The Democrats will win whoever they put up for POTUS

[cosmictraveler]

I'm waiting for evidence. What are those many things?

As I already pointed out Hillary erased her Email files when she was the one saying she wanted transparency in government. Another thing is that since the government uses there own statisticians they can show us anything they want. Lies are easy to make for those who work for the government are told what is wanted by the elite in government and the numbers come out any way they want them to. I cannot see the raw data that they use so I will never be able to prove my allegations but that's how the government wants it. .

 

[joepistole]

I read a book once that said the earth would end on June 3 1976. In that book there were signs that pointed to that happening. Since I read that book is it true that the world would end that date? Well I waited and behold we are still here. Just because it is written somewhere should I believe it? Same thing with statistics they can be altered in anyway you want them to be. I took a statistics course in college and found that to be true. So don't trust all that you read, little that you see and all that you hear.

Oh, where do I begin Cosmic? You don't think there is a credibility difference between the US government and one of the many discredited writers of doomsday and conspiracy nuts? It's not like doomsday conspiracy nut cases are haven't been around for centuries. It should have been readily apparent your doomsday author had no evidence to support his/her assertions. Just because there are doomsday and other wackos out there it doesn't follow that the US government isn't credible.

As previously pointed out to you, there is no motivation for US government workers to routinely lie as you believe. The government conspiracies and deceptions you imagine are vast in breath, scope and time, and you have zero evidence to support your beliefs. The numbers and data produced by government are interlinked with other datasets which are extensively used by business, academics, and government. They don't exist in a vacuum. If there were any material errors, those errors would become evident over time. Because the many and important models which are predicated upon those statistics and used by businesses, government, and academics would fall apart. Not to mention, the source data is open and available to researchers who do use that source information.

So contrary to your assertions, our government is very open. Government workers are protected by law from retribution and are in fact rewarded for reporting wrong doing. As previously pointed out, the government employs thousands of auditors to audit government operations and report discrepancies, inefficiencies and wrong doing.

Additionally, there is nothing wrong with statistics. Apparently, you were not paying much attention in that statistics class. There is however a problem with the misuse of statistics. But there is also a problem with folks lying and misusing facts. People misuse words, people lie. But there is nothing wrong with statistics and hard data. I would wager your doomsday author had no statistics and no evidence, just as you have not statistics and no data to support your beliefs.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Additionally, there is nothing wrong with statistics. Apparently, you were not paying much attention in that statistics class

Of course there's nothing wrong with statistics as long as you use them in the proper manner and be honest about them. It is to bad that the Federal governments statistical department "manipulates" the numbers to make a bad thing seem good and a good thing seem bad. It is done in many companies as well to sell more stocks and other fiduciary things. I had an "A" in my stats class and graduated with honors earning a free Alpha Beta Kappa honor society membership.

 

[joepistole]

As I already pointed out Hillary erased her Email files when she was the one saying she wanted transparency in government.

Well Hillary isn't government. The email files Hillary erased were her email files. They were not government email files. There is a difference.

Another thing is that since the government uses there own statisticians they can show us anything they want. Lies are easy to make for those who work for the government are told what is wanted by the elite in government and the numbers come out any way they want them to. I cannot see the raw data that they use so I will never be able to prove my allegations but that's how the government wants it. .

Ok, you are back to your government conspiracy nonsense for which you have absolutely zero evidence. As I said before, the hard data and statistics produced by government are used by industry, government, and academics. That data is used with other nongovernment datasets and used by businesses, governments, and academics. If there was this secret cabal of "govment" workers you envision, those models would quickly fall apart. Those statistics and the underlying data sets are heavily scrutinized by businesses and academics. And her is the bottom line, you have no - absolutely NO - evidence to support your beliefs.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Well Hillary isn't government. The email files Hillary erased were her email files. They were not government email files. There is a difference.


Ok, you are back to your government conspiracy nonsense for which you have absolutely zero evidence. As I said before, the hard data and statistics produced by government are used by industry, government, and academics. That data is used with other nongovernment datasets and used by businesses, governments, and academics. If there was this secret cabal of "govment" workers you envision, those models would quickly fall apart. Those statistics and the underlying data sets are heavily scrutinized by businesses and academics. And her is the bottom line, you have no - absolutely NO - evidence to support your beliefs.

It isn't secret at all. It is civil service workers that are told to do what they are told to do when forming any statistics about anything the government produces. If those civil service workers don't do as they are told they are usually terminated so people go along with the boss. As you point out I have no access to raw data used by the government so cannot ever prove to anyone I'm right or wrong. You on the other hand just ride the bandwagon and go along just like anyone would who doesn't want to find the truth. You are always on the side of the government so it would be very hard to convince you of anything against the government and since again I can't get raw data I am screwed.

 

[joepistole]

It isn't secret at all. It is civil service workers that are told to do what they are told to do when forming any statistics about anything the government produces. If those civil service workers don't do as they are told they are usually terminated so people go along with the boss.

Oh, if it isn’t that secret then where is your evidence of this massive multigenerational fraud which transcends political parties? And one of the many things you seem incapable of understanding is many of these metrics are interdependent. So the fraud you envision must permeate not only the many executive departments by congress as well.

Yeah, as is the custom with employees, be they government or private enterprise, must obey their employers to a point. They are not required to violate law. They are not required commit crimes. And what you are envisioning would be a violation of law. It would be fraud on a grand scale. And as pointed previously pointed out to you, there are whistle blower laws which protect government employees and the employees of government contractors when they report wrong doing.

As you point out I have no access to raw data used by the government so cannot ever prove to anyone I'm right or wrong.

No, I pointed out you have no evidence. That isn't the same thing as not having access. Because you do have access under freedom of information laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)
http://www.foia.gov/how-to.html

You on the other hand just ride the bandwagon and go along just like anyone would who doesn't want to find the truth. You are always on the side of the government so it would be very hard to convince you of anything against the government and since again I can't get raw data I am screwed.

