High Street at Cruelery.com - The Web's Bitter Afterbirth / Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romn

katsung47 · 2012-10-02 20:40:15

Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?

.By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News 9/19/2012

In the twilight of President Barack Obama's first term, many polls, including a new Quinnipiac University tri-state survey of likely voters, show that most Americans say they are not better off than they were four years ago. But in those same polls, the president retains his edge over challenger Mitt Romney.

That's not normal, says Quinnipiac University pollster Peter A. Brown.

"Most times if voters think things haven't gone well, they say, 'Let's think of somebody else.' But at this point they're not saying that," Brown said. "Clearly they think [Obama] is more in tune with their lives."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/vote … ction.html

Why? Because the US is controlled by the Feds. They control the media and election machine. They select the politicians to control the government. That's why even Clinton did a good job in his last term, Bush won the election. What the Feds needed was not a good economy, they need war and the Patriot Act. Several month after his election, 911 happened which satisfied what the Feds needed.

This time, Obama will give the Feds something Romney can't give. So you saw Romney is under the fire of media despite the life of Americans is worse off after four years reign of Obama.

WilberCuntLicker · 2012-10-02 21:21:12

Odd. The impression I get from reading all the election bollocks on H-S is that Romney's a prime asshole who's managed to alienate everyone except right-wing zealots. But sure, blame whomever you like, it's your thread.

Tall Paul · 2012-10-02 21:59:47

katsung47 wrote:
.......... That's why even Clinton did a good job in his last term, Bush won the election.......

There's always little details that screw things up. For example, Clinton had finished two terms and wasn't running against Bush.

katsung47 · 2012-10-17 18:39:38

But Clinton represents Democratic Party and Goal had been his vice.

Most Americans say U.S. on wrong track: poll

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:21pm EDT

(Reuters) - Economic fears are weighing heavily on Americans, with a large majority saying the United States is on the wrong track and nearly half believing the worst is yet to come, a Reuters/Ipsos poll said on Wednesday.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found 73 percent of Americans believe the United States is "off on the wrong track," and just one in five, 21 percent, think the country is headed in the right direction.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ … EX20110810

If most people believe US is on wrong tracks, why do they still support Obama. That's Obama's track. But when the Feds need Obama, they would manipulate the media to convince people Obama will win, no matter how senseless it is.

fnord · 2012-10-17 19:54:28

Kathy, if Romney wins, he will make your life difficult so that you will self-deport. Is this what you want, and if so, where would you go?

Roger_That · 2012-10-18 12:25:18

I've missed you, Kathy.

katsung47 · 2012-10-30 21:11:29

The real reason is the Feds need Obama's new Health care reform. There is nothing they care if people can benefit from it or not. They just want it to frame a target in their case with which they have created OKC bombing, 911 attack to get the Patriot Act.

You can see it from the surprise turn around of the Chief Justice Roberts.

726. The surprise turnaround of Chief Justice (7/4/2012)

On 6/28, Supreme Court issued a pass for Obama's Health care policy. What surprised people was Chief Justice Roberts sided with four liberal justices in voting 5-4 to declare the law's "individual mandate" constitutional.

Why did John Roberts, a Bush appointee who generally votes with his conservative colleagues, suddenly change his opinion to vote with the liberal? Just three months ago, he still opposed that "individual mandate" law.

Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone?

Mar. 27, 2012 - Chief Justice Roberts asks the Solicitor General Verrilli if the government can require the purchase of cell phones for emergency services, just as the health-care law requires for health insurance.(The Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … video.html

There are different theories about this mysterious turnaround. Mostly were from disinformation office of the Feds to cover up their puppet Roberts. None could solve the puzzle. I know why - the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision. When the Feds want to put Kat Sung under surveillance, they forced the law makers passing through the Patriot Act. (Through OKC bombing and 911 bombing) When the Feds want to restrict Kat Sung in US, they activate the TSA search, (blocking leaving from air flight) blocking the entering of Canada and Mexico; (by "Operation Fast and Furious") see "697. TSA search, Canada and Mexico (12/11/2011)". Now when they want Kat Sung to have a health insurance, they activate their proxy- John Roberts.

