or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread. - Page 4

post #121 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Perhaps it is time to get the glasses prescription checked Jimmac. Your link just proved my thread premise.

The VCI showed -72 for Carter who was destroyed in 1980. The VCI showed +62 (not negative which is what you must be seeing) for Reagan who was reelected in a landslide. It showed -84 for Bush who was NOT reelected.

Obama is -60 this month and that is recovered a bit from -69 last month.

He is toast.



Republicans will be able to show the measures they've attempt to take and the small spending cuts they've fought for and won while only controlling one half of one branch of the Federal government. The reason you are seeing guys like Barney Frank retire is because they've seen the polls and they know they will get wiped out.

So you think it's going to be a Republican in the Whitehouse next time? May I quote you later?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #122 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So you think it's going to be a Republican in the Whitehouse next time? May I quote you later?

Are you seriously suggesting that the thread title left a lot of wiggle room for what I think the outcome will be? Hahahaha.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #123 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Are you seriously suggesting that the thread title left a lot of wiggle room for what I think the outcome will be? Hahahaha.

So I take that as a " Yes! " that I may quote you later on this.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #124 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So I take that as a " Yes! " that I may quote you later on this.

I can understand stating that no one knows what the outcome will be. I can also understand how you think that Obama's competition will make getting reelected easier.

What I cannot understand is that upon looking at the current data, you conclude Obama is likely to be reelected. The data is indisputable. He's going to lose unless something big changes.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #125 of 886
I think a lot of people are vastly over-estimating the appeal of the likely Republican nominees.

This is a problem they don't really understand. Watching Fox News all the time has a habit of warping your sense of reality.

While its true that many on the left are somewhat disappointed by Obama, that doesn't mean that they are going to sit the election out - especially when confronted by the possibility of President Mitt or Newt.

I think a "sensible", decent, 1970s or 80s era Republican, of the Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush school, would have very good odds of beating Obama. The nut cases and fools I saw pandering to the Israel lobby on TV the other night? Not so much.

And like it or not, Obama can point to some pretty significant accomplishments. Mitt Romney is going to have a lot to explain how making himself rich as Croesus while laying off thousands of workers qualifies him as an expert on Job Creation. And Obama's poll numbers against Gingrich make him a shoo-in for re-election. It'd take a Watergate/Monica Lewinski style scandal to turn them around.

Jus' Sayin'
post #126 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew63 View Post

I think a lot of people are vastly over-estimating the appeal of the likely Republican nominees.

I think that most history shows that when the economy has failed to improve for this long, that God couldn't get reelected.

Quote:
This is a problem they don't really understand. Watching Fox News all the time has a habit of warping your sense of reality.

Yes those who watch MSNBC and get their talking points from DailyKos do tend to mutter such nonsense.

Quote:
While its true that many on the left are somewhat disappointed by Obama, that doesn't mean that they are going to sit the election out - especially when confronted by the possibility of President Mitt or Newt.

I guess we just imagined 2010 where the Republicans took the House.

Quote:
I think a "sensible", decent, 1970s or 80s era Republican, of the Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush school, would have very good odds of beating Obama. The nut cases and fools I saw pandering to the Israel lobby on TV the other night? Not so much.

Yes, people who didn't get elected or reelected to the office of president should be the model we follow. It makes perfect sense! Let's run someone like Bob Dole who couldn't get elected so that we can win!

Quote:
And like it or not, Obama can point to some pretty significant accomplishments. Mitt Romney is going to have a lot to explain how making himself rich as Croesus while laying off thousands of workers qualifies him as an expert on Job Creation. And Obama's poll numbers against Gingrich make him a shoo-in for re-election. It'd take a Watergate/Monica Lewinski style scandal to turn them around.

Jus' Sayin'

Obama has lost to both in direct polls and polls against a generic Republican. His numbers are terrible.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #127 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Obama has lost to both in direct polls and polls against a generic Republican. His numbers are terrible.

If you don't see the inherent flaw in this argument, then I predict some severe disappointments in your future.
post #128 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew63 View Post

If you don't see the inherent flaw in this argument, then I predict some severe disappointments in your future.

Wow, ominous predictions of disappointment. That's a pretty strong refutation.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #129 of 886
God is a socialist anyway trump'
post #130 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

God is a socialist anyway trump'

Of course he is and he was a scientific socialist as well!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #131 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew63 View Post

If you don't see the inherent flaw in this argument, then I predict some severe disappointments in your future.

There is no "inherent flaw." His numbers are terrible, and not just these. Knowing trump, he surely wasn't arguing that this was the only reason.

As for the election. I think YOU are underestimating the discontent with Obama. You're also clearly ignorant about how elections work. Here is why he won't win:

1) Obama has utterly lost the middle.
2) The Right is energized and united in their desire to remove him.
3) The Left is soft on Obama. The enthusiasm that propelled him through 2008 is gone.

Of course, we could get into polling, but those results really just show the above to be true. The economy sucks. Government spending is far, far worse than it was under the "big spender" Bush. And Obama is doubling down on policies that clearly haven't worked. Even if he wanted to, it would be too late to change direction now. His major accomplishments were killing bin Laden and passing healthcare...which the public doesn't like now. He's got nothing else except negativity. His record is one of almost complete failure.

Tell me how he gets reelected
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #132 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I can understand stating that no one knows what the outcome will be. I can also understand how you think that Obama's competition will make getting reelected easier.

What I cannot understand is that upon looking at the current data, you conclude Obama is likely to be reelected. The data is indisputable. He's going to lose unless something big changes.

You keep drinking the Kool-Aid and we'll talk after it's over.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #133 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You keep drinking the Kool-Aid and we'll talk after it's over.

How many times have you uttered this phrase and been wrong? I mean we've got a few hundred posts where you promised we were in a Democratic "cycle" and the Republicans wouldn't gain back any sort of political power, in fact declared they were now a regional party, for at least a generation.

Dude, you got knocked out. You're flat on your back talking about how will see how this fight goes and you don't even realize you've already been KO'd.

Now to the topic at hand. The media is just hilarious. Obama gave a speech, not that American's really heard much about it. They've tuned Obama out. They've written him off. He is done.

The speech basically grabs OCCUPY language and tries to run with it.
Be prepared for hundred of "Barack is back" and "Obama finds his voice and mojo" pieces.

It isn't hard to rip that speech apart though with a little reality.

