On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote: Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious.
I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself.
It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
And, like others have pointed out, a Congress whose #1 goal was to chase the President out of the White House. They have proposed almost nothing of substance, always playing the political games.
Umm he had a majority in both houses for the first 2 years. All his budgets get shot down unanimously by both sides.
On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote: Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious.
I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself.
It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
And, like others have pointed out, a Congress whose #1 goal was to chase the President out of the White House. They have proposed almost nothing of substance, always playing the political games.
That "congress" was a result of people voting against democrats because they were disapointed in Obama/the democrats. He inherited a democrat majority in both the senate and the house but failed to act accordingly in the eyes of the voters.
On April 25 2012 12:51 Oreo7 wrote: Disagree with your premise, why is that a necessary part of getting serious about solving our fiscal problems? America was running a surplus in the 1990s with no reform to these, and we didn't have serious budget problems before Bush was president, but we had both of those programs.
As our population demographics change, these programs get relatively more expensive. What worked in the 90s won't necessarily work today.
Admittedly, social Security isn't so out of control that reforming it is necessary; tax increases would work just as well. But judging by past history, this country isn't willing to accept more than 20% of GDP being collected as federal tax revenue. On the other hand, health care costs - and Medicare costs by extension - are growing at a much faster rate than the economy overall. Without serious reform, Medicare will destroy our finances.
It's untrue that Democrats aren't willing to change these programs. Obama offered to make major cuts to Social Security during last summer's budget negotiations/debacle. However Republicans were unwilling to accept any tax increases as part of a compromise.
Make no mistake, balancing the budget will require both less spending on the "big 3" (defense, medicare, and social security) as well as higher tax revenue. This isn't something that the right or the left is going to enjoy.
Obama tried to put cost controls on this kind of government health care spending, and it was decried as "death panels." The changes in Paul Ryan's proposals have been attacked as well. I'm skeptical that anything serious will be done on this issue. Similarly recall how Bush was only able to win half of the 65+ vote (which is overwhelmingly conservative socially) when he proposed changes to Social Security. Old people are a very powerful voting group and they don't want to lose their federal benefits.
The various voting registration and ID changes that are going to further reduce young voter turnout only makes changes to Social Security/Medicare even less likely.
I'm honestly surprised by this OP, as Romney has NOT won the nomination. He's obviously the clear leader and presumptive nominee, but the nominating convention isn't until late August, and he's got over 2 months to royally screw up (which probably isn't too far off, to be honest). I cordially encourage the mod who wrote Rule 4 to follow Rule 4 for this erroneous OP.
For what it's worth (and it's probably not much), I'd rather not have this discussion under presumption... Unless you guys want to be part of the next version of "Dewey Defeats Truman".
On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote: Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious.
I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself.
It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
And, like others have pointed out, a Congress whose #1 goal was to chase the President out of the White House. They have proposed almost nothing of substance, always playing the political games.
That "congress" was a result of people voting against democrats because they were disapointed in Obama/the democrats. He inherited a democrat majority in both the senate and the house but failed to act accordingly in the eyes of the voters.
The Democrats in Congress failed to act accordinly in the eyes of the voters, who chose Obama and his political mandate. And yet, the Republicans spin it to be a failure on Obama's part. I just hope people don't fall for this kind of manipulative, political spinning.
On April 25 2012 14:03 AimForTheBushes wrote: I'm honestly surprised by this OP, as Romney has NOT won the nomination. He's obviously the clear leader and presumptive nominee, but the nominating convention isn't until late August, and he's got over 2 months to royally screw up (which probably isn't too far off, to be honest). I cordially encourage the mod who wrote Rule 4 to follow Rule 4 for this erroneous OP.
For what it's worth (and it's probably not much), I'd rather not have this discussion under presumption... Unless you guys want to be part of the next version of "Dewey Defeats Truman".
Yes, you are very correct. It is entirely possible that Gingrich will steal the nomination out from under Romney's nose. Why is everyone in this thread so stupid to think that Romney has won against Gingrich, they must be retarded.
