taxation etc. ... decreasing the number of people requiring help in the future.

I think it's important to focus the benefits you do give to work on giving people a leg up. One of the reasons (discussed here by others) that folks get into the mindset of the lottery winner is they don't know HOW to move up the economic ladder. So what's wrong with, say, making folks attend classes to get their aid? Let's help those who want to help themselves. I firmly believe in the old motto about teaching a man to fish as opposed to handing him a fish.

Some random throw-ins:

Why do foodstamps let you buy non-essentials?

I think there is a distinction with people who CAN'T work, who have had some major medical trauma or issue. I am all for aid for TRUE disabilities, with some fraud prevention measures thrown in.

Veterans deserve all the help we can give them. I wish more of the bloated defense budget went to veterans programs. They sacrificed for us, I don't think we can do enough in return for them.

Education is so screwed up in this country. Stop bussing kids, and start focusing on the community programs that have been proven to help poor schools, which bussing does not.

Childcare needs work as well, but can we also build in disincentives to having more kids when you can't afford the ones you have? I'm all for increased childcare programs, however, to remove an excuse for the deadbeats. Plus it will help those that DO want to improve themselves and are held back by mistakes made when young, as it only helps society to make them productive.

Work on programs like those, then we can start cutting off the true deadbeats and make sure we're getting a return on our investment.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Some random throw-ins:

Why do foodstamps let you buy non-essentials?

Aye, there's the rub! How will you define non-essentials in the land of the free, and free to decide? Nothing can operate at 100% efficiency. Even if the system operates at 95% with 5% being a total loss and waste, it isn't ruining society and damaging the fabric of what is essentially American.

[sabotai]

States restrict welfare purchases – USATODAY.com

States are starting to limit what they can buy, but it's crazy that people who got welfare were able to spend it on strippers and cigarettes (and in most states, at least right now, they still can.). Looks like the problem is they withdraw cash from ATMs with the cards, and how do you police where people spend that cash?

[JediKooter]

Secession petitions filed in 20 states | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

The Whaambulance will be waiting to take you whining little bitches to Canada or Mexico.

[Dutch]

Meh, happens every time, I'm sure. Now it would be a fairly decent news story if such a complaint were filed in all 50 states.

[RainMaker]

Many of those states couldn't survive without others supporting them (Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee). But they'll secede when all the people who are leaving the country because of the election do. It's the same stuff from the losing side every election.

[JediKooter]

I just don't get it. Ok, your boy lost. Try putting up a better candidate next time. You have 4 years, should be easy.

EDIT: And by 'you', I mean the general sense of the term, not anyone here specifically.

[SirFozzie]

FBI Agent in Petraeus Case Under Scrutiny - WSJ.com

This Petraeus thing gets weirder and weirder by the day. Agent barred from the investigation due to possible personal involvement, leaks it to a congressman?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by sabotai

States restrict welfare purchases – USATODAY.com

States are starting to limit what they can buy, but it's crazy that people who got welfare were able to spend it on strippers and cigarettes (and in most states, at least right now, they still can.). Looks like the problem is they withdraw cash from ATMs with the cards, and how do you police where people spend that cash?

Easy you STOP allowing cash withdrawals from Aide accounts. This is all handled via debit cards now. Controlling what can and cannot be paid for is a very VERY simple thing. The system needs to be updated to do so. That is really all there is to it.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Easy you STOP allowing cash withdrawals from Aide accounts. This is all handled via debit cards now. Controlling what can and cannot be paid for is a very VERY simple thing. The system needs to be updated to do so. That is really all there is to it.

Exactly. I receive SPIFFS from certain companies based upon what I sell. Polycom is a prime example of a rewards program that I have managed to make a decent amount that I would have LOVED to pull the cash from, but they have it blocked. I can only use it as a CC card wherever I go. What has that done? It forced me to budget how i spent the money.

Granted, we are talking grant in aid here and not corporate spiffs, but I think the concept of control is the same. You don't want them taking the money out and buying smokes, beer, strippers, tattoos and iPhones, then by all means, limit how they get the cash!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I just don't get it. Ok, your boy lost. Try putting up a better candidate next time. You have 4 years, should be easy.

EDIT: And by 'you', I mean the general sense of the term, not anyone here specifically.

