Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread. - Page 17

Ah, the fallacy of reverse causation.  Success can lead to Republican support because Republicans support the rich first and foremost.  

They are not successful because they are Republicans.  They are Republicans because now that they are successful, that's the party that panders to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

 

Spin, spin, spin.

 

He asks for proof I give it and he ignores it.

Classic SDW ignoring the facts, the news, reality. Don't you just love it when you're Obama and democratic you're responsible for everything that happens during you term in office ( and before apparently ) but when you're dubbya a republican you're responsible for nothing and it's always the other guy's fault.

 

And speaking of 50 years after so many republican presidents how is it that things are still so crappy? That's a total 30 out of the last 50 years.

1. You haven't given proof of you assertion.  You've provided some current polling data and your ridiculous election map (which at this point is useless...it's too early).  That is all.

2.  Obama is not responsible for everything....certainly not that which happened before.  That said, he is the President...and the buck stops with him, whether it's fair or not.   What he's really responsible for are his actions.  These include: 

• No budget passed. His recent budget was rejected unanimously by the House and Senate.  Not even one democratic vote.  No budget in three years.  
• Over $5 Trillion in new debt in only 3 years.  This is unprecedented. 
• A 2,700 page, $2 Trillion, unconstitutional monstrosity called Obamacare.
• $1 Trillion+ deficits for three years
• 1,000,000 fewer jobs in the US since Obama took office. 
• Will be one of the first Presidents EVER to experience NO job growth in four years...perhaps even NEGATIVE job growth. 
• Effectively vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline
• Operation Fast and Furious in HIS Justice Department
• New regulations on business costing at least $46 billion per year
• Going after Arizona over an immigration law that mirror federal law
• Insulting the PM of Israel on multiple occasions.  Caught on audio saying "I have to deal with this guy [everyday]"
• Appointment of radical administration members, such as Van Jones and other czars
• Gave GM to the UAW after giving billions to the company.  This means the secured bondholders got screwed.  Do you know who secured bondholders are?
• Failed $700 Billion stimulus, much of which was given to political allies in government private business
• Incompetent handling of BP disaster 
• Bankrupt "green energy" companies (where he played venture capitalist) cost taxpayers TENS OF BILLIONS.  
• Bowing to foreign leaders, promising "flexibility" with Comrade Vladimir and going on a World Apology Tour™
• Politicizing the capture of Osama bin Laden....turning it into a political attack ad.  

Now, let's look at some results.  These may not all be his fault, but they are his responsibility.  At least, that's how it was when Bush was in office, jimmac!  

• 8-11% unemployment, depending on method used to calculate
• Gas prices up about 80% since he took office
• The aforementioned $5 Trillion in new debt
• $16 trillion in debt
• Still declining housing market

There is no case to reelect this President.  None.  Now, go ahead.  I wish you were here so I could make you look me in the eye and make the case with a straight face.  He's an unmitigated disaster.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

 

Spin, spin, spin.

 

He asks for proof I give it and he ignores it.

Classic SDW ignoring the facts, the news, reality. Don't you just love it when you're Obama and democratic you're responsible for everything that happens during you term in office ( and before apparently ) but when you're dubbya a republican you're responsible for nothing and it's always the other guy's fault.

 

And speaking of 50 years after so many republican presidents how is it that things are still so crappy? That's a total 30 out of the last 50 years.

 

1. You haven't given proof of you assertion.  You've provided some current polling data and your ridiculous election map (which at this point is useless...it's too early).  That is all.

