For you foreign readers, it’s election day in the US on Tuesday when we get to choose who will ‘lead’ us. Lead in quotes because on the national level, we haven’t had much of that going on for a while now. Which, given how screwed up things get when they do get around to doing something, that isn’t always a bad thing.

So, those of you voting, do you want to keep the devil you know, or vote the bum out and replacing him/her with someone who can’t possibly be worse?

Not that I’m cynical or anything…

By the way, do TV political ads have any effect on your decision?

  1. The obvious clear superiority of God's Tech over man should evidently has angered your God of reality says:

    Political attack ads are highly effective, otherwise they wouldn’t exist. As leftists have supplanted teaching critical thinking, with mindless slogans, their victims are especially vulnerable, which explains the huge Democrat low information voter base.

    Voting is the final check and balance against a Presidency gone rogue. We must vote out his collaborators if we are to end the onslaught diminishing our country.

    He reigns against the majority, with the tacit support of the Democrat Senate, which Reid has rendered powerless by refusing to debate any bill curtailing Obama.

    Then the press blames a “do nothing congress” which the low information voter equates with Republicans, not realizing they have sent Reid hundreds of bills fixing all of our nation’s problems, but he has tabled them.

    Democrats gotta go for real hope and change. A truly large majority of Republicans in the Senate might overcome the few RINOs in their midst, so they can defund President Obola’s importation of third world workers and disease, and material support for Jihadist ME governments, both Shia and Sunni.

    • Phydeau says:

      Excellent wingnut rant! 😀

      • We are witnessing the total collapse of a bad idea. Obamaism, a quasi-socialist commitment to a more powerful government at home and an abdication of American leadership around the world says:

        HAR DE HAR HAR!

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Main Stream Media Instant Analysis Generator
      Party in Power before election is Republican and Republicans win, then the election was bought and paid for by special interests and corporations.

      Party in Power before election is Republican and Democrats win, then The Voters Have Spoken, a Clear Mandate For Change

      Party in Power before election is Democratic and Republicans win, then Voter Temper tantrum, results are meaningless.

      Party in Power before election is Democratic and Democrats win, then Permanent Coalition of Inexorable Demographic Trends, and the Republicans must become more like Democrats.

      • Phydeau says:


        The Republicans are claiming a mandate after winning. They denied the D’s had a mandate after winning in 2012.

        Of course it’s hard to figure out what the R’s are claiming a mandate for, since they refused to say what they would do if elected, just chose to bash Obama.

        • We are witnessing the total collapse of a bad idea. Obamaism, a quasi-socialist commitment to a more powerful government at home and an abdication of American leadership around the world says:

          Only one clear mandate, Stop Obamaism.

          The people didn’t say they like Republicans, they voted to stop Obamaism.

          Its the Republican’s fault they didn’t make it ideological.

          But that doesn’t mean they should now forget what Reid/Obama did, and allow some of the Democrat agenda to go forward.

          Screw ’em.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Hard for Democrats to have a mandate when America votes in a majority Republican House. Obama in 2014 declared that his policies were on the ballot, every single one.

          Every Senator who won ran against ObamaCare.

          To top it off, Obama spent the end of the election campaigning for governor in Maryland and Illinois, and both lost.

  2. Jonathan says:

    Fire them all. Start fresh with a new bunch of morans. Rinse, repeat.

    What else would you expect from a 2 party system?

    • ± says:

      Who says we have a two party system? The incumbents. The lobbyists. Everyone who has a vested interest. It’s not in the constitution that we have a two party system. In fact, the founders deeply feared that factionalizing leading to parties would occur. So the biggest mistake in our constitution is not making political parties illegal.

      So now all the sheeple will go and vote for the lesser of evils, and then be surprised when the result is evil and nothing has changed.

      Every vote counts and is meaningful if you vote the way bobbo wants you to. So you might want to check with him before voting.

      Because I won’t follow bobbo’s advice I will leave the polls innocent and smug knowing that I am not part of rehiring those that are destroying the nation. It’s all I can do until enough others feel and vote the same way.

  3. The obvious clear superiority of God's Tech over man should humble men says:

    For example, the false premise of raising the minimum wage, which gladdens the heart of the low information Democrat voter. They don’t know its a job killer, and many now having jobs would then lose them, while the rest still struggle to pay their bills.

    But liberating them from poverty was not the goal of raising the minimum wage, making workers dependent upon Government, and begging the Democrat Party for more favor, is.

    An American solution, a conservative Republican solution, is to offer training to those on the minimum wage, so they can compete for higher paying jobs that now rely upon importing labor.

    Matching job need with training, so rather than making the minimum way, these folks can begin making multiples of the minimum wage, $50 or more.

    Good paying jobs, paying $20 or more, are crying out for workers who can read, and are drug free. They are the reason for the Chamber of Commerce’s support for immigration reform, to import workers.

    But our nations unemployed and those in minimum wage jobs, can fill the need for these workers, if we liberate them from poverty, with targeted job skill training. But then they wouldn’t be reliable Democrat voters, and will be self reliant, like Americans historically were. Then they might love America, as they are then partaking the American Dream.

    Democrats can’t have that, their political power requires these folks remain in poverty, reliant upon them for favors.

    • Tim says:

      “and are drug free.”

      And that’s why they can rot, hire morans, and import yur job away… STOP supporting these ‘companies’ that impose those policies — especially government positions.

      How talented. They can hit the cup. And those minimum wage earners that must do the same?? enjoy your burger.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

      Alfie, you ignorant slut: most commentators say there is little to no job loss whenever minimum wages are raised.

      There is a good debate to be had here as should minimum wage jobs be entry level non-living wages meant for new job entrants or should it be a living wage as our economy turns to low skill low pay for the majority of drones?

      Its a good social discussion to have, one that you can’t engage in with your head so far up Linbaugh butt.

      Do you gargle on his turds?

      • We are witnessing the total collapse of a bad idea. Obamaism, a quasi-socialist commitment to a more powerful government at home and an abdication of American leadership around the world says:

        You make the mistake of looking at existing business, already over the hurdle of starting up. Yes, most of them can absorb a raise in the minimum wage, with minimal job loss.

        What you are not counting, are the business startups that don’t happen, because entry labor is too expensive. Or they try and then fail because overhead is too great.

        We should rescind the minimum wage, and it will find a level that employs the chronically unemployed. If its too low, they won’t work. Then some startups will have a chance to succeed, and when they do, they will naturally raise wages to keep experienced help.

        And the economy will grow, wealth creation will make life better for all of us.

      • Shaq says:

        So you support a $40/ hour minimum wage then?

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

          Well, you are half way there Shaq. You recognize it can be set too high. Once you figure out it is currently too low, you too can …

          REACH FOR THE GOLD!!

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Half way there? You support an $80/hour minimum wage?

          • We are witnessing the total collapse of a bad idea. Obamaism, a quasi-socialist commitment to a more powerful government at home and an abdication of American leadership around the world says:

            If they raise the minimum wage much above $15 an hour, I will lay off my graveyard shift. If it goes higher than that, I will replace most of my day shift with machines.

            Its that simple.

            Otherwise, its bankruptcy time.

            Folks that never been in business, should restrict their control of the economy to countries like N Korea and Venezuela, to showcase their expertise to the rest of us rubes.

            Make sure you take with you an ample supply of toilet paper, evidently the command and control of some countries, were unable to find adequate supplies of this item.

        • Shaq says:

          What makes you say that is too high? Commenters agree there is no job loss from a minimum wage increase. Why do you hate the poor so much?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

            I know you are trying to troll, but too many here actually agree……

            yeah, I know. Stupidity is such a habit pattern….hard to break.

  4. Migrant Moe says:

    Vote the bumS out!

    Around here, those “bums” are all democrat. So I’m sure when they (the “D’s”) loose their jobs it will be seen (incorrectly) as some kind of twisted endorsement for republican policies/candidates. And it’s THIS twisting of facts that will continue to hurt America. But hey! What else would you expect from a group of lawyers?

    However… Once that asshole Harry Reid (“D” from NEVADA — a state where organized crime runs things) is kicked out of his position of Senate majority leader, the restoration of debating bills will once again be restored. It has already happened with Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives. So once the Senate is restored (assuming it is) President Obama will finally be able to veto bills and show is real political colors — that of SOCIALIST DICTATOR! (Now, maybe you know why ol’ Horrible Harry wants to suppress legislation!)

  5. Captain Obvious says:

    For foreign readers, it’s time for America’s biweekly election. Bought and paid for by everyone but the voters.

  6. NewFormatSux says:

    I predicted on this site that Nate Silver was leaving the New York Times because he figured Republicans would win in 2014 and he didn’t want the pressures of reporting that with all the liberals in the house.

    I didn’t know he would still be doing politics at ESPN, but here he is.

    While this is what The New York Times likes to report.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Nate Silver leaving the Times had little to do with left vs right. It had more to do with the disruptive nature of his approach and that traditional journalists (from all political spectrums) dislike his numbers based approach.

      But mostly at ESPN he gets to expand his horizons into sport and entertainment plus get a shit load more dough.

  7. Scooter says:

    The attack add are endemic to the problem. What sane person would want to run for public office at that level and endure that? This leaves the power hungry and morally bankrupt bunch that is on the ballot. Perfect!

  8. jimd says:

    Who “leads” in Amerika? Follow the money !!!
    We have long gone from, “one man, one vote” to having “the best government that money can buy” !!! It will take a REVOLUTION to change that !!! Lady Liberty weeps !!!

    • Phydeau says:

      Right, how much democracy can you afford? The Koch brothers can afford a lot more democracy than any of us. 🙁

    • Shaq says:

      How about Tom Steyer? What about the big money guy who heckled Mark Udall, his own candidate? George Soros?

  9. DenverGal says:

    I live in Colorado and am following Bobbo’s excellent advice of voting all incumbents out of office. Voting against Udall and Gov Hickenlooper.

  10. Marc Perkel says:

    I’m about at the “I don’t give a frack” point. The only reason to vote for Democrats is because they aren’t Republicans. But they aren’t doing a good enough job at being “not Republicans”. Obama makes Reagan look like a liberal.

    • Phydeau says:

      As the Republicans have clearly stated, all the way back to 1980 on video, the fewer people vote, the better for Republicans. The more people they can get to give up on the system, the better for the rich people running the Republican party.

      Your call.

  11. charl says:

    I like how you americans grovel over this election


    • Captain Obvious says:

      Kneel before your God Babylon!

    • ± says:

      It is a small thing, but we can still kick your sorry ass which ever country you are from (er … maybe). If you’re from France, then for sure.

      • jpfitz says:

        Freedom fries, ah…the memories.

        • Tim says:

          At least the fascism fritters had real coprofascist in them. But now we’re only offered shit off the after 9:11 ‘lunch menu’ where ‘freedom’ is any old industrial waste that’s FDA approved.

  12. Carl E, KS says:

    I can’t stand the Republicans and am ready to vote out the Senator, Congressman, and Governor tomorrow.

  13. NewFormatSux says:

    Democrats might want to rethink their tactic of getting to the polls college graduates who are living in their parents’ basement.

  14. cialis says:

    Merci pour cet article très instructif et bien écrit.

  15. Jonathan says:

    Ha, you think Obama the wrecking ball is finished, just wait.

  16. Just_AC says:

    What I greatly hate, that most foreigners and probably a majority of Americans don’t understand, is the power of redistricting and gerrymandering to affect elections all the way up to the governor and Presidential elections.

    Republicans being able to change the voting districts borders are why I woke up this morning to read about my new State senator

    “…And we’ll be taking a lot of input; there’s a lot I have to learn about Huron County and the way the economy works up there.”

    Pavlov said Huron County is a county that “punches above its weight class.”

    “It may not have the largest population in the 25th district, but it has the largest potential,” he said. “My goal is to better understand what that potential is. The agriculture base and net value of Huron County through tourism, agriculture, wind energy … it has all the potential in the world.”

    For Brown, knocking on “30,000 to 40,000 doors,” making “thousands and thousands of phone calls,” and “attending 27 parades this summer” wasn’t enough to claim the senator seat.

    So I have a guy that doesn’t know anything about us in Huron County representing us. Oh Boy

    Gerrymandering at the local levels, Nominating Supreme Court Justices at the federal level – the two most important things not noticed by the average voter.


    • NewFormatSux says:

      He was reelected. So how was Huron not part of his district the last two years? Did they gerrymander in 2013?

      That is nothing compared to the gerrymandering done in Illinois, where districts were created in a snakelike fashion emanating from Chicago, putting a few pockets of city Democrats in every suburban district.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

      Gerry affects House, not totally sure about Senate as that may be state wide, but Gov and Pres?

      PROOF POSITIVE…yep, most americans don’t understand what it is.

  17. HH says:

    “By the way, do TV political ads have any effect on your decision?”

    Not at all–all those ever do is make me hate everyone even more for bothering me incessantly over fake issues.

    Well, to be honest, the fact that the ads didn’t affect me *might* be because I don’t have a TV and haven’t watched television in years, literally. Getting rid of the TV was one of the best decisions of my life! Why subject myself to all that horrible, nonending propoganda instead of spending my time doing more productive and exciting things? Even if that had not been the case, though, I like to believe that I would have paid just as much attention to those campaign ads–none–as I did without the TV around.

    Then again, I guess that question wasn’t directed at me. I revoked the voter registration attached to my name years ago, so I wasn’t going to waste any of my time “voting” in a (s)election and showing my support of the system, anyways.

    • Phydeau says:

      HH, another non-TV watcher here! I agree with you on that.

      However, remember the old saying… you may not be interested in politics, but politics is definitely interested in you.

      Your life will be affected by what happens politically, so you might do well to pay attention. Unless you have become completely fatalistic.


Bad Behavior has blocked 13855 access attempts in the last 7 days.