Obama is a weak president

  • 184 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Yusuke420
#101 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

You STILL have not addressed the fact that the GOP has blocked every single attempt by the president to provide a balanced budget. Why don't you think the GOP has ANY blame in the current political climate?

whipassmt

And the Democrat-controlled Senate voted down Obama's budget 97-0.

Citation needed, but that still doesn;t address the GOP obstruction in the house that is why we have to deal with the current fiscal climate.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#102 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

Unrelated to OP's thread, which has a few issues, who is the chick in your sig?

Avatar image for lowkey254
#103 Posted by lowkey254 (5965 posts) -
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

You STILL have not addressed the fact that the GOP has blocked every single attempt by the president to provide a balanced budget. Why don't you think the GOP has ANY blame in the current political climate?

And the Democrat-controlled Senate voted down Obama's budget 97-0.

link please?
Avatar image for whipassmt
#104 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

You STILL have not addressed the fact that the GOP has blocked every single attempt by the president to provide a balanced budget. Why don't you think the GOP has ANY blame in the current political climate?

Yusuke420

And the Democrat-controlled Senate voted down Obama's budget 97-0.

Citation needed, but that still doesn;t address the GOP obstruction in the house that is why we have to deal with the current fiscal climate.

Okay it appears I was wrong about the Senate voting down Obama's budget.

Avatar image for CycleOfViolence
#105 Posted by CycleOfViolence (2813 posts) -

Unrelated to OP's thread, which has a few issues, who is the chick in your sig?

coolbeans90

Viva Bianca

Avatar image for Yusuke420
#106 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

What else are you wrong about? Also ADDRESS THE GOP OBSTRUCTION IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEFEND THEM!!!!

Avatar image for Barbariser
#107 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

Assuming the TC is actually being serious with his cricitisms, Obama did good by stabilizing the American economy using the A.R.R.A. and in the process halting an economic recession that could have led to a second Great Depression, which would have fvcked people around the world something fierce. The national debt is literally not a significant problem for the U.S. in terms of sustainabilty, since annual deficits have been shrinking and will continue to shrink as the economy recovers.

This is reflected in the interest rates, which are incredibly low (and even negative, I think) because creditors tend to think of the U.S. government as one of the most reliable stores of wealth in the world despite its apparent fiscal shortfalls, due to its vast resources. In any case, increasing the national debt by 5% of G.D.P. with an 800 billion dollar stimulus bill is something that any sane economist would do in order to prevent a global economic meltdown. As for the A.H.C.A.A., that's a social policy that I don't care about because I'm not American, but it's been estimated to be deficit-reducing and cost-reducing.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#108 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

A.R.R.A., not A.R.A.

and A.H.C.A.A.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#109 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

Never thought you'd be one to nitpick.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#110 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

Never thought you'd be one to nitpick.

Barbariser

Not normally am, but you use these acronyms semi-frequently (nothing wrong with that).

Avatar image for Barbariser
#111 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Never thought you'd be one to nitpick.

coolbeans90

Not normally am, but you use these acronyms semi-frequently (nothing wrong with that).

I'd probably better change them, at least for the sake of people who might have no idea what those are and need to go googling.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#112 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

WE CAN STILL BE FRIENDS THO

Avatar image for Barbariser
#113 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

I look forward to a future of many corrected abbreviations and at laughing at silly econs arguments.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#114 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

Hopefully more of the latter than the former.

Avatar image for jaqulle999
#115 Posted by jaqulle999 (2897 posts) -

That pictures really helps support your claim.

Avatar image for MacBoomStick
#116 Posted by MacBoomStick (1822 posts) -

Us dumbasses elected a democratic president and senate with a republican house.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#117 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

Us dumbasses elected a democratic president and senate with a republican house.

MacBoomStick
We actually elected a democratic house as well, but alas, gerrymandering
Avatar image for whipassmt
#118 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="MacBoomStick"]

Us dumbasses elected a democratic president and senate with a republican house.

-Sun_Tzu-

We actually elected a democratic house as well, but alas, gerrymandering

Well what are we gonna do, we can't have a handful of big cities deciding the Congress for the whole country. It wouldn't be fair to the people in rural areas of Pennsylvania to have Philly pick the entire Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.

Avatar image for laughingman42
#119 Posted by laughingman42 (8730 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="MacBoomStick"]

Us dumbasses elected a democratic president and senate with a republican house.

whipassmt

We actually elected a democratic house as well, but alas, gerrymandering

Well what are we gonna do, we can't have a handful of big cities deciding the Congress for the whole country. It wouldn't be fair to the people in rural areas of Pennsylvania to have Philly pick the entire Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.

