WSJ : Peggy Noonan: Obama Cannot Win The Coming Election

Originally posted by ajay59
Obama can not even run for President from jail or another country, this time! People are awakening and are going to ignore the other upcoming liars and install Ron Paul! The lies and slight-of-hand are exposed in this nation and the people are not going to take it anymore!

Ron Paul is alright. He has some pretty solid ideas regarding our military complex but his opinions on the FDA, EPA, Planned Parenthood, and abolishing many necessary federal programs are batsh*t crazy.

Like I said before, he'll be the real competition to Obama when the time comes...but I think I know where I'll put my vote.

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives



I am not being lied to, you are making stuff up here are the raw stats from the same source
that conservative blogger used...

K...

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either. They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty. But they are not even counted in that 8.3% unemployment rate that Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating last week.

Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%

How is this made up?

Everyone can see how the GOP cheated for their own people, IMAGINE HOW THEY CAN CHEAT OBAMA....Obama will lose like Trayvon and then if MITT gets elected we are SO SCREWED ....RON PAUL ONLY ! Arrest zimmerman!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I think Peggy Noonan is WRONG! I think the GOP is grossly underestimating Obama, and his supporters, and his fundraising capacity, and the Liberal voter machine that will turn out record numbers of voters. The GOP will have a lukewarm turnout for their lukewarm candidate that is a lukewarm conservative, so Peggy Noonan should hve said that the GOP cannot win the election.

Exactly, its to early to tell. I work right near a base and it seems everyone hates obama and think he doesn't have a chance. I tell them well... he hasn't even started yet...

Originally posted by xuenchen
An article from January has some figures about jobs.

Jobs create tax revenues.

Indeed they do.

On the other hand this article puts those numbers into a bit more perspective.

Washington Post: 5 myths about the Keystone XL pipline

In particular item 3:

During the debate over the Keystone project, the oil industry rolled out a series of studies claiming that pipeline construction would create 20,000 temporary jobs in the United States and that lower oil prices (they didn’t say exactly how much lower) resulting from the new crude supplies would create as many as 250,000 more jobs across the country over the long term. These numbers were cited repeatedly by politicians who supported the pipeline.

However, the first number refers to “person-years” of employment — a single job that lasts two years is counted twice; and in any case, it pales compared with the overall U.S. employment challenge. The second number is more impressive but relies on an overly optimistic estimate of how much the pipeline would have reduced global oil prices. The administration’s rejection of the pipeline will probably add less than a dollar a barrel to the long-term price of oil, hardly a decisive factor when prices are already around $100 per barrel.

So if the project lasts 2 years, and everyone is employed full time, there are 10,000 people put to work, not 20,000. That is still a good number, I do not begrudge that. What I do begrudge is using misleading numbers for propaganda purposes. If the argument is so weak that you have to try to fool people into thinking that the numbers are twice as big as the reality, what else are you lying about?

This method has been accepted oil industry practice for ever. You would laugh yourself silly if your local grocery store tried to sell you a loaf of bread for 99.9 cents and then insisted that that price was less than a dollar.

The second number of 250,000 jobs is indeed impressive. But equally doubtful.

In fact, both numbers are bogus. This from Pipe dreams?
Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost
by the Construction of Keystone XL
a report by cornell university global labor institute

To highlight some of the main points made in this paper:
» The construction of KXL will create far fewer jobs in the US than its proponents
have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates.
» The industry’s US job claims, and even the State Department’s analysis, are linked
to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a
bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion.
» The claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing
jobs in the US is unsubstantiated. There is strong evidence to suggest that a
large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be
produced in the US
» The industry’s job projections fail to consider the large number of jobs that could
be lost by construction of KXL. This includes jobs lost due to consumers in the
Midwest paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel. These
additional costs ($2 to $4 billion) will suppress other spending and cost jobs.
Furthermore, pipeline spills, pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions
incur significant human health and economic costs, thus eliminating jobs.
Put simply, KXL’s job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely
outweighed by the project’s potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill
damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions.

reply to post by getreadyalready
I'm just curious...since it appears from your comments that you are an Obama supporter, why do you have a Ron Paul 2012 logo in your signature?

Originally posted by 1yearning2bfree
reply to post by getreadyalready
I'm just curious...since it appears from your comments that you are an Obama supporter, why do you have a Ron Paul 2012 logo in your signature?

edit on 4/1/2012 by 1yearning2bfree because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/1/2012 by 1yearning2bfree because: (no reason given)

Why would it appear I am an Obama supporter?