Quote:
The fact that the creation of a liberal dream state coincided, in his view, with the diminution of advancement might make a more reflective man stop and think. Not our president.

The federal government already runs a sprawling, massively redistributionist system of taxes and benefits. The top 1 percent earns about 17 percent of all income and pays about 37 percent of all federal income taxes. By the reckoning of the Heritage Foundations Robert Rector, the welfare system has paid out roughly $16 trillion since the beginning of the War on Poverty. According to Cornell economist Richard Burkhauser, once tax policy, transfer payments and the like are taken into account, all income groups have gained since the late 1970s.

But President Obama implied that some people are poor because other people are rich, an assumption of class antagonism antithetical to the American idea and tenuously connected to the evidence.

Consider a concrete example. The presidents former top budget official, Peter Orszag, departed the administration to work at Citigroup for $2 million to $3 million a year. Putting aside the seemliness and the merits of Orszags pay and that of his cohorts on Wall Street, how does his paycheck make it harder for anyone else to get ahead? Orszags income doesnt increase out-of-wedlock childbearing, incarceration or lack of work effort all significant obstacles to advancement up the income scale.

If inequality were foreclosing opportunity, wed have seen steadily declining mobility since the late 1970s. Scott Winship of the Brookings Institution, an expert in this area, says that, as near as we can tell, the data dont bear that out. We are sticky at the bottom, meaning we have trouble getting people out of the bottom fifth, but that has been a long-standing failing. Its not the product of a new zero-sum dynamic where Reverse Robin Hoods are pillaging the poor.

People are also sticky at the bottom because certain life mistakes aren't correctable with a check, a small intervention or a little help. Fail to graduate from high school, have a kid or two out of wedlock, got a drug or drinking problem, those are indeed 'sticky'.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #134 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

How many times have you uttered this phrase and been wrong? I mean we've got a few hundred posts where you promised we were in a Democratic "cycle" and the Republicans wouldn't gain back any sort of political power, in fact declared they were now a regional party, for at least a generation.

Dude, you got knocked out. You're flat on your back talking about how will see how this fight goes and you don't even realize you've already been KO'd.

Now to the topic at hand. The media is just hilarious. Obama gave a speech, not that American's really heard much about it. They've tuned Obama out. They've written him off. He is done.

The speech basically grabs OCCUPY language and tries to run with it.
Be prepared for hundred of "Barack is back" and "Obama finds his voice and mojo" pieces.

It isn't hard to rip that speech apart though with a little reality.



People are also sticky at the bottom because certain life mistakes aren't correctable with a check, a small intervention or a little help. Fail to graduate from high school, have a kid or two out of wedlock, got a drug or drinking problem, those are indeed 'sticky'.

Quote:
How many times have you uttered this phrase and been wrong?

Which time do you want to talk about? The time I was talking to SDW about the fact that there aren't any WMD in Iraq to find or the last presidential election when he was saying that the Democrats were having a meltdown and I said that wasn't exactly the case?

The fact of the matter is yes it's still early and things could change but up until now they have garbage for candidates who eat their own. So unless something big happens to Obama I think things are looking quite good for his reelection.

And " Dude " I wouldn't want to be talking about the Republicans getting a little more power right now if I were you. We've seen how much good that did! Can you say total gridlock at the expense of the american people? Yes things are soooooooo much better now that we have a republican house! Well I'm predicting " Just saying no " will catch up with them.

As it should.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #135 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So you think it's going to be a Republican in the Whitehouse next time? May I quote you later?

Perhaps CChristie might surprise us all and run for presidency. you can never tell.
post #136 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Perhaps CChristie might surprise us all and run for presidency. you can never tell.

Maybe he will.

But its important to remember that many of the important primary states have registration dates that have already passed. ie. He can't got on the ballot. For Christie to win the nomination would - at this point - take some very unusual combination of circumstances.

And Christie, while arguably more competent (and likable) than some of the current Republican contenders, is not without weaknesses and flaws of his own.
post #137 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Which time do you want to talk about? The time I was talking to SDW about the fact that there aren't any WMD in Iraq to find or the last presidential election when he was saying that the Democrats were having a meltdown and I said that wasn't exactly the case?

A stopped clock is right twice a day. That's all you've got going for you. I support my predictions with data and historical precedent...you do not. It doesn't mean you're always wrong and that I'm always right. It simply means you're taking shots in the dark and hoping with all your might that the outcome you desire occurs. On the contrary, I look at historical and current data and go from there.

Now let's look at some of those "victories" you've had. With respect to WMD in Iraq: It was the judgement of the word's intelligence community Saddam had them. We know he had them in the past, because he used them. He then failed to verifiably disarm as required. We know what verifiable disarmament looks like...South Africa did so. Instead, Saddam played games with the inspectors and generally obfuscated at every turn. So my question is this: For what reason did you think he didn't have WMD?

Regarding the last presidential election: I don't recall using the term "meltdown" for that, unless perhaps it related to the primary. If you'd like to link to the specific posts, perhaps I can provide some context.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is yes it's still early and things could change but up until now they have garbage for candidates who eat their own. So unless something big happens to Obama I think things are looking quite good for his reelection.

Calling the candidates "garbage" is just totally inaccurate. Please read an comprehend my previous post:

Mitt Romney: Son of former Michigan Governor George Romney. JD/MBA in Business Administration from Harvard Law and Harvard Business. CEO of Bain & Company, then Bain Capital. Brought the company out of crisis. Nearly unseated Ted Kennedy for Senate in 1994. Turned around essentially saved the 2002 Winter Olympics. Served as Governor of Mass. Eliminated a $3 billion deficit. Signed healthcare legislation that ensured nearly all residents had coverage. Did this as a Republican in the bluest of all states.

Newt Gingrich: B.A. and Ph.d in History. Elected to House is 1978 after nearly defeating the incumbent in 74 and 76. Inspired Reagan's "are you better off than you were 4 years ago" comment via a memo written in 1980. Endorsed bill to make MLK's b-day a national holiday. Author of the Contract with America. Speaker of the House. Led the effort to balance the budget and pass welfare reform. Credited with leading the charge on capital gains tax cuts in 1997. Author of over 20 books. Widely seen as one of the most intelligent men in the public sphere today.


How does one conclude they are "garbage?" As for Obama, all the data flies in the face of your prediction.

CBS News Poll. Dec. 5-7, 2011. N=856 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you think Barack Obama has performed his job as president well enough to deserve reelection, or don't you think so?"

