7 pages in one day… Glad PWI is keeping up with its strong standards.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I wasn’t talking about 1992- The numbers in 1996 are clearly stated in that site I referenced. You said both times. You’re wrong. I’m right.[/quote]
If you have other facts which contradict these post them:
Clinton received 42,909,808, or 43% of the vote. George Bush got 39,104,550 and Perot garnered 19,743,821. Where as Ralph Nader, as I said was a tiny blip on the screen gaining less than 10,000 votes. So do the math Einstein. Bush plus Perot equals 58,848,371.
Now don’t get me wrong you can say that you’re right but of course you’d be wrong.[/quote]
Dipshit- which part of “I wasn’t talking about 1992” did you miss?
I’m very, very clearly talking about 1996, where the two combined liberal candidates received more total votes than all three conservatives.
[/quote]
I remember that after voting for Bush in '92 I refused to vote for Dole in '96. I was 25 years old at the time, and I personally could not condone the Republicans pushing a loser like that just because it was his “turn”. I did not vote again until 2010.
Dole was a horrible candidate, and Clinton won, but his incumbancy was the result of Perot opening the door in '92. Granted, of the near 20 million who voted for Perot, SOME would not have voted at all, and some would have voted for Clinton, but honestly, policy-wise, I don’t think Clinton or Bush would have done much different.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I wasn’t talking about 1992- The numbers in 1996 are clearly stated in that site I referenced. You said both times. You’re wrong. I’m right.[/quote]
If you have other facts which contradict these post them:
Clinton received 42,909,808, or 43% of the vote. George Bush got 39,104,550 and Perot garnered 19,743,821. Where as Ralph Nader, as I said was a tiny blip on the screen gaining less than 10,000 votes. So do the math Einstein. Bush plus Perot equals 58,848,371.
Now don’t get me wrong you can say that you’re right but of course you’d be wrong.[/quote]
Dipshit- which part of “I wasn’t talking about 1992” did you miss?
I’m very, very clearly talking about 1996, where the two combined liberal candidates received more total votes than all three conservatives.
[/quote]
You’re still wrong.
If you total up the Clinton and Nader votes cast you’d have 48,085,422. If you total up Doles votes, add in Ross Perot’s 8 plus million and the libertarian candidate (you don’t think that the libertarian took votes from Clinton do you - that would be funny if you did) you get somewhere around 48,189,979. So Clinton would have lost in 1992. I disregarded the all the votes cast for various write in votes, as they could have been split 50/50 if those odd candidates were not in the running. I do agree it is a lot closer than what 1996 would have been without Perot. But the point is still the same. The majority of Americans did NOT want Bill Clinton as President.
In fact, the last time that a democrat was elected to the Presidency with a majority of the vote before Obama was Jimmy Carter with 50.1% of the vote. Barely squeaking past Richard Nixon’s hand picked man Gerald Ford. That means that it took 32 years for a democrat to get elected to the Presidency with a majority of the vote. And you say the country is not center right? When you throw in the massive victory’s of Ronald Reagan it becomes pretty clear which way the country leans. I give you kudo’s for your knowledge of boxing, but when it comes to politics you are blinded by your own political leanings. The facts say something completely different.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
One more time, going off the figures from that website I posted. I’m not doing this again.
William Clinton Albert Gore Jr. Democratic 47,400,125
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 685,297
=
48,085,422. That’s the votes for the major liberal candidates.
Now, take
Robert Dole Jack Kemp Republican 39,198,755
H. Ross Perot Pat Choate Reform 8,085,402
Harry Browne Jo Jorgensen Libertarian 485,798
=
47,769,955. Those are the votes for three conservative candidates.
How in god’s name do you say that’s a conservative victory?[/quote]
How would that have looked electorially?
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Really Irish you are wondering why people didn’t question 5 star general and American hero Dwight D. Eisenhower. You are playing the race card on this one really? You can’t be this fucking stupid, I mean I know you are from Jersey so I shouldn’t expect too much but come the fuck on.
[/quote]
I’m not questioning or wondering about Eisenhower. I’m just saying that the circumstances weren’t the same.
Go back to the rooting for Ron Paul thread. I’m sure he’s got it locked up this time.[/quote]
You become that professional boxer yet? or you still waiting to have a match?[/quote]
He uses plenty of matches…and rolling papers.
So, was McCain’s birth cert investigated by Congress because he is black or what?
