Dick Morris admits he lied to you about the landslide

That landslide massive electoral college victory for Obama was even greater than Morris was predicting for Romney. LOL! I wonder how much Morris got paid?

Why do we care that some minor talking head lied about predicting results?

Also of note, it's interesting that Obama was reelected with fewer votes than Bush was reelect with. Ouch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

Why do we care that some minor talking head lied about predicting results?

 

 

Also of note, it's interesting that Obama was reelected with fewer votes than Bush was reelect with. Ouch.

Well you seem to care alot about that " Liberal media conspiracy "  don't you?  This was misinformation admitted to.

Bush got 271 ;electoral votes in 2000. How many did Obama get in 2012? Let's see....oh....about 332! Ouch!

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

Why do we care that some minor talking head lied about predicting results?

 

 

Also of note, it's interesting that Obama was reelected with fewer votes than Bush was reelect with. Ouch.

It's close, but I think your numbers are wrong. Bush received 62,040,610 in 2004. Obama already has half a million more than that and a larger margin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

It's close, but I think your numbers are wrong. Bush received 62,040,610 in 2004. Obama already has half a million more than that and a larger margin.

They've been updated since I looked last. Not much to crow about either way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

They've been updated since I looked last. Not much to crow about either way.

But Obama won a "landslide!" and has a "mandate." Despite not even having a margin of victory that's in the top 50% of the history of presidential elections in this country. Or something. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

They've been updated since I looked last. Not much to crow about either way.

 

But Obama won a "landslide!" and has a "mandate." Or something. 

Are you running out of actual arguments, or just becoming increasingly bored with the idea of any real discussion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

It's close, but I think your numbers are wrong. Bush received 62,040,610 in 2004. Obama already has half a million more than that and a larger margin.

They've been updated since I looked last. Not much to crow about either way.

Who was crowing? Obama won an election. One side is working hard to diminish that in every way they can, while the other is pushing that he won and has some kind of mandate, which follows anyway, simply by definition. What possibly can be so contentious about this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

They've been updated since I looked last. Not much to crow about either way.

 

But Obama won a "landslide!" and has a "mandate." Despite not even having a margin of victory that's in the top 50% of the history of presidential elections in this country. Or something. 

Keep on laughing. If you don't believe this is the end of far right obfuscation and nonsense ( and please don't ask me to explain you know very well what I mean ) just keep watching. Voters want results now from both sides. The side that obfuscates will be the loser.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

If you don't believe this is the end of far right obfuscation and nonsense ( and please don't ask me to explain you know very well what I mean ) just keep watching.

Why do I care about that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Voters want results now from both sides.

Maybe. Here's one citizen that wants them to stop doing things when they are damaging. Which is most of what they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

If you don't believe this is the end of far right obfuscation and nonsense ( and please don't ask me to explain you know very well what I mean ) just keep watching.

 

Why do I care about that?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Voters want results now from both sides.

 

Maybe. Here's one citizen that wants them to stop doing things when they are damaging. Which is most of what they do.

Why don't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Why don't you?

Because I don't.

What I care about is liberty. I care about the pursuit and protection of it. I care about those who would infringe on it. I care about it be protected for everyone and not infringing on some people's because I think it's okay to infringe on some people's rights.

That's what I care about.

Right now, the "far right" seems like much less of a threat that the currently elected officials of this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Right now, the "far right" seems like much less of a threat that the currently elected officials of this country.

I've no doubt that you are right about that from the perspective of what you regard as important and from your vision of the ideal society. Luckily for the majority, including moderate Republicans, you are in a minority, and probably a very small one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Right now, the "far right" seems like much less of a threat that the currently elected officials of this country.

Unless of course you are not white, not male, not old, not a student, not a non-English speaker, not liberal, not Christian, not gay, not rich, not a redneck, not just about everything except a white male.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Unless of course you are not white, not male, not old, not a student, not a non-English speaker, not liberal, not gay, not just about everything except a white male.

No...if you are just about anyone. Wake up and try to pay attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Unless of course you are not white, not male, not old, not a student, not a non-English speaker, not liberal, not gay, not just about everything except a white male.

 

No...if you are just about anyone. Wake up and try to pay attention.

Anyone - other than the majority vote in the recent election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Anyone - other than the majority vote in the recent election.

No. Everyone. You also are not paying attention.