Ok, a personal attack. If you had taken a logic class in addition to that low level statistics class, you would know that is not a logical argument. And if you believe your assertions, then you really haven’t been paying attention or it is that old cognitive dissonance thing kicking in again (e.g. belief disconfirmation).

“Belief disconfirmation paradigm[edit]
Dissonance is felt when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others.[3]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Belief_disconfirmation_paradigm

You have consistently ignored evidence in order to continue your beliefs. You have ignored the thousands of auditors employed by the government. You have ignored freedom of information laws which give anyone access to government data. You have ignored the 22 different whistle blower laws which protect government employees and the employees of government contractors when they disclose government malfeasance (i.e. wrong doing).

Additionally, you have no evidence I always support the government – whatever that means. I am and continue to be very critical of government when appropriate. If you read my posts and could see through your cognitive biases, you would know I am very much against corruption in government. And there is indeed corruption in our government. I want to remove much of the influence special interest money plays in our government. But here is the difference between you and me, I have evidence. You do not.

http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Medicare Part D Reform & Coruption Issues.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/under-the-influence/ (must endure a 30 second ad)

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/john-boehner-admits-giving-bribes-big-t

While our politicians routinely lie, our civil servants generally don't because they risk their livelihood in doing so and they are afforded protections (e.g. whistleblower laws). The exception being when government employees misrepresent data in order to appease and advance the interests of their future employer (e.g. Medicare Part D and the SEC). And that is why I support an amendment to the Constitution which would eliminate conflicts of interests of our elected officials and political appointees. Our elected officials and political appointees should not have interests which conflict with the voters of our nation.

 

[Syne]

Just because it doesn’t happen very often, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. It’s simple logic, something to which folks like you are unaccustomed.
This is what you actually wrote:

Historically, the only time one Democrat president has followed another (since the establishment of the Republican party) is when the previous president died in office and his VP finishes out his term and wins the next election .

Let me translate simple English for you. "The only time" does not mean "it doesn’t happen very often", it means it has NEVER happened. This means that there is absolutely NO precedent for it happening...EVER. So yes, something historically remarkable would have to happen to change that.

Perhaps you should consider taking statistics 101 in order to see the fallacy you are promulgating. You are assuming all circumstances are the same, and that certainly isn’t the case. It’s a very big assumption you are making and one in which you have absolutely no evidence exists. The Republican Party of today is by far more radical and extreme than the Republican Party of the past. The Republican Party of the 80’s and earlier would never have threatened the nation with a debt default.
It’s always funny to hear folks such as yourself speak of cognitive dissonance. I am surprised you are even aware of the term. You are one of the many Republicans who last presidential election cycle had convinced yourselves Romney was going to win, even though all the polling said otherwise. And you want to accuse others of cognitive dissonance?

I assume nothing. No new historical precedent just appears without cause. While you seem content to just assume, without evidence or comparable precedent, that the changes in one party are sufficient, I assume a new precedent, after 150 years of no exceptions, will require a significant, punctuated change rather than the gradual one we have seen. You also seem to have some perceptual blindness to the fact that the Democrat Party has had its own shift further toward the left. In the 80's, no Democrat would have admitted to being a socialist.

I never liked Romney, but if your strawman helps with the cognitive dissonance, feel free to keep believing it. I did not think there was any good candidate in 2012, liked Nader in 2008, and voted for Kerry in 2004 because I liked Edwards (wanted him to win the primary).

LOL, oh my, more personal insults, it appears to me you are hanging all your hopes that past on a statistical artifact. And perhaps someday, if you pray, and practice long enough, perhaps you will be able to make a single cogent argument, an argument not based upon a pile of fallacies. But if I were you, I wouldn’t get your hopes up.

Really?! You want to lecture others on statistics and then claim a statistic with absolutely no deviation is somehow an "artifact?" What a joke. A statistical artifact requires some possibility of error, whether by perception, choice of data, or some other means. This is just more evidence of how strongly your cognitive dissonance distorts your reasoning.

Personal insult? I said:

"Chin up, there is always hope...or faith, or blathering unsupported delusion. Take your pick."​

Seems we now know which one you chose to pick. That is on you, mate. If your cognitive dissonance were not throwing up trigger warnings you could have simply chosen to pick hope, but your amygdala seems to be working overtime.

I guess you missed the bolded words: “Liberals bought the election”.
I understand truth is difficult for people of your with your beliefs because truth and honesty just isn’t compatible with your beliefs. Here , you want another link? http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/10/26/republicans-in-ohio-accusing-democrats-of-buying-votes-by-giving-away-pizza/
And here is a quote from Kudlow and another link:
Some conservative pundits are a little over-eager to reinforce the racially tinged Republican narratives of election fraud. Take Lawrence Kudlow, host of a CNBC show and writer for National Review. In his column on Friday Kudlow asks, “With the unprecedented budget explosion of means-tested, welfare-related entitlements, does Team Obama think it can buy the election?… I wouldn’t put it past that cynical bunch.” http://www.thenation.com/blog/170716/national-review-falsely-accuses-obama-vote-buying

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170716/national-review-falsely-accuses-obama-vote-buying

Yes, I saw that bolded heading, it just had nothing to do with the entitlements-for-votes that the OP mentioned. And you seem to have snipped that bit of my post to save on some embarrassment:

"Trading entitlements for votes is EXACTLY what you described as "People tend to vote for the party which they believe will enhance or preserve their life style." Neither me nor the OP ever mentioned a thing about campaigning finance. I mean come on, I know you can manage to address more of the actual points made here. Or do strawmen quell the cognitive dissonance that well. If so, by all means...quell away. Just do not expect me to continue drawing in crayon for ya."​

I may run out of crayon at this rate.

Luckily you finally managed to find an article that does actually address what I have been talking about. It is true that Obama may have had nothing to do with spending increases in welfare. Good job! But we were not talking specifically about Obama. We were talking about Democrats in general, and as the OP said, how welfare helps their chances at getting elected. Obama did remove the work requirement for food stamp recipients.

