Pope Slams Capitalism, Inequality Between Rich And Poor

[The Tuth]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
Try 52%.

First off, whether it was 51% or 52% is meaningless. The truth is that less than 25% of the citizens voted for Obama. That is NOT a mandate as you are so fond of saying.

Next, according to CBS News, here are the results. 2012 US Presidential Election.

Barack Obama - 51%- 62,615,406 votes
Mitt Romney - 48%- 59,142,004 votes

Lastly, using your criteria, you are a F---ing liar, Bob of Many Names.

[Le Jumbo]

Some states didn't finish counting until last month. The latest figures I can find are:

Obama 51.06% 65,899,557

Romney 47.21% 60,931,959

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv...

I would call that a mandate, considering that the Democrats picked up seats in the House and Senate, made major gains on the state level (Minnesota being a good example) and won most of their ballot initiatives.

May I remind you that Karl Rove called the electoral college reults a landslide. Heck, our very own Consistent predicted time and time again that Obama would be "crushed" 54% to 46%. Surely a 51% to 47% victory counts as a "solid" victory is 54-46 was a "crushing" victory.

[Le Jumbo]

The Tuth wrote:

<quoted text>
First off, whether it was 51% or 52% is meaningless. The truth is that less than 25% of the citizens voted for Obama. That is NOT a mandate as you are so fond of saying.
Next, according to CBS News, here are the results. 2012 US Presidential Election.
Barack Obama - 51%- 62,615,406 votes
Mitt Romney - 48%- 59,142,004 votes
Lastly, using your criteria, you are a F---ing liar, Bob of Many Names.

Say which tooth are you? Or did you spell your posting name wrong again? I know, it's tough to keep track of all those posting anmes and the correct spelling of each.

[jerry]

Le Jumbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Say which tooth are you? Or did you spell your posting name wrong again? I know, it's tough to keep track of all those posting anmes and the correct spelling of each.

Why don't you give him a few lessons, troll. Your specialties: lies, hate and hiding behind names you steal. Oh, and don't forget to show him the "correct spelling" of these "anmes". Dumbass.

[Niether of the Above]

Le Jumbo wrote:

Some states didn't finish counting until last month. The latest figures I can find are:
Obama 51.06% 65,899,557
Romney 47.21% 60,931,959
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv...
I would call that a mandate, considering that the Democrats picked up seats in the House and Senate, made major gains on the state level (Minnesota being a good example) and won most of their ballot initiatives.
May I remind you that Karl Rove called the electoral college reults a landslide. Heck, our very own Consistent predicted time and time again that Obama would be "crushed" 54% to 46%. Surely a 51% to 47% victory counts as a "solid" victory is 54-46 was a "crushing" victory.

Mandate? Here are a couple of Mandates - Reagan 489 electoral votes, Carter -49 Reagan 525 electoral votes, Mondale- 13 10 of which were from Minnesota, his home state. Lyndon Johnson vs Barry Goldwater was another Mandate! Your guy, No so much!

[non-starter]

Le Jumbo wrote:

Some states didn't finish counting until last month. The latest figures I can find are:
Obama 51.06% 65,899,557
Romney 47.21% 60,931,959
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv...
I would call that a mandate, considering that the Democrats picked up seats in the House and Senate, made major gains on the state level (Minnesota being a good example) and won most of their ballot initiatives.
May I remind you that Karl Rove called the electoral college reults a landslide. Heck, our very own Consistent predicted time and time again that Obama would be "crushed" 54% to 46%. Surely a 51% to 47% victory counts as a "solid" victory is 54-46 was a "crushing" victory.

So just a quick question, would 51.06% be called 51% or 52% in the interest of accuracy? The numbers aren't hugely different either way, but Slew has a real need to be right even after proven conclusively wrong.

[non-starter]

Niether of the Above wrote:

<quoted text>Mandate? Here are a couple of Mandates - Reagan 489 electoral votes, Carter -49 Reagan 525 electoral votes, Mondale- 13 10 of which were from Minnesota, his home state. Lyndon Johnson vs Barry Goldwater was another Mandate! Your guy, No so much!

Agreed, and if he is using Karl Rove to base his "mandate" on, the argument falls apart right there.

[Le Jumbo]

non-starter wrote:

<quoted text>So just a quick question, would 51.06% be called 51% or 52% in the interest of accuracy? The numbers aren't hugely different either way, but Slew has a real need to be right even after proven conclusively wrong.

You seem hung up on the 1% there, buddy.

Both of us know that anything under a half is generally rounded down, and a half or over is generally rounded up.

[Bridgework]

Le Jumbo wrote:

Some states didn't finish counting until last month. The latest figures I can find are:
Obama 51.06% 65,899,557
Romney 47.21% 60,931,959
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv...
I would call that a mandate, considering that the Democrats picked up seats in the House and Senate, made major gains on the state level (Minnesota being a good example) and won most of their ballot initiatives.
May I remind you that Karl Rove called the electoral college reults a landslide. Heck, our very own Consistent predicted time and time again that Obama would be "crushed" 54% to 46%. Surely a 51% to 47% victory counts as a "solid" victory is 54-46 was a "crushing" victory.

You consider 5 million Americans (1.6% of the pop) to be a Mandate? More importantly you feel that the Republicans who won should ignore the will of those who elected them?

[VaporVoter Turnout]

127,000,000 voted of 300 million citizens.

Let's just say 200 million can vote, taking out kids and felons.

Sooo 73 million potential voters didn't vote. Orrrr well over 30% didn't vote.

Soooo Obumer got a mear 30%(MAX) of the total potential votes cast.

Not close to a mandate!

[jerry]

Obama's total was about 3,600,000 LESS for his 2012 re-election.

[Logic]

Not to worry, Obama is dismantling the middle class and making us all poor plus a soon to be 20 trillion in debt for the youth inherit.

Yes we can!

[Amused Slew]

Logic, hardly... Since, you continue to pretend the bushwhacker didn't HAPPEN and the chair was the preferred "speaker" ! LMAOROFU~!

[Slew Bashing]

Amused Slew wrote:

Logic, hardly... Since, you continue to pretend the bushwhacker didn't HAPPEN and the chair was the preferred "speaker" ! LMAOROFU~!

(Topix Posters, we are so sorry for this. But we have tried everything. We really hope that this effort will be our last, and that you adults may be able to Shock Slewsie into an Altered State where she can simply drool on herself and be content to ride out her days with a "Nice Bowl Of Jello". We know that you have seen her other Multiple Personalities here, and thus you are aware that keeping her in her Slewsie Personification is the best we can hope for.
Thank you Topix Posters for allowing us to use Topix for Slewsies treatment)

Dr B. Happy
Lead Psychiatrist
Seattle West Asylum

[Mike]

Got Poverty?

Welcome to Obamanomics

[Amused Slew]

Funny, bushwhacker didn't happen, right ? The "table" told me so....??

[Consistent]

Amused Slew wrote:

Funny, bushwhacker didn't happen, right ? The "table" told me so....??

Hampshire,

The Thread is; "Pope Slams Capitalism, Inequality Between Rich And Poor"

Did you have a Comment or a Thought of someone else's that you wished to Cut/Paste so that "we" will feel that you are not an ignorant, abusive pig who only posts because or your evil nature, hideous appearance, and Mental Illness?

[Amused Slew]

Funny, bushwhacker didn't happen, right ? The "table" told me so....??