Tag: politics

Conspiracy theorists, you disappoint me

For literally years, I’ve been hearing rumors concerning how Obama was going to cancel the presidential election and rule over the subdued nation as a CommunIslamic dictator with an iron fist.  And now, with this so-called “hurricane” meme being pushed on a credulous nation by Obama’s lapdogs in the mainstream, complete with photoshopped pictures of wind, rain, and eroded beaches and cheap Dan Rather-style videos of fake weather-buffeted reporters, giving Obama the perfect excuse to cancel the election next week, absolutely no one has managed to put two and two together?  No one thinks this is the perfectly-timed storm to put an end American democracy?  No one has even suggested that the man of mysterious birth who could make the oceans stop rising, and has now reportedly summoned the ocean’s wrath in a suspiciously timely manner, is not the bastard son of Poseidon?

Conspiracy theorists, you make me sad.  A very poor showing all around, I’m sorry to say.

And then they voted….

As most of you already know, I won’t be voting for either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.  They are both corrupt men who are owned by the financial interests and primarily seek political power due to their character flaws.  Obama is is a weak little man whose only saving grace is his laziness, while Romney’s greatest strength, his executive competence, only makes him the more dangerous candidate for the country.

But given that few of us tend to pay much attention to the mindless blatherings of the sort of dimwits and mid-wits who still genuinely support Obama after nearly four years of witnessing the man’s boundless incompetence, I thought it might be interesting to see what their justifications are for endorsing the man for a second term.  Keep in mind these are actual, original sentiments expressed by people who are declaring their public support for Obama in the full knowledge that others will be reading them.  Depending upon your psychological outlook, you may find these presidential endorsements to be either highly amusing or incredibly depressing:

Obama.  Cause Repubs scare me. All the anti-women and anti-science talk bothers me greatly as a fairly smart woman with a daughter.  I don’t want to see my future turn into A Handmaiden’s Tale.

Women should get paid as much as men. Gay people should be allowed to make legal life-long commitments to the person they love. Women should be in control of their own bodies. People who have the misfortune to get a disease shouldn’t be shut out from medical care for the rest of their lives. Kids shouldn’t starve because their parents are poor. We ought to send fewer of our boys and girls abroad, and do better for them when they come home. We should be a leader in science, instead of rejecting it.  OBAMA 2012.

I support Barack Obama because he is not a Republican, and because I do not want to see any more people suffering.

I’m endorsing Obama. Basically because my GOP relatives just completely baffle me with their lack of sense – as do most of the GOP that I have seen lately on news outlets.

I endorse Obama as he has done the best he could with the mess he was left with, he has dealt with the GOP whose goal above all including the needs of the country was to make Mr. Obama a single term president and he allows women to choose.

I’m voting for Obama because stimulus is the only way to get an economy out of a depression, because we need to have the rich pay their fair share of taxes and right now they’re paying some of the lowest taxes in the last hundred years, because if it hadn’t been for unemployment benefits being extended I would have lost my house, because we need health care reform, we need to put an end to insurance companies being able to drop paying customers once they get sick.

I endorse Barack Obama for a second term. He turned around the economy, killed Bin Laden, and has changed his mind on gay marriage.

I am Voting for President Obama because he is the leader of the anti-rape party. Seriously.

Given what he’s accomplished in the context in which he’s had to work, I’m satisfied with Obama as president so far. That alone would enough in most election years to allow him to keep my vote in his tally. Is this the glowing, ringing endorsement that Obamaites can shout to the hills? I suppose it’s not, but this should not be confused with a lukewarm or half-hearted endorsement. This is not “you’ll do.” It’s “you’ve done well. Keep going.”

These are just a few of the many reasons I do not believe in the legitimacy or efficacy of pseudo-democracy. In addition to underlining the basic fallacy of “representative” democracy, it should suffice to explode the oft-heard claim that Democrats are more intelligent. In fact, if one takes the trouble to examine the electoral demographics, it is quite clear that the average Republican is both more intelligent and better-educated than the average Democrat.  Of course, that is a very low bar to clear, as one need only examine the disastrous Republican performance in office over the last thirty years to see that having ever-so-slightly more intelligent voters hasn’t prevented Republicans from governing in a disastrous manner.

If you’re the sort with a macabre sense of humor who finds this sort of thing amusing, you’ll find plenty more at McRapey’s.  If, on the other hand, this makes you despair for the country, I would urge you to be sure to have a suicide hotline on speed dial before wading into the mire.

WND column

Is Obama unfit for command?

There were no American helicopters shot down at the CIA annex in
Benghazi. But those who have seen the movie, “Blackhawk Down,” will
surely recall the scene where the two Delta snipers, Randy Shugart and
Gary Gordon, are desperately fighting off the Somali attackers, who are
attempting to capture the crew of the downed Black Hawk. Shugart and
Gordon, valiant men who were both posthumously awarded the congressional
Medal of Honor, killed 25 Somalis while defending the crew before being
killed by the enemy militia.

