EPTwatch from 3:50
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 78
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
bigwig123
163 Posts
watch from 3:50 | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
On May 01 2012 02:43 Durp wrote: As a neighbour from the north, I find following these pro-anti Obama debates interesting. I'll throw out something positive that's come during his presidency (and please read the following explanation)- everybody stopped hating the US. >> Now I'm not saying I do, or that I think it's justified, but there has been an obvious air of dislike when it comes to the US in the international community over the last decade. I don't attribute all of that to Bush, but quite frankly, many people outside of the US thought he was a war monger (I am not one of them). This "Amerrrkuhhh is the best" mentality strikes a lot of nerves internationally (look no further than the "X is from America, because he's a foreigner, and ALL foreigners are American" comments that pop up in every SC2 live report imaginable). When Obama was elected, a lot of the stereotypical prejudices- again just or not- were shed. As a Canadian I never thought I'd see the day where the right-wing (or more honestly, the redneck population) would allow an elected black president. I know it's not in their control, but I'm sure many other internationals felt similarly. Low and behold, it did come about. Obama doesn't really deserve credit for this, nor should that earn him another 4 years in office. However I feel it's worth noting that the sharp contrast he presented to the 8 years prior of governing was a welcomed change abroad. Not everyone agrees with his politics, but at least globally, just about everyone prefers him running your country to George Dubya. [edit: this is meant to imply that most people do not like the correlation a Republican brings with them (re Bush). When Republicans are so fanatical and right wing these days, the contrast between Obama/Republican Candidate is sharpened, and the republican is associated to being more "Bush'like" - something I think most people even inside the US do not want] Onto the topic at hand- I really think the American electorate should turn it's magnifying glass inwards at the senseless extremes of your current bi-partisan politics. Watching Obama try to get anything through the senate/congress is like watching paint dry. The worst part is, you know the paints a wrong colour, and nothing will come of it anyways. I don't think Obama has lived up to the hype of "CHAAAANGE" he brought with him. I do not believe he has done enough to rid himself of the burdens left to him from the previous presidency, though I do not think George W. Bush is the reason for all that has gone wrong in the US. Obama is doing nothing because he can't get anything done. I have great admiration for the principles of bi-partisan politics and what it means to Americans, but the fanaticism from both parties has handcuffed your President and his presidency, and I don't see a change in sight until something changes in that regards. Also, and this is a question to the Americans here: Does it not bother any of you that during all the Republican primaries and debates, and on television, that Barack Obama is not referred to as President Obama? I've always felt that the Presidency was something to be treated with respect, and it always seems so classless to me when I'm watching a Romney or a Santorum or a ________ (insert Republican) refer to him as "Obama." To him, and every other American, he ought to be President Obama, at least for about another year. I assume if the Republican was elected, they would expect to be referred to as President (Romney) ___ . Thoughts? You are semi informed, semi mis-informed, but for a foreigner, this was very impressive O.o you know more than the average American which is very impressive on the matter since we scrutinize the president, A LOT. A couple things, first off, recently Obama has had a republican congress and Senate, led by Bohner (I believe) however, in the past, he had a democratic SUPERMAJORITY, yes it seems no-one remembers this when the healthcare bill passed. He literally did nothing with it, he could have passed near anything he wanted to except the health care bill because it was unconstitutional, but he did not go through with his supposed CHANGE!!!111!!!, which was disappointing i must say he tried... kinda. He got about 3-4 things done without coercion, and the healthcare bill with a lot of coercion in the democratic party. His appeal and national approval plummeted and people are fast to forgive his 40% approval rate, thats pretty low for a president. However, on the brightside, people outside of the U.S. love him because he panderst to their sense of strong nationalism. Each country hates ours and says that all our people are terrible tourists when most of them are really bad themselves, and their nationalism is even more nauseating. He panders to that sense of OH STUPID MURKANS and has cut most of it, but only by screwing over Israel even in situations when standing by them could have really stopped most of the drama we have had this past year. Now yes his other foreign policy is strong, but people are quick to forget why America rated him so low earlier. I agree he will be re-elected, i just hope that he lives up to his promises this time, that would make him the first president in a long time to do so. Also its common rhetoric to refer to the president by only his last name, not with the moniker of president. Like Pres. Bush was Bush and Richard Nixon was Nixon,  . Good response though i learned a lot from a canadian point of view that was well presented, forgive my block of text  . | ||
|
Partywave
United States88 Posts
I'm sorry to be so cynical, but growing up around the DC Beltway has me kind of jaded T.T | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5078 Posts
