It is currently Fri Apr 26, 2024 9:51 PM


All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:56 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
I thought this was interesting:

Highlights of Obama's first year, by the numbers:

7,949.09—Dow Jones Industrial Average close on Jan. 20, 2009.
10,609.65—Dow Jones Industrial Average close on Jan. 15, 2010.

13 million—Number of people 16 and older unemployed as of January 2009.
14.7 million—Number of people 16 and older unemployed as of December 2009.

7.7 percent—Unemployment rate January 2009
10.0 percent—Unemployment rate December 2009

$787 billion—Cost of economic stimulus approved by Congress.

$10.6 trillion—Outstanding public debt Jan. 20, 2009.
$12.3 trillion—Outstanding public debt Jan. 14, 2009.

$296.4 billion—Federal spending from the financial crisis bailout fund before Jan. 20, 2009.
$173 billion—Federal spending from the financial crisis bailout fund after Jan. 20, 2009.
$165 billion—Amount of bailout funds repaid by banks and automakers.

139—Bank failures between Jan. 20, 2009, and Jan. 14, 2010.

274,399—Number of properties that received forclosure-related notices in January 2009.
349,519—Number of properties that received forclosure-related notices in December 2009.

34,400—U.S. troops in Afghanistan in January 2009.
70,000—U.S. troops in Afghanistan as of Jan. 12, 2010.
319—U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan from January 2009 through Jan. 15, 2010.

139,500—U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2009.
111,000—U.S. troops in Iraq as of Jan. 12, 2010.
152—U.S. military deaths in Iraq from January 2009 through Jan. 15, 2010.

539—Appointments to top federal policy positions submitted to the Senate
352—Appointments confirmed by the Senate.
180—Appointments in top policy positions carried over from the Bush administration.

12—Formal news conferences.

21—Foreign countries visited.

29—States visited.

10—Visits to Camp David.

2—Vacations.

Sources:
AP reporting and analysis
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Treasury Department
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
RealtyTrac Inc.
Defense Department
White House Transition Project


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:11 AM 
I schooled the old school.
I schooled the old school.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:39 PM
Posts: 5011
A lot of good things there.

It took years of Bush to get us into this mess, and it's going to take years to get out!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:27 AM 
We Have Cookies!
We Have Cookies!

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:27 PM
Posts: 2450
Location: California
EQ1: Cakvala
WoW: Cakvala
LoL: Cakvala
I already expecting spending and un-employment would still rise last year. Its change not exactly what the typical American wanted but it is change.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:01 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
May I ask what you see as good there Frib?


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:38 PM 
The Lurker at the Threshold

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:54 PM
Posts: 4156
Location: Atlanta, GA
EQ1: Vanamar
WoW: Kallaystra
Rift: Tarathia
the dow is back above 10000 :P

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:06 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
That is good news


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:03 PM 
I schooled the old school.
I schooled the old school.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:39 PM
Posts: 5011
There's lot's of good there. The deficit is pretty good-- pretty damn impressively good given the fact that the war is back in the budget (to be more honest than the last 8 years) and the economic stimulus (started before he came to office).

The DOW is up far more than I would have expected given where we were a year ago.

The number of unemployed 16 and over is incredibly similar over the course of the year. Again, I would have thought it would be much worse. In fact, those numbers are so close together that am unsure how that jives with with the unemployment rate. Would have to think about it, but taking those numbers at face value, again given the thousands of job losses bleeding out I can't believe it's only a 1.7 million job difference. That's much better than I would have expected-- so good.

The outstanding debt is amazingly good! Apparently we managed to reduce our debt by nearly 2 trillion dollars in 6 days :p.

The financial crisis had to be averted. The spending done there to save the large banks, while sucks for us, was a good thing. I'll never forget that NPR show that gave in detail how and why the banks were screwed that particular week. We were on the edge of a precipice that most people probably don't even realize today, because of the complexity of banking today in general.

139 bank failures-- again a good thing. I thought (along with many others) it would be much more, and it likely would have without the bailouts.

The property market foreclosures are a direct result of the bubble that happened before Obama's tenure, so I find those numbers a little irrelevant. Wait till the commercial market finally crashes! That's still coming.

The number of troops in Iraq have gone down. That's a good thing, isn't it? The number of troops in Afghanistan have gone up-- not good for me, but exactly what Obama promised and what a number of conservatives believe should have been done. Good for you, right?

21 foreign countries visited. This is a very good thing-- we have to repair the damage done to our foreign credibility by Bush, and this is a start. I hope he continues to travel, as the general opinion of America within the world continues to rise as a result.

And you have to admit that just 2 vacations is a damn refreshing sight :).

There's a few quick good things in that list, in my very humble opinion. I look forward to Joxur's taunting. No, really.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:16 PM 
Selling 50 Orc Belts!
Selling 50 Orc Belts!

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:09 PM
Posts: 650
Location: Texas
EQ1: Xantheus
WoW: Xantheus
Interesting numbers.

I don't understand how the foreclosure numbers have anything to do with Obama. It's his fault people took out loans they couldn't afford and then didn't pay their bills?


