LEFT OF THE RIGHT: The Phenomenon Of The Closet Obama Supporter

Yeah, I "Voluntarily" give to my company PAC & kept my mouth shut more than once at family gatherings, LOL.

Problem is Obama let a lot of folks down. No real change and hope is lost. People don't want more Obama prosperity.

So says the folks inside the FOX News bubble. We are not fools Winnie. We KNOW who trashed our ecnomy. We KNOW who wants to go back to he same God Damned policies that got us in that mess. AND, we KNOW who is, despite GOP obstructionism, pulling America out of the pit of hell YOUR Mother F*cking Party put us in!!!

And if you push him really hard, Winston... he'll tell you how he really feels... about both the Republicans and you.

I agree with John. Give em hell Devin

I have no idea how many people feel let down by Obama. I didn't expect him to restore the economy in 4 years and have trouble with the idea that any president can. People want Daddy in the White House. He can make everything better by magic.

I do know that Obama has tried to reverse the government economic policies that fostered the environment of unrestrained casino finance and the housing bubble. Anyone who couldn't see that there was a housing bubble by 2003 or so got suckered.

I agree with you Nippy. I can't find much wrong with Obama's presidency, but this grumpy article from The Economist is food for thought.

Or maybe they just don't want to let people know they've been duped once again by a con artist that hasn't done anything to improve this country in the 4 years he has had.

Yes Maam you are full of crap and also a racist

I'm committing thought crimes right now.

Then they must be misdemeanors.

There are a fair number of people I know, on both sides of the aisle, who don't feel they can be candid with large percentage of their social groups. It will be hard to fix the national political rancor if people can't even be open before their friends without fear.

Opposing Obama policies doesn't make one a racist (as evidence note that such policies would largely mimic Hillary Clinton policies were she to have won and thus the racist charge clearly doesn't hold). This is true regardless of how many tired times the charge is repeated.

Racists don't care about policy Ken. Besides I'm not talking about people who have "reasons" for hating Obama. I'm talking about the unreasonable hatred some' have just because of the color of his skin.

But you are attributing explainable strong logical resistance to bad policies to an irrational cause. And then you spice the brew by emotionally labeling any such resistance 'racist'. Makes no sense even for you. Opposing a president that cavalierly and intentionally ignores the rule of law, separations of powers, and the need for truth is imminently reasonable.
Also recall that it took many many white votes to elect Obama in the first place. That a portion of those might not now be so enamored is not racist - it's simply reason at work.

After 2 years training Obama became a real president and now you know that he's against deregulation and "may" succeed during the next 4 years.

Romney, who has personal concerns for deregulation, will need another 2 years for training and, then, no one knows if, in order to try to get a Congress absolute majority, he will not become a deregulating leftist. In the meantime I ignore if your prayers will be heard in any way ....

Actually, when we compare the recovery from the 2007-08 global financial crises caused by GOP policies, we don't see much different from what Herbert Hoover did in 1929 -1933. Hoover was also for trickle down economics and they didn't trickle down. Instead unemployment soared to 24%.

Hoover was criticized for his refusal to authorize large-scale relief programs that might have alleviated the nation's suffering and hunger, his unwillingness to use a significant amount of federal dollars to stimulate the nation's economy, and his failure to recognize the all-encompassing nature of the Great Depression.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1580.html

There is a study that uses pretty solid evidence that while Hoover was urging the wealthy in the private sector to enact trickle down economics (think yellow fluid), seven-million Americans starved to death, and the wealthy turned to firing people instead so their companies would be more profitable.

If Romney is elected president, we may see a rerun of Hoover's failures. Romney wants to spent $2 Trillion more on defense than we are already spending, lower taxes on the wealthy and do away with deductions for the middle class to pay for the deficit. But no new taxes. I've heard that before with Reagan and he kept his promised but did away with some important middle class deductions. In fact, our taxes doubled the year those deductions were cut.