Also, and this is a question to the Americans here: Does it not bother any of you that during all the Republican primaries and debates, and on television, that Barack Obama is not referred to as President Obama? I've always felt that the Presidency was something to be treated with respect, and it always seems so classless to me when I'm watching a Romney or a Santorum or a ________ (insert Republican) refer to him as "Obama." To him, and every other American, he ought to be President Obama, at least for about another year. I assume if the Republican was elected, they would expect to be referred to as President (Romney) ___ . There's no rule that you have to refer to a President as "President <Last Name>," nor is it considered bad manners to refer to him to as "Mr. <Last Name>" or simply by his last name. Onto the topic at hand- I really think the American electorate should turn it's magnifying glass inwards at the senseless extremes of your current bi-partisan politics. Watching Obama try to get anything through the senate/congress is like watching paint dry. The worst part is, you know the paints a wrong colour, and nothing will come of it anyways. I don't think Obama has lived up to the hype of "CHAAAANGE" he brought with him. I do not believe he has done enough to rid himself of the burdens left to him from the previous presidency, though I do not think George W. Bush is the reason for all that has gone wrong in the US. Obama is doing nothing because he can't get anything done. I have great admiration for the principles of bi-partisan politics and what it means to Americans, but the fanaticism from both parties has handcuffed your President and his presidency, and I don't see a change in sight until something changes in that regards. After three years too much time has passed to blame your predecessor. Great polarization is good, it means that a lasting change is coming one way or another and sooner rather than later. At the time people think it's terrible but it's just a sign that the old political orders are not delivering results anymore and people are interested in finding new solutions. [edit: this is meant to imply that most people do not like the correlation a Republican brings with them (re Bush). When Republicans are so fanatical and right wing these days, the contrast between Obama/Republican Candidate is sharpened, and the republican is associated to being more "Bush'like" - something I think most people even inside the US do not want] This has basically zero relevancy in American politics, in the rest of the world I'm sure it carries weight but people don't care about Bush anymore. Trying to associate the current Republican Party with George W. Bush has basically been abandoned by Democrats because it failed spectacularly in 2010. The Democrats campaigned very hard on the theme that voting Republican meant a return to Bush and they suffered the worst Congressional defeat in six decades. >> Now I'm not saying I do, or that I think it's justified, but there has been an obvious air of dislike when it comes to the US in the international community over the last decade. I don't attribute all of that to Bush, but quite frankly, many people outside of the US thought he was a war monger (I am not one of them). This "Amerrrkuhhh is the best" mentality strikes a lot of nerves internationally (look no further than the "X is from America, because he's a foreigner, and ALL foreigners are American" comments that pop up in every SC2 live report imaginable). When Obama was elected, a lot of the stereotypical prejudices- again just or not- were shed. As a Canadian I never thought I'd see the day where the right-wing (or more honestly, the redneck population) would allow an elected black president. I know it's not in their control, but I'm sure many other internationals felt similarly. Low and behold, it did come about. Obama doesn't really deserve credit for this, nor should that earn him another 4 years in office. However I feel it's worth noting that the sharp contrast he presented to the 8 years prior of governing was a welcomed change abroad. Not everyone agrees with his politics, but at least globally, just about everyone prefers him running your country to George Dubya. This actually had very little to do with American motivations for voting for Obama. People were sick of and angry at Bush and thought McCain was a tired old man who would have been in over his head and had no new ideas besides maintain Bush's policies but achieve more success with them or something. And Obama had a very charismatic image, he had confidence and you could believe that he was going to be vigorous and had fresh ideas, and he was black. We still don't really care what the rest of the world thinks and it's not much skin off our nose if you don't like it. That has always been a strong characteristic of the American national identity and it is unlikely to change any time soon. | ||
|
Xayvier
United States387 Posts
| ||
|
zachMEISTER
United States625 Posts
| ||
|
oldgregg
New Zealand1176 Posts
| ||
|
EpidemicSC
United States70 Posts
On May 02 2012 03:14 Wegandi wrote: You are aware that at no time in the 1930s did unemployment ever dip below 14.6%. (caveat it was ~9% in 1930..), and for the majority of the years involved it was above 20%. If you call that a fix, I don't want anything to do with your disastrous economics and value-system. Just to correct your post, unemployment was far below 20% for the majority of the depression. See programs like the CCC. Although yes, they did not contribute much to economic recovery, more a sense of hope ^^ | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On May 02 2012 12:14 BluePanther wrote: Except intelligence is also inherited as well. Is it just that their parents were poor, or their parents just passed the stupid gene along which is the reason they are poor? Correlation or Causation? Probably both, tbh. Would be interesting to see a study on this, but in my case it's neither. I did well in school and had A's and B's in my first semester of college, but slept through my final exams and decided to drop out instead of redoing the courses (I have hypersomnia). Had an upper-middle class upbringing. In my case it is a lack of opportunity (no health care) and is due to politics and systemic issues of the country I live in. | ||
|
EpidemicSC
United States70 Posts
