The delusional Democrats

[BreezeWood]

The OP is an expert on being delusional...

...according to Rasmussen, likely voters.

This is not about Rasmussen though. The question is,

who are the voters who approve of the job the President is doing, but are going to turn around and vote for Romney?

...because that's what would have to happen if Obama loses the popular vote.

Or, just a thought, the people who responded to the poll lied.

Still I think the Dems have a very tough road ahead of them.

Still I think the Dems have a very tough road ahead of them.


sort of - "A Bridge to Far" ... if the Democrats can hold the Senate, all will be well and their advantage in 2016.

 

[Black_Label]

2014 is looking like it's going to be a huge win for the freedom fighters (democrats)

The GOP/teabaggers got their asses handed to them in 2012, they still haven't learned their lesson and are continuing their radical right wing assault on america, their approval ratings are at about 25%, they just keep on sinking their own ship.

Funny how idiots like you call commie wantabe socialist dimwits and their pshyco herds freedom fighters, far from it.

Get fucked you america hating fascist piece of shit. Move to your right wing utopia of Iran or Saudi arabia. You'd fit right in with the taliban.

 

[AmericanFirst]

"Free stuff..."

Nothing is free, son. Everything has a cost.

Nutballs put America on this course. Reagan tripled the debt creating a fake economy that - hilariously - benefited just one president: the DINO (and wildly uncloseted ReagaNUT) Clinton, who balanced the budget on asset inflation then handed his dimbulb successor a lit stick of dynamite.

What shall happen next are natural phenomenae. Just as no war is really over until the last son of the last soldier is dead, ReagaNUTtism won't really end until the last second hand ReagaNUT is dead, but it is already over as a meaningful political force.

All ReagaNUT nutballs have to offer is hate for women, foreigners, blacks, poor people (self hate in most of those cases), and things they don't understand (99% of everything). Oh, and nutballs also trade on vicarious worship of criminals in fee taking money changing businesses. Ask yourself how much of that people with sense will buy. There is the future of ReagaNUTtism.

Give me free stuff every time, sport. When the piper comes a callin' we'll see how that works out.

Your delusion is creating quit a story, fictional at best, boy.

 

[AmericanFirst]

2014 is looking like it's going to be a huge win for the freedom fighters (democrats)

The GOP/teabaggers got their asses handed to them in 2012, they still haven't learned their lesson and are continuing their radical right wing assault on america, their approval ratings are at about 25%, they just keep on sinking their own ship.

Funny how idiots like you call commie wantabe socialist dimwits and their pshyco herds freedom fighters, far from it.

Get fucked you america hating fascist piece of shit. Move to your right wing utopia of Iran or Saudi arabia. You'd fit right in with the taliban.

You would fit right in iran or any fascist commie country. Be nice faggot. By the way, I love America, it is idiot socialists like you fools that hate America, flock off libtard.

 

[Pete7469]

Your delusion is creating quit a story, fictional at best, boy.

Please don't quote that bed wetter, it's bad enough we have to be exposed to stupidity that painful once.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

"Free stuff..."

Nothing is free, son. Everything has a cost.

Nutballs put America on this course. Reagan tripled the debt creating a fake economy that - hilariously - benefited just one president: the DINO (and wildly uncloseted ReagaNUT) Clinton, who balanced the budget on asset inflation then handed his dimbulb successor a lit stick of dynamite.

What shall happen next are natural phenomenae. Just as no war is really over until the last son of the last soldier is dead, ReagaNUTtism won't really end until the last second hand ReagaNUT is dead, but it is already over as a meaningful political force.

All ReagaNUT nutballs have to offer is hate for women, foreigners, blacks, poor people (self hate in most of those cases), and things they don't understand (99% of everything). Oh, and nutballs also trade on vicarious worship of criminals in fee taking money changing businesses. Ask yourself how much of that people with sense will buy. There is the future of ReagaNUTtism.

Give me free stuff every time, sport. When the piper comes a callin' we'll see how that works out.

Your delusion is creating quit a story, fictional at best, boy.

Take it apart.

Here's how this works: either take it apart or else you and your legion of one fan are just two more halfwitted nutball trailer trash loudfingers like about 80% - okay, 95% - of the nutballs posting here.

Your move, boys.

 

[AmericanFirst]

"Free stuff..."

Nothing is free, son. Everything has a cost.

Nutballs put America on this course. Reagan tripled the debt creating a fake economy that - hilariously - benefited just one president: the DINO (and wildly uncloseted ReagaNUT) Clinton, who balanced the budget on asset inflation then handed his dimbulb successor a lit stick of dynamite.

What shall happen next are natural phenomenae. Just as no war is really over until the last son of the last soldier is dead, ReagaNUTtism won't really end until the last second hand ReagaNUT is dead, but it is already over as a meaningful political force.

All ReagaNUT nutballs have to offer is hate for women, foreigners, blacks, poor people (self hate in most of those cases), and things they don't understand (99% of everything). Oh, and nutballs also trade on vicarious worship of criminals in fee taking money changing businesses. Ask yourself how much of that people with sense will buy. There is the future of ReagaNUTtism.

Give me free stuff every time, sport. When the piper comes a callin' we'll see how that works out.

Your delusion is creating quit a story, fictional at best, boy.

Take it apart, son.

Here's how this works: either take it apart or else you are just another halfwitted nutball trailer trash loudfinger like about 80% - okay, 95% - of the nutballs posting here.

Your move, boy.

Bed wetter, what are you jabbering about? Girl.

 

[tjvh]

The reason the Democrats are going to lose big in 2014 is because they stupidly chose the one issue that always does them in. They embarked on a War on Guns over the bodies of dead children. Even Harry Reid took Dianne Feinstein's assault gun lunacy off the table last week, and wait till you see what the SAFE act is going to do to New York Politicians who voted for it. It's amazing how many liberal posters at USMB think that only Republicans own guns. You should hear the Democrats in New York who aren't happy with their reps. The Democrats have made a point to place guns and gays at the forefront, instead of rationally addressing the things that actually do matter... Like the record numbers on Food Stamps, virtually unchanged unemployment numbers since 2008, Gas prices stagnating at nearly $4.00 per gallon, and the big one... Obama lying when he said that only the rich would experience higher Taxes. We all know the handout class encompasses the lions share of the Democrat voting base, but even they know that all those promises that have been made over the last four years aren't doing them a bit of good, and that their paycheck from McDonalds has shrunk considerably. Now we even have Democrats in N.Y. bribing the middle class... As if someone who makes $300,000 really needs a $350 boost from the Taxpayer's of N.Y.. Best of luck Dims.
$350 checks are a political bribe - AdirondackDailyEnterprise.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Saranac Lake region ? Adirondack Daily Enterprise
Timing of NY Rebate Checks Tied to 2014 Election | wgrz.com

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Your delusion is creating quit a story, fictional at best, boy.

Take it apart, son.

Here's how this works: either take it apart or else you are just another halfwitted nutball trailer trash loudfinger like about 80% - okay, 95% - of the nutballs posting here.

Your move, boy.

Bed wetter, what are you jabbering about? Girl.

Bed wetter? Girl?

Your beastliness is appalling.

 

[Agit8r]

This would be plausible, if there were another viable party for moderates. That ship sailed around 1998

 

[Londoner]

I think it is time for moderate Democrats to wake up to the fact that their leaders are headed for a major disaster in 2014.

As a lifelong Democrat, I have a mental picture these days of my president, smiling broadly, at the wheel of a speeding convertible. His passengers are Democratic elected officials and candidates. Ahead of them, concealed by a bend in the road, is a concrete barrier.
They didn't have to take that route. Other Democratic presidents have won bipartisan support for proposals as liberal in their time as some of Mr. Obama's are now. Why does this administration seem so determined to head toward a potential crash and burn?
Even after the embarrassing playout of the Obama-invented Great Sequester Game, after the fiasco of the president's Fiscal Cliff Game, conventional wisdom among Democrats holds that disunited Republicans will be routed in the 2014 midterm elections, leaving an open field for the president's agenda in the final two years of his term. Yet modern political history indicates that big midterm Democratic gains are unlikely, and presidential second terms are notably unproductive, most of all in their waning months. Since 2012 there has been nothing about the Obama presidency to justify the confidence that Democrats now exhibit.

Ted Van Dyk: My Unrecognizable Democratic Party - WSJ.com

Not that the Republicans party PTB are looking ahead either, but at least some of newer members are looking toward the future.

The OP is good natured and trying his best, but it seems like he lacks perspective. First, the OP needs to turn off Right Wing Media (FOX > WSJ Editorial page > Limbaugh) and study history. Then, he will realize that calling Obama a Liberal extremist is pure propaganda designed to drive Obama far right. (And it's working: Obama has cut the federal workforce, whereas Reagan and Bush grew it in order to boost employment during their respective recessions. Obama has cut the deficit more than Reagan or Bush, but the GOP propoganda machine does not report it. Do you remember how long it took for people to find out that Reagan doubled Carter's spending and deficits? Point is: the rightwing propaganda machine is well-funded and powerful)

1) Obama's agenda is categorically to the Right of Nixon's, who fervently supported the Clean Air Act and racial quotas and the expansion of civil rights to minorities... and created the EPA... and created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration...and increased Social Security benefits, especially cost of living provisions . . . and tried to pass a health care plan which would have required corporations to provide health care to employees as well as subsidizing the unemployed. Even more interesting: Nixon put in place more regulations than any Liberal President since FDR . . . and he called for a guaranteed minimum income for all americans . . . and spent more on social programs than defense. (The reason the OP doesn't know any of this is because he gets his information from a purely political place, which is creating propaganda to protect the concentrated wealth (and political power) of the special interests which own his party)

2) Prior to switching parties, Reagan was an FDR Democrat and campaigned for Truman and did more to strengthen Social Security than Carter, Clinton or Obama.

3) Eisenhower and Nixon's tax rates were more than double Obama's - and their financial regulations created an era of remarkable stability. Both presidents SPENT tons of money on infrastructure... and both presidents supported the New Deal... and both presidents lorded over a higher rate of economic growth than any president thereafter. Eisenhower's top tax rate was in the 90s, and that money was wisely used by Big Government to put our veterans to work building suburban America. With government providing employment to the masses, there was an immense multiplier effect - that is to say, Americans had more money with which to consume. And because they had so much money ("demand"), the capitalist had an incentive to add even more jobs (in order to capture that money). It's called trickle up wealth, and it was replaced by Reagan who freed capital to seek cheap labor in Asia, and handed the middle class a credit card to make up for the money that was no longer tickling down into high wages and benefits.

I do agree that the the Democrats are headed for a bad midterm, but it has more to do with a population that doesn't know who really runs government, that is, people don't understand that business and the wealthy run government. How do they run government? They devote massive resources to funding elections and employing lobbyists. Regardless, if you look at how far to the Right Obama is to Nixon and Eisenhower, you realize that the OP has been terrible served by his very narrow information sources. I encourage the OP to study the actual policies.

 

[Pete7469]

The reason the Democrats are going to lose big in 2014 is because they stupidly chose the one issue that always does them in. They embarked on a War on Guns over the bodies of dead children. Even Harry Reid took Dianne Feinstein's assault gun lunacy off the table last week, and wait till you see what the SAFE act is going to do to New York Politicians who voted for it. It's amazing how many liberal posters at USMB think that only Republicans own guns. You should hear the Democrats in New York who aren't happy with their reps. The Democrats have made a point to place guns and gays at the forefront, instead of rationally addressing the things that actually do matter... Like the record numbers on Food Stamps, virtually unchanged unemployment numbers since 2008, Gas prices stagnating at nearly $4.00 per gallon, and the big one... Obama lying when he said that only the rich would experience higher Taxes. We all know the handout class encompasses the lions share of the Democrat voting base, but even they know that all those promises that have been made over the last four years aren't doing them a bit of good, and that their paycheck from McDonalds has shrunk considerably. Now we even have Democrats in N.Y. bribing the middle class... As if someone who makes $300,000 really needs a $350 boost from the Taxpayer's of N.Y.. Best of luck Dims.
$350 checks are a political bribe - AdirondackDailyEnterprise.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Saranac Lake region ? Adirondack Daily Enterprise
Timing of NY Rebate Checks Tied to 2014 Election | wgrz.com

It's also a factor that there are people on food stamps in NY that would prefer not to be. Thank God I got the hell out of there, but I still have friends there who can't afford to flee state. It's an economic prison.

