Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 42461 - 42480 of total 45391 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
May 29, 2014 - 04:27pm PT
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal

Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2014 - 12:56pm PT
Not all the Campaign money spent by the Republicans goes directly to the candidate for President, so you can't compare the 2
(do we have to explain everything to Sketch?, a typical misinformed dupe)

The Republicans Overall Spend Way More Money, and almost every dollar spent is used in evil smear and take down tactics
The Koch Brothers alone almost spent as much as a Obama spent in 2012

I'm not sure if a single cent is spent on telling us what the Republicans will do for us,
They won't tell us that, because it's all bad for the middle class

Can't compare the two? What's the matter, DrF? Basic math over your head?

The Republicans Overall Spend Way More Money?

Bullsh1t. Prove it.

As far as evil smears go, 80% of the ads put out by Obama were negative.

The Koch Brothers alone almost spent as much as a Obama spent in 2012?

More bullsh1t. Let's see some proof.

It's amusing that you accuse me of being uninformed, when you make such ignorant claims.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2014 - 05:36pm PT
Here ya go,

2012 Election Spending Will Reach $6 Billion, Center for Responsive Politics Predicts
by Communications on October 31, 2012
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spending-will-reach-6/

The 2012 election will not only be the most expensive election in U.S. history, the cost will tower over the next most expensive election by more than $700 million.
Earlier this year, the Center for Responsive Politics estimated that the 2012 election would cost $5.8 billion — an estimate that already made it the most expensive in history — but with less than a week to go before the election, CRP is revising the estimate upwards. According to CRP’s new analysis of Federal Election Commission data, this election will likely cost $6 billion.
The most significant difference compared with earlier cycles is the unprecedented money being raised and spent by outside – and ostensibly independent – organizations, which we are predicting will spend more than $970 million.
“In the new campaign finance landscape post-Citizens United, we’re seeing historic spending levels spurred by outside groups dominated by a small number of individuals and organizations making exceptional contributions,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Not only is the total cost of the election record breaking, but the rate at which spending has increased — and continues to increase — in the closing weeks of the election is as well. In particular, outside groups are spending furiously. Spending by these groups, for and against the two main presidential candidates, has grown from $19 million per week in early September to $33 million per week in early October to $70 million during the week beginning October 21.
The presidential election alone accounts for $2.6 billion, which is actually a decrease from 2008 when, all told, nearly $2.8 billion was directed at the presidential race. In 2012, presidential candidates along with major party committees are expected to spend about $2 billion. Outside organizations that report spending to the Federal Election Commission are predicted to spend more than $528 million to influence the presidential race. Spending by the party convention host committees and public funding for the conventions totaled $142 million.
Spending in congressional races is projected to increase slightly in 2012. House and Senate candidates combined will spend about $1.82 billion, up from $1.81 in 2010. House campaign spending alone will total nearly $1.1 billion, a slight increase of 3 percent more over 2010. In the Senate, spending by candidates will approach $743 million, which is down about 7 percent compared to 2010.
The increase in the House is mainly among Republican candidates and is accounted for by the big increase in Republican House members due to the 2010 wave election. Incumbents outraise their challengers, in general, and freshmen often raise more than other incumbents because their first reelection campaign is seen as their most difficult. This year is proving no different.
Congressional races are being affected by the huge increase in outside spending as well. For just the week beginning October 20, outside spending in the 59 House contests rated either toss up or leaning to one party or the other by Real Clear Politics totaled $41 million
Together, all candidates for Congress have raised more than $1.7 billion, based on data available from the FEC as of October 30, 2012. Incumbents have a sizable advantage, the Center found, with the average incumbent senator raising $11 million over his or her six-year term, compared to $1.2 million for the average challenger, an advantage of nearly 10-to-1. Candidates in open seats raised more than $2.5 million on average. In the House, the average incumbent raised $1.5 million compared to just $245,000 for average challenger. Candidates vying for open seats in the House raised, on average, more than $453,000. Self-funding candidates have spent more than $200 million of their own money to run for office in 2012.
Republican candidates have raised more than their Democratic counterparts in both chambers this election cycle. Republican House candidates have also raised more on average — $712,000 to $594,000, –though Democrats did better than Republicans in the Senate, on average, raising $3.8 million to Republicans’ $2.6 million on average. Overall it appears Republicans will end up collecting $1.1 billion, or 55 percent of the money raised by congressional candidates in 2012. In 2010 overall, Republicans outraised their Democratic counterparts by 15%.
Despite heavy losses by incumbents in the 2010 “wave election,” 2012 is likely to see reelection rates climb back to their usual high levels. Since 1992, House election rates never dipped below 94 percent until they fell to 85 percent in 2010. In the Senate, where reelection rates are more variable, incumbents have nevertheless won in at least 79 percent of their races over the past two decades. Incumbents won reelection 84 percent of the time in 2010.
The potential for huge outside amounts, sometimes realized, sometimes not, has likely helped drive all committees and outside groups involved in these elections to redouble their efforts to collect more money. Outside organizations are predicted to spend $187 million in House races and $258 million in Senate races.
Of the $970 million to be spent by outside groups, super PACs (which make only “independent expenditures” and report both their donors and spending to the Federal Election Commission) have, so far, spent $540 million and politically active nonprofits and others have spent $351 million.
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OFF THE BOOKS
What remains unknown — and may never fully be accounted for — is how much money secretive “shadow money” organizations spent, with some investing massive sums on ads, but also on unreported and purportedly “non-political” activities, as the election neared. It may take years to determine how much they spent. Furthermore, it likely will never be known who provided the vast majority of this money, which includes at least $203 million in the last two months.