The concept of requiring work for some SNAP recipients is not new. The 1996 welfare law laid out food stamp work requirements for some able-bodied adults who don't have dependents. However, the 2009 stimulus law and waivers later allowed by the Obama administration have suspended those requirements in most states.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/food-stamp-work-requirements_n_3649357.html​

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170716/national-review-falsely-accuses-obama-vote-buying

I agree with you on that count.

Need some meds?

LOL. Well, if agreeing with you indicates a need for meds, then certainly I can just borrow some of yours. Joe's foot, meet Joe's mouth.

Oh, perhaps you can then show me where I characterized The Great Recession as a run of the mill recession? You cannot, because I never made that claim. I am always amazed at how disconnected folks like you are from reality. When you compare the Great Recession to previous smaller recessions and equate them as you have done, you are in fact comparing two very different events as I previously pointed out to you. There is no straw man there friend. Perhaps you should stick your nose in a logic class while you are taking statistics 101.

Yeah, I said it was a strawman (which means you would have to show where I characterized it as such to refute), not a claim of yours. Please, read things a few times until comprehension seeps in a bit. Okay, more than a few times, considering your cognitive dissonance. Show me where I "compare the Great Recession to previous smaller recessions and equate them." You will be a long time looking, because you are imagining things, mate. Talk about having problems with reality.

Well if you are talking about the slowest recovery in history that would be the Great Depression and not the Great Recession, and that happened before Obama was born.

We have yet to recover from the Great Recession, and as I posted before:

The Great Depression started with major economic contractions in 1930, '31, '32 and '33. In the three following years, the economy rebounded strongly with growth rates of 11%, 9% and 13%, respectively.

The current recovery began in the second half of 2009, but economic growth has been weak. Growth in 2010 was 3% and in 2011 it was 1.7%. Who knows what 2012 will bring, but the current growth rate looks to be about 2%, according to the consensus of economists recently polled by Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Sadly, we have never really recovered from the recession. The economy has not even returned to its long-term growth rate and is certainly not making up for lost ground.
- http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577311470997904292​

 

[Syne]

snip refutes of Huffington Post and Wall Street Journal

LOL, like cherry picking much…? Yeah, the Republican House passed a budget, but it didn’t fund everything and it repealed Obamacare…you know one of “dem” minor details. House Republicans couldn’t get enough votes to repeal or defund Obamacare through normal order so they held the nation hostage to their demands by including it into the budget. The president and the senate asked for clean spending bills and that is what they got, after Republicans shut down the government in an attempt to get what they couldn’t get through normal order (i.e. normal votes). Republicans attempted to cram their political agenda down the throats of millions of Americans. Republicans valued their political agenda more than they valued the health and wellbeing of the state and millions of Americans. That is a simple matter of fact.

Passing a budget cannot repeal a law. Learn how basic government works, mate. I said "It passed a budget to fund ALL necessary functions of government", not "fund everything." Again, you are making things up. But good job! What an imagination you have. House Republicans did get the votes to fund everything but Obamacare. That was what the whole row was all about. "Clean bill" is nothing but rhetorical code for "get our way" in this case. In the US legislative authorization and appropriation are two separate processes. The former does not ensure the latter. Look it up.

That is called the Separation of Powers, which means that no one branch can act completely unilaterally to the others, but only within the purview of the specific powers granted it.

Yeah, it’s called separation of powers. The House doesn’t control the Senate or the presidency. Unfortunately for Republicans, the nation isn't subject to House dictatorship. The House of Representatives is only one of two houses of congress and a portion of one of the three branches of government. If the founders wanted all authority to be invested in the House of Representatives, they wouldn’t have created the Senate or the presidency. Our founding fathers were distrustful of the House of Representatives, that's why the created the Senate and the other branches of government. Perhaps you need a history lesson as well.

LOL. Is there an echo? No one said anything about a House dictatorship, but way to keep that imagination humming away. Gold star! Neither can the Senate and Executive branch act without the consent of the House. Basic government there, mate. The only reason a shut down could occur is that they did not come to an agreement, but guess what, that is allowed in order to motivate compromise. It is actually an intentional feature of the process. But the Senate would not entertain any compromise.

Actually the Democratically controlled Senate passed a clean spending bill which did in fact fund everything and they sent the bill back to the House where the bill was promptly ignored resulting in a government shutdown which cost the nation billions of dollars and damaged the economic recovery.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/26/boehner-house-wont-pass-clean-spending-bill/

Thanks again for demonstrating how misinformed Republicans really are.

Yeah, no compromise whatsoever. They would not accept anything but full funding and raising the debt ceiling. You can play rhetorical ping-pong all you like, but since the budget originates in the House, the Senate sending a budget back that they have been explicitly told will not pass is just a sleight of hand in a blame game.

 

[Syne]

I am struck by your cavalier attitude as reflected in your comment, “And if all else fails, guess what, the president has the authority to prioritize payments”. Can you cite me the statue which gives the president that authority to prioritize payments? You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

Well aside from the Treasury Department being under the Executive branch and fully within the President's purview (which trivially covers prioritization), look up US Code Title 31, Subtitle III, Chapter 31, Subchapter I, Sec. 3101A. Presidential modification of the debt ceiling. The gist is that if the debt is within $100 billion of the limit the President can submit a certification to Congress that immediately increases the debt ceiling by $400 billion. And if Congress cannot pass a joint resolution of disapproval (which they would not be able to in this case) the Treasury is authorized to increase the debt limit another $500 billion. Repeating this can authorize up to another 1.5 trillion, if after the first $900 billion the debt is still within $100 billion of the limit. And US Code Title 31, Subtitle III, Chapter 31, Subchapter II, Sec. 3123. Payment of obligations and interest on the public debt, and other bits of Title 31 that cover disbursement authority.