 

2.  Obama is not responsible for everything....certainly not that which happened before.  That said, he is the President...and the buck stops with him, whether it's fair or not.   What he's really responsible for are his actions.  These include: 

 

• No budget passed. His recent budget was rejected unanimously by the House and Senate.  Not even one democratic vote.  No budget in three years.  
• Over $5 Trillion in new debt in only 3 years.  This is unprecedented. 
• A 2,700 page, $2 Trillion, unconstitutional monstrosity called Obamacare.
• $1 Trillion+ deficits for three years
• 1,000,000 fewer jobs in the US since Obama took office. 
• Will be one of the first Presidents EVER to experience NO job growth in four years...perhaps even NEGATIVE job growth. 
• Effectively vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline
• Operation Fast and Furious in HIS Justice Department
• New regulations on business costing at least $46 billion per year
• Going after Arizona over an immigration law that mirror federal law
• Insulting the PM of Israel on multiple occasions.  Caught on audio saying "I have to deal with this guy [everyday]"
• Appointment of radical administration members, such as Van Jones and other czars
• Gave GM to the UAW after giving billions to the company.  This means the secured bondholders got screwed.  Do you know who secured bondholders are?
• Failed $700 Billion stimulus, much of which was given to political allies in government private business
• Incompetent handling of BP disaster 
• Bankrupt "green energy" companies (where he played venture capitalist) cost taxpayers TENS OF BILLIONS.  
• Bowing to foreign leaders, promising "flexibility" with Comrade Vladimir and going on a World Apology Tour™
• Politicizing the capture of Osama bin Laden....turning it into a political attack ad.  

 

 

Now, let's look at some results.  These may not all be his fault, but they are his responsibility.  At least, that's how it was when Bush was in office, jimmac!  

 

• 8-11% unemployment, depending on method used to calculate
• Gas prices up about 80% since he took office
• The aforementioned $5 Trillion in new debt
• $16 trillion in debt
• Still declining housing market

 

 

 

There is no case to reelect this President.  None.  Now, go ahead.  I wish you were here so I could make you look me in the eye and make the case with a straight face.  He's an unmitigated disaster.  

 

 

 

Why bother anymore SDW? You never acknowledge any proof from anyone else that you disagree with. I'm not the only one you do this with. You say I look like a "  clown " but what do you look like when you ask for proof and then don't accept it because it doesn't fit your world view?

Remember you said that when we are talking about Bush in the future and you start to ask me " how is he responsible? ".

I'm looking you in the eye but it's a little difficult since your head is in the sand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

 

Why bother anymore SDW? You never acknowledge any proof from anyone else that you disagree with. I'm not the only one you do this with. You say I look like a "  clown " but what do you look like when you ask for proof and then don't accept it because it doesn't fit your world view?

 

 

Remember you said that when we are talking about Bush in the future and you start to ask me " how is he responsible? ".

 

 

I'm looking you in the eye but it's a little difficult since your head is in the sand.

1.  Your claim is that Obama is on the right track in terms of being reelected.  I am saying you have not provided convincing evidence of this assertion.  There is a multitude of data I have posted many times which contradicts your assertion.  Go ahead, jimmac.  Make the case.  Show me more than one poll or a snapshot of the battleground state map.  Show some real trends and data and draw some conclusions.  I'm waiting. 

2.  I raised the point about Obama and "the buck stopping" precisely BECAUSE of your position on Bush.  Everything was Bush's fault because he was in charge.  The economic crisis was his fault because he was "asleep at the switch" as you claimed.  So I'm asking:  If it was Bush's fault then...is it Obama's now?  

3.  Yeah, jimmac.  I'm the one denying reality.  I'm the one that ignores all historical trends.  Got it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

 

Why bother anymore SDW? You never acknowledge any proof from anyone else that you disagree with. I'm not the only one you do this with. You say I look like a "  clown " but what do you look like when you ask for proof and then don't accept it because it doesn't fit your world view?

 

 

Remember you said that when we are talking about Bush in the future and you start to ask me " how is he responsible? ".

 

 

I'm looking you in the eye but it's a little difficult since your head is in the sand.

 

1.  Your claim is that Obama is on the right track in terms of being reelected.  I am saying you have not provided convincing evidence of this assertion.  There is a multitude of data I have posted many times which contradicts your assertion.  Go ahead, jimmac.  Make the case.  Show me more than one poll or a snapshot of the battleground state map.  Show some real trends and data and draw some conclusions.  I'm waiting. 

