Winning The Future!

[Mikeg]

....anybody would have tremendous difficulties getting things done in such governmental stagnation.

It must really suck to only be able to offer up such a feeble defense of Obama.

Obama had two years during which he had control of Congress. He started out his term with higher approval ratings than suggested by the number of votes he received. Yet in less than two years he frittered it all away and accomplished what - besides Obamacare and massive deficits? Oh yeah, he came up with a snappy re-election campaign slogan, "Winning the Future!"

[1KielsonDrive]

[QUOTE=Mikeg;236030]Can you give me one example where this president has met or exceeded his 2008 economic or foreign policy campaign promises?

The data points I've provided are the kind of things that directly affect the president's approval ratings with the independent voters who will ultimately determine his election poll results. When those independents walk into the voting booth in Nov. 2012, they aren't going to be thinking about what Dubya did or didn't do.

This president is so ineffectual he can't even make his own Executive Orders happen![/QUOTE]

Thank you. But to qualify it further: This president is so ineffectual that he can't even MAKE Executive Orders.

[1KielsonDrive]

Tell you what ! Lets throw ole Dennis Kucinich out there. I like his politics. We could campaign for him 24/7 give him hundreds of millions of dollars. Think he could win ???

See, you have the same ass attitude as everyone else who's been beaten down by our ONE party system. I'm not suggesting Kucinich would win, but why not entertain the idea until proven otherwise? Most people thought NO!bama was dead in the water, contrary to polls generated by the republicrats and demicans. I know. I knocked doors and talked my voice hoarse. Most often I was greeted by 'there's no way'. Who's our el presidente now? If you automatically dispense with a candidate, there's not much of a chance for them to compete, much less win. That's mostly what our ONE party system and media do.

[1KielsonDrive]

So I guess its all or nothing for you. You don't give any credit " for in the works" or compromises.
understanding in politics you don't always get what you want, basically because you can't. Now appoint me dictator in a banana republic and I guarantee I would keep 100% of my campaign promises every year. LOL

Man, you hold folks to an unbelievable standard

BTW unemployment did go down to 8.8 you failed to mention that.

Not any higher regard than the Bush adm ??? Is that a fact or just your opinion based on what Rush told you

Please don't be dumb enough to use that figure, or any other figure provided by this administration. Unemployment is much higher than any figures they use. That's also true of the previous administration. Unemployment is probably twice that high. The UIA in Michigan couldn't wait to force me to stop calling in well after I was no longer able to collect. I called and called and called. I wanted them to KNOW I am still out here without a job. They refused to reinstate me into MARVIN. Why? Guess.

[1KielsonDrive]

Your one tune game is to blame Obama for not holding promises, while utterly failing to acknowledge that anybody would have tremendous difficulties getting things done in such governmental stagnation.

This thread is full of blame and lacks any signal of idea creation or problem solving. How does that make you feel?[/QUOTE]
Typical demican excuse for the inability to do anything. Bush, for all his criminality, got more done than NO!bama. Do you know why? Bush came into office to enact HIS agenda. As f*^+!d up as it was, the republicrats have b+^*s. NO!bama wanted to reach across the isle - to people who hate him for his race, education and membership in the other side of the demi-republicrat party. He persisted right through the election, personally guaranteeing a big loss. NO!bama can't even campaign right. Bush was all over the place. NO!bama peeks out once in a while.

[1KielsonDrive]

besides Obamacare and massive deficits? Oh yeah, he came up with a snappy re-election campaign slogan, "Winning the Future!"

Typical right wing nutcase ignorant blame game. Let's see - Bush balanced the budget? Right? Is that your assertion? NO!bama, as bad as he is, is not responsible for the deficit. The budget deficits are the result of 8 years worth of tax cutting and spending on AND off budget by republicrats. Of course, the demicans helped in any way possible. But NO!bama wasn't around. Get over it. That's why it's so ridiculous and hypocritical to hear republicrats crying over budget deficits.

[firstandten]

Mikeg

You stated in your post to name ONE promise Obama has kept. I referred you to a fact check website in which out of 20 promises he kept 7, unlike you I will give him credit for" in the works" which is another 6 for a total of 13. Now if you don't want to count compromises [[I would but since you hate the man and don't want to give him any credit) then between those and promises broken there are 7. Maybe we have different views of what constitutes improvement.

As far as the two middle east head cases you are talking about it wouldn't make any difference who was in office, they have and will continue to create problems for the US. Talk to me when some guy throws a shoe at Obama while giving a press conference.

I don't think us posters especially the more liberal ones had unrealistic expectations of the last president, we just didn't want him to run the country into the ground. Obama's problem with some folks on this forum [[basically you) is that the economy didn't recover yesterday. Its that you want something thats been percolating for the last 30 years, put on hyper-drive during the Bush Jr years to be addressed, solved and healthy in two years.

Oh but you say he had a democratic majority.. yes he did, but now with this crazy partisan politics you need a super majority if you want to ram your agenda thru. You need a super majority because you have a bunch of politicans who don't give a damn about America and its people make a decision to block, obstruct and delay every bill and appointment. It isn't even about reasonable disagreement any more, if it was you wouldn't need a super majority.

As far as the gov't numbers, I would agree with you, those are just numbers I trust them as much as I trust the Detroit census count.

Now, please don't misread this, but empirically to me the job market is getting a tad bit better. Trust me it is still not good, it is very difficult out there but it seems to be better than eight months ago.

Finally, read up on executive orders, executive orders are not like the kings edict to his subjects. Executive orders are not the cure all be all that one thinks it is. He's done approx 90 of those EO's but there are limits to what EO's can do, Nothing beats a congress that puts the interest of the people first over partisan politics.

[Pam]

Tell you what ! Lets throw ole Dennis Kucinich out there. I like his politics. We could campaign for him 24/7 give him hundreds of millions of dollars. Think he could win ???

Dennis Kucinich has stated he is not interested in running for president in 2012.

[TKshreve]

Oh but you say he had a democratic majority.. yes he did, but now with this crazy partisan politics you need a super majority if you want to ram your agenda thru. You need a super majority because you have a bunch of politicans who don't give a damn about America and its people make a decision to block, obstruct and delay every bill and appointment. It isn't even about reasonable disagreement any more, if it was you wouldn't need a super majority.

Stated perfectly.

@Keilsondrive

Why do you sit on the fence and cast bricks at both parties? It's pretty easy to critique the faults of both parties. I could do it all day, but at one point you need to align with a side and start voicing what needs to be done.

Do you support no one?

[maxx]

Obama never had a real majority in Congress. He had a lot of blue dogs from the South who were financed by the same corporatist interests that financed the Republicans. You know, those people who think like Haley Barbour that the African Americans' struggle for equality was just a cakewalk.

[firstandten]

Obama never had a real majority in Congress. He had a lot of blue dogs from the South who were financed by the same corporatist interests that financed the Republicans. You know, those people who think like Haley Barbour that the African Americans' struggle for equality was just a cakewalk.

I forgot about that, great point ! You have blue dog Dems hanging by a thread in their districts.
basically saying if I vote for Obama's agenda, the tea partiers will run a candidate against me and my polling tells me I will lose

So instead of doing whats right the blue dog will do what it takes to keep his job.

[maxx]

The blue dogs aren't the only ones doing what it takes to get re-elected.

[1KielsonDrive]

Stated perfectly.

@Keilsondrive

Why do you sit on the fence and cast bricks at both parties? It's pretty easy to critique the faults of both parties. I could do it all day, but at one point you need to align with a side and start voicing what needs to be done.

Do you support no one?

You're so funny, shreve. Obviously you haven't read my posts very well and you suggest I'm a fence sitter. Pay attention: I'm not a fence sitter. DUH! I DON'T support the party presently in power - the republidemicans. I'm an unrepentent, leftie, liberal, whacko, commie, pinko, activist, ............[[insert any other epithets you care to, here)............ This is not a negotiating session. This is not a hearing. This is not a deposition. This IS an internet chat room, so to speak. My opinions, like everyone's, change from time to time, just as my candidates, goals, tactics and strategies change from time to time.