This is precisely the evidence of what I am talking about. The GOPers, and the Conservatives are too afraid or too blind to even admit Obama is a strong candidate, and he won handily in 2008, and they don't have a decent frontrunner nominee that stands a chance of beating Obama.

I am about the farthest thing from an Obama supporter that one can be, but that doesn't change the fact that between Obama, Romney, and Santorum...... Obama is the clear winner. If the GOP wants to get off their arses and find a Conservative that isn't a religious nut or a Billionairre mogul patsy, then the GOP has a shot. That is why there is a Ron Paul banner in my siggy. I will likely be writing in Ron Paul at the polls, and there are plenty more like me, and that means Obama will be a double-digit winner.

If the GOP actually puts up a candidate like Paul, or Huntsman, or Johnson then maybe they will get my vote, but I'm not going to fall for the "anybody but Obama" guise and vote for some liberal candidate with an (R) by his name, and I'm not going to vote for some idiot that wants to tighten government restrictions, outlaw porn, expand the Patriot Act and NDAA, and fully outlaw Abortion without common sense, and then still has the audacity to call their self a "Conservative?" That isn't conservative, that is more intrusive and bigger government which is LIBERAL!!

Right now, if you look at the top 3 candidates we have a Socialist, and two Liberals posing as Conservatives. I will only vote for an actual Conservative, and that means a candidate that will actually limit the size and scope of government and start repealing laws not making new ones to "legalize" things that never should have been illegal to begin with.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Who is the Socialist?

And please, stop insulting liberals. None of the candidates are liberal and liberals know that. You either don't know what the political left looks like or you are making up definitions to suit your own purposes.
www.politicalcompass.org...
www.politicalcompass.org...

Everyone is on the right, get over it. Literally it's become an argument about who is more to the right and real liberals have been left out in the cold.

Peggy Noonan: Obama Cannot Win The Coming Election

It's seven months until the election. ANYTHING can happen. Look at how Obama got that bump in the polls when Bin Laden was taken out ... and then he sunk in the polls again within a week. If TPTB want Obama in, they'll false flag something or get the race riots going this summer or whatever to make sure he's in. I'm betting on racial tensions in August when it's really hot and people's tempers are short anyways ..

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Peggy Noonan is probably a good example of the way that older Republican women are going to be considering who should be President. She doesn't like liberals, and even when talking about women's issues she takes a conservative stance. So she's not going to see anything that the President does in a good light.

However, the OP does her no favor by making up facts. Obama hasn't played 9,000 rounds of golf -- he's been at the White House and working more than Bush The Previous did. As of today, Obama's been in office for 1151 days and it's pretty plain that he's not playing nine rounds of golf per day. A round of golf takes between 2 hours and 5 hours to play (and here's the source -- you can look things up ) -- nine rounds of golf turns out to be 18 hours per day -- add lunch and dinner and that turns out to be a 20 hour day of nothing but golf.

So -- when commenting on an article, you'd do better to comment on the facts presented instead of making up information. Making things up tends to further discredit your sources.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Peggy Noonan: Obama Cannot Win The Coming Election

It's seven months until the election. ANYTHING can happen. Look at how Obama got that bump in the polls when Bin Laden was taken out ... and then he sunk in the polls again within a week. If TPTB want Obama in, they'll false flag something or get the race riots going this summer or whatever to make sure he's in. I'm betting on racial tensions in August when it's really hot and people's tempers are short anyways ..

No "false flags" (which I don't believe in) are needed. Romney's the front runner but he's not THAT popular, and many very conservative Christians won't vote for a Mormon. Polls (verified by poll watchers) show that no Republicans are energized about any of their candidates and I suspect a lot of Republicans are going to say "my vote won''t count and I won't vote for either of those guys so I'm staying home."

Democrats, however, will be out to vote. I agree that this could change drastically (if something happened to Obama and Biden suddenly ended up as the candidate) but at this point it looks like a low turnout on the Republican side.

Originally posted by Star128
Voter fraud is all pervasive and rampant. Even the most objective and random examination proves this.
Ron Paul may very well have several states behind him and you cannot prove otherwise.

The current stage of nomination proves nothing, so anyone making 'guarantees' is making a fool of themselves.
Due diligence by a review of past elections shows this also, as past winners crashed and burned.

