Skip to main content

View Diary: "President Barack Obama Is the Most Threatened President In History." (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I assume you meant to type "sometime before (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    newinfluence, cazcee

    Jan 20, 2017," when the President's second term will end at noon--?

    Seems to be more than the usual amount of innumeracy running through this diary & the comments. Sensitivity of the subject, I guess.

    It's not a "fiscal cliff," it's a Fiscal Bluff--so why don't we call them on it?

    by Uncle Cosmo on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:08:12 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Would you kindly quantify (0+ / 0-)

      the innumeracy you allude to?

      Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

      by therehastobeaway on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 05:12:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I cam to this diary late, but if I understand (0+ / 0-)

        prior posts correctly, the original text had incorrect numbers for the current number of African-American Representatives, Senators and/or Governors.

        FTR I can understand how you might have been sufficiently disturbed by the article you linked to want to put this out in a diary quickly. Fact-checking & sourcing can get left behind when time is or seems to be of the essence.

        To your credit you corrected the value(s) almost as soon as it/they were pointed out.

        On an unrelated numerical topic--I note that the CSM article says there was a "spike" in threats to the President during 2008 and 2012. It's not clear to me how "unprecedented" they were. Comparing them to figures for Dubya may be misleading, since (1) the left in this country is largely non-violent and (2) the idea of Cheney succeeding to the Presidency riding a wave of public emotion over his predecessor's murder would be enough to deter most any prospective leftish assassin who isn't bat-shit insane (as I pointed out elsewhere in the comments here). It would seem more appropriate to compare them with figures for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, inasmuch as he sent the Far Wrong into similar paroxysms of rage without the skin-color factor. I would be interested in that comparison.

        It's not a "fiscal cliff," it's a Fiscal Bluff--so why don't we call them on it?

        by Uncle Cosmo on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 10:12:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yea. (0+ / 0-)

          And the numbers were off by 22 Congressmen but just one governor or mayor respectively–none of which altogether changed the overall argument the statistics were meant to support, which is that for all our apparent strides, actual strides are pretty lackluster (underwhelming, as I put it).

          Your 1996/1996 thought is interesting, I agree.

          Follow me on Twitter: @THTBAW. I crush trolls with truth, boredom with snark, and ignorance with links.

          by therehastobeaway on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 10:20:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site