Deserves: 41%
Does Not Deserve 54%

_______________________________

Gallup Poll. Rolling average. N=approx. 1,500 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 51%

_______________________________

CNN/ORC Job Approval

44--Approve
51---Disapprove

----------------------------

CBS News Poll. Dec. 5-7, 2011. N=856 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?"

Right Track: 21%
Wrong Track 75%

---------------------------


Tell me that bodes well for Obama, jimmac. And what happened to "it's the economy, stupid?" Unemployment is still well over 8%, and only came down due to people leaving the workforce. GDP growth is nearly stagnant. Jobless claims concisely are over the important 400,000 mark. Debt and deficits are massive.

And:

53% of Americans now favor repealing Obamacare, only 37% oppose.



Quote:


And " Dude " I wouldn't want to be talking about the Republicans getting a little more power right now if I were you. We've seen how much good that did! Can you say total gridlock at the expense of the american people? Yes things are soooooooo much better now that we have a republican house! Well I'm predicting " Just saying no " will catch up with them.

As it should.

How did things go once the Dems took over? Fantastic! Since then, we've had an economic meltdown and the country has gone bankrupt. But somehow that's Bush's fault, right?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

AGallup Poll. Rolling average. N=approx. 1,500 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 51%t?

In January of 1983 Ronald Reagan had a positive Job Approval rating of 37%. And yet he went on to win one of the biggest re-election landslides in history.

In January 1991, George H.W. Bush had a stratospheric positive approval rating (79%) - and yet he was defeated that fall by Bill Clinton.

Lesson: Don't slice up polls a year ahead of time and come up with a conclusion that is, to quote Nate Silver, is "bigger than the sum of its parts." Don't take isolated facts (ie. people are unhappy about the economy and the direction the country is going) and decide that Obama is toast. A lot can happen between now and next November. And most importantly, remember that the election basically comes down to a personal "hiring decision" made by millions of Americans. They have to decide between someone who may not, in their opinion, have done a very good job - and somebody who may - again in their opinion - make things worse. If the history of Presidential Elections tells us anything (71% re-election of sitting Presidents of either party) is that a lot of people make the choice to stay the course.

Once the Republican nominee is decided, and there is more "granular" polling data, showing the preferences of likely voters on a state-by-state basis, is the time that one can start making more scientific predictions.
post #139 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew63 View Post

In January of 1983 Ronald Reagan had a positive Job Approval rating of 37%. And yet he went on to win one of the biggest re-election landslides in history.

In January 1991, George H.W. Bush had a stratospheric positive approval rating (79%) - and yet he was defeated that fall by Bill Clinton.

Lesson: Don't slice up polls a year ahead of time and come up with a conclusion that is, to quote Nate Silver, is "bigger than the sum of its parts." Don't take isolated facts (ie. people are unhappy about the economy and the direction the country is going) and decide that Obama is toast. A lot can happen between now and next November. And most importantly, remember that the election basically comes down to a personal "hiring decision" made by millions of Americans. They have to decide between someone who may not, in their opinion, have done a very good job - and somebody who may - again in their opinion - make things worse. If the history of Presidential Elections tells us anything (71% re-election of sitting Presidents of either party) is that a lot of people make the choice to stay the course.

Once the Republican nominee is decided, and there is more "granular" polling data, showing the preferences of likely voters on a state-by-state basis, is the time that one can start making more scientific predictions.

January of 1983 was 22 months before the election of 1984. At that time, the economy was just beginning to really recover. Unemployment was 10.8% just a month before that. Reagan's numbers recovered because the economy grew rapidly after this, with unemployment falling to 7.2% by election day. He also faced a very weak challenger. So put simply, your comparison gets blown out of the water.

January 1991 was also 22 months before the election. We had just (literally just) dispensed with Saddam and the economy had not yet entered recession. That changed quickly. Bush ran a terrible campaign, and was overconfident. And Perot helped hand the election to Clinton. So, here's another comparison that doesn't hold up.

And if we shouldn't use polling data and economic data to make predictions, what should be use? I am not saying that Obama is definitely toast. You're correct...a lot can happen. The point is that all the data says unless someone big happens between now and November 2012, Obama is going to lose. Now, if the economy suddenly kicks into gear or we have some kind of defining moment history (a major war, a terrorist attack, etc) this could very well change. But in the absence of these events, he's not getting reelected with 8% unemployment and 75% of the country saying we're on the wrong track.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #140 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew63 View Post

In January of 1983 Ronald Reagan had a positive Job Approval rating of 37%. And yet he went on to win one of the biggest re-election landslides in history.

In January 1991, George H.W. Bush had a stratospheric positive approval rating (79%) - and yet he was defeated that fall by Bill Clinton.

January was 12 months ago. You aren't comparing apples to apples here. In both cases that year rendered a clear economic direction. In the case of Reagan the unemployment rate came down almost 3%.

Quote:
Lesson: Don't slice up polls a year ahead of time and come up with a conclusion that is, to quote Nate Silver, is "bigger than the sum of its parts." Don't take isolated facts (ie. people are unhappy about the economy and the direction the country is going) and decide that Obama is toast. A lot can happen between now and next November. And most importantly, remember that the election basically comes down to a personal "hiring decision" made by millions of Americans. They have to decide between someone who may not, in their opinion, have done a very good job - and somebody who may - again in their opinion - make things worse. If the history of Presidential Elections tells us anything (71% re-election of sitting Presidents of either party) is that a lot of people make the choice to stay the course.

You fail to note why 29% didn't get re-elected. It's the economy. If it is down when an election comes around, then fair or not, you get the blame. Obama has spent trillions and has little to show for it. His complaint of gridlock will ring hollow because Americans elected the gridlock to stop his agenda. It is only in the media bubble and spin websites where such narratives even attempt to make sense. In the real world they won't gain any traction or hold any merit.

Quote:
Once the Republican nominee is decided, and there is more "granular" polling data, showing the preferences of likely voters on a state-by-state basis, is the time that one can start making more scientific predictions.

People will vote their wallets. If there isn't anything in them and Obama wants to blame the 1% then the election go from competitive to a landslide against Obama.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #141 of 886
What the hell can Obama run on?

He's got nothing. He can't run on his record or any achievements, as that's been a disaster of epic proportions. He can only run on class warfare and being a divisive, childish, irresponsible president who will try to pass the blame onto anybody and anything besides himself. Besides a few wacked out, fanatical core supporters, nobody's going to believe any more promises that he makes this time, as he's broken just about everything that he's ever promised when he was campaigning last time.

