His approach is the wrong, to try to compromise to unity, instead of the right one to lead to unity. Sorry righties, that means strong stands for liberal positions, like FDR. But he's far from that.
His approach is the wrong, to try to compromise to unity, instead of the right one to lead to unity. Sorry righties, that means strong stands for liberal positions, like FDR. But he's far from that.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Good points. The conservatives now though seem to be as in love with using the power of government to enforce their will as are the liberals, witness the plethora of attempted popular votes and amendments to ban gay marriage (i.e. it's not enough to let things remain as they are, we must work to set them in stone lest they be changed in the future.) And the Republicans (nominally the party of conservatism) certainly spent like liberals the last time they had Congress and the White House.
I have thought at various times that Jessie Ventura and Charles Barkley might be the one. Both fell short. Maybe there is no one who can do it and we're destined to become two nations, a conservative heartland and a liberal coastal nation linked by a fringe of far north states. Or perhaps we'll be like Japan, remaining one nation but with fistfights on the floor on Congress.
I suspect though that politicians are not nearly as divided as are the American people.
Strange that you view his inability to force a separate branch of government to do his bidding as a lack of good faith on his part. The stimulus bill was a perfect example of an attempt at bipartisanship. Liberal economists generally believed that the stimulus bill should be 0% tax cuts (or close to it) as they are ineffective, and conservative economists believed that the bill should be 100% tax cuts (or close to it) as government spending is a bad solution. What you got in the stimulus was a breakdown of almost exactly 60% spending and 40% tax cuts, mirroring the makeup of the two houses of Congress extremely closely. How much more bipartisan can you get than that?! Remember, 'bipartisan' doesn't mean 'do what the Republicans want'. It didn't matter, nearly every Republican voted against the bill anyway.
Any reasonable person looking at the health care debate can see pretty clearly why the Republicans got absolutely no traction with the legislation. They never tried. Instead of accepting the reality that the Democrats had an overwhelming majority and attempting to work with them, from the very beginning you had that death panel lie, DeMint's personal pledge to use the issue to destroy Obama, the admission by the very Republicans who were supposed to be negotiating that they were only doing so to delay and kill the bill, etc. The Republicans not only can't complain about being shut out after such bad behavior, they DESERVE to be shut out as they are not acting in good faith.
So yes he most certainly failed at uniting the country, but lets not perpetuate the myth of the poor Republicans who were run roughshod over by evil Nancy Pelosi. And if you think Harry Reid... Harry Reid!?! is highly partisan, you have no clue as to what you are talking about. (Reid was ranked the 20th most liberal by the best ranking system we have, hardly an ideologue) http://voteview.com/sen110.htm
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,411
- 126
The fact that you're a racist has nothing to do with your approval or disapproval of Obama, you showed you were a racist a looooooong time before he ever showed up. Some of your disapproval of Obama is probably due to your racism, but I'm sure you disagree with him heavily on ideological grounds. In short your racism is a completely separate issue from your extreme right wing politics.
As for what a trend has to do with what I wrote, I have no idea. His current approval rating in many polls is fairly close to his percentage of the vote on election day, trends are irrelevant to that point. (good job picking the poll that consistently polls to the right of other pollsters by the way)
Republicans demanded these big concessions, got them, and then had zero vote for it, IIRC.
Not that the most liberal means 'ideologue'. For example, Bernie Sanders is the most liberal or close to it, is far from an ideologue. He happens to be right also.
Ideologues can be left, right, or middle, it doesn't mean having a certain position.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Wolf - to your question about who would have brought us together. It would take actions and I don't know which party is willing to do the following.
a) imprison those fraudsters who loaned a hairdresser a million bucks, slapped AAA on it, sold it to our retirement/pension accounts and bet against her paying. Instread they bailed em out and are now giving them free FED money.
b) Seize and nationalize those banks as law calls for as they are insolvent.
c) instead of TARP rewarding bonused bankers which made fraudulent loans, and now have everyone upside down and walking away - pay off these mortgages in rears so people and banks are solvent again. Take the federal write down, which we are taking anyway, and call it an expensive lesson.
d) Massive troops need to be pulled - sure continue heat on terrorists with balck ops, Special Forces units living with tribes basically down low stuff and happens to be effective than pissing off 1.4 billion Muslims which 99% are not terrorists and don't much care for terrorists either.
e) Tax fairly - Reduce much taxes on middle and hit the higher. It's absolutely Ridiculous corporate officers can pay himself a token salary then option out their real money at 15% when a guy making 100K is getting hit with 35%.
f) People want HC, people want SP - do it. Insuring all for half is the most everyone else pays.