Each and every single promise made by the incumbant has proved a LIE.
Couple that with the fact each and every one of his appointees comes from Wall Street- NO where else.

The political parties are obsolete illusions kept alive by those who forgotten where they came from.

MSM has disgraced themselves to the extent that half their viewers have tuned them out. Those still tuned in are likely dozing.

If the senate, congress, and the supreme court all prove to be bought off shills, which very well may happen, our incumbant will declare hinself supreme sovereign/emporer/god.

At this point, more realistic considerations would include;
Will there be much left of us once WW3 starts?
and
Will we even HAVE elections?

No Constitution = No America!

Agreed. Ron Paul is the last chance.

Unfortunately...we haven't REALLY had elections in this country for the last 12 years FOR SURE and quite possibly we haven't had an elected president since November 22, 1963.

...and that's really the whole problem with everything.

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Peggy Noonan: Obama Cannot Win The Coming Election

It's seven months until the election. ANYTHING can happen. Look at how Obama got that bump in the polls when Bin Laden was taken out ... and then he sunk in the polls again within a week. If TPTB want Obama in, they'll false flag something or get the race riots going this summer or whatever to make sure he's in. I'm betting on racial tensions in August when it's really hot and people's tempers are short anyways ..

No "false flags" (which I don't believe in) are needed. Romney's the front runner but he's not THAT popular, and many very conservative Christians won't vote for a Mormon. Polls (verified by poll watchers) show that no Republicans are energized about any of their candidates and I suspect a lot of Republicans are going to say "my vote won''t count and I won't vote for either of those guys so I'm staying home."

Democrats, however, will be out to vote. I agree that this could change drastically (if something happened to Obama and Biden suddenly ended up as the candidate) but at this point it looks like a low turnout on the Republican side.

So why doesn't everybody still go down to vote, but instead write "RON PAUL" in big, bold, letters across the entire ballot (assuming that Paul winds up being blacklisted, of course). Can you imagine the election scandal if we had record voter turnout, but a massive percentage of votes were "uncountable" not because of hanging chads, or the non-counting of absentee ballots...but because Americans just instead chose to ACTUALLY vote for the candidate they wanted...even if their keepers didn't give them "permission" to?

Originally posted by getreadyalready

I am about the farthest thing from an Obama supporter that one can be, but that doesn't change the fact that between Obama, Romney, and Santorum...... Obama is the clear winner. If the GOP wants to get off their arses and find a Conservative that isn't a religious nut or a Billionairre mogul patsy, then the GOP has a shot. That is why there is a Ron Paul banner in my siggy. I will likely be writing in Ron Paul at the polls, and there are plenty more like me, and that means Obama will be a double-digit winner.

Thank you for calling out the delusional nature of the GOP who are so entrenched in their idealism that they cannot recognize that Obama is in a position to win again. Nothing irritates me more than an open and apparent denial of reality simply because it's inconsistent with one's dogma and rhetoric.

However...on the bright side...I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Obama will be a double-digit winner. Ron Paul is equally appealing to a HELL OF A LOT of Democrats as well. I am 33 years old and have not EVER voted for a Republican in my life. However...I will be voting Ron Paul on Tuesday's primary in Wisconsin.

Contrary to GOP rhetoric, there are a HELL OF A LOT of Democrats who have traditionally voted to the left NOT BECAUSE of social programs or any such nonsense, but rather as a REJECTION of "bedroom police", the merging of religious zealotry and public life, and the hawkish nature of Republicans from Pappy Bush forward.

So...I voted Obama last time because I was appalled by the Bush Administration's subversion of the Constitution under the Patriot Act, defiance of the Geneva Convention, unjustifiable and illegal wars in the Middle East, and Trillion dollar bank bailouts issued just before election time via essentially hijacking the entire country and the whole of Congress by FEAR.

What did I get when Obama moved in? THE SAME DAMN THING. You don't get brownie points for "ending the war in Iraq" after you've been in office for THREE YEARS in my book. Ditto for any "troop drawdowns" in Afghanistan. Likewise, "getting Bin Laden" starts to look a bit fishy to me when a couple of months later a HUGE portion of Navy Seals who were on that mission mysteriously get "shot down" in Afghanistan. What a coincidence, huh?

