Are voters in MO nuts??

1. 93

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   I just read that Akin is behind by only 1 point in the polls. HUH??

   replyreport
   1. 73

      lorlie6posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Voters must be under rocks all over the earth!

      replyreport
   2. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What?   These people must be really delusional at best and  moronic at worst.  These people must be dumb to fall for Akin hook, line, and sinker!

      replyreport
2. 0

   DigbyAdamsposted 11 years ago

   I found that a bit scary myself!

   replyreport
3. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago

   Oh, but Habee, according to some people here we should not nitpick Todd Akin's poor choice of words, and apparently the bright citizens of Missouri agree! 
   
   I'm a MO voter, but I won't be voting for the crazy.

   replyreport
4. 61

   KK Trainorposted 11 years ago

   No, they just realize what a loser Claire McCaskill is.

   replyreport
5. 80

   WillStarrposted 11 years ago

   He has apologized, the original fury has abated, and the other option is McCaskill.
   
   Akin is by far the lesser of two evils.

   replyreport
6. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago

   As I implored in a different thread, I wish Republicans would stop voting for people who have obviously been mis-educated by religious zealots.  Yet, here we are, with people already "forgiving" him and justifying voting for him.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      KK Trainorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well I can't imagine any Republicans doing so just because you ask; sorry! It's not like y'all vote for geniuses.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It's not just me asking; it's other Republicans.  You know, the ones who believe in science, education, rational thinking, and collaboration to get things done.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Remember, it was Republican primary voters who selected him as their candidate.  I live and work with these people and I can tell you that many of them couldn't have a rational, fact-based discussion about pretty much any issue.  Most of them think raising the debt ceiling actually increases our debt.  It only takes a little effort to understand that it does not, yet even after you explain it to them and show them the evidence, they still believe it.  I guess because Paul Ryan said so. 

         replyreport
7. 80

   WillStarrposted 11 years ago

   "Most of them think raising the debt ceiling actually increases our debt."
   
   It has that effect though, doesn't it? While it doesn't actually increase the debt, it has the effect of justifying the massive debt spending. We either raise it or default, but there's no sincere talk of a balanced budget, so it's distinction with only a technical difference.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      See what I mean. 
      
      "The only reason we need to lift the debt ceiling, after all, is to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, we’ll face an absurd scenario in which Congress will have ordered the President to execute two laws that are flatly at odds with each other. If he obeys the debt ceiling, he cannot spend the money that Congress has told him to spend, which is why most government functions will be shut down. Yet if he spends the money as Congress has authorized him to he’ll end up violating the debt ceiling."
      
      Read more The Financial Page:  Smash the Ceiling

      replyreport
8. 80

   WillStarrposted 11 years ago

   Which is what I said. Read it again.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I've read it and I know exactly what it says.  You're defending the stupidity and I'm not buying it.  Try it on someone else.

      replyreport
9. 80

   WillStarrposted 11 years ago

   Wow!
   
   Why the angry response?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not angry, just telling it like it is.  As long as you guys keep voting for and defending these schmucks, your party will continue to sink.  Even though I'm a liberal Democrat, I'm old enough to remember when there were sane Republicans, and it was a good thing.  Bring them back!  Stop tolerating these imbeciles.
      
      And, no, I'm not mad, just emphatic.  lol

      replyreport
   2. 61

      KK Trainorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      She thinks we're all idiots and that her guys are the smart ones. There is no reasoning with her, as I have found out regularly. Republican voters are supposed to do what she wants because they are too dumb to make voting decisions on their own. Got it?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Aw, KK, you so misunderstand me.  I know it makes it easier on you to categorize me as thinking Republican voters are dumb, even though it isn't true.  It's easier to dismiss me that way, isn't it? 
         
         The smartest person I know is a Republican voter.  Of course, he didn't vote for Akin and won't defend him.  He does, however, dislike Obama for legitimate reasons.  And I respect that.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            KK Trainorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "Remember, it was Republican primary voters who selected him as their candidate.  I live and work with these people and I can tell you that many of them couldn't have a rational, fact-based discussion about pretty much any issue."
            
            So you don't think they're dumb? Get your story straight please! Just because you don't like who they voted for does not make you smarter, it only means you disagree with their choice. Just like many of us disagreed with the choice of Obama. It's part of life.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               No, I don't think they're dumb.  I do, however, think that many of them don't bother to understand the issues, which is why they think raising the debt ceiling actually raises the debt.  I think they are intellectually lazy and content to believe what they are told by their chosen "side."
               
