The Hope and The Change
- Thread starter Brand
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,873
- Reaction score
- 2
The facts are that Obama had the House and Senate for two years... and he failed.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 67,946
- Reaction score
- 3,859
- Staff
- #4
That trailer means absolutely nothing to me. People vote one way in every election and then think they made the wrong choice by the next election. That has nothing to do with President Obama. That’s just a fact of the electorate.
Not that I completely disagree with their frustrations, of course. The problem with a lot of these people, though, is that they direct their ire at the individual occupant of the White House rather than the systematic issue that will be present for any President. They’re probably going to turn around and vote for Mitt Romney, in spite of the fact that Barack Obama has basically governed as a 1990s moderate Republican. They voted for a liberal President, but they really haven’t gotten a liberal Presidency.
Like I said, though, their ire should be directed at the system. That's not something that what will likely be a hatchet job of a documentary is going to focus on, though. They're going to handpick a small group of voters and use that to suggest that everything is Obama's fault.
That is a completely shallow understanding of a nuanced subject, one that annoys me to no end every time I hear it.
Numbers-wise, Obama had a super majority for 8 months. However, realistically, he never really did. Why? Ted Kennedy. He wasn't there. Senator Kennedy was dying of a brain tumor. For all intents and purposes, the Senate had 99 members from Obama's inauguration to Kennedy's death. Once Kennedy died, the super majority was gone anyway. Had Kennedy been there the whole time, that still only would've been 8 months of a filibuster proof majority, not 2 years. Scott Brown's election in January 2011 ensured that there would be no real filibuster proof majority for years to come.
By August of 2009, the odds of Obama passing anything in his agenda dramatically decreased given that he had to deal with a Republican filibuster, a filibuster that has been used like no other time in Senatorial history. It is no longer a tool to ensure the voice of the minority. It's become a tool of obstruction.
Not that I completely disagree with their frustrations, of course. The problem with a lot of these people, though, is that they direct their ire at the individual occupant of the White House rather than the systematic issue that will be present for any President. They’re probably going to turn around and vote for Mitt Romney, in spite of the fact that Barack Obama has basically governed as a 1990s moderate Republican. They voted for a liberal President, but they really haven’t gotten a liberal Presidency.
Like I said, though, their ire should be directed at the system. That's not something that what will likely be a hatchet job of a documentary is going to focus on, though. They're going to handpick a small group of voters and use that to suggest that everything is Obama's fault.
That is a completely shallow understanding of a nuanced subject, one that annoys me to no end every time I hear it.
Numbers-wise, Obama had a super majority for 8 months. However, realistically, he never really did. Why? Ted Kennedy. He wasn't there. Senator Kennedy was dying of a brain tumor. For all intents and purposes, the Senate had 99 members from Obama's inauguration to Kennedy's death. Once Kennedy died, the super majority was gone anyway. Had Kennedy been there the whole time, that still only would've been 8 months of a filibuster proof majority, not 2 years. Scott Brown's election in January 2011 ensured that there would be no real filibuster proof majority for years to come.
By August of 2009, the odds of Obama passing anything in his agenda dramatically decreased given that he had to deal with a Republican filibuster, a filibuster that has been used like no other time in Senatorial history. It is no longer a tool to ensure the voice of the minority. It's become a tool of obstruction.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,873
- Reaction score
- 2
But didn't he pass the policies he wanted anyway, like the stimulus and ObamaCare for examples? and they still failed? I see Barack Obama running a dirty, negative, and dividing campaign because he can't run on his record.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,325
- Reaction score
- 0
He should just show us that damned birth certificate already, right?
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 67,946
- Reaction score
- 3,859
- Staff
- #7
Oh, you mean the stimulus that 99.99999% of independent economists say helped prevent a second Great Depression? That one? Oh, well, I'm glad we have a high school sophomore to clear up all the economists being wrong.
As for Obamacare, nice talking point but the key components of that legislation haven't even been implemented yet, so to call it a failure (or a success for that matter) is completely dishonest.