 

2.  I raised the point about Obama and "the buck stopping" precisely BECAUSE of your position on Bush.  Everything was Bush's fault because he was in charge.  The economic crisis was his fault because he was "asleep at the switch" as you claimed.  So I'm asking:  If it was Bush's fault then...is it Obama's now?  

 

3.  Yeah, jimmac.  I'm the one denying reality.  I'm the one that ignores all historical trends.  Got it.  

Sorry we're still living with the results from Bush's 8 years in office twice that of Obama . So Bush doesn't get an off the hook card just because he's not president anymore. You can wait all you want. I've provided reasons for my claim. You just don't like them ( maybe it's your amygdala ).

I'm sure anyone who has had an opposing viewpoint to yours can testify that you ignore any evidence you don't like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Sorry we're still living with the results from Bush's 8 years in office

Geez, we're still living with the results of Hoover's/FDR's years in office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Sorry we're still living with the results from Bush's 8 years in office

 

Geez, we're still living with the results of Hoover's/FDR's years in office.

Yes but Bush is a lot more recent so a lot more influential eh what?

It is shameful that the Democrats kiss the ass of the Republicans most of the time to try to get things passed.Liberals should have more balls and stand up for what is right and what they want to accomplish as a party.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Yes but Bush is a lot more recent so a lot more influential eh what?

Maybe. Maybe not. The truth is that Bush/Obama is like Hoover/FDR redux. The similarities are incredibly striking actually if you study the history. But what's worse about Hoover/FDR is that they setup all the precedents for big government intervention into the economy that creates these downturns and makes them worse. What's worse about Hoover is that most people (to this day) are convinced he was this small government, free-marketist who let capitalism run amuck (as they think with Bush). What's worse about FDR is that most people (to this day) are convinced he "saved the country from free-market capitalism" (as they think with Obama) while setting up a precedent that Obama would follow that only made things worse.

What's worse about Hoover and FDR is that they setup a narrative that no one really learned the right lessons from.

What's worse about Hoover and FDR is that they setup the rationalization for what's happening today, enabling Bush/Obama to create another great depression.

What's worse about Hoover and FDR is that they got the ball rolling for the socialism and economic fascism that we have today.

You need to learn to take the long view on things like this.

Are Bush and Obama to blame for the current problems? Absolutely. But they are standing on the shoulders of problems created decades ago and operating on a flawed comprehension of the problem, its root causes and the appropriate remedies.

jimmac:

Obviously.  But you've never cited anything specific that Bush did (or failed to do) that caused the 2008 crisis and subsequent recession.  

I agree, though the difference is I'm interested in looking at what he actually did.  For example, Bush pushed for and got the Medicare prescription drug benefit.  That has cost X amount of money, and will continue to.  If you want to look at those costs and put them on Bush, fine.  If you want to point to the fact that Bush allowed domestic spending to increase too rapidly, that's fine too.  And if we're going to fault Bush at this point, we also have to give him credit where it is due.  For example, much of the intelligence that led to getting bin Laden was the result of Bush administration actions.  This includes building a more robust intelligence capability, interrogation, etc.  

Quote:

You can wait all you want. I've provided reasons for my claim. You just don't like them ( maybe it's your amygdala ).

Untrue.  You've provided some cherry picked national polls as well as a then-current battleground state electoral map.  That does not a case make.  On the other hand, I've posted historical data and more in-depth current data (polling, economy, etc) and followed it to its obvious conclusions.  That data shows Obama losing unless the economy improves dramatically in the next 6 months.  Additionally, my opinion is that a major geopolitical event  (war, large scale terrorist attack, etc) would possibly change that historically supported most likely scenario.  Now, please show me how I'm wrong.  

Objection...speculation!   ;)  In all seriousness, I'll be happy to look at any data you have that shows I'm wrong. If you have some data showing what great shape Obama is in compared to past elections/economic stats (etc), let's see it and discuss it. 