That's just it if you read the article there are thousands of signatures in 20 states. You do realize the percentage on this? The media just wants this to be a story to create the exact reaction they have in this thread. (a nation divided on the brink of destruction!!!! OMG!!!!) Like Dutch and Rainmaker said there is a reaction like this every election. Secession seems to be the GOP calling card, the Dem's usually are working some sort of lawsuit or mass exodus of celebrities. Who cares?

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

You do realize the percentage on this? The media just wants this to be a story to create the exact reaction they have in this thread. (a nation divided on the brink of destruction!!!! OMG!!!!)

I don't think the media is trying to portray this as a serious secession threat, it's more of the Jerry Springer thing - they're trying to make their viewers feel good about themselves and to validate their opinions generally. There's nothing more fun than recognizing how un-enlightened the other side is. "Hey, if these guys think they can secede, than I must be right about my economic views, and every other view I have! Cause they're crazy!" It's so tiring but people eat this shit up (One guy at a tea party rally holds up an stupid sign and it becomes an iconic feel-good symbol of the correctness of more liberal views. And there's some of this that goes the other way too - like the emphasis on that lady on inauguration day who thought Obama was going to pay for her gas and her mortgage, as if she was more broadly representative of anything or anyone.)

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

That's just it if you read the article there are thousands of signatures in 20 states. You do realize the percentage on this? The media just wants this to be a story to create the exact reaction they have in this thread. (a nation divided on the brink of destruction!!!! OMG!!!!) Like Dutch and Rainmaker said there is a reaction like this every election. Secession seems to be the GOP calling card, the Dem's usually are working some sort of lawsuit or mass exodus of celebrities. Who cares?

Of course it's an extremely small percentage and always happens when one or the other candidate wins. I'm making fun of the idiots that are signing these petitions. The "Oh woh is me!! What's happened to mah union!?!? Scarlett, never let Terra fall to the damn yankees!" reactions are a joke. Knowing darn well little to nothing is actually going to change in their day to day lives these next four years. The hysterics is what I find amusing, ridiculous and worthy of ridicule. So if I can make fun of those people, I definitely will take that opportunity.

[Passacaglia]

First of all, it was called Tara. Secondly, you've got to admit, the Damn Yankees were a pretty terrible band.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

First of all, it was called Tara. Secondly, you've got to admit, the Damn Yankees were a pretty terrible band.

Well played.

[Easy Mac]

I looked at a couple of petitions. Most signatures seem to come from out of state. I think it's more that normal people want these states gone.

[cartman]

Stolen from a friend's FB feed:

If a Republican signs a secession petition, then claims to be from "the party of Lincoln", I'm calling the Irony Police.

[gstelmack]

Lincoln would never have given away free cell phones to those on government assistance...

[cartman]

Nope, Lincoln just gave away freedom, which isn't free. It costs a buck o' five.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Lincoln would never have given away free cell phones to those on government assistance...

Hard to get a job (and thus get off gov't assistance) if you don't have a phone.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

Stolen from a friend's FB feed:

If a Republican signs a secession petition, then claims to be from "the party of Lincoln", I'm calling the Irony Police.

+1

[Passacaglia]

Hey, what's the source of the "free cell phones" thing anyway? I had someone on my facebook page mention it after the election. Something like, "if you can give out free cell phones, then it shouldn't be a problem to include veterinary care in health reform"

[Logan]

This "scandal" is probably worthy of its own thread, but since it was first talked about here...



ABC Affiliate Ran Phony Cover of Broadwell Book | The Weekly Standard

[molson]

She looks a lot better with her hair down and when she's not showing off the guns.

[Passacaglia]

So the only explanation is "it was a mistake"? Does that mean they had someone look for a picture of the book on the internet, and that's the first thing that came up?

Also, why does the ABC Affiliate in Denver refer to it as D.U. when according to the podium, it's the University of Denver?

EDIT: Interesting, I had no idea. From wiki:

The reverse initials "DU" are used as the university's shorthand moniker (rather than the more intuitive "UD") as part of a Rocky Mountain and midwestern tradition of initial reversal, similar to the University of Colorado's "CU", the University of Tulsa's "TU", the University of Oklahoma's "OU", the University of Nebraska's "NU", the University of Missouri's "MU", and the University of Kansas' "KU."