And you're right, what a dirty campaign. I can't believe that Kenyan born socialist Muslim is taking a break from destroying freedom and ruining America to say negative things about Mitt Romney. God forbid the Republicans ever did that or we'd be in trouble!
p.s.
Fun fact: Obamacare is a Republican plan. It was created in Republican think tanks in the 1990s as a response to the Clinton-era push for health care reform. When did the Republicans decide they were against the individual mandate? Oh that's right, when Barack Obama decided to push for it.
"I like mandates." - Mitt Romney. True story.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,325
- Reaction score
- 0
The two of them remind me of the Patton quote, about how if he were between the Germans and the Russians he'd attack in both directions.
Of course, I'm less than impressed with the Congresscritters' inability to pass a budget. They haven't done it since 2009. As someone whose paycheck relies on that budget, this is a matter of some concern to me.
Of course, I'm less than impressed with the Congresscritters' inability to pass a budget. They haven't done it since 2009. As someone whose paycheck relies on that budget, this is a matter of some concern to me.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 67,946
- Reaction score
- 3,859
- Staff
- #11
I agree. The one thing I’d remind everyone of, though, is that this is not the result of inaction by the President. Not that you said it was, this is more of a general statement. The Obama administration has released a budget proposal every year, but the President cannot pass a budget. Passing a budget is the Constitutional role of Congress. Are there pressures that the White House can apply? Sure, but, at the end of the day, budgetary matters are the responsibility of Congress, not the President. That is true in any administration, regardless of party affiliation.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 16,063
- Reaction score
- 133
Ditto on that.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,325
- Reaction score
- 0
Politics wouldn't be so ****ed up if people just paid attention to facts. Or, I mean, cared enough to look into whether or not what they're being told is actually fact or just exaggeration of it...or a flat out ****ing lie.
Or it shouldn't be, at least.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,873
- Reaction score
- 2
ObamaCare was upheld as a tax and TARP was overhyped but did have positive results even though carried on too long. Not the best examples on my part, though.
I do not like Mitt Romney. I do not like Barack Obama. However, the main reason I look to Mitt Romney is because he has plans. Obama doesn't. Why have we not heard of a plan for unemployment from the President? He's been in office for three and a half years, he shouldn't need to give speeches on jobs. Unemployment has been over 9% for two years and polling of small businesses when ObamaCare takes effect shows they will be less likely to hire workers.
Not to mention he committed the US to war in Libya without Congressional authorization and disallows off-shore drilling while talk is floating around of tapping into the Strategic Reserves.
I do not like Mitt Romney. I do not like Barack Obama. However, the main reason I look to Mitt Romney is because he has plans. Obama doesn't. Why have we not heard of a plan for unemployment from the President? He's been in office for three and a half years, he shouldn't need to give speeches on jobs. Unemployment has been over 9% for two years and polling of small businesses when ObamaCare takes effect shows they will be less likely to hire workers.
Not to mention he committed the US to war in Libya without Congressional authorization and disallows off-shore drilling while talk is floating around of tapping into the Strategic Reserves.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,911
- Reaction score
- 7
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,873
- Reaction score
- 2
Oh, Mitt Romney has a plan? Please, tell me about his plans for healthcare.
http://m.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,911
- Reaction score
- 7
Oh yes, because everything always works better when left to the states. Also, Mittens forgot to include getting rid of Planned Parenthood.
PS: I like how they brought the "cut from Medicare" number down.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6,905
- Reaction score
- 233
Well I'm convinced. A video with editing techniques from the 90s featuring eery glassy-eyed white people complaining that Obama didn't bring Hope and Change to Washington DC by, I dunno, making the GOP and the Democratic Party sit down to tea and cookies before giving them a pony and revealing that he was adopting them all so that they could come live with him in his House is definitely super convincing.
Truly I will vote Romney now, forswear all non-procreative sex with my wife and buy a Reagan bobblehead.
Truly I will vote Romney now, forswear all non-procreative sex with my wife and buy a Reagan bobblehead.