By the way, for those claiming unemployment is "just about low enough" to get Barry Soetoro reelected, there is this:  

Labor Force Participation rate lowest since 1981 

So much for "saving the economy" and "unemployment moving in the right direction."  Barry owns this monstrosity now.  Blaming it on dubya has run its course.  

The birther jab is quite silly and only makes you look like a fool.

Do you think Romney will be more different than Obama ? Romney loves to fire people as he said months ago who are not up to par according to him. Corporations are people is this realistic to you to hear?

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

Do you think Romney will be more different than Obama ? Romney loves to fire people as he said months ago who are not up to par according to him. Corporations are people is this realistic to you to hear?

I think that the DNC may have a picture of you with a target on it in their campaign office.  Seriously? Really?  The "firing people" line was completely out of context.  He was talking about being able to fire your insurance company if you disliked them.  And the corporations are people comment was also out of context.  He was being heckled by someone stating how horrible they were and what not.  It clearly meant "corporations are made up of people.  Come on Marv...at least try to understand the facts.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

The birther jab is quite silly and only makes you look like a fool.

Right, BR.  Get some!  I can't take a jab at the President--who was actually known as Barry Soetoro for some time.  But you can accuse Republicans of hating the poor.  Got it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Just another one of those foolish articles running the numbers on the Obama economy.

 

The article even deals with all the rationalizations that Democrats are putting forward to justify the worst "recovery" in modern history.

 

Quote:

 

There is no way to rationalize away the awful job performance of Barack Obama.

Sure there is.  We'll just talk about how Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to slash Medicare and Social Security.  We'll talk about how the GOP is conducting a "War on Women" and wants to "take away women's healthcare."  We'll toss in a whole bunch of "change is hard" and "it could have been worse if you elected a Republican."  Oh, and we'll claim that Obama has "added three million jobs" since he took office.  See how easy that was!? 

The facts are that Romney flip flops on almost everything he says.This man has no spine at all when it comes to being confronted with reporters. A woman called Obama being a traitor against his own government and Romney just shied away from this and said zero! The reporter had more balls than Romney and tried to get an answer from him and he cowered as usual.
 

Marv: 

That is simply false, me friend.  The only issue you can accuse him of changing his mind on is abortion.  He's stood by his positions in nearly every other area.  As for abortion, he's explained why he changed his position.  

Actually, I'm not entirely sure what that means.  

Once again you've got the facts wrong.  A woman (not a reporter) shouted a question about Obama being tried for treason.  Romney ignored her.  In a follow up interview, a reporter asked about it.  He said "of course not" in response to the question.   

Marv...please make some attempt to look at the facts.  Your posts are getting sillier by the minute. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Yes but Bush is a lot more recent so a lot more influential eh what?

 

Maybe. Maybe not. The truth is that Bush/Obama is like Hoover/FDR redux. The similarities are incredibly striking actually if you study the history. But what's worse about Hoover/FDR is that they setup all the precedents for big government intervention into the economy that creates these downturns and makes them worse. What's worse about Hoover is that most people (to this day) are convinced he was this small government, free-marketist who let capitalism run amuck (as they think with Bush). What's worse about FDR is that most people (to this day) are convinced he "saved the country from free-market capitalism" (as they think with Obama) while setting up a precedent that Obama would follow that only made things worse.

 

What's worse about Hoover and FDR is that they setup a narrative that no one really learned the right lessons from.

 

What's worse about Hoover and FDR is that they setup the rationalization for what's happening today, enabling Bush/Obama to create another great depression.

 

What's worse about Hoover and FDR is that they got the ball rolling for the socialism and economic fascism that we have today.

 

You need to learn to take the long view on things like this.

 

Are Bush and Obama to blame for the current problems? Absolutely. But they are standing on the shoulders of problems created decades ago and operating on a flawed comprehension of the problem, its root causes and the appropriate remedies.

 

Are you really saying that FDR and Hoover have more influence over what's happening today than the last previous president? Really? You know it's getting harder and harder to post here when you realize you're talking to people who don't have a firm grasp on reality. Or to put it another way they would prefer to see the world through there pet political belief rather than deal with obvious facts. This kind of stuff I expect from SDW but not you!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

The birther jab is quite silly and only makes you look like a fool.