McCain was clearly born in Panama, Rumor has it that the Admiral was not John’s father , but it was Jesus the family’s stable boy
Yes, on a US military facility, which by SOFA, and US law, constitutes as US territory. Just like embassies.
But, he was still officially investigated. Which, totally fucking destroys the “point” Irish was trying to assert.
As soon as he answers my query, I’ll move on to showing him that it was in fact Hillary who originally questioned Obama’s birthplace.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Lowe-1 wrote:
Yes, on a US military facility, which by SOFA, and US law, constitutes as US territory. Just like embassies.
But, he was still officially investigated. Which, totally fucking destroys the “point” Irish was trying to assert.
As soon as he answers my query, I’ll move on to showing him that it was in fact Hillary who originally questioned Obama’s birthplace.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. Obama proved he was born here, twice. The fact that nobody believed him, and that some are still saying it’s a forgery… well, I still believe that it would not happen to a white president who didn’t have a name like Barack. Eisenhower got by with a couple witnesses, McCain’s issue was resolved quickly and forgotten, but Obama was beaten up about it for two years.
You don’t have to agree. I don’t give a shit. [/quote]
Your assertion(s) were that:
- No one with a white sounding name ever would have been investigated. Not “investigated for years”, investigated period.
You’ve been proven wrong.
2)That this was a right wing movement.
You’ve been proven wrong.
Correct, I do not agree with you. Neither do the facts.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1996
The breakdown is here. Neither Browne, Perot, or Nader won any electoral votes so the breakdown was the same as the election’s final results.[/quote]
Not if it shifted a state to give all of its electors to someone else.
the site you listed shows a what if, if the reform all shifted republican and Dole wins the electoral vote. Granted its not that simple.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
In my humble opinion, the POTUS should be the single most vetted person in the country.
We should have every piece of information on that person made totally public. Birth certificates, ALL school transcripts, parking tickets, fucking netflix cue.
Christ this is the most powerful person on earth…everything should be transparent.
How can anybody argue with that??[/quote]
Disagree completely. Next thing you know we’re requiring the same of the VP, S of T, etc. etc. 30 years from now we’re requiring all CEOs of big businesses.
There are plenty of powerful people in the world, it’s a slippery slope and releasing all private information is not something I’d endorse.[/quote]
Lanky, if you were going to hire somebody that important to run your company…you are going to dig into EVERY aspect of their background…education, criminal record, ability to work in the U.S…references, background check, credit history ect.
Shit, I do that for manager level positions I hire for in my company…why should the most powerful person in the country be exempt? [/quote]
There is a difference between an HR exec running a criminal background check, etc. and releasing that information to the entire world. [/quote]
Except we are hiring him to run the entire country…he works for us.
It’s simply a matter of scale, politicians should not be exempt.
[/quote]
A CEOs background check is not shared with the entire company.[/quote]
A CEO does not control Naval battle groups and Thermonuclear weapons either.[/quote]
As usual, I’m a little late to the party, but I felt it prudent to weigh in on this particular part of the discussion. Let’s see what the constitution says, shall we?
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Natural born citizen? Check
Over 35? Check
14 years resident in the US? Check
END OF DISCUSSION
If you don’t like the requirements for president, then run for congress, draft an amendment and put it to vote. But THAT’S all it takes according to the CONSTITUTION (you know, that document that has been eroded for the last half a century or so?).
All the rest of it is just MEDIA bullshit, making mountains out of molehills, making chicken salad out of chicken shit and extreme assholes on BOTH sides of the aisle shouting lies at the top of their lungs.
It’s just a distraction, though. Congress has been in the pockets of the Super Rich for some time now. It isn’t about Obama’s birth certificate, it never was. It’s about SQUEEZING the middle class dry and making the Super Rich, RICHER. IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY. “Democracy” here is DEAD, carved up by lobbyists and special interest groups.
Our country is in decline in so many ways you can’t really comprehend it all at once. It is fundamentally broken. And, like every other empire that preceded it, the US will surely decline, kicking and screaming about birth certificates and dimpled chads the whole way - cuz that’s what the MEDIA tells us to think about. Bunch of fucking sheep…
[/quote]
Yes you are late to the party AC, and if you had bothered to read any of the previous posts you would have seen that I am NOT a birther. I merely wanted the same vetting standards for the leader of the free world as I would for hiring a company’s CEO.
Please refrain from jumping into threads that you have no idea of the discussion. I makes you look ignorant.
You can keep your 400 word essays in SAMA.
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Way to spin this as a “victory”. The birthers were just proven wrong.