Surely you don't actually believe republican states geremandered fairly do you?

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#120 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="MacBoomStick"]

Us dumbasses elected a democratic president and senate with a republican house.

whipassmt

We actually elected a democratic house as well, but alas, gerrymandering

Well what are we gonna do, we can't have a handful of big cities deciding the Congress for the whole country. It wouldn't be fair to the people in rural areas of Pennsylvania to have Philly pick the entire Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.

So we must kill democracy to save democracy?
Avatar image for laughingman42
#121 Posted by laughingman42 (8730 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] We actually elected a democratic house as well, but alas, gerrymandering -Sun_Tzu-

Well what are we gonna do, we can't have a handful of big cities deciding the Congress for the whole country. It wouldn't be fair to the people in rural areas of Pennsylvania to have Philly pick the entire Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.

So we must kill democracy to save democracy?

weren't you aware? Having votes count unequally is the cornerstone of democracy.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#122 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] We actually elected a democratic house as well, but alas, gerrymandering -Sun_Tzu-

Well what are we gonna do, we can't have a handful of big cities deciding the Congress for the whole country. It wouldn't be fair to the people in rural areas of Pennsylvania to have Philly pick the entire Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.

So we must kill democracy to save democracy?

No. Ensuring that a handful of big cities don't run the country isn't killing democracy.

Avatar image for laughingman42
#123 Posted by laughingman42 (8730 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Well what are we gonna do, we can't have a handful of big cities deciding the Congress for the whole country. It wouldn't be fair to the people in rural areas of Pennsylvania to have Philly pick the entire Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.

whipassmt

So we must kill democracy to save democracy?

No. Ensuring that a handful of big cities don't run the country isn't killing democracy.

so your vote should count less if you live in a big city?

Avatar image for Jebus213
#124 Posted by Jebus213 (10013 posts) -

America isn't a true Democracy....

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#125 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Well what are we gonna do, we can't have a handful of big cities deciding the Congress for the whole country. It wouldn't be fair to the people in rural areas of Pennsylvania to have Philly pick the entire Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.

whipassmt

So we must kill democracy to save democracy?

No. Ensuring that a handful of big cities don't run the country isn't killing democracy.

That's not what's going on though. These districts were only drawn the way they were to ensure that they remain noncompetitive (and in this particular case, stay republican).
Avatar image for coolbeans90
#126 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

We must kill democracy in order to preserve our republic.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#127 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] So we must kill democracy to save democracy? -Sun_Tzu-

No. Ensuring that a handful of big cities don't run the country isn't killing democracy.

That's not what's going on though. These districts were only drawn the way they were to ensure that they remain noncompetitive (and in this particular case, stay republican).

Democratic districts are also gerrymandered. Why else would there be towns in Connecticut where the same town is split between two congressional districts?

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#128 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] No. Ensuring that a handful of big cities don't run the country isn't killing democracy.

whipassmt

That's not what's going on though. These districts were only drawn the way they were to ensure that they remain noncompetitive (and in this particular case, stay republican).

Democratic districts are also gerrymandered. Why else would there be towns in Connecticut where the same town is split between two congressional districts?

Yes, but the Republicans are better at it.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#129 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] No. Ensuring that a handful of big cities don't run the country isn't killing democracy.

whipassmt

That's not what's going on though. These districts were only drawn the way they were to ensure that they remain noncompetitive (and in this particular case, stay republican).

Democratic districts are also gerrymandered. Why else would there be towns in Connecticut where the same town is split between two congressional districts?

Democratic gerrymandering is a thing, yeah, but it's far outweighed by republican gerrymandering. pubs won a far disproportionate number of seats for the percentage of the vote they got.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#130 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] That's not what's going on though. These districts were only drawn the way they were to ensure that they remain noncompetitive (and in this particular case, stay republican).Abbeten

Democratic districts are also gerrymandered. Why else would there be towns in Connecticut where the same town is split between two congressional districts?

Democratic gerrymandering is a thing, yeah, but it's far outweighed by republican gerrymandering. pubs won a far disproportionate number of seats for the percentage of the vote they got.

They also won a majority of the counties in the country, thus it makes sense they would win the most house seats.

Avatar image for Justforvisit
#131 Posted by Justforvisit (2660 posts) -

obama_fail1.jpg?w=600&h=481

Who agrees? Discuss. LOL

Legatus_Victix



Yeah...lol.....because he so hasn't to STILL clean up the massive sh*t Bush left him...huh?

