this is what a successful presidency looks like

A buddy of mine from Europe asked another friend of mine (in the USA) if this was true. He replied it is mostly accurate. Those have to be tuff numbers for republicans to stomach.

Not really. It's not like any of those things wouldn't be the same under a Republican president.

One could also argue that the only reason the economy has gotten better is largely because of Republicans stopping Obama's policy. The President being a lame duck is great for the economy.

Not sure how this possibly being attainable by a different president negates it being a success. Also, why do people keep saying lame duck? Term does not yet apply.

i'm getting dizzy

It doesn't, but it's also not something you can really rub in the Republicans face, either.

He is a lame duck. Lame duck usually refers to a president's last term in which it isn't expected he'll get anything done. Now he really can't get anything done because he has lost both the house and the senate.

The reason I don't believe he's a success is because I believe the economy has improved despite him being in office.

This.

How do you know this? That still doesn't negate that Obama's presidency is more successful than what the Republican propaganda machines spit out.

As for the second part of your post - Obama's stimulus package is what helped the economic recovery, not Republican obstructionism. Obama isn't even a lame duck yet since his successor isn't appointed.

Since we're on the subject of things wildly out of Obama's control I'm going to blame him for almost doubling the US national debt and the lowest labor participation rate since the 70s, and record amounts of student debt, and ISIS of course.

Considering everyone from Jeb to Limbaugh were saying he'd be a disaster this term (stocks crashing, high gas prices), you could infact rub it in their faces. Also, lame duck tends to only apply when a successor is elected. Obama still has a year and a half to get things done.

Republicans are irrational and nitpicky. They will whine and insult Obama even if he's doing good. They desire no unity in our country.

Lets not get obtuse, people who follow US politics know what the term lame duck president means.

Because I have an alternate reality machine, obviously.

I simply don't believe Obama is as successful as Democratic propaganda machines want to make him out to be. There still hasn't been any tax reform, even though he has promised it repeatedly. Obamacare isn't a good law. He has set us up to have to go back to Iraq and Afghanistan in the future. He promised financial reform, as well, and we see where that currently is. I'm not even going to mention all of the scandals he has presided over as President.

It's not the only thing that helped. Also, that isn't what lame duck means. He is presently a lame duck president.

The only reason he can't be a disaster now is because we control the government. There isn't anything he can do unless he compromises with Republicans.

No, lame duck quite adequately represents his current position.

you're a wealthy lobbyist now? well done!

Yes, everything is going quite well according to my evil plans.

I have accomplished making the plebes of GameSpot believe I'm a wealthy, Republican lobbyist.

Yeah he's not the shining beacon of hope that the 2008 campaign but I don't see him as bad either. Also, a lot of the stuff you mentioned there can be traced back to, like you said, Republicans stopping his policies. Why didn't they just stop the bad policies instead of the areas you want to see fixed? IMO the majority of those "scandals" were just drummed up by the media and politicians to attack Obama - none of them effected anything except maybe Petraeus's infidelity and the Fast And Furious scandal.

No, he is not dude. He is not a lame duck President until his successor is appointed. He is getting stuff done in the present time and well aware that these decisions will affect the next Democratic candidate for President. Historically the lame duck period is always from November-January of the end of the term. Stop watching FOX News.

I don't think he's terrible either, but that doesn't change the fact that I believe this country would have been much better off with a Republican president. I don't know why they didn't do that, I'm not a member of the party leadership. And a lot of those scandals were legitimate. The IRS scandal. The VA scandal. Benghazi. Fast and furious.

Dude. a lame duck refers to "a president who is completing a term of office and chooses not to run or is ineligible to run for reelection." That is Obama. I don't know why you guys are arguing over the definition when it's perfectly valid.

In other news:

McConnell grabs the wheel in the Senate

From the article:

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is giving GOP lawmakers more authority right out of the gate, underlining his message that he won’t run the Senate the way Democratic Leader Harry Reid did.

McConnell is letting the new chairman of the Senate Rules Committee take the lead on whether to undo the “nuclear option” invoked by Democrats and Reid (D-Nev.) that limited the minority’s right to filibuster.

McConnell is also allowing an open debate process on legislation to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, the first issue the new Senate will take up.

And he’s deferring to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the incoming chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on the timing of a floor debate on Ashton Carter, President Obama’s choice to serve as secretary of Defense.

McConnell promised last year that he would give his committee chairmen more authority compared to Reid, who irked members of both parties with the way he ran the Senate.

As he prepares to take his dream job on Tuesday, McConnell is sending signal after signal that he intends to shift the way the Senate is run — even as he looks to influence decisions behind the scenes.

He’s also sending the signal that tough decisions will be made by his entire conference, even as he looks to put a trusted ally in charge of leading the debate.

On another tough issue, McConnell is letting Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, take the lead on an Iran sanctions bill.

It’s a contrast from Reid, who helped corral a sanctions bill sponsored by outgoing Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) that was opposed by the White House.

McConnell has made breaking what he calls the “logjam” in Washington his No. 1 priority as leader. His strategy for getting the Senate to work again is to allow more votes on amendments, give more power to committee chairmen and have the chamber work longer hours.