Six years ago when Roberts was selected as Chief Justice, I have written already,
"344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)"
http://katsung47.yuku.com/topic/4/The-d … USA?page=4
This case proves I was very, very accurate at that judgement.

I'll talk about why the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision.

katsung47 · 2012-11-13 21:54:56

22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham

After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again? There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes. In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin. How in the world does that happen? Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archiv … was-a-sham

Election Fraud? Obama Won More Than 99 Percent Of The Vote In More Than 100 Ohio Precincts

Barack Obama received more than 99% of the vote in more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio on election day. In fact, there were a substantial number of precincts where Mitt Romney got exactly zero votes. So how in the world did this happen? Third world dictators don’t even get 99% of the vote.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/

Dmtdust · 2012-11-13 22:07:11

katsung47 wrote:
Election Fraud? Obama Won More Than 99 Percent Of The Vote In More Than 100 Ohio Precincts

Barack Obama received more than 99% of the vote in more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio on election day. In fact, there were a substantial number of precincts where Mitt Romney got exactly zero votes. So how in the world did this happen? Third world dictators don’t even get 99% of the vote.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/

Your source sucks. Wait, your sources always suck. Read this and shut the fuck up. http://www.politico.com/2012-election/r … dent/ohio/

fnord · 2012-11-13 23:05:37

Kathy, in many White precincts in the Deep South and in Utah, Romney got 100% of the vote. After Romney made his contempt for non-Whites loud and clear, it's not surprising that in many precincts which lack Whites, Romney didn't get a single vote. It's to be expected when the Republicans made this election about nigger removal from the WHITE HOUSE. Had the Republicans not stolen the 2000 election, if they had ran a decent candidate this time around, and not been so obvious in their efforts to keep certain people from voting, they might have won the election. The election wasn't stolen from the Republicans; they finally pissed off and frightened enough people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered to vote!

opsec · 2012-11-14 00:27:17

fnord wrote:
Had the Republicans not stolen the 2000 election, if they had ran a decent candidate this time around, and not been so obvious in their efforts to keep certain people from voting, they might have won the election. The election wasn't stolen from the Republicans; they finally pissed off and frightened enough people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered to vote!

If they hadn't pandered to the Fundamentalist right/Tea Party, if they hadn't alienated women by espousing 18th century views about rape, if they hadn't campaigned on a promise to overturn Roe v Wade, if they didn't nominate a candidate who's foreign policy was a credit to Prince Phillip and one who probably hasn't payed any taxes prior to last year and believes God lives on Kolob.

The scary thing is almost half the electorate voted for him. The money lost *this* time.

katsung47 · 2012-11-28 21:24:38

Dmtdust wrote:
Your source sucks. Wait, your sources always suck. Read this and shut the fuck up. http://www.politico.com/2012-election/r … dent/ohio/

Because you have a big brother to back you, you can discredit others who have different opinion then you? So much for your source.

The New York Times Admits That Virtually Every Major News Organization Allows The News To Be Censored By Government Officials

By Michael, on July 23rd, 2012

In one of the most shocking articles that the New York Times has ever put out, a New York Times reporter has openly admitted that virtually every major mainstream news organization allows government bureaucrats and campaign officials to censor their stories. For example, almost every major news organization in the country has agreed to submit virtually all quotes from anyone involved in the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign to gatekeepers for "quote approval" before they will be published. If the gatekeeper in the Obama campaign does not want a certain quote to get out, the American people will not see it, and the same thing applies to the Romney campaign. The goal is to keep the campaigns as "on message" as possible and to avoid gaffes at all cost. But this kind of thing is not just happening with political campaigns. According to the New York Times, "quote approval" has become "commonplace throughout Washington". In other words, if you see a quote in the newspaper from someone in the federal government then it is safe to say that a gatekeeper has almost certainly reviewed that quote and has approved it. This is another sign that "the free and independent media" in this country is a joke. What we get from the mainstream media is a very highly filtered form of propaganda, and that is one reason why Americans are turning away from the mainstream media in droves. People want the truth, and more Americans than ever realize that they are not getting it from the mainstream media.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archiv … -officials