And so on.... Populist stuff called such because it's popular.
a) imprison those fraudsters who loaned a hairdresser a million bucks, slapped AAA on it, sold it to our retirement/pension accounts and bet against her paying. Instread they bailed em out and are now giving them free FED money.
b) Seize and nationalize those banks as law calls for as they are insolvent.
c) instead of TARP rewarding bonused bankers which made fraudulent loans, and now have everyone upside down and walking away - pay off these mortgages in rears so people and banks are solvent again. Take the federal write down, which we are taking anyway, and call it an expensive lesson.
d) Massive troops need to be pulled - sure continue heat on terrorists with balck ops, Special Forces units living with tribes basically down low stuff and happens to be effective than pissing off 1.4 billion Muslims which 99% are not terrorists and don't much care for terrorists either.
e) Tax fairly - Reduce much taxes on middle and hit the higher. It's absolutely Ridiculous corporate officers can pay himself a token salary then option out their real money at 15% when a guy making 100K is getting hit with 35%.
f) People want HC, people want SP - do it. Insuring all for half is the most everyone else pays.
And so on.... Populist stuff called such because it's popular.
Last edited:
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
no it is the same issue. He has proven to people that he says one thing but does another. Every president who lost the trust of the people had to be replaced because without it they cannot lead. Did Clinton become a problem because people couldn't believe that men had affairs ? No, he lost it because he lied to the people. Nixon made the same mistake, he lied to the people. Trust takes a lifetime to earn but seconds to lose.
Obama has proven he doesn't deserve that trust and I doubt there is little he can do to earn it back.
You can list stuff all day, but as long as money dominates, as long as the public votes for the name put in front of them all the time and against the guy who is attacked by marketing experts, how is he winning?
How many people here wouldn't for a progressive if he flew in on a rainbow unicorn and came down their chimney to give them golden eggs and a massage, because identity politics has taken over?
Actually, Clinton and Reagan lied and largly kept trust, because the publiic was somewhat sympathetic to the lie. Nixon was quite another matter, seen as lying against the public.
Trying to create that sense of betrayal was the main reason Republicans, public and private, spent hundreds of millions trying to dig up dirt on Clinton, but it didn't work all that well - but did help Bush steal the office.
Are you kidding me? You are seriously trying to relate Obama breaking some campaign promises with Clinton perjuring himself and Nixon aiding and abetting felonies to spy on political opponents?
Every single person who has ever campaigned for president has broken promises when they were actually elected. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Obama has broken some campaign promises but you have elevated them to a level far beyond what is even remotely justifiable.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Which is why people should vote based on what a politician has done, not on what he says he will do.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,411
- 126
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
Do you think people really cared about the actual act of perjury or that Nixon broke a federal law ? Do some reading on human psychology. It was the fact they lied directly to the people that caused the uproar.
When people cannot find jobs, lose their homes, and cannot feed their families and see someone they voted for break promises they feel betrayed. It doesn't matter what the actual act was that caused the betrayal, only the lack of trust that results from it. Ask people if they would vote for Obama again if they knew what they know now , that is an example of a leader who can no longer lead because nobody will follow.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
The only failure is your inability to remove the blinders that keeps you focused on your idol.
Obsoleet
Platinum Member
- Oct 2, 2007
- 2,181
- 1
- 0
For you, and your friends only.
But regarding bringing the country together.. you can't bring some of these people together, there's no way, Obama isn't white. Downplay the problem down or not but a large faction of America still has a problem with that (certainly a portion of the McCain voters so that would number into the millions). Just the honest to god truth, that the "anti-politically correct" crowd freaks out because they think you're playing the race card(!!!!!11111!!!11).. by pointing out the fact they're racist. We're not allowed (in traditional politically correct fashion, ironically) to point out racism, but there's it's a large part of the opposition.
It does smear and tar the rest of the Obama opposition, whether you guys want to admit you have to live with it or not.
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
I can't agree with that statement. Nobody can be that ignorant. He realizes it. No staff of yes men could keep a man holding his position that much in the dark for this long. He's well aware of what he's doing.
He either fancies himself so much more further advanced than the rest of us that our opinions are meaningless, or someone has got such complete and total control over him that he has no other choice.
If you research the history of this man (what little is out there) you come to realize that this man has a far different view of the U.S. than the mainstream. He wants it fundamentally transformed. He's told us this. You aren't raised by those with extreme left views, you don't seek out and take council with those with extreme left views and mesh with mainstream America.
Statements by him that he intends to unite the country are pandering to who I do not know. Those with conservative views know that these are lies. Those with progressive views are disgusted by the statements. They have no wish to find common ground. So who is he trying to influence with statements of that nature? The middle? They typically don't care what's happening politically anyway.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,411
- 126
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
That's imbecilic. While the campaign system is imperfect, it's a very helpful tool to evaluate politicians by asking them their positions rather than having them not say anythig about their planned positions.
Yeah but its so cool to bully and make fun of people.
I'm not sure who you were saying did that?
True. He knows exactly what he's doing and he's doing it on purpose. Only when the country is in such dire needs can he truly reveal himself. Problem is we will reject him when he does because we're just not that stupid.
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
I have no issues whatsoever along racial lines with this light skinned man with no Negro dialect. The preceding statement is proof of that.
It's his actions I have major problems with.
Well, obviously any trait that doesn't apply to you, applies to no one in America. Thanks for correcting him.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter