http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/07/john-kerry-quietly-waives-law-put-in-place-by-congress-sends-muslim-brotherhood-controlled-egypt-1-3-billio
n-gift/

I think that's part of what happened. I think democrats thought the same thing back in 2004 with Kerry v Bush. They couldn't conceive that Bush would remain elected so they didn't bother to vote.

I think the main thing though is just the implosion of the Republican party. They've gone so far far far right that they're losing moderate republicans.

The most delicious part is how Nate Silver got lambasted as a political pundit by the right even though he correctly predicted every single state of the union race outcome

It just perfectly illustrates the right being so out of touch with reality.

Silver: The data says this
The Right: we don't care! Hey Romney, don't bother writing a concession speech, you won't need it!

Maybe Kerry was thinking of Israel's chemical weapons program... or maybe Lavrov and Kerry talked about this particular option during their meeting in Sweden and Kerry now got the green light from Obama to plant a little nudge as a sign for the Russians that the US is willing to play ball.

How does a guy dipping ice cream get a pension? TYTs like to attack people like Romney, but totally ignore people like Kerry, who is also worth billions. Fucking hypocrite!

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Student Tasered After Asking John Kerry Questions. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I live in Cincinnati. The Butler and Warren counties have large populations, are full of conservative suburbs and middle-class middle-age white people fleeing the cities. Of course they went strongly for Bush over Kerry. Delaware County is the exact same thing, but for Columbus.

It's the typical Republican playbook, attack where you are the weakest. Lie so often, so loudly, and so blatantly that eventually you can browbeat the public into believing your nonsense.

It worked on Kerry.

>> ^SevenFingers:

"He's the first president I voted for who is responsible for childrens deaths."

If he's not the only president you voted for in your life then I doubt that to be true. Technology today allows coverage on more of that kind of thing now, allowing us to see it. Plus you should probably get used to it, I highly doubt things are going to change soon no, matter who's POTUS.
I have no interest in voting, I probably never will. Since.. you know, the choices will always be:
A: Turd Sandwhich
B: Douche bag


He is the first president I've voted for in my life. I didn't vote for Gore or Bush, voted for Kerry. Obama is the first President I've voted for. It's really not that difficult to understand. You vote for president elects and they win or they lose. Obama is the first president I've voted for, because he WON.

Is it getting to the point in this comment section where I have to explain things to this Level?

Obama Bad Guy, not vote for again DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

>> ^grinter:

Wow! that was triumphant. Did they air this?


I would have thought so. Clearly Leno was happy to set him up for his jokes though maybe he wasn't expecting the John Kerry one.

republicans like to cling to the idea that they are the party of Lincoln. Back when when they actually were a decent party.

Most of my Republican friends are like this. They're decent, rational people, but they just continue to this hopeless romantic idea that the Party now is the same as it was in Lincoln's time. Heck, even in the 80's you might disagree with a Republican, but you could still have a rational discussion with them and agree on the same basic facts.

Even with Obama's first debate loss, most people know that Obama's probably going to win this election. The news media have a vested interest in pretending everything is super close, but if you actually take a look at the people who really understand this stuff. Lots of people, republicans included, think Obama's going to win this.

So...be prepared for a fresh round of conspiracy theories.

Be prepared for another frivolous impeachment attempt

and quite frankly, be prepared for an assassination attempt.

2016 is going to be the real election to watch. Now of course, democrats could fuck it up by putting forth another weak candidate like John Kerry again, but if Republicans can't win again, even with Obama out of the picture, yeah, I would agree that Republicans are done as a serious party.

The problem is, the Republicans have become the party of fear. And fear generally never goes away. You just change what you're afraid of.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Still more authentic than Filth Clinton saying, "I feel your pain." When he wasn't ordering women to service him or be fired.


Right you are, any rich ass politician is full of it when they pull this crap. The only authentic Politician in the last 30 years was George W. Who I actually BELIEVED he loved working on clearing brush around his farm. Hell even Kerry didn't look like he was having fun wind sailing or whatever that was.

Politicians are fake D-Bags.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

Isn't that what liberals want--"dialogue" with our enemies? Nixon also created the EPA. Pobody's nerfect. The 'crook' who had no knowledge of Watergate and never ordered it, but still stepped down, unlike Slick Willie the convicted felon. Nixon is a statesman by comparison to both Bubba AND Obozo.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.

You mean the guy with higher test scores than Kerry? By international law tis only a crime to torture recognized enemy soldiers of an actual nation, not IED-laying sh1tbag terrorists. If it saves American lives, I'm for torturing every last one of them.

"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.

Hearsay and bullshit, rebuked testimony, no charges filed. Nice try, though! Nothing brings out the racist in a liberal like a Black conservative, who by the way, is an intellectual giant compared to Obozo's recent affirmative action twins. Oh, and Thomas was never accused of rape like bubba.

I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

Facts? Where? Oh, was that your version of facts? You've failed in your mission. Utterly. I expected less--much less--from a liberal. And you delivered. Let me know when you want another keyboard beating.










>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech. Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes. Mitt didn't lie under oath, which for you and me would mean serious prison time. Mitt never cheated on his wife. Mitt was never disbarred and disgraced. Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, "Suck this or lose your job", and if Mitt did any of these things, he sure wouldn't have in-the-tank, subservient media shills covering his ass like they did this clown.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.
"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.
I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

>> ^VoodooV:

I like how @shinyblurry admits to the power of suggestion, but clearly has decided one way.
Two things I found interesting is that in @mtadd's clip:
1) the chanting occurs right AFTER Ryan just gave a long speech, AND Romney props him up for it so it would certainly be reasonable for them to chant Ryan.
2) the audio is just plain shitty, though it is odd that right before the moment of interest occurs, the volume goes up (sadly, it just amplifies the shittiness of the audio instead of making things easier to hear). I can certainly see how you might think you hear Romney, but one thing that does stand out is that despite how similar their names sound in that context, you never hear the "ney" part of Romney's name in any of that chanting. Ryan Ryan, RomNEY, RomNEY. You just never hear any of that emphasis on that last syllable, which suggests they're saying Ryan.
In the end though, it just really doesn't matter and it just proves my previous post. They're going for the sensationalism. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's a manufactured controversy designed to stir people up. Just like the birther phenomenon, just like whatever it was in Bush's suit when he debated with Kerry. It's just like Fox getting caught encouraging and directing the tea party protests and making it seem like there were more there than there actually was. It's manufactured outrage.
The reality is that Romney is losing because he's boring and out of touch and he hasn't presented any concrete ideas and he needs Ryan to stir people up (gasp..more sensationalism vs substance, whoduvthunkit) It wouldn't matter if you caught MSNBC red-handed doctoring the video, it doesn't change the reality.
If anything, giving this controversy air time is still a net negative for Romney. You're just playing the same blame game the right is accusing Obama of. Doesn't make Romney look any better even if MSNBC held a press conference and admitted to a coverup. "And I would have won if it weren't for that meddling press" Ut oh Scooby Do!
You're picking at nits while the house is burning down all around you.
It's not an issue of left vs right, it's an issue of low ratings, or high ratings. end of story.


I decided to believe what the crowd was reported to say, as well as the people who were actually there said happened, and also what my ears hear:

@3:35 p.m.: Ryan pauses for a moment while the crowd begins to chant, “Romney, Romney, Romney …”

@3:36 p.m.: Mitt Romney begins speaking to the crowd. Asks them to chant, “Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan …”

http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/setup-underway-for-romney-rally-at-airport/nSLFM/

Even the New York Times reported it accurately:

After Mr. Ryan whooped up the crowd in Vandalia on Tuesday, Mr. Romney moved to the front of the stage. As the crowd began chanting “Romney! Romney!” he cut them off.“Wait a second,” Mr. Romney said, instructing the audience to cheer for “Romney-Ryan! Romney-Ryan!” They did.

“There we go,” he said, pleased.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-to-start-campaigning-together-more-often.html?_r=2&

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-msnbc-scandal-blaze-readers-at-campaign-event-claim-network-misled-in-video-of-rally-chant/

As far as your commentary goes, I can agree with what you're saying generally. This is all about rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic. You are speaking of some corporate conspiracy, I am speaking to the Satanic power behind the conspiracy. I just think it's interesting that the sift got a kick out of the clip as it was falsely portrayed, and aren't actually interested in what really happened.

I like how @shinyblurry admits to the power of suggestion, but clearly has decided one way.

Two things I found interesting is that in @mtadd's clip:

1) the chanting occurs right AFTER Ryan just gave a long speech, AND Romney props him up for it so it would certainly be reasonable for them to chant Ryan.

2) the audio is just plain shitty, though it is odd that right before the moment of interest occurs, the volume goes up (sadly, it just amplifies the shittiness of the audio instead of making things easier to hear). I can certainly see how you might think you hear Romney, but one thing that does stand out is that despite how similar their names sound in that context, you never hear the "ney" part of Romney's name in any of that chanting. Ryan Ryan, RomNEY, RomNEY. You just never hear any of that emphasis on that last syllable, which suggests they're saying Ryan.

In the end though, it just really doesn't matter and it just proves my previous post. They're going for the sensationalism. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's a manufactured controversy designed to stir people up. Just like the birther phenomenon, just like whatever it was in Bush's suit when he debated with Kerry. It's just like Fox getting caught encouraging and directing the tea party protests and making it seem like there were more there than there actually was. It's manufactured outrage.

The reality is that Romney is losing because he's boring and out of touch and he hasn't presented any concrete ideas and he needs Ryan to stir people up (gasp..more sensationalism vs substance, whoduvthunkit) It wouldn't matter if you caught MSNBC red-handed doctoring the video, it doesn't change the reality.

If anything, giving this controversy air time is still a net negative for Romney. You're just playing the same blame game the right is accusing Obama of. Doesn't make Romney look any better even if MSNBC held a press conference and admitted to a coverup. "And I would have won if it weren't for that meddling press" Ut oh Scooby Do!

You're picking at nits while the house is burning down all around you.

It's not an issue of left vs right, it's an issue of low ratings, or high ratings. end of story.

to be fair, Paul is not a republican, so dunno why he seeks the Republican nomination.

I swear, this is the 2000 and the 2004 elections all over again. Ron Paul is "republican" version of Ralph Nader who will siphon off republican votes and give Obama an even bigger victory.

and it's just like 2004 in that the republicans are chanting "anyone but obama" just like dems chanted "anyone but Bush" in 2004. Kerry is a weak candidate just like Romney is.