As the details of the large-scale attacks on the American diplomatic
compound and the CIA annex gradually leak out into the press, it appears
that two of the four fallen Americans, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods
and Glen Doherty, died fighting in a manner no less valorous than Sgt.
1st Class Shugart and Master Sgt. Gordon.

We’ll see, won’t we

Obama supporters overseas are talking up Nate Silver as if he is a silver bullet to the werewolf of Mitt Romney’s campaign.  I just want to put this article on record so I can reference it after the election:

Nate Silver is Mitt Romney’s nemesis. Not intentionally; although he admits to being an Obama supporter, his whole career is predicated on getting his predictions right. Like he did in 2008, when “Poblano” accurately predicted the result of 49 of the 50 states, and all 35 senate races…. In fact, Silver is proving so damaging to their chances that Republican’s are drawing up a strategy for countering him. “Nate Silver continues to lead the Democrat Graveyard whistling choir”, Republican blogger Robert Stacy McCain wrote on Tuesday. National Review decried “Nate Silver’s Flawed Model”. “Everyone but Nate Silver thinks Obama’s lead is evaporating fast”, said Business Insider.  But the truth is we don’t. And the Romney camp knows it.

Here’s a prediction. As the election clock continues to tick down, and the momentum narrative continues to melt away, the attacks on Silver will intensify. We should expect a Fox News feature. More negative blogs. Maybe even a smear or two.  But the number’s don’t lie. At the start of this week, Barack Obama’s chances of winning Ohio were 70 per cent. Today they’re at 75. Wisconsin has moved up to 86 per cent, Nevada 78, Iowa 68, New Hampshire 69, Colorado 57, Virginia 54. Overall, his chance of wining is now put at 73 per cent, his highest for 18 days. That’s not momentum; that’s Omentum.

Barack Obama is holding a steady course to the presidency. But don’t take my word for it. Ask Poblano.

And yet, I seem to recall it wasn’t all that long ago that Obama’s chances were supposedly at 80 percent and Nate Silver was busily informing everyone that Romney’s post-convention bounce was minimal.  I note, furthermore, that the article doesn’t happen to mention 2010, when Silver was still providing five reasons that Democrats could hold the House as late as November 1st.  Nor should we forget that he claimed in August 2011 that the GOP majority was at risk and control of the House would be a tossup in 2012.

I don’t support Romney nor do I have anything personal against Nate Silver.  It’s just that after reading so much of Dawkins, Harris, and Hauser, I have developed a heightened sense for spotting a pseudo-scientific charlatan when I see one.  If things play out as I expect them to play out, with Romney winning an election that isn’t particularly close and the Republicans winning a comfortable majority in the House, Nate Silver will be publicly seen for the fraud I suspect him to be.

A portrait in irony

Our favorite “Nobel Prize”-winning economist, Paul Krugman, laments Mitt Romney’s successful stealing from the Democratic playbook:

Mitt Romney has been barnstorming the country, telling voters that he
has a five-point plan to restore prosperity. And some voters, alas, seem
to believe what he’s saying. So President Obama has now responded with
his own plan, a little blue booklet containing 27 policy proposals. How
do these two plans stack up?

Well, as I’ve said before, Mr. Romney’s “plan” is a sham. It’s a list of
things he claims will happen, with no description of the policies he
would follow to make those things happen. “We will cut the deficit and
put America on track to a balanced budget,” he declares, but he refuses
to specify which tax loopholes he would close to offset his $5 trillion
in tax cuts. 
Actually, if describing what you want to see happen without providing
any specific policies to get us there constitutes a “plan,” I can easily
come up with a one-point plan that trumps Mr. Romney any day. Here it
is: Every American will have a good job with good wages. Also, a
blissfully happy marriage. And a pony. 

So Mr. Romney is faking it. His real plan seems to be to foster economic
recovery through magic, inspiring business confidence through his
personal awesomeness.

Translation: Romney has no economic plan for economic recovery except for appealing to the pagan economic gods of the animal spirits.  Which, if you will recall from your reading of the General Theory, is pure Keynesian economics.  I find it absolutely hilarious that the great Keynesian champion is directly criticizing the very heart of the economic theory that forms the basis for his own Neo-Keynesian synthetic approach.

As an added bonus, he damns the man he is attempting to defend by faint praise.  He writes: “Mr. Obama’s booklet comes a lot closer to being an actual plan. Where
Mr. Romney says he’ll achieve energy independence, never mind how, Mr.
Obama calls for concrete steps like raising fuel efficiency standards.”

Translation: it’s not an actual plan, but it is “a lot closer” to being one.  But one either has a plan or one does not; how is “raising fuel efficiency standards” any less fake than “cutting the deficit”?  It’s not any more specific, it’s merely a smaller generality.