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:14 PM 
Camping Dorn
Camping Dorn

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:48 PM
Posts: 159
Quote:
The number of unemployed 16 and over is incredibly similar over the course of the year. Again, I would have thought it would be much worse. In fact, those numbers are so close together that am unsure how that jives with with the unemployment rate. Would have to think about it, but taking those numbers at face value, again given the thousands of job losses bleeding out I can't believe it's only a 1.7 million job difference. That's much better than I would have expected-- so good.


Close together??? Maybe when you are talking about 13 and 14.7 without the million at the end.

1.7 million is a lot of people, not to mention the hike of almost 3% in the unemployment rate.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:22 PM 
The Lurker at the Threshold

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:54 PM
Posts: 4156
Location: Atlanta, GA
EQ1: Vanamar
WoW: Kallaystra
Rift: Tarathia
generally speaking, an economy NEEDS people on unemployment -- 100% employment is a fallacy, and would only exist in a utopia.

10% is a little high, but not out of bounds.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:27 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Quote:
I look forward to Joxur's taunting. No, really.
I just have to let that glorious piece of spin stand on its own. It taunts itself!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:00 PM 
I schooled the old school.
I schooled the old school.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:39 PM
Posts: 5011
Quote:
Close together??? Maybe when you are talking about 13 and 14.7 without the million at the end.

1.7 million is a lot of people, not to mention the hike of almost 3% in the unemployment rate.


Numbers are relative, and given the royal fuckup Obama was handed and the population of 300+ million people in the US, I'd say 1.7 million surprised me in a good way. I expected 2-3 million, maybe more.

Just my opinion /shrug.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:19 PM 
10 Years? God im old!
10 Years? God im old!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:50 AM
Posts: 947
So basically, the contention is that Obama isn't a magic voodoo man. Color me surprised.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:41 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
I'm enjoying the meltdown on MSNBC tonight. The best part is listening to Rachel Maddow in denial about why the Dems just lost their 60th seat. Matthews gets it. We'll see how many Dems get it before the midterms.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:43 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Howard Dean gets it, at least. They got elected to deliver change and they're not doing it. Too bad no one listens to Dean. heh


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:38 AM 
Camping Orc 1
Camping Orc 1
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:23 AM
Posts: 460
Location: Bedlam & Squalor
Quote:
152—U.S. military deaths in Iraq from January 2009 through Jan. 15, 2010.

99,000--Documented civilian deaths from war in Iraq as of January 2009
103,000--Documented civilian deaths from war in Iraq as of January 2010

(source)

I'd be interested in a tally for Afghanistan if anyone can find a reliable source.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:26 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Looking at most of these figures(particularly the economy, but also including the Iraq war etc)... shouldn't it be Bush by the numbers? =x


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:12 PM 
10 Years? God im old!
10 Years? God im old!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:13 PM
Posts: 857
Location: Madison, WI
EQ1: Annastazia
WoW: Gravestone
Point of Comparison... FDR's first year

Under the constitutional rules that still existed in 1932, a newly elected U.S. president did not officially take his oath of office until the March after his victory - a gap of four months. This old tradition, which had worked well enough in the slower-paced world of Washington and

Jefferson, was now dangerously out of date in the face of the Great Depression. The economic crisis was not prepared to wait out the winter until the new president took office. During January and February 1933, America sank into an even grimmer slump. Between one-quarter and one-third of the entire U.S. workforce was unemployed because of the collapse of businesses across the country. Hundreds of thousands of homeless and destitute people were living in refugee camps on the outskirts of cities. Up to 2 million more people were wandering the countryside, looking for any kind of work that would help them feed their families. The American banking system was also on the brink of total failure, with 38 governors forced to close all the branches in their states to avoid financial panic. With the United States effectively leaderless, the threat of mass riots, even political revolution, seemed close at hand.

On March 4, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt gave his first inaugural address as president of the United States. Recognizing the tide of anxiety that was sweeping the nation, Roosevelt stressed the need for calm in midst of crisis. In words that were to become famous, he urged his countrymen to realize that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Once the formalities were over, Roosevelt quickly settled down to work. He began by ordering all the nation's banks to close for a few days, in a much-needed "holiday" to pacify panicking investors. Then he made the first of his special radio addresses to the American people, which were eventually known as Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats." These talks, which were written in an intimate, homey style - very different from the impersonal lectures that political leaders usually gave on the radio - were effective at creating the illusion that Roosevelt was speaking one-to-one with families across the country. His upbeat, self-assured manner was effective and helped renew popular confidence in the government. Once the banks reopened, people began to redeposit their savings. The immediate financial alarm was over, partly thanks to that well-timed Fireside Chat.

Roosevelt next ordered Congress to convene for a special emergency session. The first three months of this session, known as the "Hundred Days," saw a flurry of activity as new laws were hurriedly introduced to try to tackle the country's worst economic problems. Recalling Roosevelt's pledge at the Democratic Party convention the year before, the policies of the new administration were described as "The New Deal." Actually, when Roosevelt had used that phrase previously, he did not have a specific set of policies in mind. The New Deal was more of a random collection of ideas and initiatives than a carefully planned agenda. However, the expression captured the imaginations of Americans everywhere and became inseparable from Roosevelt's presidency.