On April 25 2012 14:03 AimForTheBushes wrote: I'm honestly surprised by this OP, as Romney has NOT won the nomination. He's obviously the clear leader and presumptive nominee, but the nominating convention isn't until late August, and he's got over 2 months to royally screw up (which probably isn't too far off, to be honest). I cordially encourage the mod who wrote Rule 4 to follow Rule 4 for this erroneous OP.
For what it's worth (and it's probably not much), I'd rather not have this discussion under presumption... Unless you guys want to be part of the next version of "Dewey Defeats Truman".
Yes, you are very correct. It is entirely possible that Gingrich will steal the nomination out from under Romney's nose. Why is everyone in this thread so stupid to think that Romney has won against Gingrich, they must be retarded.
On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote: Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious.
I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself.
It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
And, like others have pointed out, a Congress whose #1 goal was to chase the President out of the White House. They have proposed almost nothing of substance, always playing the political games.
That "congress" was a result of people voting against democrats because they were disapointed in Obama/the democrats. He inherited a democrat majority in both the senate and the house but failed to act accordingly in the eyes of the voters.
The Democrats in Congress failed to act accordinly in the eyes of the voters, who chose Obama and his political mandate. And yet, the Republicans spin it to be a failure on Obama's part. I just hope people don't fall for this kind of manipulative, political spinning.
Oh but they will though, and it's not because Americans are more or less ignorant than any other nation, but their media outlets are godawful at actually addressing issues (with exceptions of course). There seems to be a herd mentality where, if some minor gaffe is discovered by Channel X, all the other channels run with it to the exclusion of everything else! If more editors just put their collective feet down and said something akin to 'no, this story is inconsequential bullshit, I'm going to do some proper journalism'.
Representative democracy is only going to actually fulfill its mandate if the media at large actually informs the public and lets them decide. As it is they are too concerned with market shares and shoving hyperbolic stories down the throats of Americans, while not adequately covering the truly important issues that impact everybody.
In addition I'm really intrigued by the large discrepancies I see time and time again between responses to pollsters to specific, clear questions on certain issues, and the political self-identity people give to other polls. For example those who self identify as Republican, but would vote for a slew of policies that would go against that. I'll try and dig up links, I had a lot of these lying around months ago but I changed my dissertation topic and lost them, was really interesting though.
It's got to be tough to know where you are politically, when terms like 'socialist' and 'big government' are simply buzzwords that are regurgitated over and over again without the concepts themselves being explained.
On April 25 2012 14:03 AimForTheBushes wrote: I'm honestly surprised by this OP, as Romney has NOT won the nomination. He's obviously the clear leader and presumptive nominee, but the nominating convention isn't until late August, and he's got over 2 months to royally screw up (which probably isn't too far off, to be honest). I cordially encourage the mod who wrote Rule 4 to follow Rule 4 for this erroneous OP.
For what it's worth (and it's probably not much), I'd rather not have this discussion under presumption... Unless you guys want to be part of the next version of "Dewey Defeats Truman".
Yes, you are very correct. It is entirely possible that Gingrich will steal the nomination out from under Romney's nose. Why is everyone in this thread so stupid to think that Romney has won against Gingrich, they must be retarded.
Trolling after only 4 posts usually ends up in a ban. Or that could be an honest opinion, and I wouldn't be sure what to say to that other than you are completely wrong.
On April 25 2012 14:03 AimForTheBushes wrote: I'm honestly surprised by this OP, as Romney has NOT won the nomination. He's obviously the clear leader and presumptive nominee, but the nominating convention isn't until late August, and he's got over 2 months to royally screw up (which probably isn't too far off, to be honest). I cordially encourage the mod who wrote Rule 4 to follow Rule 4 for this erroneous OP.
For what it's worth (and it's probably not much), I'd rather not have this discussion under presumption... Unless you guys want to be part of the next version of "Dewey Defeats Truman".