The only good part that I like about his presidency so far is that the people who are suffering the most financially are some of his supporters. They're hurting pretty bad.
post #142 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

What the hell can Obama run on?

He's got nothing. He can't run on his record or any achievements, as that's been a disaster of epic proportions. He can only run on class warfare and being a divisive, childish, irresponsible president who will try to pass the blame onto anybody and anything besides himself. Besides a few wacked out, fanatical core supporters, nobody's going to believe any more promises that he makes this time, as he's broken just about everything that he's ever promised when he was campaigning last time.

The only good part that I like about his presidency so far is that the people who are suffering the most financially are some of his supporters. They're hurting pretty bad.

It's unwise to underestimate him, though. There are many things going for whomever the GOP nominee is, but Obama has several advantages of his own:

1) The media is running a "full court press" for him (trump's term).
2) He's going to spend $1 billion dollars on his campaign.
3) He will claim that he saved the economy from recession and that unemployment is coming down.
4) He will take credit for victories on terrorism, bin Laden and such.


All that said, the economy, unemployment, debt and deficits, foreign relations (particularly with Israel) and his personal demeanor are all major negatives. If the GOP candidate runs a good campaign and there are no major unforseen events (like Ron Paul running as third party candidate, or a large geopolitical event) Obama is likely to be a one-termer.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #143 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's unwise to underestimate him, though. There are many things going for whomever the GOP nominee is, but Obama has several advantages of his own:

1) The media is running a "full court press" for him (trump's term).
2) He's going to spend $1 billion dollars on his campaign.
3) He will claim that he saved the economy from recession and that unemployment is coming down.
4) He will take credit for victories on terrorism, bin Laden and such.


All that said, the economy, unemployment, debt and deficits, foreign relations (particularly with Israel) and his personal demeanor are all major negatives. If the GOP candidate runs a good campaign and there are no major unforseen events (like Ron Paul running as third party candidate, or a large geopolitical event) Obama is likely to be a one-termer.

I agree with that. I will also never underestimate the stupidity of the American people, as they did elect him the first time around afterall.

I haven't even been following any of the current GOP debates, as it doesn't really interest me, and I just hope that whoever gets chosen has a good chance to beat Obama.
post #144 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's unwise to underestimate him, though. There are many things going for whomever the GOP nominee is, but Obama has several advantages of his own:

1) The media is running a "full court press" for him (trump's term).
2) He's going to spend $1 billion dollars on his campaign.
3) He will claim that he saved the economy from recession and that unemployment is coming down.
4) He will take credit for victories on terrorism, bin Laden and such.

All that said, the economy, unemployment, debt and deficits, foreign relations (particularly with Israel) and his personal demeanor are all major negatives. If the GOP candidate runs a good campaign and there are no major unforseen events (like Ron Paul running as third party candidate, or a large geopolitical event) Obama is likely to be a one-termer.

I'm going to disagree with number 2 and 3.

I think Obama fundraising will be at lower levels relative to 2008 and it will be one of those things where the media keep citing the expected final number while never really diving deeply in to the current numbers or the work necessary to obtain them. The initial reports I've seen has Obama attending a massive number of fundraisers, more than Bush and Clinton combined. The results for them have been better than any of the upstart Republicans who of course are still splitting the dollars on the Republican side, but are far worse relative to his take in 2008. Many of his big donors are not contributing the same way.

As for number three, the economy, I think he will simply try to claim the need for more time and will claim it is a work in progress. There's no way he can really credibly claim any sort of economic success. Instead he is labeling the work as incomplete due to Republican opposition.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #145 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm going to disagree with number 2 and 3.

I think Obama fundraising will be at lower levels relative to 2008 and it will be one of those things where the media keep citing the expected final number while never really diving deeply in to the current numbers or the work necessary to obtain them. The initial reports I've seen has Obama attending a massive number of fundraisers, more than Bush and Clinton combined. The results for them have been better than any of the upstart Republicans who of course are still splitting the dollars on the Republican side, but are far worse relative to his take in 2008. Many of his big donors are not contributing the same way.

As for number three, the economy, I think he will simply try to claim the need for more time and will claim it is a work in progress. There's no way he can really credibly claim any sort of economic success. Instead he is labeling the work as incomplete due to Republican opposition.

I'm going to disagree with your disagreement. He'll still money....lots of it. The only thing is that it will betray the enthusiasm gap...bigtime.

As for the economy, I don't think we're that far apart. He'll talk about how we avoided "another Great Depression" and that as you said, it's a work in progress. He'll also continue to blame his predecessor.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #146 of 886
Thread Starter 
The Liberal Media Complex won't touch this and it's shameful how they aren't doing their job. Well I guess they are doing their job, it's just that their job is electing Barack Obama instead of giving us the news.

Quote:
A year ago this week, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered. He died protecting his country from brutal Mexican gangsters. Two AK-47 assault rifles were found at his death site. We now know the horrifying truth: Agent Terry was killed by weapons that were part of an illegal Obama administration operation to smuggle arms to the dangerous drug cartels. He was a victim of his own government. This is not only a major scandal; it is a high crime that potentially reaches all the way to the White House, implicating senior officials. It is President Obamas Watergate.

Operation Fast and Furious was run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and overseen by the Justice Department. It started under the leadership of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Fast and Furious enabled straw gun purchases from licensed dealers in Arizona, in which more than 2,000 weapons were smuggled to Mexican drug kingpins. ATF claims it was seeking to track the weapons as part of a larger crackdown on the growing violence in the Southwest. Instead, ATF effectively has armed murderous gangs. About 300 Mexicans have been killed by Fast and Furious weapons. More than 1,400 guns remain lost. Agent Terry likely will not be the last U.S. casualty.

Mr. Holder insists he was unaware of what took place until after media reports of the scandal appeared in early 2011. This is false. Such a vast operation only could have occurred with the full knowledge and consent of senior administration officials. Massive gun-running and smuggling is not carried out by low-level ATF bureaucrats unless there is authorization from the top. There is a systematic cover-up.

Congressional Republicans, however, are beginning to shed light on the scandal. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Darrell Issa of California, a congressional probe is exposing the Justice Departments rampant criminality and deliberate stonewalling. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, who heads the departments criminal division, helped craft a February letter to Congress that denied ATF had ever walked guns into Mexico. Yet, under pressure from congressional investigators, the department later admitted that Mr. Breuer knew about ATF gun-smuggling as far back as April 2010. In other words, Mr. Breuer has been misleading Congress. He should resign - or be fired.