Yup!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

jimmac:

 

 

Quote:

Sorry we're still living with the results from Bush's 8 years in office twice that of Obama .

 

Obviously.  But you've never cited anything specific that Bush did (or failed to do) that caused the 2008 crisis and subsequent recession.  

 

 

Quote:

 So Bush doesn't get an off the hook card just because he's not president anymore.

 

I agree, though the difference is I'm interested in looking at what he actually did.  For example, Bush pushed for and got the Medicare prescription drug benefit.  That has cost X amount of money, and will continue to.  If you want to look at those costs and put them on Bush, fine.  If you want to point to the fact that Bush allowed domestic spending to increase too rapidly, that's fine too.  And if we're going to fault Bush at this point, we also have to give him credit where it is due.  For example, much of the intelligence that led to getting bin Laden was the result of Bush administration actions.  This includes building a more robust intelligence capability, interrogation, etc.  

 

 

Quote:

You can wait all you want. I've provided reasons for my claim. You just don't like them ( maybe it's your amygdala ).

 

Untrue.  You've provided some cherry picked national polls as well as a then-current battleground state electoral map.  That does not a case make.  On the other hand, I've posted historical data and more in-depth current data (polling, economy, etc) and followed it to its obvious conclusions.  That data shows Obama losing unless the economy improves dramatically in the next 6 months.  Additionally, my opinion is that a major geopolitical event  (war, large scale terrorist attack, etc) would possibly change that historically supported most likely scenario.  Now, please show me how I'm wrong.  

 

 

 

Quote:

I'm sure anyone who has had an opposing viewpoint to yours can testify that you ignore any evidence you don't like.

 

Objection...speculation!   ;)  In all seriousness, I'll be happy to look at any data you have that shows I'm wrong. If you have some data showing what great shape Obama is in compared to past elections/economic stats (etc), let's see it and discuss it. 

 SDW do you know why this comment is null and void? Because of the same logic you've applied to Obama ( I told you I'd bring this up ).

Here's the quote to answer your question :

What's good for Obama should be good for Dubbya. But of course in these situations you don't even adhere to your own logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Are you really saying that FDR and Hoover have more influence over what's happening today than the last previous president? Really?

Actually, in a way, yes. Those guys laid the foundation and created the narrative for what's playing out now. The moves being made now are built on these previous mistakes. In a way these recent actions by Bush and Obama are more in line with the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

I'm hoping that someday you'll see the bigger picture here. The issue is a mindset, a political and economic philosophy combined with a flawed interpretation of reality. It's not about any one president like Bush or Obama...because they both effectively share the same mindset. Obama is merely a variation of Bush. You seem to be oblivious to this fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You know it's getting harder and harder to post here when you realize you're talking to people who don't have a firm grasp on reality.

I agree. Let us know when you get one. It should improve your posting quality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Or to put it another way they would prefer to see the world through there pet political belief rather than deal with obvious facts.

It has nothing to do with a "pet political belief" (how is it that anyone who doesn't see things as you do is being partisan?!)...it's about a clear understand of the facts of history and the logic of proper economic reasoning. Try it some time, it's enlightening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

This kind of stuff I expect from SDW but not you!

I don't even know what that means.

The reporter went after Romney to get an answer and he just mentioned something fast to her like double talking. My posts revealed the truth sir.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

The reporter went after Romney to get an answer and he just mentioned something fast to her like double talking. My posts revealed the truth sir.
 

The reporter asked Romney a question about what had happened.  No one "went after" him.  He answered as clearly as possible "of course not"  when asked about Obama being tried for treason.  What double talk are you referring to?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

 SDW do you know why this comment is null and void? Because of the same logic you've applied to Obama ( I told you I'd bring this up ).

 

Here's the quote to answer your question :

 

What's good for Obama should be good for Dubbya. But of course in these situations you don't even adhere to your own logic.