Lastly, there is ZERO excuse for the NDAA, the DPA, "Fast & Furious", or Obama's willingness to allow our own citizens to be attacked by thugs disguised as police officers when assembling in peaceful protest.

Unfortunately for Obama...even though I am personally IN FAVOR of socialized medicine (albeit not as was actually passed), these other issues completely destroy any credibility he has as a candidate for me...and the MAJORITY of Democrats that I personally know feel the same.

If the GOP actually puts up a candidate like Paul, or Huntsman, or Johnson then maybe they will get my vote, but I'm not going to fall for the "anybody but Obama" guise and vote for some liberal candidate with an (R) by his name, and I'm not going to vote for some idiot that wants to tighten government restrictions, outlaw porn, expand the Patriot Act and NDAA, and fully outlaw Abortion without common sense, and then still has the audacity to call their self a "Conservative?" That isn't conservative, that is more intrusive and bigger government which is LIBERAL!!

...and here is the real root of the issue. Interpreting our political climate in terms of "conservative" and "liberal" is no longer any more valid than talking about Federalists and Whigs. Those were the trappings of The Old Republic. That country doesn't really exist anymore.

Many moons ago, there was a debate whether the future of totalitarian control would be one which Orwell envisioned or one in which Aldous Huxley envisioned. The reality is the power that be don't really care if we are under the control of heavy-handed "big brother' authoritarianism OR we find ourselves in a "Brave New World" where adults are reduced to being essentially helpless infants, dependent upon the government and completely brainwashed. They only want us to be under control.

Thus, they have diversified their risk by pursuing both plans simultaneously. Either way...you are equally and inexorably screwed. The wars, bailouts, and shredding of the Constitution will continue. One side scares you into it, the other side reassures you into it. Same result.

Ron Paul is the only chance this go around....and we might not get another.

reply to post by antonia

Everyone is on the right, get over it. Literally it's become an argument about who is more to the right and real liberals have been left out in the cold.

Well, apparently the way to get elected is to be so screwed up that neither side will claim you! To me, at the most basic level, Liberal = Bigger Govt, while Conservative = Smaller, extremely limited government. In that regard, Ron Paul is the only Conservative on the whole damn card.

Now, when you start getting into the sordid details, many people think it is Conservative to be religious, or to be Patriotic, or to want to go to War with Iran, and many people think it is Liberal to be Pro-Choice, or want to legalize MJ or Prostitution. I say both of those views are exactly opposite! There is nothing liberal about wanting to limit government's role in intruding into our lives, so de-criminalizing anything is a Conservative view, even if it does piss off the Conservative Right-wingers. Wanting to increase the government's role overseas is a Liberal stance, no matter how much the Left hates to think so, or how much the Patriotic Right wants to rally behind it.

Bigger, more intrusive, more bullish government is a Liberal stance, even when it is the Right that is fighting for it, and Less Regulation on the people, and less foreign engagement is a Conservative stance, even when it is the Liberals fighting for it.

The only candidate I agree with on 90% of issues is Ron Paul, and even Ron Paul has a flaw or two, like I disagree with his stance on selling off the Federal Parks and trusting Private Industry to do the right thing to protect it. They will not do the right thing, they will exploit it for profit. Still, Ron Paul is the closest to perfect that we have.

reply to post by milominderbinder


I can't quote that whole post, or I would. I have traditionally voted Republican because I hate the growth of the social programs, but I agree 100% with everything you said in your post. The religious zealotry has ruined the Republican party and has overcome everything that used to be Conservative about it. The Republicans are a far cry from Conservative, and these days I find myself agreeing with the Democrats a lot more often than the Republicans.

I too, as a white, registered Republican, voted for Obama in 2008, not because of white-guilt, but because of McCain fear!! McCain/Palin was the scariest thing I have ever seen at the polls in my lifetime, and people actually supported them blindly? WTF?

Obama was an unknown, and his inexperience is showing, and he has been a terrible mistake for our foreign policy, and he has allowed Pelosi to railroad him into doing anything she asks, and he has been terrible for the long-term economy, although he has allowed the Fed to ease the sting of the current crisis, but I would have preferred the bandaid approach to get this over with, not the death by 1000 needles approach we instituted. Still, after 3.5 terrible years under Obama, I still think it was a better vote than McCain. I also think this November, a choice between Obama and Romney is no choice at all, and I will either write in Ron Paul, or I will just get drunk and buy more bullets to help me get through the next 4 years.

reply to post by getreadyalready

To me, at the most basic level, Liberal = Bigger Govt, while Conservative = Smaller, extremely limited government.

