Was Romney Right?

[Lash444]

Well that's your own personal opinion angry Irishman. We are in a deep rut. Are we getting worse? That's debatable. Personally i don't like what obama has done because of the NSA and the fact that I don't think he really cares what our rights are, he's going to trample on them. Do I think he's taking this country into a worse from financial situation than the republicans...uh no.

Just don't come on here with this type of logic:

Group A communicates well with Group C
Group A tries to communicate with Group B
Group B states they refuse to communicate with Group A
Therefore, Group A needs to communicate better.

Now that that only had a few logic classes in college, but I'm pretty sure I would ha e failed that class if I wrote something that dumb on my final exam.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Lol. He has failed to sell his policies? I guess that's why the people voted for him a second time, I guess that's why poll after poll shows the people support his policies (except for Syria and the only way he could sell that is if he lies to the American people).

However, your point was that Romney would have been a better leader but even by your own definition he fails at meeting your expectations.

I also like how anyone that disagrees with you and sides with Obama is idol worshipering, that's about a good of an argument as saying anyine who disagrees with Obama is a racist.

I never said Romney would be a better leader; I didn't even vote for him. What I said is he might be better based off of business background. His background entails practiced and proven leadership with concrete business results. That is something not seen with our current POTUS.

Are you really telling me that there isn't idol worship in play here? That's funny.

 

[ivwshane]

I never said Romney would be a better leader; I didn't even vote for him. What I said is he might be better based off of business background. His background entails practiced and proven leadership with concrete business results. That is something not seen with our current POTUS.

Are you really telling me that there isn't idol worship in play here? That's funny.

I don't see how what I said is any different from what you just wrote.

Is there idol worshiping going on? Sure and it's probably as frequent as people disliking him because they are racist.

You have confirmation bias, everything you see feeds back into the "well they just worship the guy", the problem is you aren't seeing everything, you are the one with the blinders on.

Btw, how many dems in congress support his actions with regards to Syria?

 

[Angry Irishman]

Well that's your own personal opinion angry Irishman. We are in a deep rut. Are we getting worse? That's debatable. Personally i don't like what obama has done because of the NSA and the fact that I don't think he really cares what our rights are, he's going to trample on them. Do I think he's taking this country into a worse from financial situation than the republicans...uh no.

Just don't come on here with this type of logic:

Group A communicates well with Group C
Group A tries to communicate with Group B
Group B states they refuse to communicate with Group A
Therefore, Group A needs to communicate better.

Now that that only had a few logic classes in college, but I'm pretty sure I would ha e failed that class if I wrote something that dumb on my final exam.

You are correct, that is my opinion. I've never claimed otherwise. Leadership is a bit more dynamic than a logic problem. Leadership is a trait and it's not something that everyone is practiced with or even particularly proficient.

In your opinion is he an effective leader? The majority of folks that I've engaged in similar discussion (not in a collegiate setting) respond with a resounding....no.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I don't see how what I said is any different from what you just wrote.

Is there idol worshiping going on? Sure and it's probably as frequent as people disliking him because they are racist.

You have confirmation bias, everything you see feeds back into the "well they just worship the guy", the problem is you aren't seeing everything, you are the one with the blinders on.

Btw, how many dems in congress support his actions with regards to Syria?

And there's the race statement.....done with discussion.

 

[Angry Irishman]

That's some funny shit....

 

[Doppel]

Nobody is wrong about everything, but I didn't like Romney during the campaign and don't now. I think he would have thrown the average joe under the bus more than Obama. Obama doesn't care about the average person; Romney actively dislikes him. That would not bode well for the lower classes.

 

[irishScott]

So you think he should have just been able to convince everyone better? I'm sorry, but that's not very compelling. Convince them better how?

Did you ever read the book "Do Not Ask What Good We Do? If its recounting is correct (and I don't see any particular reason why he would lie about it), the Republicans had decided from the night of Obama's inauguration to oppose everything he did tooth and nail. The idea that a stirring speech or some great convincing could have caused a shift in their electoral strategy is pretty naive IMO.

As things exist now, the vast majority of Republicans are in very safe districts where they have far more to fear from a primary challenge from the base than from any Democrat in the primary election. The Republican base hates Obama to an extent that is downright loony, and so Republicans have basically no reason to go along with Obama on almost anything. This also would not change, no matter how convincing Obama might be.

Look at the gun control debate. The public supported Obama's position OVERWHELMINGLY. The Republicans didn't care. Look at the taxes/spending debate. The public supports Obama's position OVERWHELMINGLY. The Republicans don't care. Some extra 'leading' won't change any of it, it's simple political math.

Last I checked Democrats held the house before Obama was elected. A leader, by definition, is supposed to motivate those under him/her. If Obama can't do that then he isn't a good leader. Motivating people who already agree with you isn't leadership.

How do I suggest he do that? Any number of ways as the case may be. Look at all the districts that swung back to the Republicans after Obamacare. Seems like they preferred Democrats at one point, you'd think they could be convinced. That alone is enough to potentially swing the house back to the Democrats.

 

[irishScott]

Lol. He has failed to sell his policies? I guess that's why the people voted for him a second time, I guess that's why poll after poll shows the people support his policies (except for Syria and the only way he could sell that is if he lies to the American people).

However, your point was that Romney would have been a better leader but even by your own definition he fails at meeting your expectations.

I also like how anyone that disagrees with you and sides with Obama is idol worshipering, that's about a good of an argument as saying anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist.

I never made any point about Romney. I asked a simple question and then got bored with the utterly predictable responses. Now a debate about Obama's leadership abilities is one I'm happy to chime in about.

In any case, people voted for him a second time because they thought Romney would be worse, not because they liked Obama (although I'm sure there's minority that happily slurped up their second helping of hope-and-change bullshit). Never mind that successfully challenging a sitting President is historically VERY hard to do.

And poll after poll is conflicted as all hell in most situations, so I'm not sure where you're getting that.

People are welcome to disagree with me about Obama so long as they at least have logical reasons; eskimopie is a good example of this. But there is plenty of Obama idol worshiping going around amongst what's left of his core supporters; they're still lapping up the dried hope-and-change residue on the floor. IMO Obama is, quite objectively, a poor leader as can be seen by his conduct in a variety of situations, from Obamacare, to Trayvon Martin, to Syria, to the NSA, to Gun Control.

 

[K1052]

Look at all the districts that swung back to the Republicans after Obamacare. Seems like they preferred Democrats at one point. You'd think they could be convinced. That alone is enough to potentially swing the house back to the Democrats.

Of course vastly increased republican control of redistricting in many states due to the flood of money dumped into those races had no effect whatsoever. Obama just failed to win their hearts.

 

[irishScott]

Of course vastly increased republican control of redistricting in many states due to the flood of money dumped into those races had no effect whatsoever. Obama just failed to win their hearts.

So you're claiming that 40 some-odd districts among multiple states swinging Republican was the result of pure gerrymandering and had nothing to do with Obama's policies?

Right, it's all one big GOP conspiracy. Yep, no culpability on Obama's part, no lack of leadership. No public disagreement with his policies, nope, it's all the big bad GOP boogeymen and their sinister agents.

 

[K1052]

So you're claiming that 40 some-odd districts among multiple states swinging Republican was the result of pure gerrymandering and had nothing to do with Obama's policies?

Right, it's all one big GOP conspiracy. Yep, no culpability on Obama's part, no lack of leadership. No public disagreement with his policies, nope, it's all the big bad GOP boogeymen and their sinister agents.

Redistricting combined with a particularly difficult midterm for the Democrats, which isn't unusual especially after the big win in 2008.

 

[ivwshane]

And there's the race statement.....done with discussion.

Lol! And there is further proof you only see what you want to see!

Fucking classic!

 

[ivwshane]

I never made any point about Romney. I asked a simple question and then got bored with the utterly predictable responses. Now a debate about Obama's leadership abilities is one I'm happy to chime in about.