 

[Pete7469]

I think it is time for moderate Democrats to wake up to the fact that their leaders are headed for a major disaster in 2014.

As a lifelong Democrat, I have a mental picture these days of my president, smiling broadly, at the wheel of a speeding convertible. His passengers are Democratic elected officials and candidates. Ahead of them, concealed by a bend in the road, is a concrete barrier.
They didn't have to take that route. Other Democratic presidents have won bipartisan support for proposals as liberal in their time as some of Mr. Obama's are now. Why does this administration seem so determined to head toward a potential crash and burn?
Even after the embarrassing playout of the Obama-invented Great Sequester Game, after the fiasco of the president's Fiscal Cliff Game, conventional wisdom among Democrats holds that disunited Republicans will be routed in the 2014 midterm elections, leaving an open field for the president's agenda in the final two years of his term. Yet modern political history indicates that big midterm Democratic gains are unlikely, and presidential second terms are notably unproductive, most of all in their waning months. Since 2012 there has been nothing about the Obama presidency to justify the confidence that Democrats now exhibit.

Ted Van Dyk: My Unrecognizable Democratic Party - WSJ.com

Not that the Republicans party PTB are looking ahead either, but at least some of newer members are looking toward the future.

The OP is good natured and trying his best, but it seems like he lacks perspective. First, the OP needs to turn off Right Wing Media (FOX > WSJ Editorial page > Limbaugh) and study history. Then, he will realize that calling Obama a Liberal extremist is pure propaganda designed to drive Obama far right. (And it's working: Obama has cut the federal workforce, whereas Reagan and Bush grew it in order to boost employment during their respective recessions. Obama has cut the deficit more than Reagan or Bush, but the GOP propoganda machine does not report it. Do you remember how long it took for people to find out that Reagan doubled Carter's spending and deficits? Point is: the rightwing propaganda machine is well-funded and powerful)

1) Obama's agenda is categorically to the Right of Nixon's, who fervently supported the Clean Air Act and racial quotas and the expansion of civil rights to minorities... and created the EPA... and created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration...and increased Social Security benefits, especially cost of living provisions . . . and tried to pass a health care plan which would have required corporations to provide health care to employees as well as subsidizing the unemployed. Even more interesting: Nixon put in place more regulations than any Liberal President since FDR . . . and he called for a guaranteed minimum income for all americans . . . and spent more on social programs than defense. (The reason the OP doesn't know any of this is because he gets his information from a purely political place, which is creating propaganda to protect the concentrated wealth (and political power) of the special interests which own his party)

2) Prior to switching parties, Reagan was an FDR Democrat and campaigned for Truman and did more to strengthen Social Security than Carter, Clinton or Obama.

3) Eisenhower and Nixon's tax rates were more than double Obama's - and their financial regulations created an era of remarkable stability. Both presidents SPENT tons of money on infrastructure... and both presidents supported the New Deal... and both presidents lorded over a higher rate of economic growth than any president thereafter. Eisenhower's top tax rate was in the 90s, and that money was wisely used by Big Government to put our veterans to work building suburban America. With government providing employment to the masses, there was an immense multiplier effect - that is to say, Americans had more money with which to consume. And because they had so much money ("demand"), the capitalist had an incentive to add even more jobs (in order to capture that money). It's called trickle up wealth, and it was replaced by Reagan who freed capital to seek cheap labor in Asia, and handed the middle class a credit card to make up for the money that was no longer tickling down into high wages and benefits.

I do agree that the the Democrats are headed for a bad midterm, but it has more to do with a population that doesn't know who really runs government, that is, people don't understand that business and the wealthy run government. How do they run government? They devote massive resources to funding elections and employing lobbyists. Regardless, if you look at how far to the Right Obama is to Nixon and Eisenhower, you realize that the OP has been terrible served by his very narrow information sources. I encourage the OP to study the actual policies.