“One thing we can say for certain is that the transparency the Supreme Court relied upon to justify this new framework has been sorely lacking,” said Krumholz.
In addition to the spending reported by nonprofits, however, at least $100-200 million more has been spent by these groups on “issue advocacy” that identifies a federal candidate, but was not required to be reported to the FEC. This is of concern because a number of these organizations — particularly those that have organized since the Citizens United ruling, are spending huge sums and have super PAC counterparts — are primarily political in nature. More disturbing than the secret spending (some of which can be pieced together based on studies of political ads and will eventually be summarized in tax reports to the Internal Revenue Service), is the secret source of this money. With no requirements to disclose where the money is coming from, voters in 2012 have been left with no real means to judge the credibility of the message or consider any hidden agendas leading those donors to give.
The largest of these groups include American Crossroads and its nonprofit “social welfare” counterpart, Crossroads GPS, organizations conceived of by GOP strategist Karl Rove which together have reported spending more than $158 million on independent expenditures and electioneering communications. Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has spent nearly as much, $125 million, on independent expenditures. Next on the list, but spending less than half as much, is Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Barack Obama. The US Chamber of Commerce, a 501(c)6 nonprofit and one of the most powerful interest groups in U.S. politics, reported spending $35 million on electoral activity, but routinely spends tens of millions more on unreported “issue advocacy” that target federal candidates. The fifth top spender is another 501(c)4 “social welfare” organization, Americans for Prosperity, which has spent about $34 million on political ads, but perhaps more importantly built a massive ground operation to get out the conservative vote.

If you add all the Koch Brother funding together as a whole, it exceeds $1.5 billion dollars.


Please show me One ad put out by Obama, or the Dems during the 2012 campaign that would be considered a smear or lie.
You said it was true, please prove it.

I'm sure you will have alot to pick from.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
May 29, 2014 - 07:47pm PT
Look at DerF, thinking he's so smart.

You claimed "The Republicans Overall Spend Way More Money". Your article breaks down the 1.7 billion raised by Congress. Repubs win that one 55% to 45%. But when you consider the seven billion spent (figure from FEC report), this difference is less than 2.5% of the total spent. Presidential candidates spent about 1 billion apiece. Both party committees spent about 800 million apiece. So, I'm wondering about the basis of your claim.