 

[joepistole]

Let me translate simple English for you. "The only time" does not mean "it doesn’t happen very often", it means it has NEVER happened. This means that there is absolutely NO precedent for it happening...EVER. So yes, something historically remarkable would have to happen to change that.

Well if you are going to explain English, perhaps you should first be able to understand English…just saying. The words “the only time” does imply it happened once. The words “the only time” are not synonymous with the word “ever”. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of those words?

So are you now saying you didn’t write the following?

Historically, the only time one Democrat president has followed another (since the establishment of the Republican party) is when the previous president died in office and his VP finishes out his term and wins the next election . So unless you are betting on Obama dying in office, history has no precedent for your prognostication. On the other hand, the last time a Republican president followed another was after Reagan, and more of the Republican field is espousing unapologetic Reagan values than ever before.

Perhaps it was your alternate personality? And as a matter of fact, Truman (a Democrat) did succeed FDR (a Democrat) after being elected to office for a third term. And FDR did in fact die in office. The same applies to Kennedy and Johnson. Your assertion is that there is something magical about the death of FDR and Kennedy, when in fact, you have no evidence of same.

If you had taken a course in statistics, you would very well know correlation doesn’t imply causation. Yet, you continue make the assertion that correlation is causation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

I assume nothing.

Frankly, that is laughable. You in fact assume everything. You assume causation. You assume just because something has not happened, it will not happen. If that were true, we would all be hunter-gathers. And carrying your argument a bit further, the Sun will never die, because it hasn’t died or those living today will never die, because they have not died in the past.

No new historical precedent just appears without cause. While you seem content to just assume, without evidence or comparable precedent, that the changes in one party are sufficient, I assume a new precedent, after 150 years of no exceptions, will require a significant, punctuated change rather than the gradual one we have seen. You also seem to have some perceptual blindness to the fact that the Democrat Party has had its own shift further toward the left. In the 80's, no Democrat would have admitted to being a socialist.

Did you just write, “I assume nothing.”? Dude, you are contradicting yourself again. Just two sentences later you wrote, referring to yourself, " I assume". You wrote, “I assume a new precedent”.

Aside from you contradictions, you are misrepresenting my position. My position is quite simple and should be uncontroversial. It’s simply correlation doesn’t imply causation. You have no evidence to support your assertion that in order for the Democratic Party to retain control of the White House, the incumbent president must die in office.

As for your accusation of “perceptual blindness”, is it my blindness or your delusions? Where is your evidence, where is your proof, that the Democratic Party has “shift further toward the left”? You have none. Just because you can find someone who claims to be a Democrat and also claims to be a socialist, it doesn’t mean the Democratic Party has shifted to the left. If you are referring to Bernie Sanders who sometimes says he is a socialist, he isn’t a Democrat. He’s an Independent. And you don’t think socialists didn’t exist in the 80’s and earlier? Well my friend that is either ignorance or delusion.

The fact is, since Reagan, Democrats have become moved more to the right, especially on economic issues (e.g. Clinton administration) and Republicans have responded by moving even further to the right to the point of radicalism. Did you not remember or were you aware Democrats ended welfare as it was known until then under Clinton?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/democrats-have-moved-right-not-left

It has been my experience, that those who are the most blind are those who accuse others and project their blindness on and shortcomings onto others. It’s called scapegoating. So before you go pointing fingers at others, I suggest you take a long and serious look at yourself.

I never liked Romney, but if your strawman helps with the cognitive dissonance, feel free to keep believing it. I did not think there was any good candidate in 2012, liked Nader in 2008, and voted for Kerry in 2004 because I liked Edwards (wanted him to win the primary).

Ok, more ad hominem…not impressive. And as for your voting record, well, we will never know who you supported. All we have is the word of a poster who frequently contradicts himself/herself and has a set of delusional beliefs which are not rooted in fact and consistently defends absurd Republican party line.

Really?! You want to lecture others on statistics and then claim a statistic with absolutely no deviation is somehow an "artifact?" What a joke. A statistical artifact requires some possibility of error, whether by perception, choice of data, or some other means. This is just more evidence of how strongly your cognitive dissonance distorts your reasoning.

This gets to your ignorance of statistics. Correlation isn’t causation, it’s a fact that you apparently cannot wrap your head around. That’s why I suggest you take an entry level statistics course. Though frankly, it’s becoming very apparent you may lack the intellectual horse power necessary to pass an entry level statistics course.

Unfortunately for you my friend, you cannot hide the naked absurdity of your arguments behind name calling. Again, before you go pointing fingers and scapegoating others, you should really take a long and serious look at yourself.

 

[joepistole]

Really Personal insult? I said:
"Chin up, there is always hope...or faith, or blathering unsupported delusion. Take your pick."
Seems we now know which one you chose to pick. That is on you, mate. If your cognitive dissonance were not throwing up trigger warnings you could have simply chosen to pick hope, but your amygdala seems to be working overtime.

LOL, who is “we” Kimosabe? I’m only seeing you. And the fact remains, you have no evidence. You have no logical cogent argument. All you have is mindless repetition of Republican Party memes and a shit load of ad hominem. All you have is the baseless and mindless repetition of Republican Party memes.

You should be less worried about my chin and very worried about your own. You should be more concerned with you mindless proclamations. You have yet to provide even one cogent logical argument…just one.

The fact that you cannot wrap recognized that correlation isn’t causation suggests that you are either incredibly stupid, or that you are the one which is severely cognitively impaired. Because you my friend are the one who must ignore reality and reason in order to resolve your many cognitive dissonances.

Yes, I saw that bolded heading, it just had nothing to do with the entitlements-for-votes that the OP mentioned. And you seem to have snipped that bit of my post to save on some embarrassment:
"Trading entitlements for votes is EXACTLY what you described as "People tend to vote for the party which they believe will enhance or preserve their life style." Neither me nor the OP ever mentioned a thing about campaigning finance. I mean come on, I know you can manage to address more of the actual points made here. Or do strawmen quell the cognitive dissonance that well. If so, by all means...quell away. Just do not expect me to continue drawing in crayon for ya."