A GOP aide said McConnell envisions himself as a leader in the mold of former Sen. Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.), who offered a reprieve from the overbearing tactics of Lyndon Baines Johnson. Mansfield believed the Senate could become most productive through accommodation, restraint and mutual respect, according to his biography on the Senate’s website.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know 'Bama, I know.

@airshocker: You and I both know quite well why they didn't go ahead on those things - it would make Obama look good and that goes against the principles of the present day Republican party.

The keyword there is "completing". Obama still has 22 months until November 2016.

Just like the democrats won't go ahead with things that might be good but go against Obama's wishes. I don't know why you're so shocked about all of this.

Yes, the key word is indeed COMPLETING. Which Obama is currently doing. He's COMPLETING his last term in office. He hasn't COMPLETED it yet.

A Canadian arguing with me over english! THE ARROGANCE OF YOU, SIR!

What's funny is when the market was experiencing some instability earlier on there was no shortage of right wing pundits blaming it on Obama and flailing their arms around. Now (it's been a few years actually) that it's not only stabilized but higher than it's ever been they don't make a peep. Well, they do once in a while but of course only to remind everyone that presidents don't have any effect on the market :P

To add to that.....

George Bush nearly destroyed the American economy. The market was in free fall when Obama took office. Unemployment actually hit NEARLY 10% a few months after Obama took office. It takes a while for policy changes to have an effect and we are seeing the results of that now. The economy also didn't crumble with the introduction of the ACA as Fox News had suggested. As for labor participation being low there's many explanations for that such as moms are staying at home more with their kids. The ACA is allowing more people to stop working and spend time with their kids as opposed to having to work at some job they hate for the insurance they need. This was actually anticipated by congress and is proving out to be the case. You cannot argue with the unemployement rate. As a software developer, I can promise you the IT industry has many more jobs now than when that unemp rate was nearly 10%. I used to be a republican but converted to a democrat because the republican party isn't what it used to be. On one hand repubs preach small government, on the other hand they want to tell people what to do with their sex lives, forced parenthood, no food stamps for the needy, who can and can't get married, and just an all around air of greed within the party. Numbers don't lie. Take a looong good look at those numbers. Now tell me if it was a republican in office, would they not be championing those numbers? Oh.... I think so. I think so.

Like what?

student loan crash?

Market Crash. Fed has been pumping billions into the market, which has helped to inflate the values to record highs. But the highs are not based on the performance of the companies and we could be in for an enormous market correction.

let's be honest, you were going to believe this no matter what happened.

unemployment at 5.8% lol.. yea right, more like 18% or maybe even higher... it was just recorded a few months back that 92 millions americans 16 and older did not participate in the labor force, lowest in 36 years

Right? Thank God for all of his hundreds of thousands of OUR tax dollars spent on HIS vacations, all that time away from his mighty pen helped America. Cheap bastard makes $400,000 a year and can't pay for his own sh!t.

Nah bruh, you got it all wrong. Obamacare is Obama's way of tax reform. You know that "tax" for not participating in buying a government mandated health insurance.

Stocks aren't really bubble-high, yet. They're averaging about a 19 PE, which is frothy, but not really crashworthy. A standard correction would put them back into decent territory.

Perhaps you're thinking bonds? Bonds look disgusting right now.

This is really what makes the whole situation so transparently disingenuous. The same people proclaiming that Obama was destroying the economy are now the ones out there shouting that the president has little influence over the economy.

If republicans had their way we'd basically be mexico.

That, or America would definitely feel more like it does in alternate 1985 in the movie Back to the Future 2.

Also that picture in the first post of this thread looks very familiar, hasn't it already been posted in another thread?

Republicans:

Our guy did badly; not his fault

Our guy did well; all his doing

Republicans on democrats

Their guy did badly; obviously his/her doing

Their guy did well; not his fault

@ristactionjakso: you know just because you and airshocker agree on the same things doesn't mean you are on the same level of understanding as him. Air makes actual points while you seem to stick with generic talking points that largely ring false.

Indeed, one of the republican lines was even, "When is Obama going to take responsibility?" Now he deserves none.

One of the few times the word success and Obama were used in the same argument in a good long while. Now, how is he responsible for any of that?

So are you for small government or not? Or what the hell were you doing in the Republican Party? You are completely correct that George Bush was pretty much a disaster but the Democrat Party certainly ain't the party of small government.

I doubt it.

Nah, I can give credit where credit is due. The stimulus doesn't account for the entire economic recovery. I mean, you had Krugman basically foaming at the mouth a few months after it saying we needed MORE stimulus in order to recover. Well, we didn't get anymore and the economy has still recovered.

@softwaregeek: The nation debt was ten trillion now eighteen trillion and climbing. The whole chart is a stack of cards ready to tumble.

Obama's presidency has been largely successful. We're in a much better position now than we were, even with a dysfunctional congress. Even the deficit has been greatly reduced.

Yup, that's exactly the mentality.

The real question is: Are republicans really for small government?

Because right now that's just a bunch of lip service. Republicans are a party of contradictions unto themselves.

Forget Republicans, they are hypocrites in many ways I will stipulate that.

Are you for small government or not?

Deficit GDP Percentage. Damnit Jim, he's the president, not a card wielding magician.

fixed.

@Master_Live:

I'm for whatever is needed and what makes sense.

Ok. If what I say is false, then prove it. Otherwise you are just spouting as well.