Signs accumulate that liberals are embarrassed by Obama - The tides have turned

I am hoping this is true:

Liberals fret: Is Obama bored? Does he even want a second term?

But for some liberal writers, the concern goes deeper. Perhaps Obama’s somewhat withdrawn demeanor at the debate was an indication that he doesn’t even want a second term as president.

washingtonexaminer.com...

Please let that be true.

reply to post by Xtrozero

The problem is Obama could even not show up for the next two debates and he will still win. So many bought into the "hope and change" that they are unwilling to realize they made a mistake or were fooled.

A few months ago I would have agreed with you but, for the reasons I outlined in the OP, I’m beginning to see things differently. Everyone agrees that it will be a close election and if Obama loses a big part of the Hispanic vote (did you see the recent attacks by Univision?) then he’s sunk.

Originally posted by michael1983l
Playing Devils Advocate here, are the Republicans not more embarrased of the Bush's and later Romneys 48% gaff. If the Americans vote in Romney, there are more stupid people in America than I first thought. I know there are lots of intelligent people there but it looks like they are outnumbered by the ignorant and stupid.

You really want to bet the next four years on Romney's 48% gaff. His reasoning was correct, his number was wrong though it is a correct number for those who do not pay fed taxes. I would like you to go out and give 100s of public speeches and not screw up the numbers now and then.

You can say Bush sucked, BUT I was better off In 2009 than 2001... I'm not better off in 2012 than 2009 by a large margin. We can blame it all on the trillion dollar Bush slapped Obama with and not have issues with the other 5 trillion that was all Obama's....lol

I have reached the point in my life that I'm basically untouchable by either president, so in a way I hope Obama wins and you all get what you voted for...hehe

reply to post by michael1983l

I'd have thought that would have been obvious. There is a world rescession on didn't you know? And since did countries economic policies start coming to fruition overnight?

So now the scope of the blame-game has expanded from BUSH to Congress and now the WORLD??

Where do you go when this strategy fails; outer-space is to blame?

The republicans advocated a mass outsourcing of US jobs, the Republicans spent all of America's reserves on phoney wars and the Republicans laid the foundations with their economic policies for the mess you are in today. Obama has done a pretty good job of Damage control because the dollar should have already sunk by now.

Talking points!

Obama was elected to end 2 wars and instead he started 2 more without congressional approval.

Originally posted by michael1983l
Playing Devils Advocate here, are the Republicans not more embarrassed of the Bush's and later Romneys 48% gaff. If the Americans vote in Romney, there are more stupid people in America than I first thought. I know there are lots of intelligent people there but it looks like they are outnumbered by the ignorant and stupid.

In trying to be entirely fair about this in the context it's presented here....I'd ask you which is worse? Was it worse that Romney made his % screw up or that Obama didn't know how many States were in the Union? 48% or 57 States?

...and I definitely won't let that one go when such an obvious comparison screams to be made on the double standards this cycle has been defined by. I'd look at a High School student real hard and sideways if they said 57 states. For a man who'd been a state senator, a U.S. Senator (Didn't the dummy know how many Senators there were? 2 for each state even! Odd how that works out eh?) and then running to lead the United States, such a mistake and display of crappy thinking ability was alarming. It seems to have indicated more...but that's all speculation. The statements made aren't...and I'll take Romney's screw up to a statistic over a President who apparently JUST LEARNED how many States he was about to lead.

After all... We don't ever allow these guys mistakes or bad days right? They are to be held to everything, every time... Cool! As long as we hit both directions to the men involved in this race.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Obama inherited a sinking economy chewed up by your greedy banking system and has been held to randsome by them ever since. It was Bush that allowed the banks to go on letting banks over leverage themselves and keep lending to the toxic. Obama has spent the money trying to save America and if he hadn't you would have seen a double dip recession like tthe UK did with their right wing spending cuts and tax cuts for the rich. Because that is essentiaslly what Romney voters want right?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

The problem is Obama could even not show up for the next two debates and he will still win. So many bought into the "hope and change" that they are unwilling to realize they made a mistake or were fooled.

A few months ago I would have agreed with you but, for the reasons I outlined in the OP, I’m beginning to see things differently. Everyone agrees that it will be a close election and if Obama loses a big part of the Hispanic vote (did you see the recent attacks by Univision?) then he’s sunk.

I agree that it will come down to Ohio, Florida and the Hispanic vote. Though I don't see a lot of swings in states were Hispanics are a larger enough population to change the vote. for that state. If we see states already destined to be blue actually go red...I don't see that happening...sorry to say. I can see Romney winning Florida, and Obama still winning Ohio and take the Presidential election. The problem is Romney needs all three areas to win where Obama just needs one and not a huge shift in the Hispanic vote.