You asked for a sleazy Obama ad. How about the one blaming Romney for the death of Ranae Sopticcan? Sleazy.

The Koch Brothers alone almost spent as much as a Obama spent in 2012?

You posted If you add all the Koch Brother funding together as a whole, it exceeds $1.5 billion dollars.

Smells like more bullsh1t. What's the source of your claim? It's not the last sentence of your C&P article, even though you presented it as such.

Did you really think I wouldn't check out your article?

Try again, DerF.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 29, 2014 - 09:00pm PT

Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — decreased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent in the first quarter according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 2.6 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “advance” estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, real GDP was estimated to have increased 0.1 percent. With this second estimate for the first quarter, the decline in private inventory investment was larger than previously estimated (see “Revisions” on page 3).



http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/29/boom-q1-gdp-revised-downward-to-1-0/
dirtbag

climber
May 29, 2014 - 09:09pm PT
It was because of bad weather jackass.

And given that you voted for the administration that was in charge when the worst recession since the Great Depression occurred, maybe you ought to eat some humble pie. Or better yet, eat sh#t.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2014 - 10:06pm PT
What Campaign AD blaming Romney for the death of Ranae Sopticcan?
Was it Sleazy? maybe not, maybe it made a valid Point!

So YES, Please elaborate, please tell us how Obama is so awful to place this AD, was it really an AD? or are you telling us something Obama said, which would not be a smear campaign AD at all, was it a commercial that played on Comercial Television, NO is was not!! stop the presses!!
Your only claim has been debunked, slash, claimed invalid.


and according to you, this ONE Single Ad is the same as the millions of smear campaigns by The Republicans
Death panels, he's Kenyan. a socialist, a Marxist, blah blah on and on, the Lies Never Stop from that side, it's 24/7 lies, lies and Propaganda non stop
Rong Anderson is ready to start a revolution on the LIES that the Republicans have told us

and You have ONE BS CLAIM about Obama!!!


Please, get some perceptive

the total is $1.5 billion for the Koch Brothers, they spend more on smaller races and the Congress
They fund the Heritage Inst, Heritage Action Co, The Tea party, Climate Change denialism, The Cato, ALEC, Rush Limbaugh's salary, Super PACS. Dark Money, Fox News, The Chamber of Commerce, The NRA, Anti-Abortion Campaigns, the KKK, the Birchers Society, The Neo-Nazis, The Hate the Muslims Group, Kill The gays, Prayer in School, Anti-Tax, Anti-Regulation, and anti-environmental campaigns
of course it's hard to add up, but the best estimates were 1.5 billion for the 2012 races


and this Sketch is the same person that devouts most of his time on ST claiming Global Climate Change is a hoax, because he's so much smarter than everyone else. Why should anyone believe a word you say?
crankster

Trad climber
May 29, 2014 - 10:15pm PT
2016 is gonna be fun. Hillary wins in a landslide.

Karl Rove’s 2004 tactics and the hapless Republican Party have little chance against Hillary. The party is unified behind her. Democrats are light years ahead of the Republicans in the build up to 2016. So far the Republicans have tried to revive the Lewinsky scandal, and float a ridiculous rumor that Hillary Clinton has brain damage. Ain't gonna work.

Democrats aren’t just ready for Hillary. They are firing up a steamroller ahead of 2016, and all the Republicans can do is stand around powerlessly and watch their oncoming demise.
jammer

climber
May 29, 2014 - 10:20pm PT
Dr. F, thank you for that.

So it is reasonable to think that Carney is largely/entirely helping Obama dodge republican smear campaigns when he has to "throw himself on a grenade" as Sketch put it here:

I'm not pinning it solely on Obama. But considering his signature issue has been healthcare, lack of knowledge on the Obamacare website and the VA problems indicate he's completely uninvolved.