The reality is that neither presidential candidate has a plan that goes beyond “print and pray”.  Neither Romney or Obama can do anything to foster economic recovery, as they have outsourced that responsibility to Helicopter Ben Bernanke, who appears grimly determined to demonstrate that no matter how many times it is proven that one cannot inflate one’s way to prosperity, if one has a hammer, the problem MUST be a nail.

Obama is out of control

In case you doubted that Obama is sabotaging his re-election campaign, Matt Drudge brings the following incident to your attention:

When asked whether he had a message for a six-year-old supporter,
President Barack Obama took the opportunity to describe his opponent
Mitt Romney as ‘a bullshitter’.

The extraordinary comment – most
American newspapers decline even to print such a word – came at the end
of an interview with ‘Rolling Stone’ in which Obama was asked possibly
the softest softball question ever lobbed at him.  As he left the
Oval Office, Eric Bates, executive editor of ‘Rollin Stone’, told Obama
that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she
wanted him to say to the president and she had responded: ‘Tell him: You
can do it.’

According to Bates, Obama grinned and said: ‘You know, kids have good instincts. They
look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can
tell.”‘

Now, he’s not wrong.  Mitt Romney is a bullshitter supreme.  The man is the flippiest of flip-floppers and naturally produces a prodigious quantity of the stuff.  As, of course, does Obama, athough he is not so much a bullshit artist as a mid-witted con man.  But there are certain things you simply do not say when you are, or are at least popularly supposed to be, the President of the United States.

At this point, it clearly isn’t enough to just keep the man away from the press corps, his handlers are going to have to gag him and hide him in a closet until November 2nd.  I mean, he can’t even talk to his most fervent supporters without committing silly gaffes.

Debate the debate

“Foreign policy took command of the campaign spotlight Monday at the
third and final debate between President Barack Obama and Republican
Mitt Romney, two weeks before Election Day in a close race for the White
House dominated by pocketbook issues and the economy.  Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the recent attack on the U.S. Consulate in
Benghazi, Libya, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions were all ripe for
disagreement in the 90-minute event at Lynn University.”

Feel free to provide the color commentary or keep score if you’re watching.

WND column

Polls and the next president

Interest in the presidential election is heating up. Independents and
undecided voters are gradually coming around to their decisions.
Democrats are shrieking about the threat to Roe vs. Wade and warning
that Mitt Romney intends to put women and gays into concentration camps,
where they will be forced to wear sacred chastity belts. Republicans
are shouting that this time it really and truly is the most important
election ever and warning that Barack Obama wants to turn America into a
communist Islamic republic and launch an attack on Israel.

None of these dire warnings are true. 

The polls say Romney can’t win

In which we note the latest Gallup poll:

According to the latest Gallup survey, Mitt Romney is polling 52% of likely voters. At this point in the race he is ahead of:

  • Where Jimmy Carter was in 1976 (47%)
  • Where Ronald Reagan was in 1980 (39% — Carter was six points up)
  • Where George H.W. Bush was in 1988 (50%)
  • Where Bill Clinton was in 1992 (40%)
  • Where George W. Bush was in 2000 (48%)
  • Where Barack Obama was in 2008 (49%)

Cue Nate Silver complaining: “But… but… the 538 state poll model estimates that Obama has a 172.3% chance of winning!”

    Mailvox: a reason to not vote

    I think we can all agree that blame for the present parlous state of the nation clearly lies with JartStar:

    I had some fun today with some of the guys at work about voting. They
    asked me while we were on break who I was going to vote for and I
    explained that I no longer vote. The looks on their faces were priceless
    and when they inquired why I offhandedly explained that I had voted my
    entire life and things have steadily gotten worse, I feel bad about
    that, and my voting has made the country worse. I then apologized to
    them all for what I had done and the three out of the four of them went
    into near hysterics.

    The Israeli Jew proclaimed it would be better for
    me to show up and vote randomly than not vote, and one of the two Indian
    immigrants tried to pull me aside to explain that I wasn’t really the
    problem.

    So this is my new reason for not voting when people ask: The state
    of the country to a large degree my fault and I’m stopping now before I
    make things really bad.

    It’s definitely a more entertaining excuse than relying on reason and being forced to endure a monologue on how Mitt Romney will preside in a TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MANNER than Barack Obama, even though the extent of their actual policy differences appears to be that Romney is slightly more enthusiastic about Israel, Wall Street, and gun control while Obama is slightly more enthusiastic about Saudi Arabia, immigration, and feminism.

    Of course, as I have conclusively proven, there is absolutely no chance that your one presidential vote makes any difference at all.  None at all.  Either that one vote will not make a difference to the outcome, or in the extremely unlikely event that the outcome of the state vote rests upon your one vote, the courts will render it void by pronouncing their own verdict on who won the “election”.

    The argument for random voting being better than not voting is informative, though. Such a position would indicate that to the person who holds it, the preservation of the illusion of democracy is more important than democracy itself.