Hey, let me give you a hint: War is pretty expensive. And he didn't start a single one. Bush on the other hand started 2.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#132 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] No. Ensuring that a handful of big cities don't run the country isn't killing democracy.

whipassmt

That's not what's going on though. These districts were only drawn the way they were to ensure that they remain noncompetitive (and in this particular case, stay republican).

Democratic districts are also gerrymandered. Why else would there be towns in Connecticut where the same town is split between two congressional districts?

...To ensure that they remain noncompetitive. Republicans aren't the only ones who gerrymander. What's the point of having the house in the first place if the party that wins a little over 50% of the vote only gets 46% of the seats? If that's fair because it "protects" rural areas from urban areas, then what's the point of having the senate?
Avatar image for whipassmt
#133 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="Legatus_Victix"]

obama_fail1.jpg?w=600&h=481

Who agrees? Discuss. LOL

Justforvisit



Yeah...lol.....because he so hasn't to STILL clean up the massive sh*t Bush left him...huh?

Hey, let me give you a hint: War is pretty expensive. And he didn't start a single one. Bush on the other hand started 2.

Obama supported the Afghan war (which al Qaeda started not Bush). Also Obama got the U.S. military involved in Benghazi, which isn't a war per se but still costs money.

And Bush had to clean up the mess Clinton left him (namely an Al Qaeda that was intact and hostile).

Avatar image for whipassmt
#134 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] That's not what's going on though. These districts were only drawn the way they were to ensure that they remain noncompetitive (and in this particular case, stay republican).-Sun_Tzu-

Democratic districts are also gerrymandered. Why else would there be towns in Connecticut where the same town is split between two congressional districts?

...To ensure that they remain noncompetitive. Republicans aren't the only ones who gerrymander. What's the point of having the house in the first place if the party that wins a little over 50% of the vote only gets 46% of the seats? If that's fair because it "protects" rural areas from urban areas, then what's the point of having the senate?

The Senate counter balances the House. What are we gonna do, no political system is perfect.

Also it doesn't really matter how much votes a particular party gets, it matters how much votes the individual candidate gets. For instance Bachmann got more votes than Graves, thus she is the one who should go to Congress to represent her constituents regardless of the fact that Obama got more votes than Romney.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#135 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Democratic districts are also gerrymandered. Why else would there be towns in Connecticut where the same town is split between two congressional districts?

whipassmt

...To ensure that they remain noncompetitive. Republicans aren't the only ones who gerrymander. What's the point of having the house in the first place if the party that wins a little over 50% of the vote only gets 46% of the seats? If that's fair because it "protects" rural areas from urban areas, then what's the point of having the senate?

The Senate counter balances the House.

There's nothing for the senate to counter-balance if the house is gerrymandered in order to protect rural real America from urban faux America.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#136 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] ...To ensure that they remain noncompetitive. Republicans aren't the only ones who gerrymander. What's the point of having the house in the first place if the party that wins a little over 50% of the vote only gets 46% of the seats? If that's fair because it "protects" rural areas from urban areas, then what's the point of having the senate? -Sun_Tzu-

The Senate counter balances the House.

There's nothing for the senate to counter-balance if the house is gerrymandered in order to protect rural real America from urban faux America.

That's not why the house is gerrymandered. A state's house districts are gerrymandered in order to promote the interests of which ever party controls the state legislature, unless the other party controls the governor's office and can thus force them to be fairer.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#137 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] The Senate counter balances the House.

whipassmt

There's nothing for the senate to counter-balance if the house is gerrymandered in order to protect rural real America from urban faux America.

That's not why the house is gerrymandered. A state's house districts are gerrymandered in order to promote the interests of which ever party controls the state legislature, unless the other party controls the governor's office and can thus force them to be fairer.

Bro you just said the GOP's gerrymandered house victory was justified because it protects rural areas from urban tyranny.
Avatar image for coolbeans90
#138 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

idk why the NYC + Chicago crew haven't managed to rig the whole country yet from behind the curtains

the jews be slippin'

cowboy preachers are winning

Avatar image for whipassmt
#139 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] There's nothing for the senate to counter-balance if the house is gerrymandered in order to protect rural real America from urban faux America. -Sun_Tzu-

That's not why the house is gerrymandered. A state's house districts are gerrymandered in order to promote the interests of which ever party controls the state legislature, unless the other party controls the governor's office and can thus force them to be fairer.

Bro you just said the GOP's gerrymandered house victory was justified because it protects rural areas from urban tyranny.