[1KielsonDrive]

Obama never had a real majority in Congress. He had a lot of blue dogs from the South who were financed by the same corporatist interests that financed the Republicans. You know, those people who think like Haley Barbour that the African Americans' struggle for equality was just a cakewalk.

And so herein lies a problem with and for demicans: they've moved so far to the right by attracting blue dogs and right wingers [[but not tea baggers, quite yet. Give 'em a couple of years.), that they have no control over their own party. They aren't attracted by philosophy or ideology, they're attracted by MONEY. Our party system controls all the money. The result: they can't get a majority even though in name [[only) they have a majority. This goes back to what I've said repeatedly: we need more parties. I have no problem with tea-baggers as a party. We need a communist party. A socialist party. A blue dog party, etc. But then the uninformed electorate will have to pick a party not by name but by philosophy. You see, they'll name parties much as they name advocacy groups now. So parties representing corporations will be called something like 'The Hard Working Peoples Party'. Parties representing rich people might be called 'The Party of Fairness For All', etc, etc.

[firstandten]

And so herein lies a problem with and for demicans: they've moved so far to the right by attracting blue dogs and right wingers [[but not tea baggers, quite yet. Give 'em a couple of years.), that they have no control over their own party. They aren't attracted by philosophy or ideology, they're attracted by MONEY. Our party system controls all the money. The result: they can't get a majority even though in name [[only) they have a majority. This goes back to what I've said repeatedly: we need more parties. I have no problem with tea-baggers as a party. We need a communist party. A socialist party. A blue dog party, etc. But then the uninformed electorate will have to pick a party not by name but by philosophy. You see, they'll name parties much as they name advocacy groups now. So parties representing corporations will be called something like 'The Hard Working Peoples Party'. Parties representing rich people might be called 'The Party of Fairness For All', etc, etc.

BINGO !

Money trumps philosophy, ideology and just about anything else you can think of.
I think what you say can be done, but only on the local level. However, looking at that, maybe thats what we should focus on.

[vetalalumni]

... My only general comment to you regarding Obama is that you should have known what you were getting with him. His political orientation was in both his books, so its not like he did a bait and switch.

The "falling away" of those previously enamored with Barrack Obama should probably have been expected no matter what he would have done or not done. In 2012 it is unlikely these voters will cast thier ballot for someone other than the incumbent. Just look at the potential options from the other party.

[maxx]

And so herein lies a problem with and for demicans: they've moved so far to the right by attracting blue dogs and right wingers [[but not tea baggers, quite yet. Give 'em a couple of years.), that they have no control over their own party. They aren't attracted by philosophy or ideology, they're attracted by MONEY. Our party system controls all the money. The result: they can't get a majority even though in name [[only) they have a majority. This goes back to what I've said repeatedly: we need more parties. I have no problem with tea-baggers as a party. We need a communist party. A socialist party. A blue dog party, etc. But then the uninformed electorate will have to pick a party not by name but by philosophy. You see, they'll name parties much as they name advocacy groups now. So parties representing corporations will be called something like 'The Hard Working Peoples Party'. Parties representing rich people might be called 'The Party of Fairness For All', etc, etc.

Oh, great a hundred leftie parties and one party on the right. I wonder which wins. There are some leftist parties in the U.S. ; they just can't get the money together to run a major campaign of any significance.
Republican corporatists believe in the power of advertising. If you repeat something often enough in the media, the idea/name gets stuck in a person's memory whether we want it there or not. Hence, the name recognition of some horrible candidates. So the name of the game is to flood the airwaves with your message. It's just a bit short of the all-pervasive propaganda in "1984". Money is mind control.

[1KielsonDrive]

That's why the republicrats should be called the 'Show Me The Money' party. Oops, the demicans have been raising as much as the republicrats. Oh my, what do we call the demicans?

[1KielsonDrive]

Oh, great a hundred leftie parties and one party on the right. I wonder which wins. There are some leftist parties in the U.S. ; they just can't get the money together to run a major campaign of any significance.
Republican corporatists believe in the power of advertising. If you repeat something often enough in the media, the idea/name gets stuck in a person's memory whether we want it there or not. Hence, the name recognition of some horrible candidates. So the name of the game is to flood the airwaves with your message. It's just a bit short of the all-pervasive propaganda in "1984". Money is mind control.