Yes, you are very correct. It is entirely possible that Gingrich will steal the nomination out from under Romney's nose. Why is everyone in this thread so stupid to think that Romney has won against Gingrich, they must be retarded.
sarcasm or....
I was pointing out the ridiculousness and redundancy of AimForTheBushes' post claiming incredulousness over the fact that the OP dared to suggest that Romney is the presumptive nominee.
On April 25 2012 14:03 AimForTheBushes wrote: I'm honestly surprised by this OP, as Romney has NOT won the nomination. He's obviously the clear leader and presumptive nominee, but the nominating convention isn't until late August, and he's got over 2 months to royally screw up (which probably isn't too far off, to be honest). I cordially encourage the mod who wrote Rule 4 to follow Rule 4 for this erroneous OP.
For what it's worth (and it's probably not much), I'd rather not have this discussion under presumption... Unless you guys want to be part of the next version of "Dewey Defeats Truman".
Yes, you are very correct. It is entirely possible that Gingrich will steal the nomination out from under Romney's nose. Why is everyone in this thread so stupid to think that Romney has won against Gingrich, they must be retarded.
sarcasm or....
I was pointing out the ridiculousness and redundancy of AimForTheBushes' post claiming incredulousness over the fact that the OP dared to suggest that Romney is the presumptive nominee.
ah gotcha boss, as a fellow sarcasmer I found this post rewarding
On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote: Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely, Rest of the fucking world.
US elections are sort of like the Olympics, they come every four years and the people of the world watch in mild interest to see what absurdity the Americans come up with next!
Unlike the Olympics, however, everyone loses ;( oh well
On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote: Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious.
I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself.
It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
And, like others have pointed out, a Congress whose #1 goal was to chase the President out of the White House. They have proposed almost nothing of substance, always playing the political games.
Umm he had a majority in both houses for the first 2 years. All his budgets get shot down unanimously by both sides.
The senate is a weird place where standard rules dont apply. In senate 60 out of 100 is the only majority that matters and he had that for a little less than a year and even then getting uninanimous consent in just your party on anything is near impossible.
On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote: Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious.
I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself.
It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
And, like others have pointed out, a Congress whose #1 goal was to chase the President out of the White House. They have proposed almost nothing of substance, always playing the political games.
Umm he had a majority in both houses for the first 2 years. All his budgets get shot down unanimously by both sides.
The senate is a weird place where standard rules dont apply. In senate 60 out of 100 is the only majority that matters and he had that for a little less than a year and even then getting uninanimous consent in just your party on anything is near impossible.
Pretty much. In our current bastardization of Senate rules and the political climate, just the threat of a filibuster stops legislation from proceeding for some stupid reason.
I actually wish they had the balls to call out the Senators who threaten to filibuster to actually DO IT like the old days. If you really want to filibuster, then go on the floor and actually do it.
On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote: Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious.
I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself.
It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
And, like others have pointed out, a Congress whose #1 goal was to chase the President out of the White House. They have proposed almost nothing of substance, always playing the political games.
That "congress" was a result of people voting against democrats because they were disapointed in Obama/the democrats. He inherited a democrat majority in both the senate and the house but failed to act accordingly in the eyes of the voters.
The Democrats in Congress failed to act accordinly in the eyes of the voters, who chose Obama and his political mandate. And yet, the Republicans spin it to be a failure on Obama's part. I just hope people don't fall for this kind of manipulative, political spinning.
There's nothing being spun here. In 2008 voters put Obama and democrats in power because they were fed up with bush/republicans. In 2010 they put a lot Conservatives back in power because they believed Obama and the democrats weren't doing a good enough job. That's how it works. I don't know if I necessarily agree with expecting major results within a year, but if that's what the majority of voters believe than you gotta do it.
Seriously, I don't know where all this Obama love is coming from. First he gets the Nobel Peace Prize in advance for some things he might do or not do, then he does not show he deserved it and then he dominates re-election polls for... what exactly? Could someone elaborate please?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's a bad guy or anything. But I don't see what's so special about him either.
EPT
