The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

[hermhater]

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary



WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. greets a familiar face. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Elise Amendola

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.






http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080108/w0108115A.html

Crap.

[AussieChiefsFan]

Thoughts on the last debate?

[Chiefster]

I thought Romney missed an opportunity to hold the presidents feet to the fire over the handling of the Libyan consulate situation with regard to the timeline and what was explained to the American public. Other than that there were no big surprises, I think each candidate performed as expected. I think that Obama energized his base while Romney maintained his, somewhat disappointing those on the far right. However, I don't think either candidate moved the needle much with regard to the coveted "Undecided" demographic who, I think, at this point in the game are only claiming to be so. I think most people have pretty much made up their minds.

[chief31]

I'm trying to find anything in this post that has anything to do with the unemployment rate and I can't. Like a typical liberal, you change the subject and talk about the deficit and taxes.

It is a fact that fewer people are working now than when Obama took office. It is a fact that the average work week and weekly pay are down. It is a fact that the economy grew at a slower rate last year (1.7%) than it did in 2010 (3.0%). This isn't spin. It's common knowledge among people who study the numbers and don't just listen to the "talking points" spouted by mainstream media news sources.

Look at this chart and pay particular attention to Employment as a percentage of population Rate (black line). Notice that the rate is not only much lower that it was when Obama took office, it has also leveled off since unemployment peaked at 10%.
In this case, 8 is not better than 10.

Again deflecting from the discussion of unemployment numbers to find some numbers you prefer?

Look, regardless of how well the recovery is going, it is GOP policy-making that tanked The USA, so your theories on how we need more de-regulation and less taxation to fix the mess that was caused by de-regulation and low taxes is going to fall on deaf ears.

You will be the first to tell us that government does not create jobs to grow the economy. Oh.... Alraedy did that. But yet you are also the first to tell us how Obama is not creating enough jobs.

Just keep your economy-destroying phisolosophy off the table. We do not need it.

[Hayvern]

I dunno.. I was only in 4th grade when that election went down so I can't say what really happened, I just learn from reading books about it. After reading several I have come to a conclusion.. The electoral college is a bad idea and <b>Al Gore is the only man who the PEOPLE voted for that never served as president...</b> interesting.

Well actually no, this is not factually correct.

There have been four times in history where one candidate received the popular vote, but lost the election.

Andrew Jackson lost the election of 1824 to John Qunicy Adams. Jackson did serve as President, but not in this actual election. In this election, the Presidency was selected by the House of Representatives not through electorial college votes.

In 1876, Samuel J Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B Hayes. The election of 1876 was mired on controversy when some states in the South sent double the number of voters to congress to vote in the college. Tilden never served as President, ever.

In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison, Cleveland was the incumbent at the time, so he technically did serve as President, just not in the election where he won the popular vote but lost to the electorial college.

So it is important to note that the statement of Al Gore being the only person to win the popular vote and not serve as President is just wrong.

[matthewschiefs]

Again deflecting from the discussion of unemployment numbers to find some numbers you prefer?

Look, regardless of how well the recovery is going, it is GOP policy-making that tanked The USA, so your theories on how we need more de-regulation and less taxation to fix the mess that was caused by de-regulation and low taxes is going to fall on deaf ears.

You will be the first to tell us that government does not create jobs to grow the economy. Oh.... Alraedy did that. But yet you are also the first to tell us how Obama is not creating enough jobs.

Just keep your economy-destroying phisolosophy off the table. We do not need it.

Well to be fair Obama opened himself up to this criticism when he was running for president in 08 and promised to create jobs at a rate he failed to deliver on. I don't blame that all on Obama but when you make a promise and it doesn't happen you leave yourself open for criticism

[rbedgood]

Both candidates suck...one will become our President. I'd rather bet on the guy who hasn't already FAILED for 4 years on the job. But frankly it is pathetic that in a nation this size these are the best 2 guys we could come up with??!?!

Oh and hello from Donkey country where I am wearing my 49er tie with my suit tomorrow. Haha, my account here will hate it, but get a good laugh.

[Chiefster]

Both candidates suck...one will become our President. I'd rather bet on the guy who hasn't already FAILED for 4 years on the job. But frankly it is pathetic that in a nation this size these are the best 2 guys we could come up with??!?!

Oh and hello from Donkey country where I am wearing my 49er tie with my suit tomorrow. Haha, my account here will hate it, but get a good laugh.

You are way down on your posting quota young man!

[TopekaRoy]

Again deflecting from the discussion of unemployment numbers to find some numbers you prefer?

I WAS discussing the unemployment numbers and how they don't reflect more people working; They only reflect fewer people who are out of work being counted, and people working less hours for less money. You seem to be myopically looking only at the numbers and ignoring what they represent.

Look, regardless of how well the recovery is going, it is GOP policy-making that tanked The USA, so your theories on how we need more de-regulation and less taxation to fix the mess that was caused by de-regulation and low taxes is going to fall on deaf ears.

Okay, explain to me how deregulation and low taxes (especially low taxes) caused the economy to collapse and then I will explain to you how it was government INTERFERENCE in private commerce that really caused the collapse.

You will be the first to tell us that government does not create jobs to grow the economy. Oh.... Already did that. But yet you are also the first to tell us how Obama is not creating enough jobs.

You are correct. The government cannot create a single "private sector" job, but it CAN (and does) institute policies and an environment that either encourages or discourages job growth. The government CAN create PUBLIC sector jobs (schoolteachers, police and firefighters, government bureaucrats, etc.), but those jobs have to be paid for with money collected from the private sector (income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes). So those jobs also depend on a healthy private sector.

Just keep your economy-destroying philosophy off the table. We do not need it.

Again, what about my philosophy (specifically) is economy-destroying and how so?

[chief31]

Well to be fair Obama opened himself up to this criticism when he was running for president in 08 and promised to create jobs at a rate he failed to deliver on. I don't blame that all on Obama but when you make a promise and it doesn't happen you leave yourself open for criticism

Sure. I agree with that.

Promising the world in a campaign has it's price.

I would like to see an end to that. I would like to see promising a very tough four years as we fix the problem, instead of promising tax breaks or miracles.

[chief31]

Okay, explain to me how deregulation and low taxes (especially low taxes) caused the economy to collapse and then I will explain to you how it was government INTERFERENCE in private commerce that really caused the collapse.

I have no interest in your attempt to blame the victims instead of the perpetrators.

Allowing mortgage holders to sell off there mortgage investments and then sabotage them destroyed the investment banks that bought them, as well as the countless state, local and foreign governments who were duped into.investing, and the home owner, plus the federal government who they slammed for the federal insurance.

They made money off of everybody, and everybody else lost.

And Romney want to repeal.the rules that replaced Glass-Stage.

Freedom is great. But freedom to murder is a problem. And so.is the freedom to dominate all of the American people through.economic tyranny.