Well if there were something to be embarrassed about, I would be embarrassed. But the unfortunate fact for you is that there is nothing for me to be embarrassed about my friend. You are making stuff up again. I am sorry to dash your hopes once again. But it is that reality thingy creeping into your life again.

Let me remind you, since apparently you do not remember, this was about your challenge to my statement that Republicans often explain away their political losses with the excuse Democrats bought off voters. You claimed my assertion was unsupported. I supported my assertion with evidence, with quotes of leading Republicans making that claim on the record.

Maybe it’s your cognitive dissonance at work or that dementia thingy.

I may run out of crayon at this rate.

God forbid you should run out of crayons. What would you do then?

Luckily you finally managed to find an article that does actually address what I have been talking about. It is true that Obama may have had nothing to do with spending increases in welfare. Good job! But we were not talking specifically about Obama. We were talking about Democrats in general, and as the OP said, how welfare helps their chances at getting elected. Obama did remove the work requirement for food stamp recipients.
The concept of requiring work for some SNAP recipients is not new. The 1996 welfare law laid out food stamp work requirements for some able-bodied adults who don't have dependents. However, the 2009 stimulus law and waivers later allowed by the Obama administration have suspended those requirements in most states.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/food-stamp-work-requirements_n_3649357.html

Well you have some of it correct, which is a big step for you. But here is the part you have left out.

“The number of those single adults getting food stamps did double about the same time that Obama granted a blanket suspension of that work requirement for 18 months as part of his 2009 stimulus law. “ http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-food-stamp-stretch/
And Obama suspended he work requirement at the behest of Republicans governors who wanted more flexibility in the SNAP program. And where does that “finally managed” come from? Are you seriously that disconnected?

And you think Obama isn’t the leader of the Democratic Party? Do you have any evidence Obama’s position was somehow at odds with the vast majority of Democrats? If so now is the time to show it. You do realize Obama is not only POTUS but the Democratic Party leader?

LOL. Well, if agreeing with you indicates a need for meds, then certainly I can just borrow some of yours. Joe's foot, meet Joe's mouth.

LOL, is that the best you can do, rather childish don’t you think? I guess that explains why you are still using crayons.

Yeah, I said it was a strawman (which means you would have to show where I characterized it as such to refute), not a claim of yours. Please, read things a few times until comprehension seeps in a bit. Okay, more than a few times, considering your cognitive dissonance. Show me where I "compare the Great Recession to previous smaller recessions and equate them." You will be a long time looking, because you are imagining things, mate. Talk about having problems with reality.

So you are now claiming you didn’t’ write: (post #8 REPOSTED BELOW)

You are making things up, mate. Only you have characterized the recession as "run of the mill.

Ah, are you really that disconnected…seriously? The discussion was about your statement, “Only you have characterized the recession as "run of the mill.”, which you accuse me of characterizing the Great Recession as “run of the mill”. What does that have to do with straw man arguments? Nothing, you were challenged to support your statement. And you have still not supported your accusation with, you know, evidence? You cannot support your claim, because I never characterized the Great Recession as “run of the mill”…oops. Maybe your dementia is kicking in or perhaps you are just being dishonest, or perhaps it is your own cognitive dissonances at work?

We have yet to recover from the Great Recession, and as I posted before:
The Great Depression started with major economic contractions in 1930, '31, '32 and '33. In the three following years, the economy rebounded strongly with growth rates of 11%, 9% and 13%, respectively.
The current recovery began in the second half of 2009, but economic growth has been weak. Growth in 2010 was 3% and in 2011 it was 1.7%. Who knows what 2012 will bring, but the current growth rate looks to be about 2%, according to the consensus of economists recently polled by Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Sadly, we have never really recovered from the recession. The economy has not even returned to its long-term growth rate and is certainly not making up for lost ground.
- http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577311470997904292

Except that it didn’t, per the previously provided documentation. And yet you want to accuse others of cognitive dissonance? Do I need to repeat myself again? The Great Depression began in 1929 and it ended in 1933 and the economy didn't strongly rebound. That is what the previously provided credible nonpartisan sources proved. Remember the NBER you once correctly cited? Now your position is NBER what? If your beliefs were rational, you wouldn't have to ignore reality, you know, those inconvenient facts that are not consistent with your beliefs.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

The author of your WSJ opinion piece is a partisan writing in a Republican rag, a Fox News sister company, and he is quite clearly and demonstrably wrong. You are a sucker for this kind of nonsense. And you are ignoring the fact that the actions Republicans took for partisan gain (e.g. failure to pass the bailouts on first vote, advocating constrictive fiscal policies when expansionary fiscal policy was required, repeated threats of a government default, and a government shutdown), had serious adverse effects on the recovery and slowed the recovery. If you were not suffering from a terminal case of cognitive dissonance, you wouldn’t have to ignore so much in order to make sense of your beliefs.

 

[joepistole]

Well aside from the Treasury Department being under the Executive branch and fully within the President's purview (which trivially covers prioritization), look up US Code Title 31, Subtitle III, Chapter 31, Subchapter I, Sec. 3101A. Presidential modification of the debt ceiling. The gist is that if the debt is within $100 billion of the limit the President can submit a certification to Congress that immediately increases the debt ceiling by $400 billion. And if Congress cannot pass a joint resolution of disapproval (which they would not be able to in this case) the Treasury is authorized to increase the debt limit another $500 billion. Repeating this can authorize up to another 1.5 trillion, if after the first $900 billion the debt is still within $100 billion of the limit. And US Code Title 31, Subtitle III, Chapter 31, Subchapter II, Sec. 3123. Payment of obligations and interest on the public debt, and other bits of Title 31 that cover disbursement authority.

