President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1371

On November 07 2012 18:22 ControlMonkey wrote:


Yep, they should have done some deal, splitting up the wholesale & retail sections. Maybe kept the wholesale stuff public, selling the retail? But then it would be worth nothing and wouldn't help pay down the debt faster which was the whole point of it, but I digress.

So wooo Obama, I guess we get world peace now right?

On November 07 2012 18:40 mcmartini wrote:

I actually find Telstra to be the best in terms of service.... but each to his own also didn't they just Privatise queensland rail?

Defeat for a man of contradictions

MITT ROMNEY'S bid for the US presidency failed because voters saw through him – as a candidate the man was a political chameleon.

On his second bid for the White House, Romney held nothing back – last week, a flip-flop; yesterday, a backtrack; today, a retreat; and tomorrow, a sidestep of what he had said last week or last year.

A sharply worded editorial in The Washington Post on Sunday argued that the only consistency in the Romney campaign had been the candidate's contempt for the electorate. But that he went so close to becoming president reveals more than we might have expected about the people and politics of the global superpower.
[...]
Had Romney won the election, Americans seriously would be waking up tomorrow not having a clue about what to expect from their new leader.
[...]
Just as remarkable was Romney's refusal to detail his policies, beyond repeating that he had a five-point plan. Seasoned tax-policy experts said the maths in his tax policy were simply impossible – but the candidate offered no explanation; he would end tax deductions, but he refused to say which; he had different ideas to Obama on young undocumented migrants — but he would not reveal them.
[...]
Often derided as a nation of idiots, American voters might have redeemed themselves in the eyes of the world – and it's safe to assume that a good number of those who ticked the box for Obama were among the 47 per cent who Romney wrote off as victim-types about whom he did not have to care.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/defeat-for-a-man-of-contradictions-20121107-28y50.html

On November 07 2012 17:50 EleanorRIgby wrote:


omg those people make obama look like hitler WOW they are mad and very racist

Cut out all non essentials buy a scooter or motorcycle keep your cash in safety deposit boxes and buy ammo. Be prepared for anything hope for the best and prepare for the worse

On November 07 2012 20:24 Chunhyang wrote:
Did anyone LR the election?

On November 07 2012 16:52 aksfjh wrote:

Really? REALLY? What kind of bullshit have you been watching, reading, and/or listening to that you ACTUALLY believe this? Time and time again, the President has gone to the table saying he's willing to offer things, like entitlement reforms, in return for some measure of revenue increases. It's completely stupid and false to claim Obama or the Democrats as a whole haven't tried to work with the Republicans. We had Democratic congressmen protest the healthcare reform law because no Republican would join in, that's the party of the left.

On November 07 2012 20:58 ey215 wrote:


The Price of Politics. Read and enjoy.

I never said the President wasn't willing to deal on entitlements (the Democrats' ideological dragon) but that he'd have to show some leadership to get the Democrats in congress to go along.

The "Grand Bargain" blew up because there weren't enough votes on both sides to get it through. The major long term debt/entitlement/tax reform that we're going to need is going to have to be done with a large amount of votes on both sides and the President is going to have to drag some of the Democrats in congress along to get a true deal.

Some of the Democrats in congress seem to think that they should keep Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in their pockets no matter what it does to our debt because it's good for beating the Republicans about the head with around election time.

The Republicans are just as bad on revenues and the Speaker is going to have to wrangle some of them in to get a deal done.

No real solution to our very real long term debt problem is going to happen until both sides are willing to share the pain. Maybe the answer is to put Simpson-Bowles on the table and then haggle over the exact details. Maybe it's a play off the grand bargain. I don't know. I do know if the President's attitude is, "I won so deal with it" he's not going to get anything. I also think he knows that and might actually work to build some trust and a working relationship with the GOP leadership in Congress. Working to build some trust with some of the regular members would probably be good as well. Take a page from Clinton.

There seems to be the idea around the left (not elected officials but columnists, pundits, and posters here) that if the Republicans in the house don't just let the President do whatever he wants they are being "obstructionist". There are some legitimate cases of that but a lot of the time the sides are just talking past each other trying to score political points.

Essentially, the whole place is dysfunctional but maybe they'll all grow the fuck up, stop the demagoguery on both sides, and do their jobs.

I hold out hope the President is the man that get them to do that.

edit: I am willing to concede that some Democrats also have ideological reasons for opposing entitlement reform as some Republicans have ideological reasons for opposing tax hikes. It's not all politics, but a lot of it is.