In addition, Defense spending was less than $300 billion before 9/11 and is now closing in on $900 Billion--an increase of 300% sense 2000 and G. W. Bush's first year in the White House. Obama proposes cutting defense in half so it is closer to what it was a decade ago and even with those numbers, America would still have the largest military budget in the world with China a distant second spending about $100 billion annually.

When someone claims Obama's policies were a failure all that person is doing is broadcasting his or her IGNORANCE in capital letters. Abraham Lincoln was right when he said "you can fool some of the people all of the time" and these people are those fools. Herman Goring, Hitler's minister of propaganda, said if you tell a BIG lie enough people will believe it. That is what the GOP has been doing.

Obama, even without cooperation from the GOP majority in the House of Reps managed to not only stop the loss of jobs but to start adding them back after the huge job losses at the end of G. W. Bush's term as president.

In 2006 and 2007 unemployment was 4.6%. Then the 2007 - 08 global financial disaster struck and jobs started to vanish. By 2009, those job losses had reached 9.3%. In 2010, they topped out at about 10% and then turned down. In 2011, they were down to 8.9%, and this month they dropped below 8%.

Compare that to the first four years after the Great Depression hit in 1929 and we see the success of Obama's policies.

In 1929, Hoover becomes president. As he is sworn into office, unemployment is at 3.2%. In 1930, it has skyrocketed to 8.9%. In 1931, it reaches 16.3%; 1932 is 24.1% and in 1933 unemployment tops out as 24.9%. Under FDR, unemployment starts to improve dropping several percent a year.

The Great Depression is the only comparison we have to the G. W. Bush-GOP 2007-08 Recession. No president has ever done better.

Since World War II, there have been nine recessions but none as large or as devastating and destructive as 2007-08.

In 1948, unemployment was 3.8%; then the 1949 recession hit and unemployment topped out at 7.9%.

In 1952, unemployment was 3% before the recession of 1953 struck and it topped out at 6.1%.

Unemployment increased 3.1%

In early 1958, unemployment was 4.1% and then during that year's recession it hit a high of 7.5%.

Unemployment increased 3.4%

In 1960, unemployment was 5.5% and soared to 7.1% 1960-61.

Unemployment increased 1.6%

In 1968, unemployment was 3.6% but at the top of the 1969070 recession it hit a high of 6.1%.

Unemployment increased 2.5%

In 1972, unemployment was 5.6% but during the recession of 73-75 it topped out at 9%

Unemployment increased 3.4%

In early 1980, unemployment was 7.1%. At the top of the 1981-82 recessions it reaches a high of 10.8%

Unemployment increased 3.7%

In 1990, unemployment was 5.6%. Then the recession of 1990-91 struck and it topped out at 7.8%

Unemployment increased 1.9%

In 2009, Obama inherited a 9.3% unemployment rate from G. W. Bush because the first year a president is in office, he is working off the previous president's policies and budget. Obama's first budget would not be in place until 2010 and then his policies, as hampered as they were by the GOP Party of "NO" would only increase three tenths of one percent or .3%. No president in all of those previous recessions going back to 1949 has achieved such a success.
In 2010, unemployment was 9.6%.
In 2011, it reached 8.9%
In 2012, unemployment has continued to improve.

Source: http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm

HOWEVER, the GOP media machine keeps repeating over and over the lie that Obama's economic policies are a failure because they are counting on enough ignorant fools that are too lazy to do what I just did hoping they will believing this tripe so they may steal the election.

Extremely well put, Lloyd.

If I were president, I'd want you to be my chief of staff Lloyd. Bill Clinton has nothing on you when it comes to explaining stuff. Your input is always extremely appreciated.

David and Devin,

Thank you.

"There is a study that uses pretty solid evidence that while Hoover was urging the wealthy in the private sector to enact trickle down economics (think yellow fluid), seven-million Americans starved to death,..."

Is there a link to that study?

All anyone has to do is type "Herbert Hoover and The Great Depression" into Google and you can pick and choose what you want to read. It's all history. And there are probably many nonfiction books on the subject that say the same thing.