Hopefully I'm surprised....

Originally posted by neo96

Trickle down economics is how the rich get super rich, and the middle class turns into an amalgamation of lower class

Trickle up economics which started in 1935 has worked out so well hasn't it?

There are more poor people than ever 4 more years 4 more years of the same failed social engineering.

Trickle down is working just fine in China, you know that place those American business go because of the hostile environment here.

you wish america to emulate china?
WTF man?

are4 you mad or a communist?

low wages and no rights,
go to china to live if you love the conditions so much

xploder

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The difference3 is Romney made his Gaff in private where there was no pressure and Obama did it in front of a crowd and a load of TV camera's. Thats like comparing chalk and cheese. Live TV debates mean squat. Get your candidates manifesto, study it hard and then decide if they are doing right for you. That is the only way to intelligently vote in your president. Popularity contests get you the quater back womanising jerk.

reply to post by XPLodER


Nice strawman there quote exactly where I said that.

American business needs to be investing here at home not offshore.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus

I must confess, I'm a little surprised by your post.

I'm so sick of people focusing on crap like this, instead of really worrying about the issues.

I can recall at least three threads where I took the same position. Threads like Romney's dad received government assistance, he cut a kid's long hair during high school, you know the kind of thing. What's made you think that now it's a good idea to give up on those silly attacks?

The president is pretty well reigned in by congress, and that is where the vast majority of important decisions get made.

Really!? The recess appointments when they weren't in recess, the attacks on Libya without obeying the War Powers Act, the executive orders and regulations such as the immigration and Obamacare waivers? I don't see it.

He only lied 9 times during the debate,

Shall we say that's a little difficult to prove? Easy to make the claim, but not so easy to support.

This is what will happen if Romney wins. Things will get worse, and all the republicans will blame Obama. But what happens when Obama tries to blame Bush for some of our problems now? The republicans aren't having that. Hypocrites.

Things are going to continue to get worse no matter who gets elected. The economy has been so crippled that it will take some time to get it turned around. The Republicans had no trouble, and still have no trouble, accepting that Obabam was dealt a tough hand. What Republicans aren't having is that there's been no real recovery in four years. No other recession has taken this long to repair.

It is no coincidence that the majority of racists, per polls/surveys conducted, have republican leanings.

Isn't this a broad brush insult which has nothing to do with the rest of your post? I wonder if Blacks can be racist? What did Obama get last time, 95% of their vote?

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Obama inherited a sinking economy chewed up by your greedy banking system and has been held to randsome by them ever since. It was Bush that allowed the banks to go on letting banks over leverage themselves and keep lending to the toxic. Obama has spent the money trying to save America and if he hadn't you would have seen a double dip recession like tthe UK did with their right wing spending cuts and tax cuts for the rich. Because that is essentiaslly what Romney voters want right?

I really have to point this out because few people do and it needs to be a whole lot more often. It's so popular to condemn Bush universally as the bad guy in every way, we forget a few things he did right. Case in point, since you mention how Obama supposedly inherited ALL the mess HE has created over HIS four years (The budget deficit never broke half a trillion under Bush....it's never been UNDER 1 Trillion under Obama)....

The training for the dipstick Hijackers of 9/11 began in those flight schools well BEFORE Bush was in Office. If Bush wanted to be a whiner and a baby about things, he could have spent several years blaming Clinton for having several years to get the nuisance and choosing not to.

He never did blame his troubles on Clinton. Like Another President long ago, he accepted the buck stopped with him and he dealt with it. He did the WRONG things, in my view, but he didn't try and blame Clinton when he ABSOLUTELY COULD HAVE.....and been a whiny little girl in the process of course.


Now Obama has had A FULL TERM for goodness sakes, and it's still Bush's fault? Oh heck no. I say he's fired just for his total inability to accept responsibility. THAT job requires it, across the board. As the sign on the desk once said...The Buck Stops there. It absolutely does....Or DID...until HE came to town. Now the Buck is a time traveler.

Originally posted by michael1983l

Obama inherited a sinking economy chewed up by your greedy banking system and has been held to randsome by them ever since. It was Bush that allowed the banks to go on letting banks over leverage themselves and keep lending to the toxic.

Wasn't that Barney Frank and crew that demanded that it is EVERY American's right to own a house? I guess we found out it isn't a "right" after all. You are not going to put a single blame on Frank who ORCHESTRATED that whole debacle that created the housing market crash?

Obama has spent the money trying to save America and if he hadn't you would have seen a double dip recession like tthe UK did with their right wing spending cuts and tax cuts for the rich. Because that is essentiaslly what Romney voters want right?