So you are simply changing the definition of the word to suit yourself. These terms have actual meanings and they are so misused as to be meaningless at this point. Ron Paul is considered to be Libertarian, this is actually a variant of Liberal philosophy. Most of the people championed on ATS are classical liberals. As for the people you constantly call "liberal", they are considered to be "neo liberal" and are generally regarded as right wing. And no, I didn't just make this up. These are the accepted positions as defined by most political scholars.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

I can't quote that whole post, or I would.

I have traditionally voted Republican because I hate the growth of the social programs, but I agree 100% with everything you said in your post. The religious zealotry has ruined the Republican party and has overcome everything that used to be Conservative about it. The Republicans are a far cry from Conservative, and these days I find myself agreeing with the Democrats a lot more often than the Republicans.

I too, as a white, registered Republican, voted for Obama in 2008, not because of white-guilt, but because of McCain fear!! McCain/Palin was the scariest thing I have ever seen at the polls in my lifetime, and people actually supported them blindly?

WTF?

Obama was an unknown, and his inexperience is showing, and he has been a terrible mistake for our foreign policy, and he has allowed Pelosi to railroad him into doing anything she asks, and he has been terrible for the long-term economy, although he has allowed the Fed to ease the sting of the current crisis, but I would have preferred the bandaid approach to get this over with, not the death by 1000 needles approach we instituted. Still, after 3.5 terrible years under Obama, I still think it was a better vote than McCain. I also think this November, a choice between Obama and Romney is no choice at all, and I will either write in Ron Paul, or I will just get drunk and buy more bullets to help me get through the next 4 years.

EXACTLY!! And let's be honest the scariest part of that McCain/Palin ticket was certainly the "Palin" half. Seriously...can you imagine that dipsh%$t meeting with the Russians or the Chinese over any sort of foreign relations issue at all?? Although, I have also lost an enormous amount of respect for McCain over the years too. Particularly in how eager he is to keep supporting the perpetually detained "enemy combatants" at Gitmo. You would think that if ONE GUY on the whole planet earth would be against endless imprisonment without trial and torture it would be John McCain.

Personally, I hope that Ron Paul just runs as a Libertarian or other 3rd party candidate. Hell...you would think the Green Party would snatch him up in about 2.3 seconds if he showed interest. Ultimately, what we REALLY have to do is dismantle and destroy the two-party system something akin to the way Scipio Africanus dismantled Carthage...literally brick by brick and taking care to sew the fields with salt for 50 miles around the city so that nothing would grow on that soil for about a decade or so.

The two-party system was bad enough when it was just a set of competing ideals. Now we have a situation where BOTH parties just do and say whatever is convenient for the next 72-hour news cycle.

This is bullsh%$t.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

To me, at the most basic level, Liberal = Bigger Govt, while Conservative = Smaller, extremely limited government.

So you are simply changing the definition of the word to suit yourself. These terms have actual meanings and they are so misused as to be meaningless at this point. Ron Paul is considered to be Libertarian, this is actually a variant of Liberal philosophy. Most of the people championed on ATS are classical liberals. As for the people you constantly call "liberal", they are considered to be "neo liberal" and are generally regarded as right wing. And no, I didn't just make this up. These are the accepted positions as defined by most political scholars.

I have a better idea....let's just remove those words from our entire political vocabulary. The WHOLE POINT of centering political rhetoric upon ideology is so that those clowns can divide us all up into little, tiny, demographic tidbits and watch us argue with one another whether or not the colloquial vernacular connotations of such terms ought to supersede those of Webster's Dictionary when taken in context.

If we stop looking for political, economic, and religious "Truth" (with capital "T") and instead simply focus upon statements and facts which are either "true" or "not true" (with a lower case "t") we will be much further ahead in both the long and the short run.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Instead of focusing on unemployment, declining home values and foreclosures,

Obama played 9,000 rounds of golf and gave us Obamacare ( DOOMED) ,

Dodd-Frank FinReg and Solyndra.

Peggy Noonan says Obama has been transformed into a Not - So - Smooth Operator.

- WSJ: Peggy Noonan -

peggy noonan?...a millionaire not wanting FinReg or Obamas healthcare...i'm shocked!!, i tell you, just shocked!!