The nice thing about something that happened almost a hundred years ago is that it is really a challenge to change the facts that most if not all historians have already agreed on. Rewriting history that old is almost impossible compared to current revisionism (polite for exaggerations and lies) that is the foundation of the Romney campaign.

In fact, a hundred years from now there will be studies and books written about this campaign that reveals all of the lies used on both sides.

You may want to know that Herbert Hoover did not sit around and do nothing. He did implement programs to lessen the impact of the Depression but it was usually too little, too late and didn't go far enough.

The Hoover library has this to say: "By July, 1932 the Depression had begun to show signs of improvement. But many people in the United States were unhappy with the rate of recovery, and blamed Hoover for all the problems and suffering that had occurred."

It seems that the Hoover library is white washing the facts: With a little more digging we discover that the so-called signs of improvement cannot be true. The only sign of improvement was that unemployment wasn't growing as fast as it did between 1931 and 1932.

In 1929, unemployment was 3.2%; in 1930, it was 8.9%—An increase of 5.7%

In 1931, it was 16.3%— An increase of 8.29%

In 1932, the year the Hoover Library claims was showing signs of improvement, unemployment had reached 24.1%— An increase of 7.8%.

Wow! Job losses slowed down by 0.49% (not new jobs coming back but jobs still being lost and the Hoover Library calls that an improvement? Now, that is twisting words to create new meaning to make it sound better than it was.)

In 1933, his last year in office, unemployment was 24.9%—An increase of .8%. (Technically it was improving but I'm sure the unemployed of that time would not agree since they were still out of work and more people were joining them).


Here are a few links for "Herbert Hoover and The Great Depression" other than the Hoover library:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard184.html

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1580.html

The next link/site says, "Despite the evidence of a national catastrophe, support for unemployment relief remained sketchy until FDR introduced the New Deal in 1933."

Source: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

Now, for a comparison. After all, both Hoover and Obama inherited the worst economic disasters in this country's history from previous administrations. For this comparison, I wanted to use monthly unemployment rates from the government agency that gathers this data and reports it:

Source: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

In December of 2008 while G. W. Bush was still president, unemployment had reached 7.3%.

During President Obama's first term in office while he was running the country with the last budget that the Bush (and his policies that were still running the country) administration had submitted to both houses of Congress, unemployment reached 9.9% by December.

In Obama's first year in office, unemployment increased 2.6%.

By the end of 2010, under President Obama's own budget and policies, unemployment was 9.4%—An improvement of .5%.

By the end of 2010, unemployment was 8.5%—An improvement of .9%

By the end of October 2012, the BLS reports unemployment is at 7.9%—An improvement of .6%

Now, a side by side comparison:

In Hoover's first year in office, unemployment increased 5.7% to Obama's 2.6%.

In Hoover's second year in office, it increased 8.29%, but under Obama unemployment improved by .5%

In Hoover's third year in office, it increased 7.8%, but under Obama it improved .9%

One president, Obama, adds jobs during the worst finical crises since the Great Depression, and the other one, Hoover, loses jobs every year he was president. It seems to me that adding jobs compared to losing them is a no brainer to discover who was doing the better job—not based on opinions or claims or fantasies but based on facts.

Romney can say anything he wants to fool people to vote for him, but what he claims he will do hasn't happened yet and there is no way to prove what he claims will become reality. However, with Obama, we can already see the results. Under his policies, jobs are coming back and so is the economy. If you do not believe me, you may see for yourself. This site has a chart showing average annual real corporate profit growth under each president starting from Hoover.

Under Hoover, average annual real corporate profits lost - 21.3%. Under Obama, they have gained + 77.9%. No president on this list comes close.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/26/1097301/anti-business-obama-is-is-best-president-for-corporate-profits-since-1900/?mobile=nc

From the tone of your posts you think Obama is going to lose?

Winston,

The presidential contest is so close, it is possible. And the Romney campaign is spreading almost three times the amount of malarkey that is coming out of the Obama campaign. In addition, the Romney malarkey is based on much bigger lies and exaggerations than the Obama people are putting out.