Instead, Mr. Holder tenaciously insists that Mr. Breuer will keep his job. He needs to keep his friends close and potential witnesses even closer. Another example is former acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson. Internal documents show Mr. Melson directly oversaw Fast and Furious, including monitoring numerous straw purchases of AK-47s. He has admitted to congressional investigators that he, along with high-ranking ATF leaders, reassigned every manager involved in Fast and Furious after the scandal surfaced on Capitol Hill and in the press. Mr. Melson said he was ordered by senior Justice officials to be silent regarding the reassignments. Hence, ATF managers who possess intimate and damaging information - especially on the role of the Justice Department - essentially have been promoted to cushy bureaucratic jobs. Their silence has been bought, their complicity swept under the rug. Mr. Melson has been transferred to Justices main office, where he serves as a senior adviser on forensic science in the departments Office of Legal Policy. Rather than being punished, Mr. Melson has been rewarded for his incompetence and criminal negligence.

Mr. Holder and his aides have given misleading, false and contradictory testimony on Capitol Hill. Perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power - these are high crimes and misdemeanors. Mr. Holder should be impeached. Like most liberals, he is playing the victim card, claiming Mr. Issa is a modern-day Joseph McCarthy conducting a judicial witch hunt. Regardless of this petty smear, Mr. Holder must be held responsible and accountable - not only for the botched operation, but for his flagrant attempts to deflect blame from the administration.

Mr. Holder is a shameless careerist and a ruthless Beltway operative. For years, his out-of-control Justice Department has violated the fundamental principle of our democracy, the rule of law. He has refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers for blatant voter intimidation that took place in the 2008 election. Career Justice lawyers have confessed publicly that Mr. Holder will not pursue cases in which the perpetrators are black and the victims white. States such as Arizona and Alabama are being sued for simply attempting to enforce federal immigration laws. Mr. Holder also opposes voter identification cards, thereby enabling fraud and vote-stealing at the ballot box. What else can we expect from one who, during the Clinton administration, helped pardon notorious tax cheat Marc Rich and Puerto Rican terrorists?

Mr. Holder clearly knew about Fast and Furious and did nothing to stop it. This is because the administration wanted to use the excuse of increased violence on the border and weapons-smuggling into Mexico to justify tighter gun-control legislation. Mr. Holder is fighting ferociously to prevent important internal Justice documents from falling into the hands of congressional investigators. If the full nature of his involvement is discovered, the Obama presidency will be in peril.

Fast and Furious is even worse than Watergate for one simple reason: No one died because of President Nixons political dirty tricks and abuse of government power. But Brian Terry is dead; and there are still 1,500 missing guns threatening still more lives.

What did Mr. Obama know? Massive gun-smuggling by the U.S. government into a foreign country does not happen without the explicit knowledge and approval of leading administration officials. Its too big, too risky and too costly. Mr. Holder may not be protecting just himself and his cronies. Is he protecting the president?

This is a huge matter and of course the real problem is that Mitt Romney offered a bet, Newt Gingrich thinks poor children might want a job, and that darn Ron Paul acts like your crazy uncle.

Government as solution to the problems they have caused. It is the Obama reelection theme. If we elect him to a second terms he can finish "fixing" all the problems from his first term.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #147 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The Liberal Media Complex won't touch this and it's shameful how they aren't doing their job. Well I guess they are doing their job, it's just that their job is electing Barack Obama instead of giving us the news.



This is a huge matter and of course the real problem is that Mitt Romney offered a bet, Newt Gingrich thinks poor children might want a job, and that darn Ron Paul acts like your crazy uncle.

Government as solution to the problems they have caused. It is the Obama reelection theme. If we elect him to a second terms he can finish "fixing" all the problems from his first term.

Just saw that story. There is no excuse for Holder. He's a radical, criminal and racist...and the media just plays along.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #148 of 886
Thread Starter 
The unemployed youth aren't Barack'ing Obama for reelection.

Quote:
A new national poll of 18- to 29-year-olds by Harvard’s Institute of Politics released Thursday showed that in an open-ended question --- meaning without prompting by the question -- 74 percent of respondents cited the economy as the most important issue.

On that issue, only 32 percent approve of the way President Obama is handling the economy.

When you were an 18 year old volunteering to help make history and now you are a still never employed 21 year old, it is problematic. When you graduated in 2008 and are still looking for that job in 2011, you don't pull the lever for the same guy.

Quote:
- Obama’s job performance rating among America’s 18- to 29-year-olds is at its lowest point since the IOP began polling on the Obama administration in 2009.

- The president still leads the generic Republican nominee in a mock matchup by six percentage points, but that lead his shrinking.

- Mitt Romney does best among the Republican presidential candidates in a general election matchup against the president, but still trails Obama by 11 points.

- Only one-third of 18- to 29-year-olds are closely following Occupy Wall Street, and even fewer -- about one-fifth -- support the movement.

Obama can only win if all his interest groups pull out huge numbers. He works against the mainstream so he needs everyone else to award him massive majorities. It's looking like the youth might still give him a bare majority of the vote, but that won't be nearly enough.

It also looks like Obama's class warfare rhetoric doesn't sit well and is going to sink him.


Quote:
We are all Americans, all endowed with an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, and most of us with aspirations to the American Dream of upward economic mobility. When you hate your neighbor because of his success, you shred our national fabric. Barack Obama may want to go down that road, but most of the rest of the nation properly finds his intentional attempts to divide us somewhere between dubious and abhorrent.

As Gallup notes, "Americans as a whole are no more likely to see the country as divided into haves and have nots than at any time in the past two decades." This is bad news for Barack Obama and other Democrats running for reelection in 2012. Their siren song of divide-and-conquer is falling flat on the ears of the majority of Americans. But the annoying political tinnitus is awakening the real sleeping giant -- those Americans who recognize that our nation did not become great by thinking like V.I. Lenin, Che Guevara, or Chairman Mao.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #149 of 886
It occurs to me that lost in this thread is any discussion about whether Obama deserves to be re-elected. So I'd like to pose this question, especially to our Obama cheerleaders such as jimmac, BR, Hands, Mumbo, et al....

What has Obama done to warrant him being hired again?