In any case, people voted for him a second time because they thought Romney would be worse, not because they liked Obama (although I'm sure there's minority that happily slurped up their second helping of hope-and-change bullshit). Never mind that successfully challenging a sitting President is historically VERY hard to do.

And poll after poll is conflicted as all hell in most situations, so I'm not sure where you're getting that.

People are welcome to disagree with me about Obama so long as they at least have logical reasons; eskimopie is a good example of this. But there is plenty of Obama idol worshiping going around amongst what's left of his core supporters; they're still lapping up the dried hope-and-change residue on the floor. IMO Obama is, quite objectively, a poor leader as can be seen by his conduct in a variety of situations, from Obamacare, to Trayvon Martin, to Syria, to the NSA, to Gun Control.

So people can disagree with you based on logic and reasoning and you don't think you need to reciprocate that? You just dismissed every poll based on something you pulls out of your ass.


You can't even give a good example of what Obama should have done that would be an example of good leadership.

 

[Angry Irishman]

So people can disagree with you based on logic and reasoning and you don't think you need to reciprocate that? You just dismissed every poll based on something you pulls out of your ass.


You can't even give a good example of what Obama should have done that would be an example of good leadership.

Let me flip the coin....give one example of good leadership from the dear leader.

 

[irishScott]

So people can disagree with you based on logic and reasoning and you don't think you need to reciprocate that? You just dismissed every poll based on something you pulls out of your ass.


You can't even give a good example of what Obama should have done that would be an example of good leadership.

Coming from the guy who provided no examples of his own...

And I have given examples, but since you asked here's another. How about not taking a side in the Trayvon Martin case? It was a local event and, however much of a media circus, should have remained as such. As the President he should have voiced moderation and his faith in the American justice system, and left it at that.

Instead he quite obviously took a side, tried to twist it into some pathetically weak attack on gun control (despite the fact that castle doctrine wasn't even used by the defense), and ended up polarizing the American people all the more and making it even more of a media circus. Yeah, some stand-out leadership there.

 

[irishScott]

Redistricting combined with a particularly difficult midterm for the Democrats, which isn't unusual especially after the big win in 2008.

Right, and Obama ramming healthcare through the house despite literally every Republican voting against him had nothing to do with the largest house sweep in decades.

 

[Perknose]

So you're claiming that 40 some-odd districts among multiple states swinging Republican was the result of pure gerrymandering and had nothing to do with Obama's policies?

Right, it's all one big GOP conspiracy. Yep, no culpability on Obama's part, no lack of leadership. No public disagreement with his policies, nope, it's all the big bad GOP boogeymen and their sinister agents.

Gerrymandering was the driving factor, yes. See the bolded below. Gerrymandering produced an oddball result only seen once since WWll. It was no rejection of Obama's policies. Here are the facts:

House Democrats won a plurality nation-wide by over 1.4 million more votes (1.4%),[6] but the Republicans were able to retain a 17-seat majority due in part to their advantage in the congressional redistricting process following the 2010 United States Census,[7][8][9] and because many Democratic votes were concentrated into urban and minority districts.[10] In the previous century, on four occasions the party with a plurality of the popular vote was unable to receive a majority in the House, but only once since World War II.[9] The last time was in 1996, where the GOP kept the House for similar reasons.[11][12]

Let me break that down for you:

You wish to use the outcome of the 2012 house races as your barometer that Americans rejected the Democrats and therefore Obama because "40 some-odd districts among multiple states swinging Republican" but that result is and was skewed by gerrymandering.

In fact, using the purest and most direct metric, how Americans voted,in the 2012 house races, a resounding 1.4 million MORE of us backed the Dems.

You wanted to use the results of the 2012 house races to support your contention that Americans rejected Barry's policies.

You failed.

 

[K1052]

Right, and Obama ramming healthcare through the house despite literally every Republican voting against him had nothing to do with the largest house sweep in decades.

Relatively little, it had more effect on on the Republicans themselves internally with more radical candidates squeezing out moderates using that issue among others. Consequently the same thing which has painted the party into a corner with most voters. It will take another disasterous election or two for the pary to swing back closer to the middle.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Lol! And there is further proof you only see what you want to see!