I didn't mean gerrymandering per se. I mean that the current system of having Congressional seats done by district rather than statewide is good because it gives some representation to people who live in ruri.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#140 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

idk why the NYC + Chicago crew haven't managed to rig the whole country yet from behind the curtains

the jews be slippin'

cowboy preachers are winning

coolbeans90

NYC and Chicago can't really run the whole country, though perhaps they run the Senatorships and Electoral votes for New York State and Illinois.

Avatar image for radicalcentrist
#141 Posted by radicalcentrist (335 posts) -

Can't help but agree. He had a huge majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and yet we only got a modest (for the size of the problem) fiscal stimulus in the first year, and watered-down healthcare reform in the second.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#142 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

idk why the NYC + Chicago crew haven't managed to rig the whole country yet from behind the curtains

the jews be slippin'

cowboy preachers are winning

whipassmt

NYC and Chicago can't really run the whole country, though perhaps they run the Senatorships and Electoral votes for New York State and Illinois.

Smoke-filled rooms between those cities and the occasional visit to the beltway could essentially run the world.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#143 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

Can't help but agree. He had a huge majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and yet we only got a modest (for the size of the problem) fiscal stimulus in the first year, and watered-down healthcare reform in the second.

radicalcentrist
That had alot to do with the fact that the majority were made by blue dogs and DINO's.. Extremely conservative democrats.. The mere fact that the healthcare bill was seen as MASSIVE yet hardly did anything compared to other western nations illustrates how far right leaning US politics are..
Avatar image for stiggy321
#144 Posted by stiggy321 (609 posts) -

[QUOTE="radicalcentrist"]

Can't help but agree. He had a huge majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and yet we only got a modest (for the size of the problem) fiscal stimulus in the first year, and watered-down healthcare reform in the second.

sSubZerOo

That had alot to do with the fact that the majority were made by blue dogs and DINO's.. Extremely conservative democrats.. The mere fact that the healthcare bill was seen as MASSIVE yet hardly did anything compared to other western nations illustrates how far right leaning US politics are..

They learn towards more money and power for themselves and less for everyone else. I'd like to think I wouldn't if I was in their position... but I don't know.

The PPACA was "MASSIVE", relatively speaking. Did a couple good things.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#145 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="radicalcentrist"]

Can't help but agree. He had a huge majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and yet we only got a modest (for the size of the problem) fiscal stimulus in the first year, and watered-down healthcare reform in the second.

sSubZerOo

That had alot to do with the fact that the majority were made by blue dogs and DINO's.. Extremely conservative democrats.. The mere fact that the healthcare bill was seen as MASSIVE yet hardly did anything compared to other western nations illustrates how far right leaning US politics are..

I guess the blue dogs (as well as socially conservative Democrats) put the Democrats in quite a predicament, on the one hand they are Democrats who often vote against what the party leadership wants, on the other hand these are often the only Democrats who can win in certain district and thus the Democrats need to have these guys if they want to hold the majority.

Also is it just me or do conservative Democrats do pretty well in terms of getting elected, while liberal Republicans do rather poorly at getting electing (with the exception of taking a few governorships in the Northeast)?

Avatar image for Goyoshi12
#146 Posted by Goyoshi12 (9687 posts) -

All the TC had was a pic and told us to discuss and somehow it got to eight pages.

I admit that I and others are to blame but now there is an actual discussion going on in here.

Well done TC. Well done.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#147 Posted by lamprey263 (34606 posts) -
I think he's a very good president he just has a crappy congress who is more interested in letting the country fall to crap through their inaction so they can say it was the president's fault.
Avatar image for THE_DRUGGIE
#148 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (25057 posts) -

Oh... we went about 10 minutes without a religion or politics thread and you ruined it. :(meconate

We are under contract to have one every 11.

You're lucky we're not all canned right now.

Avatar image for Shmiity
#149 Posted by Shmiity (6095 posts) -

I don't think he is a weak president. He totally gets f*cked up the ass by the "anti-obama" GOP whenever he tries to pass anything. I am curious to see how he will act now that he can't get re-elected again. I think he will a far bigger tough guy and bully. He should be. If anything, he has been too passive.

Avatar image for MgamerBD
#150 Posted by MgamerBD (17550 posts) -
[QUOTE="meconate"]C'mon now guys, you're giving him what he wants, let's just get the hell out of this thread before we attract the zombies... O_O Oh no... seems I spoke too soon. Run!

Everybody head for the jail!