Settling on their talking points: The hard core will go on about how the BC is a fake, most will simply declare themselves victorious for “forcing” Obama to show his certificate.
Of course, for some people this isn’t about race at all. They were just hoping for some technicality. Still, why wasn’t the first BC enough?
Lies work.
[/quote]
Nice to see that you too agree that Obama hadn’t proven his qualifications to be president until now. That actually makes the birthers right.
FightinIrish26,
You failed to count the category labeled as “other”. If people in that category were forced to vote for either Clinton or Dole they would certainly have not voted for the incumbent. They voiced their concern with the incumbent by voting against him. I believe we originally said if there were no other candidates running.
But even being gracious and giving Clinton a razor thin victory in 1996 (which I still believe would not have happened in a two way race) he still did not get the majority of votes that being over 50%. And my original point was the country leans center right. And as I’ve repeatedly stated this has been proven out by the dismal amount of votes garnered by most democrat Presidential candidates.
Finally, as I pointed out there was a 32 year span between Obama’s majority win and Jimmy Carter’s narrow victory of 50.1% over Richard Nixon’s hand picked VP who later moved to the top spot upon the formers resignation.
Follow that with Ronald Reagan’s large margin victory’s especially the landslide of 1984, and again followed by (senior) George Bush’s convincing win over Dukakis by something like 8%. And what you have is only one really convincing victory by a democrat running for President and that was by Obama. While Carter did get 50.1% that can hardly be called convincing.
Furthermore, you can go even further back to the Presidential elections of 1952 where Eisenhower won by 11%. And again in 1956 where he won again, this time by 15%! The democrat received only 44% in 52’ and 42% in 56’. True Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960 but even then Kennedy only got 49.7% of the vote to Nixon’s 49.5%. The much beloved democrat icon John F. Kenned didn’t even win by a majority! (Obviously a third party candidate was involved).
My original assertion is correct, the country leans center right and has for decades.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Lowe-1 wrote:
Yes, on a US military facility, which by SOFA, and US law, constitutes as US territory. Just like embassies.
But, he was still officially investigated. Which, totally fucking destroys the “point” Irish was trying to assert.
As soon as he answers my query, I’ll move on to showing him that it was in fact Hillary who originally questioned Obama’s birthplace.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. Obama proved he was born here, twice. The fact that nobody believed him, and that some are still saying it’s a forgery… well, I still believe that it would not happen to a white president who didn’t have a name like Barack. Eisenhower got by with a couple witnesses, McCain’s issue was resolved quickly and forgotten, but Obama was beaten up about it for two years.
You don’t have to agree. I don’t give a shit. [/quote]
No, this is the first time he’s proved it. Like you said earlier, the birthers were finally Proven wrong. You do not have to be born in Hawaii to get a short form certificate. It doesn’t prove anything. That is a fact. I’m not sure how you are arguing against a fact while simultaneously admitting it didn’t prove it.
I mean, you admitted it. Are you taking back your earlier statement?
At the end of the video: “He could be white. And if that’s the case, I don’t understand why we’re questioning his legitimacy.” Fantastically done as usual.
Irish is also mistakenly comparing the investigation differences between McCain and Obama.
Let’s review:
McCain is questioned.
1)He immediately produces long form birth certificate, in a Congressional hearing.
Obama is questioned.
1)He releases a “certificate of live birth” and a newspaper clipping.
2)He spends next two years blocking every attempt to review the long form.
If Obama had been held to the same standard as McCain, this would have been over years ago.
Heh, I saw this line and am posting it here:
The worst part about President Obama’s disclosure - which sane people already knew - that he was born in Hawaii? Hipsters across this great land were crestfallen to learn that he wasn’t the result of immaculate conception.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Since when does “other” mean that they voted or would have voted for a conservative candidate? They could have voted for Bill fucking Parcells or Micky Mouse for all you know.[/quote]
True, but most polls over the years have demonstrated that after four years someone either wants to reelect the President or they want someone else. Therefore, it is not a stretch to assume that if the choice were just Clinton or Dole most would have chosen Dole. But either way the point is Clinton DID NOT receive a majority vote in either election. That means that most people DID NOT want him to be President.
[quote]The Democrats won the elections of 1992 and 1996, received more votes in 2000, and won handily in 2008. Say what you want, but the margin is very close between the two parties and the Democrats have shown up well.
Maybe they’re more conservative in your sheep fucking backwater towns, and that’s why you think this way- you all nod in agreement with each other’s backwards claims. In the real world though, the elections have been very, very close since Clinton.[/quote]
I made the argument that the country tilts center right. You have said nothing to refute any of the facts I posted about previous elections.