For example: Obama claimed during one of the debates that a half million new jobs have been created under his administration when the number was more like 460,000. He rounded the number up--a common exaggeration most of us are guilty of and something we are taught is okay in math classes when finding averages. However, this morning I read that more than 150,000 new jobs were created in October so now what Obama claimed is not an exaggeration.

However, Romney claimed in every debate that 23 or 28 million (I don't recall the exact number right now) were unemployed and looking for jobs when the number was more like 11.5 or 12.5 million. That is not rounding up. Rounding up would have been 12 or 13 million. Claiming 23 or 28 million was a deliberate outright lie.

If Romney wins, that means he wins the same way Thomas Jefferson won when he beat John Adams by just telling more and BIGGER lies. Adams exaggerated too but not the WHOPPERS that Jefferson spewed through his paid mouthpiece--a man later convicted and sent to prison for several years because of some of the lies Jefferson paid him to spread about Adams.

Another example was his lie a day or two ago in Ohio where he has been telling crowds that Chrysler is going to build Jeeps in China costing thousands of Americans jobs. Even the CEO of Chrysler called that one false but that didn't stop Romney from going out the next day and repeating that claim.

Now that doesn't mean Chrysler isn't planning to manufacture Jeeps in China. After all, China is a growing market and last year more new cars were sold in China than in the US. So, maybe Chrysler is planning to assemble cars in China that they will sell in China because it is predicted that the annual market for new cars in China will grow to 50 million a year. Chrysler would be stupid not to build cars in China that are then sold in China but I would be willing to bet that American jobs will not be lost because of that move if it happens. Instead, it is possible that new manufacturing jobs would be created in America for parts that would be shipped to Chrysler's new, future assembly plants in China for the Chinese market—not the American market. In fact, in the last four years, American exports to China have doubled or tripled under Obama's policies adding more jobs in America's manufacturing sector.

The latest estimates are that in the next few years 2.5 to 5 million manufacturing jobs will return to the US from China and several-hundred thousand have already returned and the reason for that is labor costs are going up in China as the Chinese middle class grows and demands more pay so companies that went to China are learning that it will be cheaper to make things in America again and are coming home. Another reason is that Obama has been tough on China's currency valuation and because of that tough stance; China allowed their currency to adjust more than it had under previous US presidents adding another factor to the growing expense of building things in China and shipping them back to the US.

So once again, yes, Obama's policies are working but the GOP and Romney will NEVER give him credit because that would mean they would have to stop fooling the fools that are going to vote for him and he would not win the White House. After Romney lost his bid for the senate in an election against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he was quoted saying that he would not run for election again unless he was sure he could win because he hated to lose. Well, it is obvious that he hates to lose enough to be the BIGGEST liar in the race for the next president of the US.

Racists shame America.

Even some Republicans are lamenting how many racists they have in their party. Mitt Romney, rather than shun racism, has actively pandered to the racist and bigoted elements of his party. He needs them desperately since the Republican party has been on the attack against minorities, gays, women, immigrants, Muslims, and anyone else not fitting their bigoted version of "the right kind of Americans."

Romney's encouragement of bigots and profoundly dishonest campaign disqualify him to be president.

If you can't compete on the issues, claim racism.

If you're a racist, claim that others can't compete on the issues.

Romney has directly pandered to the bigots in the tea party. Repeatedly. His own party admits they are full of racists.

As for the dishonesty, Romney has received so many "pants-on-fire" fact-check ratings that even his own party cringes at the level of flagrant lying he and his running mate do.

Do not address me further. Your mindless blather is well known on this venue. Goodbye.

Winston, what David says about racism as a factor that the GOP relies on for votes has substance.

In fact, 12 of the 14 poorest states with the most poverty are mostly in the South and they vote overwhelmingly for GOP candidates. In addition, when Democratic President L. B. Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act and forced the South to integrate the schools, the South that had voted as a block for Democratic candidates since the Civil War switched to the GOP and started voting mostly for Republican candidates.