Fucking classic!

You're the one who wrote that statement regarding race....not me.

 

[ivwshane]

Coming from the guy who provided no examples of his own...

And I have given examples, but since you asked here's another. How about not taking a side in the Trayvon Martin case? It was a local event and, however much of a media circus, should have remained as such. As the President he should have voiced moderation and his faith in the American justice system, and left it at that.

Instead he quite obviously took a side, tried to twist it into some pathetically weak attack on gun control (despite the fact that castle doctrine wasn't even used by the defense), and ended up polarizing the American people all the more and making it even more of a media circus. Yeah, some stand-out leadership there.

Lol! I'm not the one making any claims, I'm just pointing out your horrid logic. As for an example of good leadership, I'd say getting the first major healthcare reform since social security, passed is a pretty big deal. I'd say dealing with a congress who was ready to tank the world economy and averting that crisis is a pretty fucking big deal.

As far as the trayvon Martin case goes, he didn't take a side he brought to light an issue that needs addressing and personalized it. Of course you only hear what you want so you missed that part.

 

[ivwshane]

You're the one who wrote that statement regarding race....not me.

Go ahead and read my comment again and see if you can get the point this time

 

[Angry Irishman]

Go ahead and read my comment again and see if you can get the point this time

Here's my new point....

You, as usual, haven't answered shit or presented one point that reflects the president has been or ever will be an effective leader.

I saw exactly what you wrote and I understand you pulled race into the discussion. :awe: His race isn't the reason he's a poor leader although I concede there will be some that will criticize him solely on the color of his skin....that's a small margin of folks. His track record speaks for itself regardless of the color of his skin....it's void of effective leadership. You keep seeing what you want and continue with the worship.

 

[irishScott]

Lol! I'm not the one making any claims, I'm just pointing out your horrid logic. As for an example of good leadership, I'd say getting the first major healthcare reform since social security, passed is a pretty big deal. I'd say dealing with a congress who was ready to tank the world economy and averting that crises is a pretty fucking big deal.

As far as the trayvon Martin case goes, he didn't take a side he brought to light an issue that needs addressing and personalized it. Of course you only hear what you want so you missed that part.

You decry me for not providing examples, yet provide none of your own, all while preaching about how I should hold people to the same standards as I hold myself.

Ramming something down someone's throat because you have the power doesn't make you a leader. Especially when that someone is ~50% of the US public.

He didn't take sides? In what universe is "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin" and "Trayvon Martin could have been me" not taking sides? I sure as hell don't recall him empathizing with Zimmerman or Zimmerman's family. Remember what I said about lapping up hope-and-change residue? You're really stretching for the last droplets here.

What issue did he "bring to light" in the TM case? All I saw was a man inflaming and polarizing those he was supposed to be calming and leading. You want to talk about racism and the stigma associated with black people, fine, talk about racism and stigmas. I'm perfectly fine with that discussion. But you don't need to exploit and escalate tensions over an already polarizing trial to do it. That is HORRIBLE leadership. Unless you only intend to lead the minority that already agree with you and fuck-all with everyone else.

But of course, all of this is only "hearing what I want to hear". God forbid your man Obama isn't the dreamy, revolutionary reformer you voted for.

 

[irishScott]

Relatively little, it had more effect on on the Republicans themselves internally with more radical candidates squeezing out moderates using that issue among others. Consequently the same thing which has painted the party into a corner with most voters. It will take another disasterous election or two for the pary to swing back closer to the middle.

Yes, because massive voter shifts NEVER happen after highly controversial legislation. Nope, hasn't happened. Ever.

Seriously, I'd like to see some evidence that gerrymandering and other factors were the deciding force.

For my part, here's a Gallup poll showing Americans' opinions of the healthcare law shortly after it was passed.

You're saying that an issue that is historically huge and controversial, that will literally make high school history books, had "little impact" on the midterms. I'd love to see you back up that claim. Since obviously half of America being against the law, and the law being a central issue for most people, had absolutely nothing to do with it.