 

This is like working with a first grader.  <deep breath>  OK, let's try again.  jimmac, I'm the one making that argument.  I'm saying that, by your logic, everything should now be Obama's fault.  I've never taken the position that everything that happens is a sitting President's fault, so it's not my logic...it's yours.    

 

Remember me?  I'm the guy that says we should examine what Presidents actually do.  You must be the other guy.  

 

 

Yes I remember you. The guy that makes up his own rules as he goes along. This is worse than working with a first grader. It's like working with an adult that never grew up.You have always tried to twist the argument so it seems like you're being logical but in reality you're just ignoring what's happened in our conversations before. You have always maintained that I should explain why Bush was to blame for things that happened during his time in office. Now you're saying the same thing about Obama and when I call you on it you try to wiggle out of it with this?

Why do I bother talking to you? We all know pretty much that Romney doesn't look to good as far as winning the next election ( in spite of your historical comparisons he's just not well enough liked to unseat the incumbent ). We also know what you'll do when that becomes a reality. First denial ( I want a recount or you'll recant your position shortly before the election ) then you'll disappear for a few months. Look if Obama makes a blunder between now and Nov. Romney could win. But otherwise I don't think so.

Truthfully I watch so much news about politics I forgot what really transpired than.

National polls may show a tie.  But we don't elect a president based on the popular vote.  Electoral collage, wise.... Obama is killing it!

I'll take a George W. Bush style win any day of the week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Yes I remember you. The guy that makes up his own rules as he goes along. This is worse than working with a first grader. It's like working with an adult that never grew up.You have always tried to twist the argument so it seems like you're being logical but in reality you're just ignoring what's happened in our conversations before. You have always maintained that I should explain why Bush was to blame for things that happened during his time in office. Now you're saying the same thing about Obama and when I call you on it you try to wiggle out of it with this?

Why do I bother talking to you? We all know pretty much that Romney doesn't look to good as far as winning the next election ( in spite of your historical comparisons he's just not well enough liked to unseat the incumbent ). We also know what you'll do when that becomes a reality. First denial ( I want a recount or you'll recant your position shortly before the election ) then you'll disappear for a few months. Look if Obama makes a blunder between now and Nov. Romney could win. But otherwise I don't think so.

Again, you're talking about of your ass.  You are offering that opinion with absolutely no support whatsoever.  As for Bush, yes...I consistently ask you what policies contributed to which problems, and you consistently refuse to answer.  The only explanation you've ever offered is that he was President.  Does that now not apply to Obama, too?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northgate 

National polls may show a tie.  But we don't elect a president based on the popular vote.  Electoral collage, wise.... Obama is killing it!

National Polls show Romney leading.  Obama is not even close to "killing it" in the electoral college, because the state by state polls are still badly out of date.  He's lost significant support among nearly all his core constituencies, and is positively hemorrhaging independents and white males.   As trump notes, he's now even losing women.  A month or so ago, I saw a poll where Obama had a 12 point lead amongst women!   The facts show that Obama is in serious trouble in some very important states, including Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina.  He is going on the wrong direction, while Romney hasn't even gotten started.  A George Bush victory?  You might be in for a George H. W. Bush/Dukakis defeat, or even Reagan/Carter size defeat.  

Now who's the liar?  One poll--and WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR.  Not polls plural.  Not conclusive because it's within the margin of error.  Terrible, SDW.  Terrible.

Yes, please.  Let's start arguing about polls.  Please please pretty please.  Polls had McCain within striking distance 12 hours before the election.

People like my authoritarian, bought-and-paid-for-by-foreign-banks-and-Wall-Street, warmongering puppet better than yours!

Don't worry.  For all those "pox on both their houses" folks they'll still pull the trigger.... for a Republican.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Now who's the liar?  One poll--and WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR.  Not polls plural.  Not conclusive because it's within the margin of error.  Terrible, SDW.  Terrible.

No...there was that one, and Ramussen had him up by 7 points 50-43 last week.