If that isn't an example of racism, I want to know what is.

Then for more evidence from a reliable source: a recent Associated Press Poll revealed that prejudice has increased slightly since 2008.

Anti-black sentiment: "The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one political group. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 per cent among Republicans compared with 32 per cent among Democrats) …"

http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP_Racial_Attitudes_Topline_09182012.pdf

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/10/2012102813952902929.html

Racial prejudice has increased

Cornered rats come out teeth bared...

It's called fear.

Caucasians are becoming a minority group in the US. I'm not surprised that some people feel scared. It's human nature. It's not a pleasant aspect of human nature but it's well within the statistical norm. I expect to see more overt racism in the form of white supremacy as Caucasians become a smaller percentage of the population.

Since the conversation here has included racism (prejudice), I thought you may be interested in this:

"The researchers (at ETH Zurich) have now reached a conclusion: those who are prejudiced are soon at a disadvantage, as they learn nothing new and miss many opportunities."

If, as the AP study shows, 79% of Republicans hold racist (prejudiced) views, then this may explain how people like Nixon, Reagan, both Bush's and Romney have managed to fool so many people to support them.

This study also explains why Tea Party Republicans are so unwilling to cooperate with others and that lack of cooperation may be proof that there are many prejudiced individuals in this group.

Source: http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/120308_Vorurteile_Helbling_fs/index_EN

My God, is this what we've come to?


That's odd of you to include God in your sentence . It took a lot of Godless people to elect a President as godless as Mr Obama. You say you support Obama, I just find it very odd.


From the full support of the butchering of the unborn to the full support of same sex marriages or Sodomites some of us call them.
In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three.

In 2010 Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions.
Hec in November 2011 Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial.

But I have to remember, this is America and one can call themselves anything they want to. It's not a crime I think.


And for the racism talk, That's kinda sad and funny at the same time. The most racist group of people in America support Obama 95%

Well good morning everyone. I hope all is well.

Well... I suppose I should feel honored to be visited by someone so versed in who is or who is not Godless. Of course the Bible I read says we shouldn't be making such judgements. But hey, who am I to be contadicting the great Larry Crowne...? Really... Anyway... pretty clever the way you turned the tables on us dumb ole Librals saying that we are really the racists. Clever if you were an 8 year old. Bottom line here Larry or what ever, is that the kind of idiotic poison you spew only serves to fire us Libs up. For us, the idea of stupidity as profound as yours having anything to do with the governing of our nation is the true terror.

Thank you Devin.

Larry Crowne:

40%, the largest membership block in the Tea Party come from fundamentalist evangelical born again Christians. No other group in the Tea Party has as much power to decide the direction the Tea Party goes.

In fact, according to The Pew Forum on religion and public life only 26.3% of adult Americans attend evangelical churches, and in the 2008 election, 45% of Protestants voted for Obama while 54% voted for McCain. But among Evangelical Christians 24% voted for Obama and 74% voted for McCain.

I suspect you will condemn all Evangelicals that voted for Obama in 2008 as if you are God's voice on Earth.

131 million Americans voted in the 2008 presidential election: 76.3% were White; 12.1% were Black (15.851 million and 95% voted for Obama); 6% were Hispanic and 2.5% were Asian.

69,456,897 voted for Obama. After we subtract the Black vote, which leaves 54 million that were not Black.

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

In addition, I'd say you just blundered big time as far as God is concerned: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

You just accused 95% of voters that cast a vote for Obama of being racists. That is a safe bet that you have just been a false witness.

Then there is this phrase in another one of God's commandments: "and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Because more than fifty million individuals will probably cast votes for President Obama, there is no way for you to know how many are faithful Christians, just not your brand of Christian, will vote for him. I suspect you belong to a sect that has decided that your are God's chosen. You are not alone. Religious tollerance.org says there are there are about 33,000 Christian denominations with 2.18 billion members.