Ironically, one of Roosevelt's first actions was a flop. He introduced the Economy Act that drastically reduced payments to veterans and federal employees to skim $500 million off the budget. This was not only highly unpopular, it also made the economic situation even worse by lowering the amount of money available to consumers, stifling business growth. Cost cutting of this kind was at odds with many of Roosevelt's other New Deal schemes, and demonstrate how little overall consistency there was behind many of his decisions.

Another of Roosevelt's early decisions was a lot more welcome than the Economy Act. For over a decade, "Prohibition" had made it illegal to sell alcohol in the United States, and had encouraged widespread corruption and organized crime in America's big cities. In 1933, the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealed Prohibition laws and allowed the consumption of beer and liquor once again. That same year another constitutional amendment, the 20th, changed the rules governing the timing of presidential terms. From now on, new presidents would enter office on the January 20 after their election. The dangerous four-month lapse that had almost wrecked the country in 1932 was gone at last.

Roosevelt's first year saw the creation of a series of federal laws and agencies intended to tackle various aspects of the Depression. The first was the Civilian Conservation Corps, which recruited 120,000 jobless young men to work in the country's national parks and forests. The Emergency Farm Mortgage Act protected farmers from losing their homes and livelihoods if they could not pay their mortgages. Roosevelt later introduced a wider scheme for non-farmers, known as the Home Owners' Loan Corporation.

One of the most ambitious new aid organizations was the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, run by Roosevelt's trusted adviser, Harry Hopkins. FERA was given $500 million by Congress to spend on welfare support for the unemployed and did much to help desperate citizens through the worst years of the Depression. The National Industrial Recovery Act strengthened union rights and introduced government control of production and prices. Other early measures reorganized the nation's banks and stock markets to prevent the kind of near-catastrophes that had almost taken place in Hoover's presidency.

Unfortunately for Roosevelt, two of his biggest projects did not turn out so well. The National Recovery Agency was intended to draw up standard rules and practices for all American businesses, and to introduce agreements about minimum wages and maximum hours. In practice, the agency only managed to anger everyone - labor unions and businessmen alike - and failed in its bid to revive commercial trade. The Agricultural Adjustment Act was a scheme to pay farmers to reduce their production, with the hope of raising agricultural prices. After some limited early success, this strategy failed to prove effective. The Supreme Court eventually decided that both the NRA and the AAA were unconstitutional and abolished them.

One of the best known of all Roosevelt's initiatives in his first year was the Tennessee Valley Authority. In 1933, the area surrounding the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers - including Tennessee itself, and also parts of Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina - was among the poorest and least developed in the United States, and had been badly hit by the Great Depression. The TVA, a federally owned business, took over a large fertilizer manufacturer and hydroelectric plant at Muscle Shoals, Alabama, and began building a series of dams along the river systems to control their flood waters and produce power. TVA initiatives introduced electricity to homes and farms across the region, replanted trees in deforested zones, fertilized the eroded soil, and cleaned up wildlife and fishing preserves. The TVA also created many badly needed jobs and improved the quality of life for people across the southern United States.

Perhaps Roosevelt's most urgent concern was to provide work for the jobless. He saw great evil in having so many millions of Americans unemployed, not only because of the hardship they were facing but also because their discontent might be harnessed by a would-be dictator. As he said in a Fireside Chat in 1938: "Not only our future economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men." He had originally hoped that an agency called the Public Works Administration would produce the necessary jobs, but its administrators took a timid approach to their mission and accomplished very little. Harry Hopkins suggested a more ambitious job-creation scheme, which was to become the Civil Works Administration. At first, the CWA was a runaway success. In two months, Hopkins put 4 million Americans back to work in federal employment programs. However, Roosevelt was worried that the administration would grow so big that it would become a massive drain on the government's funds, so he closed it down. This was probably one of Roosevelt's biggest mistakes during his first term in office, because during its brief life the CWA not only created jobs but also gave a vital stimulus to the national economy. Roosevelt could be too cautious as well as too bold.

Roosevelt's first year was a mixed bag of successes and failures. Although it did not completely turn back the Depression, it at least it restored some badly needed confidence to the American people. A big part of that revival was simply due to Roosevelt's charismatic personality. Roosevelt was a master of public relations and knew exactly how to communicate his ideas to the public. He was an expert at using the press to advertise his policies. Roosevelt inspired an extraordinary amount of affection within ordinary citizens, who came to see him not merely as a distant political leader but as a friend. If Roosevelt was able to transform the mood of the country in his first year, it was not so much because of any specific policy he introduced but because he convinced people that there was someone in Washington who wanted to help them.

Sources:

Buhite, Russell D., and Levy, David W., eds. FDR's Fireside Chats. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 1992.

McElvaine, Robert. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2002.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:23 AM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
It's amazing how people think that the President can just wave his President-Wand and make everything better instantly.

It's also funny how people can just delude themselves into ignoring that it was Bush who dug the hole, it's just Obama that got tossed down into it.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:39 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
It is amazing.

On one hand, you have a politician who spent half a billion dollars running on the promise that he could do something. Something you claim he could never do (which then makes it a lie).

On the other, you have people who are upset that he has not delivered, and, in fact, has done the opposite in some cases.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:07 AM 
I schooled the old school.
I schooled the old school.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:39 PM
Posts: 5011
He never said he could instantly change everything. Quite the contrary, I remember several times where he said the economy was going to take years to rebuild, and to not expect this to happen.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:19 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
He said unemployment would not rise above 8%.
He said he would pass a public option.
He said he would not allow lobbyists in his admin.
He said he would allow perscription drug reimportation.

The list goes on and on. But you've never addressed any of those, so I don't expect you to do so now. That's why I am not going to bother with more.

Do we really want to do this? None of those things are longterm issues. Those are all promises he's explicitly broken.

So again, why are you mad at people who are holding Dems accountable for broken promises, instead of being mad at the ones (you voted for) that are doing it? If a politician runs on a campaign promise, shouldn't we be able to hold him accountable for that promise?


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:28 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
None of the broken promises would bother me half as much if Obama seemed to have some kind of long-term plan for the economy. As far as I can tell he doesn't; no plan to eventually reign in spending and buy down the debt; no plan to encourage manufacturing to return to this country. I am seeing no long term planning at all unless you want to count all the lip service about forming yet another commission to enable congress to duck their responsibilities to actually manage the budget. The only planning that seems to be going on is how to get re-elected.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:00 AM 
I schooled the old school.
I schooled the old school.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:39 PM
Posts: 5011
None of those, Joxur, except for the first, has anything to do with the numbers in this thread, and so I'll ignore it as irrelevant. And of the first-- *everyone* was wrong about how far unemployment would go. He didn't promise it-- it was a target. If you have studied economics at *all* you know that it's a guessing game.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:12 PM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
Its like every week some people wake up with their memories wiped.

Politicians make promises to get elected. Often promises that can't/won't get fulfilled. We know. It sucks. All part of why politics sucks. Not much we can do about it.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:44 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Quote:
Not much we can do about it.
Well, yeah. Step one to being able to do something about it would probably be to stop making excuses for it when it happens.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:59 PM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
We can do something: stop re-electing the liars. After a couple of election cycles they'll get the idea. In fact, we can start this year by working to take the power away from the current liar-in-chief during the midterms.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:46 PM 
Camping Dorn
Camping Dorn

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:34 PM
Posts: 171
Kulamiena wrote:
We can do something: stop re-electing the liars. After a couple of election cycles they'll get the idea. In fact, we can start this year by working to take the power away from the current liar-in-chief during the midterms.


Here is the question I just thought I would throw at everyone. Kula just happened to state the first step.

The second step is, would you toss out the liars from your own party or not? Chances are most people would not. So, why are your liars better than their liars?

Not saying everyone here wouldn't. For those that do tend to vote down the party line, can you answer that question?

_________________
There is no such thing as right or wrong; only pleasure and pain.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:37 PM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
Quote:
We can do something: stop re-electing the liars. After a couple of election cycles they'll get the idea. In fact, we can start this year by working to take the power away from the current liar-in-chief during the midterms.


A good idea, but it'd never happen. You won't know who's a liar until they're elected anyway!

Besides, they already know that we don't like liars. They also know that americans have really short attention spans, are really easy to polarize along party lines, are easily distracted by side issues and personal issues...so yeah, they know it, they just know it doesn't matter much. =/

(A lot of this goes back to my old complaints about how Dems and Reps will still do whatever they want because they know we'll never actually stop voting for the two parties no matter what.)

I'm not condoning the lying, just amazed that people are still so shocked by it.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:00 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Things change once you get into the White House. A President begins to better understand the reality behind the country when he's in the big seat with even more advisors behind them, and the awesome responsibility it entails. What they should be saying in their speeches is: "I'll do this, barring a changing environment or if it turns out that it's not realistically feasible". Really that should go without saying anyway as it's pretty much implied, and it's not going to help a campaign sound any less long-winded and annoying. Will someone hold a President accountable for not holding up to a promise not to go to war after having 5 cities nuked by a random country? I don't think anyone's that dumb. Circumstances change, reality sets in. Doesn't excuse every "promise"(and I emphasize that in quotes, since everything a presidential candidate seems to utter gets taken as an oath of office), but it makes more sense than hanging on every word as if it were set in stone to be obeyed.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:05 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Just to add: I'd take an adaptable President who is willing to change methods when reality sets in over an unbending President Bush who keeps a promise even if it's not feasible.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:15 PM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
Quote:
"I'll do this, barring a changing environment or if it turns out that it's not realistically feasible".


Do that and people crucify you for being wishy-washy, or a flip-flopper or some crap. ><

We're our own worst enemy there. We hate honesty, we wanna hear the fantasies.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:21 AM 
Froaaak!!!
Froaaak!!!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 AM
Posts: 1859
Location: San Antonio, TX
EQ1: Rugen Payne
WoW: Mathaen
Quote:
The second step is, would you toss out the liars from your own party or not? Chances are most people would not. So, why are your liars better than their liars?

Not saying everyone here wouldn't. For those that do tend to vote down the party line, can you answer that question?


So here's the fundamental problem I have. Orme voiced it pretty well a few threads back and while I initially skipped over it, he hit the head on the rock.

Many people in our political system are like an abused child and there's no where to go. So they may go to "mommy" knowing they get the black eye, but view it as better than going to "daddy" who is going to break their arm.