Any objective observer has to conclude "very little at best." The short list might include giving the order to get bin Laden, stepping up anti-terror operations in Pakistan (note caveat below), the Making Work Pay Credit and extending the Bush tax cuts. But what else? It turns out there are a hell of a lot of reasons not to elect him again:
  1. A failed, pork-laden stimulus that the CBO now says will be a net negative for the economy
  2. A bloated, rammed-through unconstitutional healthcare bill that no one really likes (on the right or left).
  3. Whatever the policy, the economic results are not good. About the best Obama can do here is claim things could have been worse. Perhaps that's true, but it's not demonstrable or provable.
  4. Foreign relations have been embarrassing, from giving QE an iPod, to apologizing for America on foreign soil, to hanging Israel out to dry publicly.
  5. Despite short term successes in capturing and killing terrorists, Obama has done serious long term damage wrt our relationship with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. We are perceived as weak and uncommitted. While an arrogant or hubristic America may be bad in the Middle East, a weak America who doesn't believe in what she says is even worse.
  6. Obama failed at negotiating effectively to keep American forces in Iraq. The military wanted 20,000+ troops. The Iraqis decided to take their oil and told us to go screw.
  7. Afghanistan: He ignored military advice on troop levels in Pakistan, making up his own number and timeline
  8. Iran is getting closer and closer to a nuclear weapon and Israel is practically begging to engage in preemptive action. Where are we? We won't even levy real sanctions. Failing to deal with this problem is quite possibly going to drag us into a major war.
  9. A failure of leadership on all fronts. We led from behind on Libya. Obama stood back and let the D's and R's maul each other over healthcare instead of pushing for a bipartisan solution, or even a partisan one of his admin's crafting. He's been totally absent on deficits, debt and tax policy. Where is his plan? Where is his budget? He proposes nothing. He merely fights skirmishes and deals with the "emergency" of the month. He uses these emergencies to bash the GOP over the head for being obstructionist, yet he has no plan of his own.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #150 of 886


As long as people continue to prefer "comforting lies" to "unpleasant truths", we won't get the leadership we need in this country.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #151 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post



As long as people continue to prefer "comforting lies" to "unpleasant truths", we won't get the leadership we need in this country.

What, comforting lies, like there's no global warming, or that cutting taxes and deregulation isn't what led to this mess we're in? Yeah, good luck with that!
post #152 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What, comforting lies, like there's no global warming, or that cutting taxes and deregulation isn't what led to this mess we're in? Yeah, good luck with that!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #153 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It occurs to me that lost in this thread is any discussion about whether Obama deserves to be re-elected. So I'd like to pose this question, especially to our Obama cheerleaders such as jimmac, BR, Hands, Mumbo, et al....

What has Obama done to warrant him being hired again?

Any objective observer has to conclude "very little at best." The short list might include giving the order to get bin Laden, stepping up anti-terror operations in Pakistan (note caveat below), the Making Work Pay Credit and extending the Bush tax cuts. But what else? It turns out there are a hell of a lot of reasons not to elect him again:
  1. A failed, pork-laden stimulus that the CBO now says will be a net negative for the economy
  2. A bloated, rammed-through unconstitutional healthcare bill that no one really likes (on the right or left).
  3. Whatever the policy, the economic results are not good. About the best Obama can do here is claim things could have been worse. Perhaps that's true, but it's not demonstrable or provable.
  4. Foreign relations have been embarrassing, from giving QE an iPod, to apologizing for America on foreign soil, to hanging Israel out to dry publicly.
  5. Despite short term successes in capturing and killing terrorists, Obama has done serious long term damage wrt our relationship with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. We are perceived as weak and uncommitted. While an arrogant or hubristic America may be bad in the Middle East, a weak America who doesn't believe in what she says is even worse.
  6. Obama failed at negotiating effectively to keep American forces in Iraq. The military wanted 20,000+ troops. The Iraqis decided to take their oil and told us to go screw.
  7. Afghanistan: He ignored military advice on troop levels in Pakistan, making up his own number and timeline
  8. Iran is getting closer and closer to a nuclear weapon and Israel is practically begging to engage in preemptive action. Where are we? We won't even levy real sanctions. Failing to deal with this problem is quite possibly going to drag us into a major war.
  9. A failure of leadership on all fronts. We led from behind on Libya. Obama stood back and let the D's and R's maul each other over healthcare instead of pushing for a bipartisan solution, or even a partisan one of his admin's crafting. He's been totally absent on deficits, debt and tax policy. Where is his plan? Where is his budget? He proposes nothing. He merely fights skirmishes and deals with the "emergency" of the month. He uses these emergencies to bash the GOP over the head for being obstructionist, yet he has no plan of his own.

This post shows just how irreversibly divided we are. You think Obama's foreign policy decisions with regard to bin laden and Pakistan are praiseworthy, and I think they're condemnable. You praise him for extending the Bush tax cuts and I think that's his absolute fucking worst domestic polcy decision, and went totally against what he promised to do. You think the stimulus failed because that type of measure doesn't work, and I (and most notable economists) think it failed because it wasn't enough. You think he failed at keeping troops in Iraq and I think he failed at getting them out earlier. You think Obama is too tough on Israel and I think he's been a fucking pussy against that evil government. You think he didn't lead on Lybia, and I think the Americans seeded the resistance movement and should never have done that and in fact should have kept the fuck out of Lybia. You say tomato and I say toe-fucking-bullshit.

We can never agree when there's so much division. The country is fucked.
post #154 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This post shows just how irreversibly divided we are. You think Obama's foreign policy decisions with regard to bin laden and Pakistan are praiseworthy, and I think they're condemnable.


Because he killed the mastermind of 9/11? You have to be kidding.

Quote:
You praise him for extending the Bush tax cuts and I think that's his absolute fucking worst domestic polcy decision, and went totally against what he promised to do.

Yes, I'm well aware of how wrong you are on the subject of taxes. Like many Democrats you have demonstrated near zero understanding of the way in which taxes, the economy and fiscal matters actually work.

Quote:

You think the stimulus failed because that type of measure doesn't work, and I (and most notable economists) think it failed because it wasn't enough.

"That type" of measure doesn't work, because "that type" was the following:

1. Not front-loaded enough
2. Not given to the right sectors of the economy
3. Given out and managed by corrupt people.
4. Based on tried-and-failed Keynesian policies to begin with.

Quote:


You think he failed at keeping troops in Iraq and I think he failed at getting them out earlier.

