• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

45% of Republicans are birthers

The whole "birther" thing is such a load of bullshit. North Carolina issues Certificates of Live Birth which are valid proof of citizenship and identification for drivers licenses, passports, social security, and so on. Virginia had no problem issuing my drivers license when I presented them with my Certificate of Live Birth from North Carolina.

Think about all the times you must submit a birth certificate (or Certificate of Live Birth) during your life. You need it for a Social Security Card (which my parent's got for me when I was just a few months old), starting school, getting a drivers license, getting a passport, entering college, moving to a new state, and probably others. Someone would have caught on a long time ago if it was a fake and long before the President entered politics. It just doesn't make sense.
 
RJKarl said:
Even if you take the somewhat and very onl one of those polls reach more than 12%.

If you take the 45% who beleive was born outside the US and the 22% who aren't sure, that 67% is between 250% and 550% higher thna your polls.
Click to expand...

I mean, this is also a poll of all Americans so obviously those numbers are many times higher among Dems. Likely fairly close to the numbers that exist for Obama. But this is not the point I'm making at all. The point is that the numbers are skewed because people want to believe that its true. They may not necessarily believe what they're saying, but they say they do anyhow because the logic is essentially just "Fuck Bush/Obama".

You're trying to do a lot of work to create a minute difference in the numbers between the 2, but is an end result of 45% of Republicans being dumb to only 39% of Dems really the end game here? Any thought at all that these polls could simply be flawed?

And @Phdeac, I think I may disagree with you a little bit. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that 9/11 was an inside job or a coverup. These same people (and I'm not necessarily disagreeing) think Bush wasn't intelligent and was generally incompetent... but somehow he managed to carry out and cover up the single biggest attack ever on American soil without even a tiny leak from anyone involved? That's looking past the insanely idiotic reasons given as proof of an inside job. I'm not trying to say birthers aren't also willfully ignorant here, but they're both exceptionally stupid things to think.
 
Why should we give a shit if he was born in a different country anyway? He's clearly an American, understands American culture and history, and has the best interest of Americans in mind. These are the qualities that the founding fathers wanted to ensure when they made the rule
 
OliveGardenDeac said:
Why should we give a shit if he was born in a different country anyway? He's clearly an American, understands American culture and history, and has the best interest of Americans in mind. These are the qualities that the founding fathers wanted to ensure when they made the rule
Click to expand...

This little document called the constitution.

That said I am not a birther and think people who are are crazy.
 
OliveGardenDeac said:
Why should we give a shit if he was born in a different country anyway? He's clearly an American, understands American culture and history, and has the best interest of Americans in mind. These are the qualities that the founding fathers wanted to ensure when they made the rule
Click to expand...

It also probably doesn't matter. Mitt's old man was born in Mexico and ran for president using a definition of the term "natural born" that would allow him and Obama (even if he wasn't born here) to still be president. Its a term that really isn't clearly defined anywhere. He would be fine.
 
1) The enitre clause was written that way to prevent Alexander Hamilton from being President.

2) Obama was born in Hawaii.

3) Why does it not shock me that the ultimate moral relativist has no regard of the Constitution.

4) This issue has been going on since Chester A. Arthur.
 
Last edited:
"You're trying to do a lot of work to create a minute difference in the numbers between the 2, but is an end result of 45% of Republicans being dumb to only 39% of Dems really the end game here? Any thought at all that these polls could simply be flawed?"

You showed ONE poll that that 39% rate. The 39% was yes and maybe so you shoudl have comapred that to the 67% not to 45%. It's titally dishonest not to do that.

The other two were 6% maybe and 6% yes. So yes there are over 500% more Republicans who either believe Obama wasn't born here or may not have been born here.
 
RJKarl said:
"You're trying to do a lot of work to create a minute difference in the numbers between the 2, but is an end result of 45% of Republicans being dumb to only 39% of Dems really the end game here? Any thought at all that these polls could simply be flawed?"

You showed ONE poll that that 39% rate. The 39% was yes and maybe so you shoudl have comapred that to the 67% not to 45%. It's titally dishonest not to do that.

The other two were 6% maybe and 6% yes. So yes there are over 500% more Republicans who either believe Obama wasn't born here or may not have been born here.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point here again. The poll showed that 36% of Americans thought it was somewhat or very likely that the government knew. Obviously many times higher among Dems. You're picking out the most narrow poll (and neglecting to take into consideration that it is a poll of all Americans and not just Dems) to make your numbers work when the first poll listed is probably the most relevant. But honestly, I just dont care. You're trying to say "Look, more Republicans are dumb than Dems" and I'm saying that the numbers are comparable. I just don't care about the small differences in polling numbers. Its not the point I'm making at all. I've said multiple times that all I'm trying to do is show that these polls are flawed.

I'll ask again, do you really believe all of these numbers 100% or do you give any thought at all to the fact that polling these questions gives you flawed results? In the thread you had about this on the old board, there was some Wake Phd grad who does polling for a living who pretty much agreed that people who disliked a person or organization were more likely to say they agreed with something negative said about that person even if they didn't really believe it.

Here's a fun poll result from the last election for you. Only 50-55% of Hispanics (I dont remember the exact number but I guess I could find it if I needed to) could say conclusively that Barack Obama was not the anti-Christ. Do you completely buy that, or is it more likely that Hispanics just didn't really like Obama that much and when asked the question, they just agreed because they didn't like the guy?
 
Again it only ONE time that got that big number then it went away as your next polls showed that only 6% thought it was true and 6% thought it was possible.

This is as opposed to multiple, consistent and growing numbers on the birther side.

Yes there are some loons who call themselves Dems, but birtherism is mainstream for the GOP.
 
RJKarl said:
Again it only ONE time that got that big number then it went away as your next polls showed that only 6% thought it was true and 6% thought it was possible.

This is as opposed to multiple, consistent and growing numbers on the birther side.

Yes there are some loons who call themselves Dems, but birtherism is mainstream for the GOP.
Click to expand...

No, those were all the same poll taken on the same day and youre using the most narrow interpretation possible (and ignoring all of the other polls done) while ignoring the fact that its a poll of all Americans and not just Dems.

But, I'll ask yet again, will you not even consider the possibility that these polls are flawed? Do half of Hispanics really think Obama is/could be the anti-Christ? Should I start that thread up?
 
mfdeacs99 said:
1) The enitre clause was written that way to prevent Alexander Hamilton from being President.

2) Obama was born in Hawaii.

3) Why does it not shock me that the ultimate moral relativist has no regard of the Constitution.

4) This issue has been going on since Chester A. Arthur.
Click to expand...

What? Alexander Hamilton ran for president and was eligible. He fit under the "citizen at the time of adoption" part of the clause.
 
Last edited:
ryalaman said:
No, those were all the same poll taken on the same day and youre using the most narrow interpretation possible (and ignoring all of the other polls done) while ignoring the fact that its a poll of all Americans and not just Dems.

But, I'll ask yet again, will you not even consider the possibility that these polls are flawed? Do half of Hispanics really think Obama is/could be the anti-Christ? Should I start that thread up?
Click to expand...

If RJ wants to ignorantly generalize millions of people based on a slanted news poll, let him do it. You can't fix stupid.
 
No, he did not. Served as Sec of Tresuary under Washington. Did not run in 1796, and indeed tried to have Pickney defeat Adama via the South Carolina delegation.

In 1800 he actually again worked against Adams.

He was dead in 1804, and never ran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top