There is so much wrong with what you’ve said that I don’t know where to begin. Suffice it to say that racism didn’t seem to play a roll as Obama was elected by a majority previously unknown to democrats with the exception of LBJ in 1964.
Stated by a guy who can’t quite seem to contradict not one of my statistics. Would you care to point out exactly how any of the statistics are slanted?
Eisenhower’s two wins by decisive margins.
Kennedy (the democrats icon) unable to reach a majority win (that one shocked you huh?)
Carter barely eeking out a 50.1% victory over Nixon’s man, Gerald Ford.
Reagan winning big TWICE.
Clinton unable to get a majority in two elections.
GW elected TWICE. (Even after the press trashed him he still destroyed Kerry)
As I’ve demonstrated and you have been unable to refute the country leans center right.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
In my humble opinion, the POTUS should be the single most vetted person in the country.
We should have every piece of information on that person made totally public. Birth certificates, ALL school transcripts, parking tickets, fucking netflix cue.
Christ this is the most powerful person on earth…everything should be transparent.
How can anybody argue with that??[/quote]
Disagree completely. Next thing you know we’re requiring the same of the VP, S of T, etc. etc. 30 years from now we’re requiring all CEOs of big businesses.
There are plenty of powerful people in the world, it’s a slippery slope and releasing all private information is not something I’d endorse.[/quote]
Lanky, if you were going to hire somebody that important to run your company…you are going to dig into EVERY aspect of their background…education, criminal record, ability to work in the U.S…references, background check, credit history ect.
Shit, I do that for manager level positions I hire for in my company…why should the most powerful person in the country be exempt? [/quote]
There is a difference between an HR exec running a criminal background check, etc. and releasing that information to the entire world. [/quote]
Except we are hiring him to run the entire country…he works for us.
It’s simply a matter of scale, politicians should not be exempt.
[/quote]
A CEOs background check is not shared with the entire company.[/quote]
A CEO does not control Naval battle groups and Thermonuclear weapons either.[/quote]
As usual, I’m a little late to the party, but I felt it prudent to weigh in on this particular part of the discussion. Let’s see what the constitution says, shall we?
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Natural born citizen? Check
Over 35? Check
14 years resident in the US? Check
END OF DISCUSSION
If you don’t like the requirements for president, then run for congress, draft an amendment and put it to vote. But THAT’S all it takes according to the CONSTITUTION (you know, that document that has been eroded for the last half a century or so?).
All the rest of it is just MEDIA bullshit, making mountains out of molehills, making chicken salad out of chicken shit and extreme assholes on BOTH sides of the aisle shouting lies at the top of their lungs.
It’s just a distraction, though. Congress has been in the pockets of the Super Rich for some time now. It isn’t about Obama’s birth certificate, it never was. It’s about SQUEEZING the middle class dry and making the Super Rich, RICHER. IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY. “Democracy” here is DEAD, carved up by lobbyists and special interest groups.
Our country is in decline in so many ways you can’t really comprehend it all at once. It is fundamentally broken. And, like every other empire that preceded it, the US will surely decline, kicking and screaming about birth certificates and dimpled chads the whole way - cuz that’s what the MEDIA tells us to think about. Bunch of fucking sheep…
[/quote]
Yes you are late to the party AC, and if you had bothered to read any of the previous posts you would have seen that I am NOT a birther. I merely wanted the same vetting standards for the leader of the free world as I would for hiring a company’s CEO.
Please refrain from jumping into threads that you have no idea of the discussion. I makes you look ignorant.
You can keep your 400 word essays in SAMA.[/quote]
I’ll take my 400 word essays wherever the fuck I want.
I read the thread and my POINT was that the CONSTITUTION only requires age, natural citizen and time in country. It DOESN’T MATTER what you want or what you think, the most important document in the Land is pretty clear on this so it’s a moot point.
That’s the flaw in our representative democracy (one of them) - there is no vetting. As a result, ass hats like Marion Barry get elected after being arrested for cocaine. Watching that trainwreck of a political career is almost as entertaining as watching a monkey try to fuck a football.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
That’s the flaw in our representative democracy (one of them) - there is no vetting. As a result, ass hats like Marion Barry get elected after being arrested for cocaine. Watching that trainwreck of a political career is almost as entertaining as watching a monkey try to fuck a football.
[/quote]
I’m afraid I’m going to have to demand the obligatory video.