Unless you mean that the people voting in the minority are at greater risk of losing their liberty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Anyone - other than the majority vote in the recent election.

Why do you keep putting words in his mouth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Anyone - other than the majority vote in the recent election.

 

No. Everyone. You also are not paying attention.

 

Unless you mean that the people voting in the minority are at greater risk of losing their liberty.

No - I mean that you do not get to judge what seems more of a threat to others - they can, and did, make up their own minds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Anyone - other than the majority vote in the recent election.

 

Why do you keep putting words in his mouth?

Which words?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

No - I mean that you do not get to judge what seems more of a threat to others - they can, and did, make up their own minds.

You're right  that individuals can individually judge what seems or does not seem to be a threat to their life, liberty and property. But that doesn't mean they can't be blind to infringements while other observers are able to see those infringements. What's more, it is true that some might not mind that their liberty is being infringed on. The problem comes when they want to extend this infringement to those who don't want it infringed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

No - I mean that you do not get to judge what seems more of a threat to others - they can, and did, make up their own minds.

 

You're right  that individuals can individually judge what seems or does not seem to be a threat to their life, liberty and property. But that doesn't mean they can't be blind to infringements while other observers are able to see those infringements. What's more, it is true that some might not mind that their liberty is being infringed on. The problem comes when they want to extend this infringement to those who don't want it infringed.

Agreed. I was just taking issue with who you think you speak for in saying that the far right seems less of a threat. I certainly would not count myself as left wing, but the far right seems to me like a huge threat to personal freedom. All that demonstrates, I think, is that the personal freedoms that matter most to me are not the same as those that matter most to you. The far right has declared the wish to infringe on many personal freedoms - presumably those just are not important to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Which words?

The ones you're adding onto his statements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I was just taking issue with who you think you speak for in saying that the far right seems less of a threat.

I speak only for myself. Where have I claimed otherwise?

My point was to point out that all of these guys are a threat to the liberty of ALL people whether those people perceive the threat or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I certainly would not count myself as left wing, but the far right seems to me like a huge threat to personal freedom.

I think they are all a huge threat. But my primary concern is with those who actually have power right now. The far right is limited in its governmental power currently so my concern is with those who have actual governmental power and ho they will be using it to infringe on everyone's life, liberty and property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

All that demonstrates, I think, is that the personal freedoms that matter most to me are not the same as those that matter most to you. The far right has declared the wish to infringe on many personal freedoms - presumably those just are not important to you.

You presume wrong. And both parties and most of those currently elected have made clear their desire to infringe on a variety of liberty and property of a wide variety of people.

In one thread we are supposed to ignore Paul Krugman but in the other we have to pay strict attention to Dick Morris and we also must worry about some unnamed, unknown members of the far right.

That's not logical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

In one thread we are supposed to ignore Paul Krugman but in the other we have to pay strict attention to Dick Morris and we also must worry about some unnamed, unknown members of the far right.

 

That's not logical.

I think the distinction is that the Krugman thread was supposedly about what the Democrats will do (not Krugman's call), while the Morris issue was simply about what Morris said (definitely Morris's call). So not really illogical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I was just taking issue with who you think you speak for in saying that the far right seems less of a threat.

 

I speak only for myself. Where have I claimed otherwise?

 

My point was to point out that all of these guys are a threat to the liberty of ALL people whether those people perceive the threat or not.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I certainly would not count myself as left wing, but the far right seems to me like a huge threat to personal freedom.

 

I think they are all a huge threat. But my primary concern is with those who actually have power right now. The far right is limited in its governmental power currently so my concern is with those who have actual governmental power and ho they will be using it to infringe on everyone's life, liberty and property.

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

All that demonstrates, I think, is that the personal freedoms that matter most to me are not the same as those that matter most to you. The far right has declared the wish to infringe on many personal freedoms - presumably those just are not important to you.

 

You presume wrong. And both parties and most of those currently elected have made clear their desire to infringe on a variety of liberty and property of a wide variety of people.

OK, fair enough, so are you saying that if the Republicans had won the election then the Democrats would have been the lesser threat?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

OK, fair enough, so are you saying that if the Republicans had won the election then the Democrats would have been the lesser threat?

Nope.

I'm saying they are all a threat to the life, liberty and property of all of us.

This isn't left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. These only represent two faction of the same party.