So what do you do? Not vote? That doesn't help anyone. Because there are "true believers" out there. Tea Baggers IMMEDIATELY come to mind. If everyone frustrated with the political system and their politicians lying sat on their hands because NEITHER choice was good, we'd have Sarah Palin for president next time (Did you see Glen Beck hailing her as the anointed messiah of America? ugh). And that's just untenable. So how do have a voice in the system without completely losing your voice in the system when you have no good choices?

We HAVE no options. And the supreme court decision today just made that situation worse. You thought it was corrupt before, now there's an unlimited stream of corruption just waiting to happen.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:42 AM 
Camping Dorn
Camping Dorn

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:34 PM
Posts: 171
rugen wrote:
Quote:
The second step is, would you toss out the liars from your own party or not? Chances are most people would not. So, why are your liars better than their liars?

Not saying everyone here wouldn't. For those that do tend to vote down the party line, can you answer that question?


So here's the fundamental problem I have. Orme voiced it pretty well a few threads back and while I initially skipped over it, he hit the head on the rock.

Many people in our political system are like an abused child and there's no where to go. So they may go to "mommy" knowing they get the black eye, but view it as better than going to "daddy" who is going to break their arm.

So what do you do? Not vote? That doesn't help anyone. Because there are "true believers" out there. Tea Baggers IMMEDIATELY come to mind. If everyone frustrated with the political system and their politicians lying sat on their hands because NEITHER choice was good, we'd have Sarah Palin for president next time (Did you see Glen Beck hailing her as the anointed messiah of America? ugh). And that's just untenable. So how do have a voice in the system without completely losing your voice in the system when you have no good choices?

We HAVE no options. And the supreme court decision today just made that situation worse. You thought it was corrupt before, now there's an unlimited stream of corruption just waiting to happen.


Our problem with the system is actually those true believers in my opinion because of the questions I asked. For some people it is perfectly reasonable that their party's politicians do certain corrupt things, or lie, or whatever else they find morally reprehensible, but, if the other side crosses their individual moral lines, they are upset beyond all belief.

That's an issue. You can't say "Well my side lies and it's ok because their side lies, but when their side lies it's bad!" Because, let's face it, if it is bad for them, it's bad for you. Lots of people don't understand that, including a few I know in real life. They drive me insane.

That is why I don't vote party line. I think, if I recall right, I voted for a republican governor (I live in Ohio) that was friends with Mitch Daniels from Indiana because I like Mitch Daniels, but I voted for Obama because I felt he was a better choice for that office.

The solution is not to not vote, the solution is to make the margin of people who vote strictly for their party wider and wider until they mean nothing. I'm not saying it is a realistic solution, but it would be the best.

Consequently, I always tell those people I know hat do vote party line that no one cares what they think, not even their own party. They know they have their vote, so they don't matter. I matter, because I don't vote party line, so I am the guy they are talking to. None of them take that very well, but it's a cold harsh truth.

_________________
There is no such thing as right or wrong; only pleasure and pain.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:13 AM 
10 Years? God im old!
10 Years? God im old!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:50 AM
Posts: 947
Remember, people are stupid and will believe a thing is true because they want it to be true or they are afraid it might be true. This is why people consider Beck, Palin, Bachmann, etc to be messenegers of truth. They will believe any batshit insane thing that comes out of their mouths because they (the politicians and pundits) know this, at least instinctively, and play up to those fears and wishes. Conversely, the opposition has been so demonized that even if it was said, word for word, by a republican yesterday, if a liberal is saying it today it's bad evil wrong and the commie bastard is lying through his teeth.

I'm not saying the left doesn't have people like this, but the right is being dominated by them, especially after they spent time drumming everyone without the minimum required froth.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:27 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
I'll vote party lines if there's almost nothing else to identify someone by that I know about. Occasionally I will abstain. I typically vote Democrat anyway, just because they are(on average) closer to where I am on the issues. I don't like lying on either side, but I'll happily agree with that motto: "Our liars are better than your liars". It's one of the most unfortunate aspects of politics and politicians, but I don't see it changing any time soon. I try to look for where to attain the greater result, and I usually see it with that party(not always, but usually). Unfortunate situation it may be, but still the lesser evil in my book.

So, yes.. I would take a liar over a Republican who would deny women the right to an abortion, deny homosexual couples the same privileges as married couples, continuing to vote against stem cell research, pushing against any and all legislation that would broaden health care(since Hillary and beyond; It continues), poor track records on education, resisting efforts to stem the tide of climate change, and general support for rather unforgiving punishment for various crimes(death penalty, drug users, etc).

I choose the lesser evil. If everyone were smart and it could somehow be organized I would happily kick most of the elected representatives(Democrats and Republicans) out in favor of honest human beings, but we do not live in that utopian world. Constantly abstaining with the current state of things accomplishes nothing, and it's naive at best to think that others will follow suit.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:29 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
Yep, yep the old "We can't do anything" excuse. The way I see it, people who believe that are the problem. We KNOW that almost every congressperson in office and the President is a liar. You can pretend to "know" that the people stepping up to challenge them will lie and you may be right but I'll take the chance on new blood over known liars. We really need to stop allowing the career of politician to exist. It should be a period of serving your country, not a career. Then, perhaps, we'll have some people in DC who aren't continually fundraising but are actually working towards sound policies.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:41 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Quote:
Yep, yep the old "We can't do anything" excuse. The way I see it, people who believe that are the problem. We KNOW that almost every congressperson in office and the President is a liar. You can pretend to "know" that the people stepping up to challenge them will lie and you may be right but I'll take the chance on new blood over known liars. We really need to stop allowing the career of politician to exist. It should be a period of serving your country, not a career. Then, perhaps, we'll have some people in DC who aren't continually fundraising but are actually working towards sound policies.