In addition, 76% (238.64 million) of the US population consider themselves Christians but tare divided up among several thousand denominations.

Where in the Bible does God say what religion a Christian must belong to? In the third commandment, He does not say anything about religion. He says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Where in the Bible does God give you, for example, the right to pass judgment on others and speak in His name?

Sources:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm

"It took a lot of Godless people to elect a President as godless as Mr Obama."

It took a lot of religious people too. Let's face it. Atheists and agnostics are a small minority in the US. Nobody gets elected solely on the basis of the atheist and agnostic vote. It would be like getting elected solely on the basis of the Sarmatian vote. :)

Nippy,. ,we all know that Batrachians vote in a bloc, just for people who are like them...

Nippy Katz,

Yep, a 2008 Gallup poll showed that about 2% (about 6.28 million) of the US population claims to be atheists and a further 16% (50 million) do not belong to any religion regardless of personal beliefs of God. I think they are called Diests.

As for those 6.28 million atheists, you may be interested to discover that "Fresh Gallup data make it clear that President Obama is hemorrhaging support among white atheists. The president’s vote is down 10 points since 2008 among whites who profess no religion ... Atheists and non-Christian whites constitute some 13 percent of the overall electorate."

What's really interesting is that Romney, the devout Mormon, may be "downplaying his religiosity" to capture the godless vote. Is there anything Romney won't say or do to win the election?

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark-mellman/234909-obamas-atheist-problem

I'll be there...but, not for the same reasons!

I won't be watching Tuesday night. If the TV is on, we will be watching a DVD, a movie probably. I can learn what the results of the election are the morning after.

Devin, here's one of the primary points that I get out of your post above--aside from adding a basic incentive to vote for the President's reelection:

The culture of repression and fear--where you are afraid to speak your mind, in front of others who oppose your views--is becoming more the rule, rather than the exception in public and private discourse.

This anxiety reeks of the early wrinkles of totalitarian society.

While this kind of political suffocation may never turn into a reality for the country, there are, nevertheless inklings that suggest otherwise, such as:

--The Right Wing Electronic Media Propaganda Syndicate that compels many to remain angry, frightened and anxious.

--the Islam World as enemy, because of 9/11

--the sluggish and unstable economy


Even if these 3 issues remain prominent, we are still quite a long way from totalitarian society.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that we need to be continuously vigilant--lest we let `it' slip away.

Brett,

I totally agree with your last statement and with the Internet we have a way to do that.

We are doing it right here on this site by comparing facts/reality to often unsupported biased, opinions/emotions.

I thought this was worth sharing.

Nate Silver is paid to write for The New York Times, but he doesn't favor Republicans or Democrats in his predictions, because he predicts both Republican and Democratic winners in each state and in the national elections.

Nate Silver's forecast this morning has Obama winning 307 Electoral College votes to Romney's 231 and this prediction is based on statistics collected from every political poll in America, and there are a lot of them from the local, state and national levels. Silver also has Obama winning the popular vote 50.5% to 48.3%.

Here is the accuracy of Nate Silver's November 2008 election predictions: He correctly predicted the winners of all 35 Senate races that year and the presidential results in 49 out of 50 states. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%.

In 2008, Silver projected electoral vote totals of 349 (based on a probabilistic projection) or 353 (based on fixed projections of each state).

Obama won with 365 Electoral College votes, Silver's predictions matched the actual results everywhere except in Indiana and the 2nd congressional district of Nebraska, which awards an electoral vote separately from the rest of the state and his accuracy rate for the last two elections is impressive.

In 2010, Silver predicted 36 of the winners in 37 of the gubernatorial races—97.3% accuracy rate.

For the U.S. Senate Race of 2010, Silver predicted 6 of the 7 Republican winners—85.7% accuracy rate.

For the U.S. House of Representatives, Silver predicted 53 of the 63 wins by Republicans—84.1% accuracy rate.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

If Silver is right a third time, he will become a legend. By next Wednesday, we will know.