He said 2011 and he did it, so that doesn't even make sense. As for troop levels, I realize you didn't support the war initially, but that has little to do with where we are at present. A military presence of some kind was still necessary. Instead, Obama let us get pushed around by the country who we defeated...they dictated terms to us. All that does is result in weakness. The very least we could have done is left 10,000 people in country as a security force.

Quote:


You think Obama is too tough on Israel and I think he's been a fucking pussy against that evil government.

He's been more anti-Israel than any President. He's treated their PM poorly in public, snubbing him at least three times. And wow, what an utterly warped view of morality you have. Palestinians lob rockets into Israel every day, blow themselves up in pizza parlors and deliberate target men, women and children....and Israel's government is evil? You're sick.

Quote:

You think he didn't lead on Lybia, and I think the Americans seeded the resistance movement and should never have done that and in fact should have kept the fuck out of Lybia. You say tomato and I say toe-fucking-bullshit.

First, maybe you could learn how to spell "Libya."

Secondly, I never claimed we should have been more involved. I said we led from behind, which is the worst of all worlds. In fact, I think we should have been less involved in many ways. The lack of leadership is the point.

Quote:

We can never agree when there's so much division. The country is fucked.

The illusion that we were once relatively united is just that...and illusion. It's a myth. We've always had divisions like this, be it pacifists in WWII or be it federalists and anti-federalists at war in the streets of Philadelphia. That is truly one of the most basic misunderstandings you hold...that we have to "come together" and stop having vastly different opinions. In reality, we've never been about that. That's why we have a system where people that understand how the world works (me, for example) get to defeat people that don't understand how the world works (you) at the ballot box.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #155 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post



As long as people continue to prefer "comforting lies" to "unpleasant truths", we won't get the leadership we need in this country.

Well as your cartoon shows, the other line is completely empty. Perhaps we should consider a course where we start to grow it instead of just repeating the truth in so strident and harsh a manner that the line remains empty. The ability to move that needle from one to the other is so, so important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What, comforting lies, like there's no global warming, or that cutting taxes and deregulation isn't what led to this mess we're in? Yeah, good luck with that!

Big companies love lobbying for big regulation that shuts competitors out of their markets and thus requires crony capitalism just to survive. Global warming is a proto-science that has not become firm and thus failed to convince. By your reasoning, California should be a business paradise. It is anything but that. When asked to explain these things you tend to ignore the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This post shows just how irreversibly divided we are. You think Obama's foreign policy decisions with regard to bin laden and Pakistan are praiseworthy, and I think they're condemnable.

So you're going to re-elect him for lying to you. Who's buying those comforting lies again? Who's the guy that has gotten a peace prize for starting wars?

Quote:
You praise him for extending the Bush tax cuts and I think that's his absolute fucking worst domestic polcy decision, and went totally against what he promised to do.

So you are going to re-elect him for lying to you. Again who is buying those comforting lies again? He didn't even need a Republican Congress to do this. He did it with a Democratic Congress and what Obama showed you is exactly what happens in California and what you fail to see sitting there in Hong Kong. He extended those tax cuts to BUY more unemployment benefits. He got his stimulus for shovel ready jobs and it turned out almost nothing was built but plenty of votes were bought because the "stimulus" went to blue state governments and kept a bunch of Democratic constituencies hired.

So he spent trillions letting people sit on unemployment for YEARS and also paying the people in government to encourage diversity, grow special needs requirements, etc. Meanwhile the road and bridges crumble, the debt grows and you have the gall to wonder why almost no one wants to raise taxes to continue this pattern.

Quote:
You think the stimulus failed because that type of measure doesn't work, and I (and most notable economists) think it failed because it wasn't enough.

The stimulus failed because green energy returns have been lies. The stimulus failed because shuttling a bunch of money out to states to keep bureaucrats hired isn't going to bring about economic growth. It failed because all the multipliers were lies and that is why all the estimates about the outcome weren't even close being far outside even the worst case scenario. You can tell yourself different but remember it is one of those comforting lies.

Quote:
You think he failed at keeping troops in Iraq and I think he failed at getting them out earlier. You think Obama is too tough on Israel and I think he's been a fucking pussy against that evil government. You think he didn't lead on Lybia, and I think the Americans seeded the resistance movement and should never have done that and in fact should have kept the fuck out of Lybia. You say tomato and I say toe-fucking-bullshit.

There's at least an explainable philosophy behind what he thinks. You just take sides for your team and spit out nonsense about the world "respecting" us and our leaders more as if that would stop dictators and armies. Being pissed off isn't a plan or philosophy.

Quote:
We can never agree when there's so much division. The country is fucked.

The country is indeed fucked. It's very close to giving in. Marriage is about to become a minority couple status and cohabitation at best doesn't grow wealth as quickly and at worst, destroys wealth. The number of people making all the right choices (get educated, get married, be moral, make healthful choices, etc) are benefiting from them more than ever both in happiness, economic status, job security, and what have you, and the people who benefit from the train-wrecks not making those choices or who want to create envy or programs that try to equalize the outcomes from all those bad choices are at risk of becoming the majority or the norm. Perhaps we are already there. That is what the discussion between Jazz and myself boils down to when I say we need a candidate who can walk people back from one side to the other without alienating them.

Now on the thread topic President Obama's job approval oscillates up and down but the overall trend is clear. It drops ever lower and at this point makes his 11/10 numbers look good.
The murmurs from the campaign are clear and they are that his campaign will be unrelentingly negative and will attempt to avoid blame for his leadership by casting class warfare and envy in an attempt to distract.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #156 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew63 View Post

I think a lot of people are vastly over-estimating the appeal of the likely Republican nominees.

This is a problem they don't really understand. Watching Fox News all the time has a habit of warping your sense of reality.

While its true that many on the left are somewhat disappointed by Obama, that doesn't mean that they are going to sit the election out - especially when confronted by the possibility of President Mitt or Newt.

I think a "sensible", decent, 1970s or 80s era Republican, of the Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush school, would have very good odds of beating Obama. The nut cases and fools I saw pandering to the Israel lobby on TV the other night? Not so much.

And like it or not, Obama can point to some pretty significant accomplishments. Mitt Romney is going to have a lot to explain how making himself rich as Croesus while laying off thousands of workers qualifies him as an expert on Job Creation. And Obama's poll numbers against Gingrich make him a shoo-in for re-election. It'd take a Watergate/Monica Lewinski style scandal to turn them around.