Well, I'm not saying we can't do *anything* at all, but it's not going to be an overnight thing. I believe human society can progress, but at a very gradual pace. Mass abstaining and/or mass new blood in 2012 or 2016 that results in true change just isn't likely to happen. Until the time when people are more willing to part ways with the status quo, it won't be worth risking those issues I mentioned above.

Now, I suppose if a serious majority were all deciding not to vote in new blood precisely for the reason I am, that would be a problem. Thing is, they're not. There are a shitload of people who genuinely believe with every fiber of their being in who they vote for. Just look at Obama for a recent example. A pretty big chunk of people seemed to think he was the second coming. Hell, I was pretty happy with what I saw originally as well, but I had plenty of reservations. If he was the only politician to ever get a ton of people to genuinely think he was an honest bulletproof man of the people, I'd tend to agree it was a fluke. Sadly, it's not.

I'm sorry if I'm a little pessimistic about humanity or the average American voter, but they seem to have proven me right on this point a few times over. We can't always fix stupid so easily.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:44 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Oh and not to even mention Bush... Nope, he wasn't elected as a wild fluke of American politics... he was RE-elected. Honestly, that's all a person needs to know about the voting population and their "willingness" to get honest new blood into the system. I have a bridge to sell ya.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:53 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
Venen, I agree with you about the intellect of the 'average voter'. But when those of us who actually care about issues and not just party dogma concede to the belief that we don't count we lose. I am coming to the belief that most voters who do care about issues are the growing number of voters who reject party labels and are becoming independents.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:15 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
But the concept that we don't matter is total bullshit. Look at what happened in Massachusetts. One of the most liberal, democratic states swung wildly away from its typical voting pattern and totally shook up the dominance that Dems have. Polls show they did this partly in response to a shitty candidate but also due to national politics. Independents swung to Brown by a 2 to 1 margin. And Kula is right - the more people that swing to independent, the more accountability politicians will see in the polls.

As a side, no one who voted for Obama gets to belittle the intelligence of the average voter. Voting for Obama, with his lack of track record, is about as blind a leap of faith as you can take. It didn't work out for you. Please don't sit there and throw grenades at the intelligence of the average voter.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:04 AM 
What? Another Expansion?!
What? Another Expansion?!

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:50 AM
Posts: 86
Difficult to say it didn't work out, I don't think you can draw conclusions about Obama's presidency when there's still 7 potential years to go.

Hell 12 months into the Bush administration what were his approval ratings like? Could anyone have predicted the hatred the entire world would have for him at that stage?

I don't think it would have been possible for anyone to solve Americas problems within 12 months, or in the next twelve.

Making sure Obama can't push anything through by voting against the party at the midterms will only ensure you have a lame duck. Biting your nose to spite your face. (I think, I don't actually know what the midterms do, are they the same as local elections over here in the UK?)


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:17 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Quote:
Making sure Obama can't push anything through by voting against the party at the midterms will only ensure you have a lame duck. Biting your nose to spite your face.
What do you base that on? Not historical evidence, obviously. The best years we've had in my voting lifetime were the 6 years of relative prosperity we had under Clinton and a GOP congress.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:33 AM 
10 Years? God im old!
10 Years? God im old!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:13 PM
Posts: 857
Location: Madison, WI
EQ1: Annastazia
WoW: Gravestone
Regardless of if you agree with his beliefs or not, Ron Paul would have made his promises come to fruition.

I just wish we werent so afraid to get away from politics as usual.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:37 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
Uluth Gak wrote:
Kulamiena wrote:
We can do something: stop re-electing the liars. After a couple of election cycles they'll get the idea. In fact, we can start this year by working to take the power away from the current liar-in-chief during the midterms.


Here is the question I just thought I would throw at everyone. Kula just happened to state the first step.

The second step is, would you toss out the liars from your own party or not? Chances are most people would not. So, why are your liars better than their liars?

Not saying everyone here wouldn't. For those that do tend to vote down the party line, can you answer that question?



I used to be a hard-core Republican, I am not now. When asked, I tell people that I am a Libertarian. People need to wake up and realize that we need more than the R and D options.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:54 PM 
Blackburrow Lover!
Blackburrow Lover!

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:29 PM
Posts: 634
Location: Crestview, FL
EQ1: Arunhah
WoW: Scathain
Rift: Arunhah
EQ2: Scathian
Because Ron Paul had some secret method of completely bypassing Congress or of forcing them to all vote the way he wanted?

No President will keep all of their promises because no one votes for the guy who stops himself at "I promise to sign any bill that makes it to my desk that I agree with". All politicians are liars in part because we demand that they lie. Politicians who tell the truth lose.