On April 30 2012 07:02 Energizer wrote: Just throwing this out there, during the elections of 2004 bush had; 5.5% unemployment rate 11 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $2 nationwide 9.6% underemployment Medium household income at $44,339 (effective buying power of $53,843.37 today) Rate of inflation at 1.9% Compared to Obama in march at 9% unemployment 15.7 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $4 nationwide, going up to 5 Medium household income at roughly $51,000 20.3% underemployment rate of inflation at 2.9% And if bush is the clueless one... where does that leave obama? Uhhh yeah Bush statistic was at the beginning of his 2nd term, I'd like to see the statistics at the end and how they compare. I'm surprised no one I've seen has mentioned that Bush tax cuts have had a very large impact on the increase in debt under the Obama administration.. | ||
|
EpidemicSC
United States70 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:02 Sermokala wrote: I'm a longtime republican conservative. I voted in primary's for crying out loud and I do agree with almost all of the GOP's policies. I'm voteing for obama this election rommny is so bad that I'm willing to vote a guy whos managed to be both muslum and socialist at the same time. That takes still in my book. I know i shouldn't even respond to this, because well... yeah.. but LOL. | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On May 02 2012 14:48 EpidemicSC wrote: Uhhh yeah Bush statistic was at the beginning of his 2nd term, I'd like to see the statistics at the end and how they compare. I'm surprised no one I've seen has mentioned that Bush tax cuts have had a very large impact on the increase in debt under the Obama administration.. This is a hilarious statistic. It's so grossly in Obama's favor it's not even funny and it's even juicier that this guy is trying to defend Bush. Energizer, you should probably recall the statistics when bush took office. You basically pointed out that in 4 years Bush caused nearly catastrophic amounts of debt, yet 8 years later (4 of which were his..) President Obama has what was essentially left for him. I mean I guess I don't really understand how any of you people can be so naive. It's almost shocking at how little people actually think about..nearly anything they say. I also don't really understand what you people actually want in a president. Being the leader of a country is not a small task, the person running it should be grossly overqualified as a human being. I see these candidates pandering to people trying to make themselves likeable or some kind of average joe, and it's painful to watch. I don't want someone I can go bowling with or have a beer with, I want a president that is so intelligent it's intimidating to even hold a conversation with them. Otherwise the implication is that anyone can do it, and it's insulting to the country and the position to think that. | ||
|
Xayvier
United States387 Posts
On May 02 2012 13:31 oldgregg wrote: Isn't Stephen Colbert running for pres? If I lived in the US I'd totally vote for him! Sadly, he dropped out of the race. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On May 02 2012 15:25 Kich wrote: I also don't really understand what you people actually want in a president. Being the leader of a country is not a small task, the person running it should be grossly overqualified as a human being. I see these candidates pandering to people trying to make themselves likeable or some kind of average joe, and it's painful to watch. I don't want someone I can go bowling with or have a beer with, I want a president that is so intelligent it's intimidating to even hold a conversation with them. Otherwise the implication is that anyone can do it, and it's insulting to the country and the position to think that. It's funny you say this. Since Cooledge, we've had a rather educated bunch. Truman (who wasn't elected) and Reagan are really the only exceptions. Almost all of them also came from pretty well-to-do families. Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, USNA, Duke, Stanford... Those are all premier schools. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On May 02 2012 11:49 Jon Huntsman wrote: Just because someone is academically educated does not necessarily mean they are intelligent. Most Republican voters have done pretty well for themselves financially because they have entrepreneural minds, whereas a lot of Democratic voters who are academics at university would never know how to make money out in the real world. In case you didn't realize, it's infinitely harder to get a job in academia than in the private sector. And the pay is lower too. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On May 02 2012 17:44 paralleluniverse wrote: In case you didn't realize, it's infinitely harder to get a job in academia than in the private sector. And the pay is lower too. Umm... University positions are cushy as hell... I'll take a "pay cut" to 6 figures with life tenure...any day. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On May 02 2012 03:14 Wegandi wrote: You are aware that at no time in the 1930s did unemployment ever dip below 14.6%. (caveat it was ~9% in 1930..), and for the majority of the years involved it was above 20%. If you call that a fix, I don't want anything to do with your disastrous economics and value-system. As you can see unemployment was falling, and then FDR stuffed it up in 1937. ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif) | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On May 02 2012 18:13 BluePanther wrote: Umm... University positions are cushy as hell... I'll take a "pay cut" to 6 figures with life tenure...any day. I don't think you quite understand how the whole "becoming a professor" thing works. There are professors with salaries you're implying, yes, but it's really not so simple. http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Education-Training-and-Library/Postsecondary-teachers.htm#earnings http://www.worldsalaries.org/professor.shtml | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On May 02 2012 18:13 BluePanther wrote: Umm... University positions are cushy as hell... I'll take a "pay cut" to 6 figures with life tenure...any day. That's outrageous, getting tenure is even more competitive than what it takes to get into academia. And the most complaints I hear is that there isn't enough job security in academia. Ever heard of the saying, publish or perish? | ||
| ||
