The President Obama Thread: "Screw You Thread Manager" Edition

[The Incredible Hulk]

I don't remember anybody actually thinking that Kerry would defeat Bush. Bush had high approval ratings in 2003 and 2004. I don't know where you got that from.

Bush was being vilified the world over for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, the attack on individual liberties, scandals with Haliburton, etc. That was likely probably the height of dislike for him as a President after he basically pissed away all the good will from 9/11. There was a huge current of thought stating that like his father before him, he wouldnt be re-elected.

Unless the economy recovers in 10 months and the GOP don't throw out a psycho candidate then Obama is toast and rightfully so.

Again, who is the Republican candidate that's actually going to unseat him in a general election? It sure as heck isn't Romney, Bachmann, Perry, etc. Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, Gingrich? As horrifying a thought as that is. The Republicans do not have a strong Presidential candidate in the lot. This may be worse than when they ran Bob Dole out there against Bill Clinton.

 

[CrypticOne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4yDCUJJm_U&feature=channel_video_title

Has anyone seen this?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Pennsylvania won't go for a Republican, at least not one as milquetoast and cold as Romney. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh alone will almost ensure that.

The suburbs surrounding Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Scranton will ensure a Republican victory if the GOP has the right candidate. Obama has a huge problem with white working class voters, especially since they remember that Obama called white working class Pennsylvanians bitter racist xenophobes who cling to their Bibles and guns.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Bush was being vilified the world over for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, the attack on individual liberties, scandals with Haliburton, etc. That was likely probably the height of dislike for him as a President after he basically pissed away all the good will from 9/11. There was a huge current of thought stating that like his father before him, he wouldnt be re-elected.

There's a huge difference between Bush's popularity outside of the United States and his popularity within the United States. Bush's popularity remained within the high 40's to low 50's. Bush also never really had a problem with working class whites in states like Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Virginia. Add in an improving economy and a weak Democratic candidate, he was virtually given re-election.

Bush's re-election situation is vastly different than the one Obama has where most people see the economy is poor. Working class whites have abandoned Obama in states where it matters (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Indiana, Ohio). His popularity ranges within the high 30's to low 40's (and the reason it stays there is because his absurdly high approval ratings among African-Americans, take them away and he's essentially in the low to mid 30's). And while Mitt Romney is certainly no darling of GOP, he's a very strong candidate, he's more Nixonian in nature than being a GOP version of John Kerry.

Again, who is the Republican candidate that's actually going to unseat him in a general election? It sure as heck isn't Romney, Bachmann, Perry, etc. Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, Gingrich? As horrifying a thought as that is. The Republicans do not have a strong Presidential candidate in the lot. This may be worse than when they ran Bob Dole out there against Bill Clinton.

Mitt Romney is a lot stronger than you think he is. He's very intelligent (much like Obama) but is a lot more effective at calculating than him. All Romney has to do is take advantage of pissed off working class whites that the Democratic Party has essentially all but admitted that they're abandoning.

 

[DACrowe]

Caught the president's speech at Fort Bragg today (well watched it on Youtube later, but still)....Very moving stuff.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Again, who is the Republican candidate that's actually going to unseat him in a general election? It sure as heck isn't Romney, Bachmann, Perry, etc. Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, Gingrich? As horrifying a thought as that is. The Republicans do not have a strong Presidential candidate in the lot. This may be worse than when they ran Bob Dole out there against Bill Clinton.

Mitt Romney is a lot stronger than you think he is. He's very intelligent (much like Obama) but is a lot more effective at calculating than him. All Romney has to do is take advantage of pissed off working class whites that the Democratic Party has essentially all but admitted that they're abandoning.

Gotta agree with hippie_hunter on this one. Gingrich? Are you kidding? I'm pretty sure a guy with that much baggage, whom even a lot of Republicans despise, is not going to beat Obama in the general election. Romney at least has a chance among independents and swing voters; in fact, that's his whole selling point right now in the Republican primaries, that's he's the most "electable" GOP candidate.