People give far too much credit and blame to the person who holds the office of President. They seem to think that a good President holds Congress by the balls so that they can get their agenda passed without any consideration for the fact that that is completely contrary to having a three branch government. We had that with the previous President, and most people complained about the lack of separation of powers (rightfully so).

People vote, and then they sit on their couch and whine because the guy they voted for hasn't followed through, ignoring the obvious fact that if people actually stayed engaged in the process outside of voting, they would stand a much greater chance of getting what it is that they want.

Instead, the winners get lazy and the losers get to work. If you don't write the letters and make the calls to the people who are supposed to represent you, whether you voted for them or not, you're to blame for things being the way they are.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:57 PM 
Loading,Please Wait...
Loading,Please Wait...
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:12 AM
Posts: 246
EQ1: Daas
WoW: Vuloth
EQ2: Daas
krby71 wrote:


I used to be a hard-core Republican, I am not now. When asked, I tell people that I am a Libertarian. People need to wake up and realize that we need more than the R and D options.


Agreed. In fact the idea that there is an "us" versus "them" mentality is fucked up when in reality we'd be better off if our elected officials were given the option of thinking for themselves rather than staying along their own party lines.

Also I've always thought it odd that we have term limits on the presidency but none on senators or congressmen. I'm primarily a republican, but I'd have voted in Clinton for a third term over W if I was allowed the option. I don't see a rational argument for forcing the country to elect a leader from any two individuals that are incapable of doing the job better than the one currently in office.

_________________
...


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:48 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
I'm in favor of term limits. The power of the incumbent, even a bad one, to get re-elected over and over is a dangerous thing in a democracy, imho.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:54 PM 
I schooled the old school.
I schooled the old school.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:39 PM
Posts: 5011
Quote:
Agreed. In fact the idea that there is an "us" versus "them" mentality is fucked up when in reality we'd be better off if our elected officials were given the option of thinking for themselves rather than staying along their own party lines.


I agree with this, but then we complain about the Democrats begin unable to vote as a block to pass their agenda. There's a clear conflict here. Which is more important?


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:34 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Quote:
Venen, I agree with you about the intellect of the 'average voter'. But when those of us who actually care about issues and not just party dogma concede to the belief that we don't count we lose. I am coming to the belief that most voters who do care about issues are the growing number of voters who reject party labels and are becoming independents.


Quote:
But the concept that we don't matter is total bullshit. Look at what happened in Massachusetts. One of the most liberal, democratic states swung wildly away from its typical voting pattern and totally shook up the dominance that Dems have. Polls show they did this partly in response to a shitty candidate but also due to national politics. Independents swung to Brown by a 2 to 1 margin. And Kula is right - the more people that swing to independent, the more accountability politicians will see in the polls.

As a side, no one who voted for Obama gets to belittle the intelligence of the average voter. Voting for Obama, with his lack of track record, is about as blind a leap of faith as you can take. It didn't work out for you. Please don't sit there and throw grenades at the intelligence of the average voter.


Assuming you're referring to the Coakley race, I tend to believe that was mostly because of Coakley's multiple gaffes(and her lack of personal appeal to voters in general) as well as the 13 million dollars in nice ad money from outside Massachussets Republicans who wanted that seat in Republican hands. Not because of some miracle wet dream of an independent voting swing.

We don't "lose" because we've decided not to take up a cause that makes no sense and has no sign of victory. We do the best we can with what we have available. Setting an example isn't going to help if no one is willing to follow. Speaking out will help, if anything. I wouldn't be any more willing to abstain if it was a vote between Mao Zedong and Bush if it meant Bush had a real shot at winning. Sometimes it's for the better of society.

I don't mind that Obama won over McCain, even if I had disagreements. There were no other contenders that stood a chance, else I would've voted for someone better. As I said, the better of two evils. The question of intelligence comes into play when someone votes for the worse of the two, McCain. They wanted many of Bush's policies to continue for a 3rd term. If anything, I'm afraid they don't get a say when discussing average intelligence.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:13 AM 
10 Years? God im old!
10 Years? God im old!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:13 PM
Posts: 857
Location: Madison, WI
EQ1: Annastazia
WoW: Gravestone
Devyn wrote:
Because Ron Paul had some secret method of completely bypassing Congress or of forcing them to all vote the way he wanted?

No President will keep all of their promises because no one votes for the guy who stops himself at "I promise to sign any bill that makes it to my desk that I agree with". All politicians are liars in part because we demand that they lie. Politicians who tell the truth lose.

People give far too much credit and blame to the person who holds the office of President. They seem to think that a good President holds Congress by the balls so that they can get their agenda passed without any consideration for the fact that that is completely contrary to having a three branch government. We had that with the previous President, and most people complained about the lack of separation of powers (rightfully so).

People vote, and then they sit on their couch and whine because the guy they voted for hasn't followed through, ignoring the obvious fact that if people actually stayed engaged in the process outside of voting, they would stand a much greater chance of getting what it is that they want.

Instead, the winners get lazy and the losers get to work. If you don't write the letters and make the calls to the people who are supposed to represent you, whether you voted for them or not, you're to blame for things being the way they are.