This is the established elite ruling political class vs. the people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Nope.

 

I'm saying they are all a threat to the life, liberty and property of all of us.

 

This isn't left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. These only represent two faction of the same party.

 

This is the established elite ruling political class vs. the people.

Yes, it's the State vs. the individual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Which words?

 

The ones you're adding onto his statements.

Not really - I was adding my own qualification to his statement that it seems to anyone that the far right is the lesser threat, namely that it should presumably be to anyone other than those who voted Democrat (i.e. the majority), because otherwise, if they believed that, they would have voted Republican.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

OK, fair enough, so are you saying that if the Republicans had won the election then the Democrats would have been the lesser threat?

 

Nope.

 

I'm saying they are all a threat to the life, liberty and property of all of us.

 

This isn't left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. These only represent two faction of the same party.

 

This is the established elite ruling political class vs. the people.

Then I am not understanding your position:

That sounds like an argument that the far right is less of a threat simply because they are not in power. Had the Republicans won the election then the left would not be in power. Etc...

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Then I am not understanding your position:

 

 

 

That sounds like an argument that the far right is less of a threat simply because they are not in power. Had the Republicans won the election then the left would not be in power. Etc...

I'm sorry if I have confused you in some way.

Yes, they are less of a threat to the extend that they are not in power. That stands to reason. The ones with the power are the biggest threat at the time. To the extent that any "far righters" are in power, they are also a threat.

Does this clarify things?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Then I am not understanding your position:

 

 

 

That sounds like an argument that the far right is less of a threat simply because they are not in power. Had the Republicans won the election then the left would not be in power. Etc...

 

I'm sorry if I have confused you in some way.

 

Yes, they are less of a threat to the extend that they are not in power. That stands to reason. The ones with the power are the biggest threat at the time. To the extent that any "far righters" are in power, they are also a threat.

 

Does this clarify things?

I'm not sure - it leads me to wonder why then, when I asked if the left would be the lesser threat if the right were in power you responded "nope".

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I'm not sure - it leads me to wonder why then, when I asked if the left would be the lesser threat if the right were in power you responded "nope".

Sorry. I misread that statement as: "are you saying that if the Republicans had won the election then they (republicans) would have been the lesser threat?

My mistake. Sorry.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

In one thread we are supposed to ignore Paul Krugman but in the other we have to pay strict attention to Dick Morris and we also must worry about some unnamed, unknown members of the far right.

 

That's not logical.

 

I think the distinction is that the Krugman thread was supposedly about what the Democrats will do (not Krugman's call), while the Morris issue was simply about what Morris said (definitely Morris's call). So not really illogical.

Morris's call was a prediction about an election outcome. Krugman's piece, widely distributed and printed is a demand to let people be harmed by intentionally tanking the U.S. economy for partisan and political gain.

You are right that they aren't the same. One is much, much worse and Krugman is advocating harm to other people. Morri's prediction wasn't advocating harm to anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I'm not sure - it leads me to wonder why then, when I asked if the left would be the lesser threat if the right were in power you responded "nope".

 

Sorry. I misread that statement as: "are you saying that if the Republicans had won the election then they (republicans) would have been the lesser threat?

 

My mistake. Sorry.

 

No problem. All is clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

In one thread we are supposed to ignore Paul Krugman but in the other we have to pay strict attention to Dick Morris and we also must worry about some unnamed, unknown members of the far right.

 

That's not logical.

 

I think the distinction is that the Krugman thread was supposedly about what the Democrats will do (not Krugman's call), while the Morris issue was simply about what Morris said (definitely Morris's call). So not really illogical.

 

Morris's call was a prediction about an election outcome. Krugman's piece, widely distributed and printed is a demand to let people be harmed by intentionally tanking the U.S. economy for partisan and political gain.

 

You are right that they aren't the same. One is much, much worse and Krugman is advocating harm to other people. Morri's prediction wasn't advocating harm to anyone.

That's true, but no one was arguing that the subject of the threads carried equal weight. And while Krugman's subject is much more important, he can demand all he wants but it is still just his opinion. Your point would be valid if Obama (or anyone making policy), not Krugman, had written the article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

But Obama won a "landslide!" and has a "mandate." Despite not even having a margin of victory that's in the top 50% of the history of presidential elections in this country. Or something. 

Plus voter turn out dropped for the first time ever.