 

[redhawk23]

So the Administration is dropping their threats of vetoing the defense bill that just made it through the house, returning to the senate.

There's been a bit of dispute over some language that basically makes it possible for the military to arrest and detain anyone, even on American soil.

They made some changes, but nothing above was changed. Instead its simply now possible for the President to choose to hand over said military prisoners to normal law enforcement and that the military can't interfere with investigations from civilian agencies.

But you know the whole thing of being arrested and detained without trial is still there.

What the hell?

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

The suburbs surrounding Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Scranton will ensure a Republican victory if the GOP has the right candidate. Obama has a huge problem with white working class voters,

I think you're way over-estimating the discontent of working class whites with Obama, especially as it pertains to PA. I've lived here for a decade and a half (since the Clinton Administration) in the Philadelphia suburbs (Bucks County) and Obama seems to have the most support of any President in that time-frame, which to me at least is somewhat mind-boggling.

especially since they remember that Obama called white working class Pennsylvanians bitter racist xenophobes who cling to their Bibles and guns.

Sadly, that's pretty much the Central part of PA between Philly and Pittsburgh in a nutshell. Hence the name "Pennsyl-tucky." Not the suburban counties of Philly and Pitt. At least as far as Philly is concerned: Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester counties will all still heavily favor Obama especially if he's up against the likes of Newt or Mitt.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think you're way over-estimating the discontent of working class whites with Obama, especially as it pertains to PA. I've lived here for a decade and a half (since the Clinton Administration) in the Philadelphia suburbs (Bucks County) and Obama seems to have the most support of any President in that time-frame, which to me at least is somewhat mind-boggling.

Sadly, that's pretty much the Central part of PA between Philly and Pittsburgh in a nutshell. Hence the name "Pennsyl-tucky." Not the suburban counties of Philly and Pitt. At least as far as Philly is concerned: Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester counties will all still heavily favor Obama especially if he's up against the likes of Newt or Mitt.

Have you seen the polls that have flat out said that Obama's numbers in Pennsylvania make the state look like a Southern state as opposed to a Northeasten state. Prominent Pennsylvania Democrats like Ed Rendell and Paul Kanjorski have said that if the election were held today, that Obama would lose Pennsylvania.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

If Mitt Romney is the nominee, I just don't see Obama winning. Obama's hurdle with working class whites is just too big for him to overcome in states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.

He's beating Romney and Gingrich both in South Carolina.

 

[enterthemadness]

So...

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9217-ndaa-leading-to-the-holocaust

 

[hippie_hunter]

He's beating Romney and Gingrich both in South Carolina.

Do you honestly think that's going to happen though? The answer is no. Especially due to the whole Boeing/NLRB fiasco where South Carolina was the epicenter. Only one poll has had Obama beating Romney in South Carolina barely while all others have Romney winning by a large margin.

That poll was also conducted by the same group that also had more people say that they were planning on voting at the Democratic primary than the Republican one, despite the fact that the Democratic nominee is already set, meaning that there is no need to participate. I tend to question things like that. When a poll says things that just are not going to happen, it kinda taints the results.

 

[Destructus86]

How's Chewbacca doing in the race?

 

[Spider - Man]

Obama in 2008: Adding $4 Trillion to National Debt ‘Unpatriotic’
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child,” Obama said on July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D.

“That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic,” said candidate Obama.
Tell'em like it is!

How much is the debt now, Mr. President?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Bush + $4 trillion in 8 years
Obama + $6 trillion in 3 years
So who is irresponsible and unpatriotic?

 

[Spider - Man]

How will the Prez answer to this?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/...snt-rebounded-in-three-years-im-a-one-termer/

 

[SV Fan]

Bush + $4 trillion in 8 years
Obama + $6 trillion in 3 years
So who is irresponsible and unpatriotic?