So, you don't like the idea? Then, I suppose you like the present system? Being a demican, you'll take the wishy washy status quo? No new ideas [[Change?) from you guys. NO!bama announced plans to raise a billion dollars for his re-election campaign. That's a billion dollars for a demican. Assuming republicrats raise more, where does the money come from and how much difference is there between the ?two? parties and their supporters?

[Mikeg]

Obama never had a real majority in Congress. He had a lot of blue dogs from the South who were financed by the same corporatist interests that financed the Republicans. You know, those people who think like Haley Barbour that the African Americans' struggle for equality was just a cakewalk.

Revisionist history.

We were told that the November 2008 election results were proof that

"....a realignment has taken place in American politics -- a political realignment Obama both helped to forge and rode to a seven-point victory. Yet this realignment is much more than one election of one President. It is a sign of this realignment that the Democratic Party in 2008 won more votes for its Presidential candidate for the fourth time in the last five elections. While most visible at the Presidential level, this realignment is also deeply anchored in party identifications, in state Congressional delegations, in statewide election results, and most deeply, in America's changing issue and demographic landscapes that create long-term structural advantages for Democratic candidates and causes."

Why, there was even a best-selling book written about the 2008 election results:

40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation

What happened? Obama, Pelosi and Reid let their press clippings go to their heads and over-reached from the start, rather than solidifying their legislative majority through slow and steady incremental gains.

[maxx]

So, you don't like the idea? Then, I suppose you like the present system? Being a demican, you'll take the wishy washy status quo?

Of course not. But not voting doesn't solve the problem which is the big money in our elections.
Public Citizen is working to fight the Citizens United decision.

No new ideas [[Change?) from you guys. NO!bama announced plans to raise a billion dollars for his re-election campaign. That's a billion dollars for a demican. Assuming republicrats raise more, where does the money come from and how much difference is there between the ?two? parties and their supporters?

If you can't see that the Republicans are being taken over by people who are so far right their brains are addled, then I don't what I can say to you. Until the 1980s, there wasn't much difference between the two parties and most people's standard of living was improved. But since the Republican shift to the far right, the middle class has declined along with all the accourtrements of the middle class standard of living, education, healthcare, job security, etc.

[maxx]

Mikeg:
I don't recall the Republicans worrying about slow and incremental change when they took over both houses of Congress. They rammed through tax breaks for their super rich friends and cut the budgets of agencies like the EPA and FDA. If you vote for people who don't think gov. can do any good, you shouldn't be surprised when the gov. under their power doesn't function for the good of most citizens.

The 2008 election showed an unusual number of young voters. Unfortunately, they didn't vote in 2010, a lesson in civics they will have to learn the hard way. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

And if you want to talk about revisionist history, just look at all the accolades showered on Reagan.

[1KielsonDrive]

Of course not. But not voting doesn't solve the problem which is the big money in our elections.
Public Citizen is working to fight the Citizens United decision.


If you can't see that the Republicans are being taken over by people who are so far right their brains are addled, then I don't what I can say to you. Until the 1980s, there wasn't much difference between the two parties and most people's standard of living was improved. But since the Republican shift to the far right, the middle class has declined along with all the accourtrements of the middle class standard of living, education, healthcare, job security, etc.

We are fairly in agreement. You and I just talk about and tackle the problems in different ways. Sorry Maxx. I do my thing and have done so for many decades. If it's abrasive and contrarian, so be it. It's highly developed contrarianism and cynicism.

[maxx]

We are fairly in agreement. You and I just talk about and tackle the problems in different ways. Sorry Maxx. I do my thing and have done so for many decades. If it's abrasive and contrarian, so be it. It's highly developed contrarianism and cynicism.

Does that mean I was right in assuming that you don't vote?

[1KielsonDrive]

Does that mean I was right in assuming that you don't vote?

Suffice it to say I've voted in almost every single election I've ever been eligible to vote in, including school boards, millage, etc, etc. But I have sat out a few. I've also worked in many elections and for and against many issues too. As varied as water separation systems, schools and social issues. I must say votes have much power and very little power. Unfortunately, you don't usually find out how much or how little until after the fact.