Uhh... No, According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal workforce incresed, 146,000 more since the moonbat messiah took office.

Also, civil rights for minorities has always been driven by republicans. LBJ might have signed the law, but the republicans made it pass in spite of democrook opposition.

I really wouldn't call Nixon a becaon of conservatism either, a lot of what he did wouldn't be done by a modern conservative. Reagan was a dem, he also rejected it as the left took it over. Dems used to ardent anti-communists. Now they wear Che-shirts and shit on cop cars.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Spoken like a true racist delusional libtard.

Written like a true nutball halfwit.

Contempt and derision for people stupid enough to believe Reagan was a conservative and that Junebug Bush shouldn't be tied to a post and whipped for war crimes does not equal anything close to what passes for liberal in the United States today. It equals sound analysis.

And on average posts similar to yours equals lower income types, bitterness, resentment, and not understanding why.

Good luck, son. You're going to need it.

I don't need luck, you need to get some brains or learn how to use the mush you have. COMMIE PUKE, Reagan was great compared to obamaturdroid.

Here's the thing, son, you've posted nothing of substance. The sum of your posts here equals hysterical reaction. IN other words Ann Coulter's reaction to sitting on a tack is higher quality feedback than you've given so far. You have attracted a fan, however.

Get back with us on how the weekend goes.

 

[candycorn]

The OP is an expert on being delusional...

Or, just a thought, the people who responded to the poll lied.

Still I think the Dems have a very tough road ahead of them.

Still I think the Dems have a very tough road ahead of them.


sort of - "A Bridge to Far" ... if the Democrats can hold the Senate, all will be well and their advantage in 2016.

The GOP should have won the Senate in 2010 but the TEA party got in their way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This would be plausible, if there were another viable party for moderates. That ship sailed around 1998

You really need to get over your delusion that the Democrats are moderates. Moderate parties do not elect members of their extremist wing to lead the House.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578344611522010132.html

The OP is good natured and trying his best, but it seems like he lacks perspective. First, the OP needs to turn off Right Wing Media (FOX > WSJ Editorial page > Limbaugh) and study history. Then, he will realize that calling Obama a Liberal extremist is pure propaganda designed to drive Obama far right. (And it's working: Obama has cut the federal workforce, whereas Reagan and Bush grew it in order to boost employment during their respective recessions. Obama has cut the deficit more than Reagan or Bush, but the GOP propoganda machine does not report it. Do you remember how long it took for people to find out that Reagan doubled Carter's spending and deficits? Point is: the rightwing propaganda machine is well-funded and powerful)

Why is it that anytime someone actually criticizes both parties in a single post they get accused of watching Fox? (By the way, anyone that thinks the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is right wing hasn't ever read it.)

That said, I did not call Obama a liberal extremist, neither did the man I quoted. The fact that you resort to three straw man arguments in the first 3 sentences just proves you don't know what you are talking about. For the record, not keeping temporary census workers on past the end of their contract does not count as cutting the federal workforce. The only way you can make a convincing argument that Obama cut the federal workforce is if you count the Legislative and Judicial branches in those totals. Since Obama has absolutely no authority over either of those branches, he didn't cut anything.

I won't even get into the absurd logic that it takes to count an increase in the deficit as a decrease. Only a lying sack of shit, or a politician, if you will forgive me repeating myself, would try to argue that.

And, yes, I can supply numbers. In fact, I already have, feel free to look them up.

1) Obama's agenda is categorically to the Right of Nixon's, who fervently supported the Clean Air Act and racial quotas and the expansion of civil rights to minorities... and created the EPA... and created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration...and increased Social Security benefits, especially cost of living provisions . . . and tried to pass a health care plan which would have required corporations to provide health care to employees as well as subsidizing the unemployed. Even more interesting: Nixon put in place more regulations than any Liberal President since FDR . . . and he called for a guaranteed minimum income for all americans . . . and spent more on social programs than defense. (The reason the OP doesn't know any of this is because he gets his information from a purely political place, which is creating propaganda to protect the concentrated wealth (and political power) of the special interests which own his party)

Categorically to the right of Nixon's?