LOL, yes that is right, LOL. That statue didn’t exist when Republicans pulled their first debt ceiling stunt. That text was part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and passed after Republicans had first threatened to cause a national debt default in 2o11. Those authorization limits have since been exceeded, so they no longer apply – oops, damn minor details again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011
Debt ceiling:

• The debt ceiling was increased by $400 billion immediately.[2]
• The President could request a further increase of $500 billion, which is subject to a congressional motion of disapproval which the President may veto, in which case a two-thirds majority in Congress would be needed to override the veto.[3] This has been called the 'McConnell mechanism' after the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who first suggested it as part of another scheme.[4]
• The President could request a final increase of $1.2–1.5 trillion, subject to the same disapproval procedure. The exact amount depends on the amount of cuts in the "super committee" plan if it passes Congress, and whether a Balanced budget amendment has been sent to the states.[3

Yeah, the Treasury Department is within the Administrative branch of government, but that doesn’t mean the President is authorized to violate the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly gives Congress the responsibility for US spending and US debt, not the POTUS.

 

[sculptor]

I will not caucus nor vote for Mrs. Clinton!
Hillary Clinton is the presidential candidate of the banks and warmongers.

Must we always be only offered the lesser of 2 evils by this corrupt 2 party system?

 

[Kittamaru]

LOL, yes that is right, LOL. That statue didn’t exist when Republicans pulled their first debt ceiling stunt. That text was part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and passed after Republicans had first threatened to cause a national debt default in 2o11. Those authorization limits have since been exceeded, so they no longer apply – oops, damn minor details again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011
Debt ceiling:

• The debt ceiling was increased by $400 billion immediately.[2]
• The President could request a further increase of $500 billion, which is subject to a congressional motion of disapproval which the President may veto, in which case a two-thirds majority in Congress would be needed to override the veto.[3] This has been called the 'McConnell mechanism' after the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who first suggested it as part of another scheme.[4]
• The President could request a final increase of $1.2–1.5 trillion, subject to the same disapproval procedure. The exact amount depends on the amount of cuts in the "super committee" plan if it passes Congress, and whether a Balanced budget amendment has been sent to the states.[3

Yeah, the Treasury Department is within the Administrative branch of government, but that doesn’t mean the President is authorized to violate the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly gives Congress the responsibility for US spending and US debt, not the POTUS.

Indeed... it's minor details like this that Republicans seem to stumble over so frequently...

Little, minor details... such as...

and

Course...

and

 

[Syne]

Well if you are going to explain English, perhaps you should first be able to understand English…just saying. The words “the only time” does imply it happened once. The words “the only time” are not synonymous with the word “ever”. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of those words?

So are you now saying you didn’t write the following?

Historically, the only time one Democrat president has followed another (since the establishment of the Republican party) is when the previous president died in office and his VP finishes out his term and wins the next election .

Hauling out the big fat crayon...again.

Hell, you even just quoted what I said and STILL cannot manage to understand simple English. "The only time", in this context, means that a Democrat has NEVER been elected to succeed another UNLESS it was the VP who finished out the POTUS term and won the next election. In other words (that there may be an off chance you will understand), according to 150 years of historical precedent, the only way a Democrat is likely to be elected in 2016 is if Obama dies in office and Biden gets elected. There is absolutely NO precedent for anything else. On the other hand, there is plenty of precedent for Republicans being elected to succeed Republicans, whether the last VP or not.

So a Democrat (other than the previous VP) had NEVER been elected to after another. It is not that "it doesn’t happen very often", it is that it has NEVER happened...EVER. Now wipe the drool off your chin.

Perhaps it was your alternate personality? And as a matter of fact, Truman (a Democrat) did succeed FDR (a Democrat) after being elected to office for a third term. And FDR did in fact die in office. The same applies to Kennedy and Johnson. Your assertion is that there is something magical about the death of FDR and Kennedy, when in fact, you have no evidence of same.

If you had taken a course in statistics, you would very well know correlation doesn’t imply causation. Yet, you continue make the assertion that correlation is causation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Yes, and I have been telling you that this whole time. Lay off the pot for a bit, mate. Magical?! The only thing extraordinary, according to 150 years of history, would be for Hillary (or whoever ends up being the candidate) to be elected. Nothing extraordinary about Truman or Johnson, as that precedent had already been set by Republicans about 44 years earlier. McKinley died in 1901 and was succeeded by his VP, Teddy Roosevelt, who was then elected. But unlike Democrats, Garfield, Taft, Hoover, and H.W. Bush were all elected without having finished out a predecessor's term. This has NEVER happened for Democrats.

And that you would erect the strawman that correlation is causation proves that you do not understand statistics. The 150 year history has established the statistical mean, which in this case has absolutely no deviation. In other words (which you seem to need a lot of), the tendency had NEVER deviated for 150 years. I do not even know what two variables you imagine are being related causally here. The only cause of voting history I have given is the one you agreed with, that people vote their interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Frankly, that is laughable. You in fact assume everything. You assume causation. You assume just because something has not happened, it will not happen. If that were true, we would all be hunter-gathers. And carrying your argument a bit further, the Sun will never die, because it hasn’t died or those living today will never die, because they have not died in the past.

Yes, your strawman is laughable. Grasping at straws laughable. I have already said that a new historical precedent would require a significant cause, so obviously I allow for change to occur in my assumptions. I simply make no specific assumptions that it WILL happen or what may cause it. While you assume it WILL definitely happen and do not seem to offer much in the way of cause to explain such a new historical precedent.

Did you just write, “I assume nothing.”? Dude, you are contradicting yourself again. Just two sentences later you wrote, referring to yourself, " I assume". You wrote, “I assume a new precedent”.

Aside from you contradictions, you are misrepresenting my position. My position is quite simple and should be uncontroversial. It’s simply correlation doesn’t imply causation. You have no evidence to support your assertion that in order for the Democratic Party to retain control of the White House, the incumbent president must die in office.

Yes, we get it. You are pedantic in lieu of offering effective counter-argument.

"It’s simply correlation doesn’t imply causation."​

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The evidence is 150 years of history, which has established a statistical mean without any deviation. That does not even require any consideration of cause, and aside from agreeing with you, I have offered none.