Jus' Sayin'

You could be right what you say.Romney is never for the poor or middle class.Look what he did at Bain when he was there.
post #157 of 886
Thread Starter 
When Legend Becomes Fact, Print the Legend.

Get ready for some more media myth making!

Quote:
That his brilliance is a myth was not just revealed by the weekly lapses (whether phonetic [corpse-man], or cultural [Austria/Germany, the United Kingdom/England, Memorial Day/Veterans Day] or inane [57 states]), but in matters of common sense and basic history. The error-ridden Cairo speech was foolish; the serial appeasement of Iran revealed an ignorance of human nature; a two-minute glance at an etiquette book would have nixed the bowing or the cheap gifts to the UK.

In short, the myth of Obama’s brilliance was based on his teleprompted eloquence, the sort of fable that says we should listen to a clueless Sean Penn or Matt Damon on politics because they can sometimes act well.

A false intelligence...

Quote:
The truth? The Obamites — Jarrett, Axelrod, Emanuel, etc. — were hard-core partisan dividers, who had a history of demonizing enemies, suing to eliminate opponents, and leaking divorce records, in addition to the usual Chicago campaign protocols.

If one were to collate the Obama record on race (from Eric Holder’s “my people” and “cowards” to Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” and Van Jones’s racist rants), it is the most polarizing in a generation. The Obama way is and always was to create horrific straw men: opponents of health care reform are greedy doctors who want to rip out your tonsils; opponents of tax increases jet off to Vegas to blow their children’s tuition money; skeptics of Solyndra-like disasters want to dirty the air; those against open borders wish to put alligators and moats in the Rio Grande as they round up children at ice cream parlors.

Covered by smashmouth politics so you don't question it.

Quote:
The notion that there was anything in Obama’s past or present temperament to suggest a political reformer was mythological to the core. Almost all his prior elections relied on a paradigm of attacking his opponents rather than defending his own record, from the races for the legislature to the U.S. Senate. He shook down Wall Street as no one had before or since — and well after the September 2008 meltdown. He was the logical expression of the Chicago/Illinois system of Tony Rezko, Blago, and the Daleys, not its aberration — from the mundane of expanding his yard to melting down opponents by leaking sealed divorce records.

There's nothing that Obama won't claim with regard to trying to get elected.

Quote:
We will never know much about Fast and Furious, and even less about Greengate. Obama — and this was clever rather than brilliant — gauged rightly that not only would liberals’ hysteria about ethics cease when he brought them to power, but in a strange way they would grin that one of their own had out-hustled the supposed right-wing hustlers.

Indeed the almost complete lack of Obama related humor or outrage for his wars, profligate spending, and complete disconnect from normal people and actions is indeed telling and his supports are now the world's biggest hypocrites.

Quote:
There was never a peep that Obama’s present anti-terrorism protocols — Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, Predators, the Patriot Act, preventative detention — came from George Bush. Much less did we hear that had Bush for a nanosecond ever listened to the demagoguery of then state legislator and later senator Obama, none of these tools would presently exist. How did what was superfluous, unconstitutional, and possibly illegal in 2008 become vital in 2011?

Ditto the Iraq War. We went in a blink from the surge that failed and made things worse and all troops must be out by March 2008 to Iraq was a shining example of American idealism and commitment. It was as if the touch-and-go, life-and-death gamble between February 2007 and January 2009 in Iraq never had existed. Bombing Libya was not warlike, and those who sued Bush on Iraq and Guantanamo now filed briefs to prove that we were not at war killing Libyan thugs. We hear only of reset; never that Obama has now simply abandoned all his “Bush-did-it” policies and is quietly going back to the Bush consensus on Russia, Iran, Syria, and the Middle East in general. We will not only never see Guantanamo closed or KSM tried in a civilian court, but never hear why not. Are we to applaud the hypocrisy as at least better than continued ignorance?

On the domestic front, we are forever frozen on September 15, 2008. There is never an Obama sentence that the Freddie/Fannie machinations (both agencies were routinely plundered for bonuses by ex-Clinton flunkies) gave a green light to Wall Street greed — much less that both empowered public recklessness either to flip houses or to buy a house without credit worthiness or any history of thrift. Did we ever hear that between the meltdown and the inauguration, there were four months of frantic stabilization that, by the time of Obama’s ascendancy, had ensured that the panic had largely passed? Instead, blowing $5 trillion in three years is to be forever the response to the ongoing and now multiyear Bush crash, all to justify a “never waste a crisis” reordering of society.

The list is rather long and hopefully 2012 will begin to put an end to it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #158 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

When Legend Becomes Fact, Print the Legend.

Get ready for some more media myth making!



A false intelligence...



Covered by smashmouth politics so you don't question it.



There's nothing that Obama won't claim with regard to trying to get elected.



Indeed the almost complete lack of Obama related humor or outrage for his wars, profligate spending, and complete disconnect from normal people and actions is indeed telling and his supports are now the world's biggest hypocrites.



The list is rather long and hopefully 2012 will begin to put an end to it.


This campaign will be no different. He cannot run on his record, because his record is indefensible. He's been angry, divisive, hyper-partisan and defensive. He's engaged in class warfare, employed and defended political extremists and outright racists. He's made military moves for political reasons. His representation of America abroad has been classless and shameful. His use of strawman is perhaps unprecedented, and comes into play on nearly ever major issue ("but a certain crowd in Washington thinks...). Most of all, his policies have objectively failed. The only thing he can run on is "I got bin Laden and a lot of AQ leaders" and "we saved the economy..it could have been worse." The rest is going to be all negative.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #159 of 886
It still causes a snicker whenever we see conservative calling Obama "hyperpartisan". The Republicans (reportedly) took a fucking pledge to be partisan, and even if those reports are inaccurate, they certainly have lived up to that hyperpartisanship.

How about we cut out the silly hypocrisy, shall we?
post #160 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It still causes a snicker whenever we see conservative calling Obama "hyperpartisan". The Republicans (reportedly) took a fucking pledge to be partisan, and even if those reports are inaccurate, they certainly have lived up to that hyperpartisanship.

How about we cut out the silly hypocrisy, shall we?

I'm not claiming the GOP has not been partisan. Clearly, they have. Then again, much of their partisan opposition is based on the fact that Obama's agenda completely conflicts with their beliefs.

Secondly, partisanship in Congress is one thing. The POTUS calling out Republicans from the podium at every opportunity in another.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.