You really want to argue that Obama is to the right of a man that had an enemies list, believed himself to be above the law, and was known as Tricky Dicky?

Seriously?

That is so much fun I am not even going to challenge it.

2) Prior to switching parties, Reagan was an FDR Democrat and campaigned for Truman and did more to strengthen Social Security than Carter, Clinton or Obama.

And?

What does this have to do with the fact that Obama, who campaigned as a uniter, became the most divisive force in American politics? Do you think spouting irrelevance will magically make Obama look better? Do you find yourself using the word muggle?

3) Eisenhower and Nixon's tax rates were more than double Obama's - and their financial regulations created an era of remarkable stability. Both presidents SPENT tons of money on infrastructure... and both presidents supported the New Deal... and both presidents lorded over a higher rate of economic growth than any president thereafter. Eisenhower's top tax rate was in the 90s, and that money was wisely used by Big Government to put our veterans to work building suburban America. With government providing employment to the masses, there was an immense multiplier effect - that is to say, Americans had more money with which to consume. And because they had so much money ("demand"), the capitalist had an incentive to add even more jobs (in order to capture that money). It's called trickle up wealth, and it was replaced by Reagan who freed capital to seek cheap labor in Asia, and handed the middle class a credit card to make up for the money that was no longer tickling down into high wages and benefits.

Since this is all directed at my screwed up perspective as a result of watching Fox and listening to Rush, can you explain what any of this has to do with the fact that Obama has failed to live up to his rhetoric of post partisan America?

For the record, I would be a lot more worried about the direction of this country if Obama had turned out to be the man everyone thought he was instead of the narcissistic whack job I thought he was.

I do agree that the the Democrats are headed for a bad midterm, but it has more to do with a population that doesn't know who really runs government, that is, people don't understand that business and the wealthy run government. How do they run government? They devote massive resources to funding elections and employing lobbyists. Regardless, if you look at how far to the Right Obama is to Nixon and Eisenhower, you realize that the OP has been terrible served by his very narrow information sources. I encourage the OP to study the actual policies.

It is amazing how deluded some people can be about how the government works. To put this in perspective, you think that a company that had total worldwide revenues of $41 billion in 2011 somehow controls a government that had revenues of $2.3 trillion. That, in case you have difficulty with simple arithmetic, is 56 times what Exxon made that year. In other words, even if Exxon devoted 100% of its worldwide earnings to controlling the United States, they wouldn't be able to pay the operating budget of this country for 3 months.

And you think I do not have perspective.

 

[Agit8r]

This would be plausible, if there were another viable party for moderates. That ship sailed around 1998

You really need to get over your delusion that the Democrats are moderates. Moderate parties do not elect members of their extremist wing to lead the House.

I'm just saying that there are moderates within the party. Unlike the Green Party. Or the Libertarian Party. Or the Republican Party.

 

[editec]

Does it really matter to anyone whose rice bowl does not depend on either party's largess?

Nope.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Obama's people are governing pretty much the way The Bush League did.

Thing is, it takes some distance from both parties to see that the sum of the similarities is greater than the sum of the differences.

The Bush League used Democrat insecurities about defense and perpetual social immaturity of many Democrats (expressed as eagerness for collegiality rather than passive acceptance of the need) to roll the emotionally unstable leadership of the DP into accepting the least productive, most damaging public policy decisions in the history of the US. Every Bush League err (two wars, targeted tax cuts) and omission (lack of competitive bids for war profiteering contracts) benefited bloodless entities (corporations) at the expense of natural born citizens.

Similarly, Obama's errs (Wall Street bailout, stimulus to state and local govt instead of citizens, etc.) and omissions (due diligence investigating Wall Street, banks, pretty much everything) benefit corporations more than natural born citizens. ObamaCare, for example is a corporate giveaway, few real people benefit; it tickles me that someone got to Roberts.

IN sum there are few policy differences between the parties; the differences are in party personalities. Democrats are like rubes at a carnival, believing that while carnies travel more, they are essentially "like us"; while Republicans are against "the other", like the Russian whose cow died the Republican prayer is not for another cow but rather that his neighbor's cow dies too so neither of them has a cow.