So, either he's incompetent or indifferent.

I remember watching one of Scott McClellan's press briefings, where he repeatedly threw himself on a grenade, covering for his boss. This wasn't the press being too tough. It was McClellan trying to minimize Bush's messes. I thought "Wow! What a crappy job. Taking abuse and looking like a fool to protect your boss".

Fast forward to the present. Jay Carney receives the same level of McClellanesque abuse on a weekly basis.

It's the new normal.

As opposed to McClellan who "thrw himself on grenades" covering for things like Bush's falsified information regarding "terrorists", "evil-doers", and "the axis of evil".

Clearly, Carney and McClellan were/are dealing with the same kinds of things.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2014 - 10:20pm PT
2014 is more Important than 2016
We must not let the republicans win the Senate, and keep the House

If they win now, 2016 will be a heartbreak, because we lost the battle
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
May 29, 2014 - 10:20pm PT
Since the GOP is in self-destruct mode, the money is going to the Democrats more and more. At least the smart money. It doesn't do any good to buy off politicians who are going to lose. Bill Clinton and the New Democrats stuck a knife in the back of the New Deal a long time ago. The Democrats are becoming more and more corporate every day.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2014 - 10:24pm PT
Ya, thousands dead is the same as millions now have healthcare insurance for then first time

It's like they don't even care about the perspective, they will try every angle to bring us down and prop themselves up.
It's pathetic

What do they have that would be good for us?
Nothing, just lies about things they try and destroy
as they systematically destroy this country from the inside out.
crankster

Trad climber
May 29, 2014 - 10:27pm PT
Sorry, Dr., the Senate is a lost cause. The pendulum swings back in '16 when the country gets a couple of years of Republican (mis)rule.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2014 - 10:31pm PT
Well we have to try

Spread the word

Vote in 2014 for a Democratic Congress

It's not over yet, we can make it happen
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
May 29, 2014 - 10:34pm PT
Bill Clinton and the New Democrats stuck a knife in the back of the New Deal a long time ago.

 almost the same as what Reagan did just a few years before that, right?
How's that whole "Privatized everything" working out for you ridiculous republitards... you paved the way for the race to the bottom...


Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
May 29, 2014 - 11:13pm PT
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal

Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2014 - 07:06pm PT
What Campaign AD blaming Romney for the death of Ranae Sopticcan?
Was it Sleazy? maybe not, maybe it made a valid Point!

So YES, Please elaborate, please tell us how Obama is so awful to place this AD, was it really an AD? or are you telling us something Obama said, which would not be a smear campaign AD at all, was it a commercial that played on Comercial Television, NO is was not!! stop the presses!!
Your only claim has been debunked, slash, claimed invalid.


and according to you, this ONE Single Ad is the same as the millions of smear campaigns by The Republicans
Death panels, he's Kenyan. a socialist, a Marxist, blah blah on and on, the Lies Never Stop from that side, it's 24/7 lies, lies and Propaganda non stop
Rong Anderson is ready to start a revolution on the LIES that the Republicans have told us

and You have ONE BS CLAIM about Obama!!!


Please, get some perceptive

the total is $1.5 billion for the Koch Brothers, they spend more on smaller races and the Congress
They fund the Heritage Inst, Heritage Action Co, The Tea party, Climate Change denialism, The Cato, ALEC, Rush Limbaugh's salary, Super PACS. Dark Money, Fox News, The Chamber of Commerce, The NRA, Anti-Abortion Campaigns, the KKK, the Birchers Society, The Neo-Nazis, The Hate the Muslims Group, Kill The gays, Prayer in School, Anti-Tax, Anti-Regulation, and anti-environmental campaigns
of course it's hard to add up, but the best estimates were 1.5 billion for the 2012 races


and this Sketch is the same person that devouts most of his time on ST claiming Global Climate Change is a hoax, because he's so much smarter than everyone else. Why should anyone believe a word you say?Quote Here

I notice you offered nothing to defend your "The Republicans Overall Spend Way More Money". Perhaps it's because you're full of sh#t. Run away. Run away, DerF.

