Progressive Democrats who brought us John McCain and Mitt Romney, are trying to do the same with Shrub II through Soviet style manipulation of the news.
Meanwhile, the New York Times is pushing their own fake Republican polling in another cynical attempt at election tampering and intimidation of candidates
Jeb was an OK governor compared to predecessors like Lawton Chiles, that wasn’t too difficult a task. He’s Progressive lite and shouldn’t be anywhere near the White House. His support of cr*p like “Common Core” and amnesty make him not much better than the average Democrat in my book. My money’s on Scott Walker or Bobby Jindal in that order.
Isn’t “USSA” as racist as “USA?”
We have a one-party political system pretending to be two major parties and a handful of independents. Look for Libertarians to adopt a “humans caused global warming” agenda matching the Greens. It’s a matter of “competition” in a managed political economy.
“NYT cites GOP voter who claims ‘A tree fell on my house’ due to global warming to hype new poll – American Thinker analyzes new NYT/Stanford poll: If the “statistics” didn’t convince you, the New York Times followed up with a personal anecdote from a “Republican” voter. Aliza Strauss, a Republican homemaker in Teaneck, N.J., said in a follow-up interview that climate change had affected her personally and she was concerned about the effect of climate change in coming years. “A tree fell on my house during Hurricane Sandy, and in the future, it might be worse,” she said. Aliza Strauss felt that global warming caused a tree to fall on her home. What is the connection there? And before this supposed period of global warming, trees never fell on homes? How many people do you think the Times had to interview to find this one ignorant supposed Republican? …Jason Becker, a self-identified independent and stay-at-home father in Ocoee, Fla., said that although climate change was not his top concern, a candidate who questioned global warming would seem out of touch. I thought this was an article about Republicans? I guess they couldn’t find a second Republican to agree with Aliza Strauss.
Analysis of NYT/Stanford climate poll analysis: ‘Cook up a poll, produce results they like, and then use it as a club to make whatever they want’ – American Thinker analyzes new NYT/Stanford poll: ‘The New York Times has a breathless announcement: Most Republicans Back Climate Action! Except, it’s not most Republicans; by the Time’s own numbers, it’s only 48%, and even that number is very suspect…This is the classic way that the Left shifts public opinion; they cook up a poll, produce results they like, and then use it as a club to make whatever they want. They can get the results they like either by leading questions, asking unrepresentative samples, or just by plain making things up.
The poll was conducted by the New York Times (Left bias), Stanford University (Left bias), and “the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future”. How many “nonpartisan” environmental groups do you know? The questions were of the nature of: “If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for the United States?” … This question is biased because it presumes there is global warming. At best, it’s disputed. But the person asked this question might automatically presume there is global warming simply by the wording of the question. NYT poll: “If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt future generations?” … That’s just like “If you don’t stop beating your wife, how much do you think she will hurt in the future?” Again, the question presumes there is global warming and the phrase “nothing is done” is biased against inaction, as is “how much will it hurt”.”
Flashback 2013: Climate Poll Con Job: ‘When you don’t like the poll numbers, make up your own poll’ – Media Duped Again By Stanford U. Pollster Jon Krosnick’s Shoddy Agenda Driven Climate Polling
“Krosnick Has Been Publicly Reprimanded for poor results and methods by both Gallup & Pew Research
Pew research in 2010 said ‘Krosnick’s [previous] survey is marred by faulty methodology. …used words that encouraged a positive response’
Even fellow global warming activists like UN IPCC’s Michael Oppenheimer acknowledged Krosnick’s Stanford polls tend to skew to more ‘believers’ in man-made global warming
Krosnick new 2013 poll relied in part on 2006 polling data to draw conclusions about 2013
Krosnick in 2013 relied in part ‘on self-completion of Internet questionnaires’
Krosnick’s previous surveys lumped the phrase ‘global warming’ in with ‘the environment’ despite the fact that global warming was the ‘lowest concern among all ENVIRONMENTAL issues”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/30/new-york-times-dupes-readers-hypes-climate-poll-by-discredited-stanford-pollster-jon-krosnick-pollster-previously-reprimanded-for-poor-methods-by-both-gallup-pew-research/
Another Cookie Monster lie.
I can see the effects of Global Warming in my own back yard. Global Warming has caused a lot of cats to congregate there behind my house. I guess they are just confused from all the rising temperatures. Luckily, my wife has been putting out food for them so that Global Warming does not make them starve to death. There are more of them all the time. That proves Global Warming!
🙂
Talk about putting the ‘C’ in CAGW! Now that really is catastrophic global warming.
The only time I ever put food out for cats, it is in one of these…
http://assets.academy.com/mgen/54/10049354.jpg?is=500,500
Hasn’t the media already decided that Hillary has won the election? It doesn’t really matter who the Republican loser is then.
They have to make sure that a weak Republican nominee gets the nod.
While the Government is “curbing” global warming, they may as well get set up to curb volcanoes, earthquakes. tsunamis, continental drift, the polar vortex, and also increase the solar activity.
In this way, they can hire all the unemployed to get the unemployment rate down to zero.
Do I need a “sarc”?
Add lightning to the list of things they need to curb.
You know Cousins, it never ceases to amaze me that given the awesome pool of talented individuals that you can draw on for your POTUS, you seem to have ended up with a collection of lemons who collectively lack the acumen to run the proverbial whelk stall, the present incumbent spectacularly illustrating this point.
Although to be fair, we at this side of the Pond fare little better.
I can only suppose that anyone with the necessary talent is sufficiently wise that they would chew off their own leg before they would even contemplate such a position.
All you have to do is look at Herman Cain from the last go round to see what happens to viable candidates.
Or better yet 6 years ago with Ron Paul. At the end of May 2008 Paul promised he would run as either a Republican or as an Independent. Biderburg met June 6th or there abouts and two days after the meeting was over Ron Paul bowed out of the race. Prior to that in Dec of 2007 Daniel Estulin had reported that the idea was floated whether or not to assassinate Ron Paul.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/neo-cons-behind-potential-hit-on-ron-paul/7675?print=1
In other words all we get to vote for is the ‘Controlled Opposition’
The Tea Party was another good example. When the Tea Part first showed on the scene, Rasmusen showed the voters split 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Eve 1/3 of black voters were FOR the Tea PArty. So we got the Blair -Rockefeller poll that painted the Tea Party as ‘Racist’ by using questions starting with. “Do you think the Federal Government should….” and got the expected NO! The MSM of course ran with the poll screaming the Tea Party were Racist kooks and trashed the name.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/10/29/rasmussen-poll-indicates-gop-establishment-should-bow-to-the-tea-party/
Tea Party Distinguished by Racial Views and Fear of the Future
There was a very similar infection of the Occupy Wall Street group. At the first couple meetings in various cities around the country, there was a mix of conservative and liberal. My observations was maybe 60% liberal but still with a nice 40% conservative. The press (including conservative radio) did their best to present the Occupy crowd as wild eyed uber-hippies, much the same way the presented the Tea Party as racist KKK members.
Mission accomplished. It did not take long before both groups (which in fact had much in common) polarized and essentially neutralized their own political effectiveness.