In terms of total cost of new policies

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

Bush is over 5M in 8 years, Obama is at about 1.5M over 3 years. All that being said Obama really should have nixed the Bush Tax cuts, even if it ment an extra tax on people under 250k

To this day I never understand why the Republican party celebrates Ronald Reagan to the point of sainthood(well I understand the party and conservative media but I think the people who support him are getting hoodwinked). You can sort of pinpoint all the countries debt issues starting at his 2 terms as president(save the Clinton years)

 

[NHawk19]

Sadly, that's pretty much the Central part of PA between Philly and Pittsburgh in a nutshell. Hence the name "Pennsyl-tucky." Not the suburban counties of Philly and Pitt. At least as far as Philly is concerned: Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester counties will all still heavily favor Obama especially if he's up against the likes of Newt or Mitt.

Pittsburgh city and the southern portion of Allegheny County he may have an easier time with. The northern portion of Allegheny County though and the other surrounding ones he'll have a harder time winning. This area is slowly becoming more friendly to republicans in County office. i doubt the city will ever change though.

 

[Spider - Man]

In terms of total cost of new policies

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

Bush is over 5M in 8 years, Obama is at about 1.5M over 3 years. All that being said Obama really should have nixed the Bush Tax cuts, even if it ment an extra tax on people under 250k

To this day I never understand why the Republican party celebrates Ronald Reagan to the point of sainthood(well I understand the party and conservative media but I think the people who support him are getting hoodwinked). You can sort of pinpoint all the countries debt issues starting at his 2 terms as president(save the Clinton years)

So it's still Bush's fault. 3 years later and its still Bush's fault.

 

[SV Fan]

So it's still Bush's fault. 3 years later and its still Bush's fault.

I wouldn't say it's all Bush's fault, but let's face facts Obama came into a terrible situation, you probably could put some blame on the first year or 2 on Bush. In Obama's case the stimulus could have been done better(mainly the Banker Bailout was a disaster) and he shouldn't have caved in on the Republicans demands to extend the Bush tax cuts(he would just have been smart to say we will extend it for people making 250k or less, take it or leave it and then force the Republicans hand)

 

[Destructus86]

Bush did leave a pretty big mess behind...it didn't help that we have a horrible president in Obama. We need someone who actualyl knows what he's doing to fix things. But it's going to take not just the government but the people to get it all fixed.

 

[CrypticOne]

All politicians are the same.

This.

And that is why I'm never going to vote. All they care about is money.

"It's not about money. It's about sending a message."

I wish The Joker really did exist.

 

[SV Fan]

And that is why I'm never going to vote.

I generally vote for 3rd party candidates. My theory is it's a protest vote that I hate the 2 party system and if everybody who hated the 2 party system like I do did the same, maybe they would get the message.

 

[CrypticOne]

I generally vote for 3rd party candidates. My theory is it's a protest vote that I hate the 2 party system and if everybody who hated the 2 party system like I do did the same, maybe they would get the message.

Yeah, but the general public is dumb. They look at only the Democrat or Republic side of things. Even if you go and question your neighbor or someone, they might agree with someone like Ron Paul's ideologies but, and I hate to say this, America is a lazy and dumb nation. We have to have stuff spoon-fed to us in the smallest, simplest way.

So it makes no sense to vote for a third party person when you know that person will lose.

I think this country needs to have a multiple people in charge. And not just a president.

 

[Victarion]

Its a shame, yes, that if I vote for a third party candidate, I may as well be voting for the greater of the two 2-party evils.

 

[SV Fan]

Its a shame, yes, that if I vote for a third party candidate, I may as well be voting for the greater of the two 2-party evils.

Way I look at things, is the more people vote for 3rd parties, the bigger parties will have to cave into those parties demands to try win back voters. If a third party could consistently get even 5% of the vote behind them, I do think that could force one of the 2 if not both of the bigger parties to change some of the ways they do stuff.

In order to get to that 5% level, you first have to get to 1%, then 2%......

I think this country needs to have a multiple people in charge. And not just a president.

I believe the Federal government should be giving more rights to the states to run it how they want. That distributes the power much better and makes it much harder to corrupt one area of the government.