One of my favorite lines in the debate after Obama was saying he wanted to hire more teachers (like the federal government actually hires teachers...not)

Romney said with the money he wasted in green energy alone he could have hired 2 million teachers...lol so sad, but so true.

I think with the Trillions Obama spent ANYONE would have seen a better improvement in the economy. Obama's total mismanagement actually showed the WORST return on that trillion dollar investment, and we see it with the cost of living doubling...go ahead and keep blaming it all on Bush if it makes you feel better. I'm sure in four years Obama will blame Bush once again.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Nice strawman there quote exactly where I said that.

American business needs to be investing here at home not offshore.

strawman argument?

trickle up economics?

reply to post by charles1952


So if you accept that the economy is only going to get worse no matter who is voted in, then why haven't you given Obama credit for keeping the US in Economic Growth. The UK that has tuned its policies in the same direction that Romney wants to do with the US is currently in a DOUBLE DIP recession and the worst on record since WWII. You get what you wish for. God Bless America.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Obama inherited a sinking economy chewed up by your greedy banking system and has been held to randsome by them ever since. It was Bush that allowed the banks to go on letting banks over leverage themselves and keep lending to the toxic. Obama has spent the money trying to save America and if he hadn't you would have seen a double dip recession like tthe UK did with their right wing spending cuts and tax cuts for the rich. Because that is essentiaslly what Romney voters want right?

You need to watch this video.

Warning signs were there.....

YouTube Caption....

Uploaded by Sillberdachs on Sep 25, 2008

The bush adminstration in 4/2001 raised red flags, the 2002 budget requests declares Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
"Potential problem.. and can cause strong repercussions in the financial markets"

In 2003 the White House upgraded the warning to a systemic risk that could spread beyond the housing sector.
John Snow Treasury Secretary called for Regulations & Supervision of GSE's.
Barney Frank (D-MA) denied there was any problem " Fannie Mac & Freddie Mare are not in Crisis"
Encouraging the government to do more to get low income families into homes, Ultimately blocking the regulation.

Allan Greenspan , 2/17/2005 spoke about the dangers of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac "enabling these institutions to
increase in size -and they will once the crisis in their judgement passes-we are placing the total financial system of
the future at a substantial risk

Charles Schumer (D-NY) 4/6/2005 ..."I think Fannie & Freddie have done an incredibly good job, and are an intristic
part of making america the best housed people in the world....if you look over the last 20 or whatever yrs. Theyve
done a very, very good job.

McCain (R-AZ) 5/25/2006 For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac...
and there sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market...the GSE's need to be reformed without delay."
That bill ( FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT) made it out of the senate banking committee with a party line vote all the democrats voted against it.
Senator Obama did not weigh in on the bill

"Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING"

reply to post by XPLodER


I agree rob the the rich give to the poor has been the biggest strawman argument ever.

also known as trickle up economics.

reply to post by Xtrozero


You think America is the only nation where the cost of living has doubled. Just wait until you gas Prices hit $10.91 a gallon like it is in Europe. The whole world is in a mess, you have to make your decisions based on the whole envoiroment not just on what is happening in America.

reply to post by xuenchen


If the warning signs were there, why did Bush not put a lid on it whilst he was in office. If anything he de-regulated the market even further.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER

 

I agree rob the the rich give to the poor has been the biggest strawman argument ever.

also known as trickle up economics.

tell me oh maths genius,
how does the rich storing money in the cayman islands benifit anyone except themselves and HOW does that create jobs?

your supply side economics model is a cruel joke,
your straw man argument is steel from the rich,

in times of war the top 1% of america has payed from 70% to 90% income tax to support the country through the war, is this "steeling from the rich"?

or is making the bottom 90% of poor people pay for the wars steeling from the poor?
twist it how you will but the maths shows your argument for supply side "trickle down" economics has brought about nothing but high inequality, and massive debt for the majority of americans

you ignore all the points i make then claim straw man as your fall back position.

i can do the maths, i am really good at maths,
and the data sets are undeniable, tax cuts for the rich provide short term stimulus, then MASSIVE deficit,
while "trickle down economics" has been used for nearly 15 years now,
all the log plots show an even decline in living standards and increase in national debt

THE NUMBERS DONT LIE

when tax breaks for the rich are "smart business" and food for the poor is "handouts"
you quickly realise the only difference is the phrasing or the words used.

without a healthy middle class the country will fall

your unable to debate the facts of the math

SO REVERT TO YOUR STRAW MAN ARGUMENT 1 MORE TIME

dont worry i am used to watching twist things from debate into arguments about straw men

this is about the math,
dont redirect or deflect

answer on the math
xploder