               As far as disagreeing with their choice, I have no problem with candidates who support their positions with facts, even if I disagree with them.  I do have a problem with candidates who choose religious doctrine over science and use their uneducated notions to try to enact legislation that harms other people, and I have no respect for a voter who will eagerly elect such a person.

               replyreport
10. 80

    WillStarrposted 11 years ago

    "She thinks we're all idiots and that her guys are the smart ones."
    
    Then why can't they understand that job creation comes from the private sector? After four years, Obama (the supposed smartest lib of all!) still can't figure out what he's doing wrong, so he wants to try doing again what failed the first time!

    replyreport
    1. 61

       KK Trainorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I don't know, the same reason they don't think that raising the debt ceiling will increase the debt? It may not be a direct result, but it definitely makes the money available to Congress the spend, thus raising the debt in the end... Duh.
       
       Some things are just too simple for the idealistic liberal mind to comprehend. Maybe that's why us dummies can understand them!

       replyreport
11. 60

    knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

    "Then why can't they understand that job creation comes from the private sector?"
    Not all: 1,172,913 Military enlisted. Have a friend is leaving next month. No private sector jobs.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       WillStarrposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       While police, firefighters, and the military are all necessary government jobs, (and thank you all!) they are also strictly overhead jobs and contribute nothing to the free market. Government jobs never do. That's what I meant when I said that the private sector is the basis for the economy and the real job driver.
       
       That's why government needs to get out of the way and let the free market thrive.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          So, where do those with government jobs spend their money?

          replyreport
12. 80

    WillStarrposted 11 years ago

    "So, where do those with government jobs spend their money?"
    
    Wrong question: What do those with government jobs produce on the free market? The answer is: nothing!
    
    If everyone worked for government, who would create and produce the things we need?
    
    Government produces nothing, so they contribute nothing to the economy. Every dime spent on government, even if for necessities, is a dime taken out of the private market. That's why the stimulus failed...it was spent by government on government wish lists, and it was another trillion taken out of the economy and wasted. It was also borrowed, so it further decreased the value of our money. It was a terrible idea, which is why no Republican voted for it.
    
    The driver of the economy is the private sector, not government.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The driver of the economy is the private sector, not government.
       
       Then they've done a pretty lousy job over the past 11 years.

       replyreport
13. 80

    WillStarrposted 11 years ago

    "Then they've done a pretty lousy job over the past 11 years."
    
    Look into the housing crisis and you'll find that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government created institutions, caused the collapse, creating the recession.
    
    Government, via the federal reserve, also created the Great Depression.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Whereas the bankers and the private sector were completely blameless.  The housing crisis was created by the speculators. The .com bubble, when it happens and it will, is created by the speculators. The GOVT is but a pawn on a very large board.

       replyreport
14. 80

    WillStarrposted 11 years ago

    "Whereas the bankers and the private sector were completely blameless."
    
    Not at all, but without Freddie/Fannie and the CRA pushing them, the banks would never have made bad loans to people who could not pay it back, including speculators.
    
    Without government meddling, the housing market boom and subsequent collapse would never have happened. That is a fact.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       KK Trainorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Absolutely right.
       
       It is never mentioned in the media because it was Democrat policies and oversight of Fannie and Freddie that let things get out of control. Thank goodness Dodd and Frank have both since left Congress, but there are others there who will want freebies and secret deals at the expense of the rest of us.
       
       Only the most gullible person would believe that the banks caused the entire crisis. Banks were giving loans but those loans had to pass the Freddie Fannie smell test, and those standards had been lowered so much that everyone was qualifying for a mortgage. That's just unsustainable in any light.

       replyreport
       1. 80

          WillStarrposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Banks were persuaded to make those bad loans by pressure from Freddie, Fannie, and Congressional Democrats, who promised to buy up any 'toxic debt", a promise that failed instantly when Freddie and Fannie abruptly collapsed; an event that caused the whole house of cards to collapse along with it, and one that brought us the current recession and financial disaster.
          
          It was covered up by claiming it was Bush's fault!

          replyreport
          1. 61

             KK Trainorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             I know, it's so frustrating because the media refuses to talk about it. And if Fox News does a special about it the only people watching are conservatives who already know the story. But maybe someday the truth will get out and people will stop blaming Bush for something that he had nothing to do with. They just want more mud to throw at him because they hate him already for the wars, along with just about everything else he did.

             replyreport
15. 67

    Charles Jamesposted 11 years ago

    It could be that Akin is a long serving representative who works hard for his constituents and the constituents appreciate his positive side.

    replyreport