Not everything a President can do has to go through a congressional vote. The main issue people had with Bush was what he did outside the lines if I remember correctly.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:47 AM 
Fell for 50,000 points of Damage
Fell for 50,000 points of Damage

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:01 PM
Posts: 561
Quote:
Assuming you're referring to the Coakley race, I tend to believe that was mostly because of Coakley's multiple gaffes(and her lack of personal appeal to voters in general) as well as the 13 million dollars in nice ad money from outside Massachussets Republicans who wanted that seat in Republican hands. Not because of some miracle wet dream of an independent voting swing.



Assuming you're correct (which I don't believe but whatever), what's your opinion on NJ electing an (R) governor only a few months prior? Where spending, campaigning (from outside, mostly Obama, and other celebrities), negative ads, popularity, pharmaceutical industry, unions and every other "dirty trick" used to get their person elected was used by Corzine, only to lose. While I realize this isn't a seat of power like the Senate is, one would assume this would've been the wake up call prior to losing that seat and the super majority.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:50 AM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
Quote:
Regardless of if you agree with his beliefs or not, Ron Paul would have made his promises come to fruition.


The best thing about Obama is that he'll do what he says.

The best thing about McCain is that he'll do what he says.

C'mon folks. ><


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:55 AM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
Quote:
But the concept that we don't matter is total bullshit. Look at what happened in Massachusetts. One of the most liberal, democratic states swung wildly away from its typical voting pattern and totally shook up the dominance that Dems have. Polls show they did this partly in response to a shitty candidate but also due to national politics. Independents swung to Brown by a 2 to 1 margin. And Kula is right - the more people that swing to independent, the more accountability politicians will see in the polls.


And what'd they vote for instead? A Republican. They know this, guys. You can call it a big shake-up but the reality is that they know that we won't break from their system and even though there'll be little shifts from one side to the other, it won't change anything in the long run.

Quote:
As a side, no one who voted for Obama gets to belittle the intelligence of the average voter. Voting for Obama, with his lack of track record, is about as blind a leap of faith as you can take. It didn't work out for you. Please don't sit there and throw grenades at the intelligence of the average voter.


Really, guy? What was the alternative in that election? Voting for Palin would have made us geniuses, eh?

It's not hot new info that we don't always exactly have a "Washington vs. Lincoln" choice in our elections. ><


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:07 PM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:43 PM
Posts: 1323
You weren't voting for Palin, FYI.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:51 PM 
Blackburrow Lover!
Blackburrow Lover!

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:29 PM
Posts: 634
Location: Crestview, FL
EQ1: Arunhah
WoW: Scathain
Rift: Arunhah
EQ2: Scathian
Palin was on the ticket, so yeah. And you kinda have to second guess the judgement of anyone willing to put that nutjob on their Presidential ticket.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:37 PM 
Lanys Supporter
Lanys Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:46 AM
Posts: 1398
WoW: Drajeck
Devyn wrote:
Palin was on the ticket, so yeah. And you kinda have to second guess the judgement of anyone willing to put that nutjob on their Presidential ticket.


Exactly.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:30 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Quote:
Assuming you're correct (which I don't believe but whatever), what's your opinion on NJ electing an (R) governor only a few months prior? Where spending, campaigning (from outside, mostly Obama, and other celebrities), negative ads, popularity, pharmaceutical industry, unions and every other "dirty trick" used to get their person elected was used by Corzine, only to lose. While I realize this isn't a seat of power like the Senate is, one would assume this would've been the wake up call prior to losing that seat and the super majority.


Well, you're being from NJ and all I'll go with the assumption(I have doubts as well, but either way =p) that you're correct about Corzine. Just because someone gets voted out based on the fact that people view them as corrupt doesn't mean that there's some drastic change in the mindset of voters in general. If someone has been in office for nearly 10 years without opposition and they get voted out, it's not necessarily because voters have become some kind of enlightened and suddenly want nothing but new blood. You see only select cases at which to point at precisely because of this.

It's not systemic - else similar to what Bovinity said - we would be seeing both Republicans AND Democrats being kicked out in favor of new political parties.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:59 AM 
Fell for 50,000 points of Damage
Fell for 50,000 points of Damage

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:01 PM
Posts: 561
Thanks for the reply Venen.

Much of what you said I actually agree with, however it's just a gut feeling (of mine) this turn-over actually is something that started in '06, then Republicans, Now Democrats.

To correct some minor mistakes, Corzine wasn't Gov for 10 years (not quite sure if that's what you meant or not), he was elected in '06. Prior we had Cody who took over after McGreevy stepped down. Prior to being Governor he was a Senator.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama by the numbers
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:52 PM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:43 PM
Posts: 1323
This period reminds me a lot of 1992-1994, where Clinton had Congress and failed to really win over the public, and he was suffering from a Republican induced recession. The Republicans won a crushing defeat in the mid-term elections, and we went on to 6-8 very, very good years.

Maybe I'm pollyanna, but maybe that's coming. There's no doubt the Dems are going to take a thumping in November. If you think about our best years, it's always when there is gridlock in Washington. Politicians are forced to work together.

If Obama can be lucky enough to have the Dems lose the majority (unlikely, but possible), I think he can win reelection. Otherwise, he's a one-hit wonder methinks.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y