As for your accusation of “perceptual blindness”, is it my blindness or your delusions? Where is your evidence, where is your proof, that the Democratic Party has “shift further toward the left”? You have none. Just because you can find someone who claims to be a Democrat and also claims to be a socialist, it doesn’t mean the Democratic Party has shifted to the left. If you are referring to Bernie Sanders who sometimes says he is a socialist, he isn’t a Democrat. He’s an Independent. And you don’t think socialists didn’t exist in the 80’s and earlier? Well my friend that is either ignorance or delusion.

The fact is, since Reagan, Democrats have become moved more to the right, especially on economic issues (e.g. Clinton administration) and Republicans have responded by moving even further to the right to the point of radicalism. Did you not remember or were you aware Democrats ended welfare as it was known until then under Clinton?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/democrats-have-moved-right-not-left

It has been my experience, that those who are the most blind are those who accuse others and project their blindness on and shortcomings onto others. It’s called scapegoating. So before you go pointing fingers at others, I suggest you take a long and serious look at yourself.

Your perception is an artifact of being situated on the left. Check out the animated depiction of ideological consistency from 1994 to present on this Pew Research page. Both parties moved left, but then the Democrat party stopped moving left for a bit, giving the impression that the Republican move to the right was relatively more pronounced, until they both again moved toward the extremes (and the move toward the extremes is more pronounced in the politically active than the general population). But their distance to the extremes is equal. From that page:

"To be sure, those with across-the-board liberal or conservative views remain in the minority; most Americans continue to express at least some mix of liberal and conservative attitudes. Yet those who express ideologically consistent views have disproportionate influence on the political process: They are more likely than those with mixed views to vote regularly and far more likely to donate to political campaigns and contact elected officials."​

So sure, as a liberal, you think that conservatives have moved more toward the extreme, simply because liberal ideology was static for a bit. That is perceptual blindness, similar to being unaware that the earth is orbiting the sun because you do not see or feel it locally.

But of course at some time the Democrats moved to the right, they are politicians after all (both sides sway with the tide of public opinion). Democrats have consistently moved to the left over the last 20 years.

 

[Syne]

I never liked Romney, but if your strawman helps with the cognitive dissonance, feel free to keep believing it. I did not think there was any good candidate in 2012, liked Nader in 2008, and voted for Kerry in 2004 because I liked Edwards (wanted him to win the primary).

Ok, more ad hominem…not impressive. And as for your voting record, well, we will never know who you supported. All we have is the word of a poster who frequently contradicts himself/herself and has a set of delusional beliefs which are not rooted in fact and consistently defends absurd Republican party line.

My voting record is what it is. Like I said, if it helps you feel better, believe what you like.

This gets to your ignorance of statistics. Correlation isn’t causation, it’s a fact that you apparently cannot wrap your head around. That’s why I suggest you take an entry level statistics course. Though frankly, it’s becoming very apparent you may lack the intellectual horse power necessary to pass an entry level statistics course.

Unfortunately for you my friend, you cannot hide the naked absurdity of your arguments behind name calling. Again, before you go pointing fingers and scapegoating others, you should really take a long and serious look at yourself.

What two variable are you trying to claim I am asserting a causative relationship between? None, because this is a product of your ignorance of statistics and your desperate attempt to quell your cognitive dissonance.

But great imagination! Good job! I know you must need the encouragement.

 

[Kittamaru]

My voting record is what it is. Like I said, if it helps you feel better, believe what you like.

What two variable are you trying to claim I am asserting a causative relationship between? None, because this is a product of your ignorance of statistics and your desperate attempt to quell your cognitive dissonance.

But great imagination! Good job! I know you must need the encouragement.

Certainly you can back your claim that joepistole is somehow "ignorant of statistics" and has some cognitive dissonance that he has some "desperate need to quell"...

 

[joepistole]

snip refutes of Huffington Post and Wall Street Journal

And that is somehow relevant?

Passing a budget cannot repeal a law. Learn how basic government works, mate. I said "It passed a budget to fund ALL necessary functions of government", not "fund everything." Again, you are making things up. But good job! What an imagination you have. House Republicans did get the votes to fund everything but Obamacare. That was what the whole row was all about. "Clean bill" is nothing but rhetorical code for "get our way" in this case. In the US legislative authorization and appropriation are two separate processes. The former does not ensure the latter. Look it up.

A couple of things, what makes you think that congress cannot repeal laws or make new laws and include that in the budget. Apparently, you are unaware, that spending bills are laws. Is there a somewhere in the Constitution which forbids Congress from passing other laws in their spending bills? I’ll give you a hint, no there isn’t. Perhaps you should take your advice, and “look it up”. Perhaps it is you my friend who needs to get thyself into a class on US government in addition to entry level classes on statistics and logic. Other items are regularly included in a budget bill besides spending issues. Look it up. Rather than making unfounded proclamations, perhaps you should take our own advice and “look it up”.

The fact remains, Republicans didn’t pass funding for everything as you have repeatedly asserted and now admit was wrong. Republicans attempted to repeal and failing that to defund Obamacare which were things they could not achieve through regular order of business. A clean bill means fully funding government. That is what a clean bill means. Republicans attempted to repeal Obamacare 50 plus times through REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS without success. So they attempted to use the budget and debt ceiling to force Democrats into repealing Obamacare. It didn’t work. That isn’t how our government works. Unfortunately for Republicans, this isn’t a minority rule country.

Passing LOL. Is there an echo?

I don’t know, are you hearing things again?

No one said anything about a House dictatorship, but way to keep that imagination humming away. Gold star! Neither can the Senate and Executive branch act without the consent of the House. Basic government there, mate. The only reason a shut down could occur is that they did not come to an agreement, but guess what, that is allowed in order to motivate compromise. It is actually an intentional feature of the process. But the Senate would not entertain any compromise.

Oh, then why is it House Republicans demanded their demands must be met; else they would cause a debt default? What compromises did Republicans offer before threatening the health and wellbeing of the nation? They offered none. Why were Republicans like Bachman telling folks a debt default was no big deal? And as you have advocated, Republicans need not worry about the repercussions of a debt default, because they would just blame Obama and the Democrats for not acceding to their demands. If the founding fathers only wanted the will of the majority party in the House to prevail as you and your fellow Republicans seem to think, then why did they create the Senate and the presidency are require their approval on spending and other pieces of legislation?

And all this overlooks the negative impact the threat of a Republican induced debt default wreaked upon the nation’s fragile recovering economy.

Yeah, no compromise whatsoever. They would not accept anything but full funding and raising the debt ceiling. You can play rhetorical ping-pong all you like, but since the budget originates in the House, the Senate sending a budget back that they have been explicitly told will not pass is just a sleight of hand in a blame game.

Yeah, well this gets to your rather profound misunderstanding of American government – not to mention perverse logic. Budgets originate in the House, but they are approved in the Senate and by the president. It’s the way the founding fathers set it up. Look it up. If the founding fathers wanted the House to have the first and last word on spending issues, they would have set it up that way. But they didn’t. House Republicans knew full well, their spending bill to repeal and defund Obamacare was dead on arrival in the Senate and the president would never sign such a bill. Republicans in the House should never have threatened to cause a national debt default. Repeated threats by House Republicans damaged the nation’s economic recovery. Republican intransigence on fiscal issues also severely damaged the recovery. So it’s more than a little hypocritical for Republicans to complain about the slow recovery when they are the architects and wholly responsible for the slow recovery. It caused investors to question America’s ability to effectively govern itself. I was one of those investors, and that still remains an open question. Irrational is not normally a word associated with the US government. But thanks to Republicans, that is no longer the case. If the debt ceiling has taught us anything, it should be never to discount how crazy Republicans can be.

What Republicans did, was to take the nation hostage to their demands. Republicans threatened the economic health and wellbeing of the nation in order to advance their political agenda, in order to satisfy the right wing entertainment fed misinformed, ignorant, ditto heads.

 

[Syne]

Let me remind you, since apparently you do not remember, this was about your challenge to my statement that Republicans often explain away their political losses with the excuse Democrats bought off voters. You claimed my assertion was unsupported. I supported my assertion with evidence, with quotes of leading Republicans making that claim on the record.

Maybe it’s your cognitive dissonance at work or that dementia thingy.

Lay off the pot, mate.

Your argument seems to be that Democrats will succeed by buying votes, but that would have to be something new to risk upsetting well-established precedent. Although, it is new that into two terms of a Democrat we are looking at the slowest economic recovery in history. Maybe that was the goal to make all those entitlements all the more appealing.

Well, that is how Republicans rationalize their poor performance in national races - damn Democrats bought votes. But that doesn't mean it's real. Because it isn't.

See, you brought that up in response to my first post to the OP, who was only talking about entitlements:

"As long as the Democrats keep furnishing money for liberal ideas like welfare and food stamps as just two of many examples then they will get most of the poor and what's left of the middle class, to vote for them."​

God forbid you should run out of crayons. What would you do then?

Probably teach you hand signs, like Koko.

Well you have some of it correct, which is a big step for you. But here is the part you have left out.

“The number of those single adults getting food stamps did double about the same time that Obama granted a blanket suspension of that work requirement for 18 months as part of his 2009 stimulus law. “ http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-food-stamp-stretch/
And Obama suspended he work requirement at the behest of Republicans governors who wanted more flexibility in the SNAP program. And where does that “finally managed” come from? Are you seriously that disconnected?

And you think Obama isn’t the leader of the Democratic Party? Do you have any evidence Obama’s position was somehow at odds with the vast majority of Democrats? If so now is the time to show it. You do realize Obama is not only POTUS but the Democratic Party leader?

No link to support that assertion about Republican governors? Funny that.

Who said ANYTHING about Obama not being the Democrat leader or somehow at odds? Vivid imagination there. Gold star! I would suggest meds, but I am sure you already have some.

So you are now claiming you didn’t’ write: (post #8 REPOSTED BELOW)

Ah, are you really that disconnected…seriously? The discussion was about your statement, “Only you have characterized the recession as "run of the mill.”, which you accuse me of characterizing the Great Recession as “run of the mill”. What does that have to do with straw man arguments? Nothing, you were challenged to support your statement. And you have still not supported your accusation with, you know, evidence? You cannot support your claim, because I never characterized the Great Recession as “run of the mill”…oops. Maybe your dementia is kicking in or perhaps you are just being dishonest, or perhaps it is your own cognitive dissonances at work?

Yes, we get that you have some serious trouble parsing the English language. "Characterize", as in "describe as". I know you were not saying it actually was "run of the mill" (and I really gave you too much credit, thinking that was obvious). You did describe it as "run of the mill" in a strawman of my view. A strawman is contributing an argument or statement to someone who did not say it. I did not describe the Great Recession as " run of the mill" (quite the contrary, I compared it to the great Depression). Only you did, as a strawman.

You erected a strawman, and then claimed that strawman strawmanned you. Talk about shadow boxing.

Up to speed, tiger? Wipe the drool from your chin.

Remember the NBER you once correctly cited?

That I cited? Where?

 

[joepistole]

I will not caucus nor vote for Mrs. Clinton!
Hillary Clinton is the presidential candidate of the banks and warmongers.

Must we always be only offered the lesser of 2 evils by this corrupt 2 party system?

Well the truth is both parties are heavily influenced by special interest money. Democrats less so, because they get more support from individuals rather than big donors. Republicans are heavily reliant on big donors and therefore are more subject to the influence of warmongers and banks. It was a Republican congressman who introduced a law, supported by Republicans, which repeals key portions of Dodd-Frank into a budget bill.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/wall-street-seeks-to-tuck-dodd-frank-changes-in-budget-bill/

Thanks to our Republican friends, banks can once again gamble with depositor money.