About the ad. You asked for an ad. I provided one. How do you respond? By getting bitchy and defensive. Boo-hoo. You try to make it sound like the Republicans are the only ones taking the low road. That's bullsh#t. Stupid drama queen.

80 percent of the ads put out by President Barack Obama were negative. Here's my source. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-14/barrage-of-negative-ads-may-haunt-president-elect.html

And speaking of sources, how about one for the Koch Brothers spending 1.5 billion??? Blathering on about who they support doesn't answer the question.

Still waiting.

Nice red herring / ad hom at the end of your post. Do you think it distracts from your failure... abysmal failure... to back up your claims.

And in case your wondering, I am laughing at your inability to answer simple questions. Quite amusing.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
May 29, 2014 - 11:56pm PT

almost the same as what Reagan did just a few years before that, right?

Jingy, at least with Reagan he came right out and said he was out to f*#k us over. Clinton was supposed to be on our side.

sketch:
I notice you offered nothing to defend your "The Republicans Overall Spend Way More Money"

The Democrat way: tax and spend.
The Republican way: borrow and spend.
jammer

climber
May 30, 2014 - 12:26am PT
The Democrat way: tax and spend.
The Republican way: borrow and spend.

Although Sketch is talking strictly about campaign contributions, your point is absolutely spot on. The GOP strategy has been to increase spending (specifically on things like the military and any way they can shovel money into corporate hands) and reduce taxes, then turn around and blame the deficit on the social programs that were necessitated by their corporate cronies not being decent human beings.

Just look at how they act like Bush was a decent human being since he gave the bailout money as a government exclusive (communist style) loan to certain big businesses, as opposed to Obama who gave it to folks who had gotten financially screwed (really legally robbed), and thus actually did what the American people wanted him to do with the money. In the eyes of the GOP, Bush is a saint for this specific thing, and Obama is The Anti-Christ. It's laughable.

Trying to convince us the democrats are behind the budget problems is why the GOP are always bitching about "handouts" and other nonsense. It's as if they think the country could be run with only the 1% lifting a finger to do anything. The way money is distributed, you would think it's like that now, and the GOP act like the non-1% take too much right now. It's a f*#king joke.

The GOP are gambling the future of our country on the bet that America will commit suicide.
jammer

climber
May 30, 2014 - 12:40am PT
Nice red herring / ad hom at the end of your post.

Sketch, your views on climate change are just outright wrong, yet you defend them. So you stand by claims which are overwhelmingly proven to be wrong. Thus your are either stupid, or evil, or both, and that argument/accusation is based on the things you actually said, the opinions you actually hold, and how well they stack up with reality. In other words, Dr. F committed no logical fallacy against you when he said you taint your credibility with your views on climate change, since stupid/evil people have no credibility.


Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 1, 2014 - 05:17am PT
jammer

climber

May 30, 2014 - 12:40am PT
Nice red herring / ad hom at the end of your post.

Sketch, your views on climate change are just outright wrong, yet you defend them. So you stand by claims which are overwhelmingly proven to be wrong. Thus your are either stupid, or evil, or both, and that argument/accusation is based on the things you actually said, the opinions you actually hold, and how well they stack up with reality. In other words, Dr. F committed no logical fallacy against you when he said you taint your credibility with your views on climate change, since stupid/evil people have no credibility.

It's still a red herring. Do you understand why a red herring is a logical fallacy?

On top of defending a red herring, your accusations about me are pure BS. You're a lying moron.
sandstone conglomerate

climber
sharon conglomerate central
Jun 1, 2014 - 06:13am PT
This will surely send the GOP into a hissy:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/29/obama-unveil-historic-climate-plan-carbon-pollution
Messages 42461 - 42480 of total 45391 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews