Can Obama Fool Us Twice?

[Ernie S.]

I think the premise of this thread is flawed even though much of its content isn't.

Can Obama Fool Us Twice?

The above presumes he "fooled" us the first time.

I don't think that's accurate, really.

I think the politically unwashed (his youth vote) might have been fooled, but I seriously doubt any serious students of American politics were.

Obama was the least worst choice for enough voters, not the messianic person most right wing cranks want to imagine that lefties though he was.

I voted for O not expecting much change and with not a whole lot of hope.

Of course nobody expected the 2008 meltdown so faulting him as having betrayed campiagn promises surrounding that event is pointless since his campaign didn't address a problem that really had not yet occurred.

Are you surprised his Justice Department hasn't filed any charges of securities or control fraud against Wall Street execs? As I recall, his lead over McCain was narrowing when the Great Recession first became noticeable to most voters.

Obama might have been the least worst among major party candidates, but our economy and the world would be a much different place today if Ralph Nader had moved into the White House in 2009.

In one sense I see Obama as an even greater threat to progressive values than Bush or McCain because many liberals/progressives seem incapable of judging Obama by the content of his policies or character.

Which leaves what...?

Yeah trees and dolphins would get the right to vote.

 

[dilloduck]

Four years of being mocked and scrutinized outta be enough for anyone. Let someone else have some fun.

 

[grunt11b]

obama is an idiot on the small stuff and an asshole on war and Wall St.

Would McCain have been a better choice?

How likely is it any Republican running in 2012 will be any less of an asshole?

Charlie Sheen would have been a better choice than what we got.
And as far as voting all incumbents out? That's a stupid idea. Just because you don't like the direction the country is headed is a damned poor reason to turn out those that would solve problems if more like minded people were elected.

I am all for voting out incumbents if they have been in there for a decent amount of time and have done nothing to improve this country. If they have been complicit along with the rest they need to go too.

 

[georgephillip]

Twice? He never had me fooled the first time. As far as fooling the people who voted for him the first time, I am sure if they where ignorant enough to vote for him once, they can be fooled again.

Those who are ignorant enough to think government's contribution to widening income inequality will be diminished by "choosing" between a Republican OR a Democrat will be fooled every time they vote.

 

[Vanquish]

I'm not ashamed to say that I'm not happy with Barry Oblammy. I didn't get what I was promised. I don't think it was a purposeful lie...I just think he tried too hard to reach consensus instead of having the balls to do what he campaigned on doing.

Whatever Republican gets on the ticket will be preaching fiscal sanity...which I can't deny is grossly overdue. I'll probably go Repub this time...unless it's Palin or Bat-shitcrazy-Bachmann.

 

[georgephillip]

I considered Barry Boy a charming shyster his first go round. I never bought his hopey changey bullshit and didn't much care for his "share the wealth" crap either.

I didn't like McCain any better but considered him the lesser of two evils.

OL'BO can definetly be re-elected in 2012 if the economy and the jobs situation are vastly improved. Of course the deficit and Govt spending will be big issues as well.

A lot will depend on who the Reps field against him and what their message is and if anyone is believing it.

If the US dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency in November of 2012, would that be enough to convince you Republicans AND Democrats ARE the problem?

 

[Ernie S.]

Would McCain have been a better choice?

How likely is it any Republican running in 2012 will be any less of an asshole?

Charlie Sheen would have been a better choice than what we got.
And as far as voting all incumbents out? That's a stupid idea. Just because you don't like the direction the country is headed is a damned poor reason to turn out those that would solve problems if more like minded people were elected.

I am all for voting out incumbents if they have been in there for a decent amount of time and have done nothing to improve this country. If they have been complicit along with the rest they need to go too.

I have to agree, but turning them all away would be disastrous in the short term. The system is built on seniority. To turn out all 535 Reps and Senators would leave us with no one who could work the system. In the long term, it would force a return to the original intent, but it would be chaos for a couple of years.

 

[georgephillip]

obama is an idiot on the small stuff and an asshole on war and Wall St.

Would McCain have been a better choice?

How likely is it any Republican running in 2012 will be any less of an asshole?

Charlie Sheen would have been a better choice than what we got.
And as far as voting all incumbents out? That's a stupid idea. Just because you don't like the direction the country is headed is a damned poor reason to turn out those that would solve problems if more like minded people were elected.

Do you think Charlie would have invaded Iraq or bombed Libya?

Republicans AND Democrats depend on 1% of US voters to fund their campaigns. The richest 1% of Americans derive most of their income from the stock market which in turn depends on eternal war and, since the late 80s, the financialization of our economy.

Republicans and Democrats who want to be reelected are all like minded when it comes to supporting Wall Street and the US permanent warfare state economy.

What happens when the US dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency, and we can no longer afford our empire?

"Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican doesn't change the answer to that question.

 

[georgephillip]

I think the premise of this thread is flawed even though much of its content isn't.



The above presumes he "fooled" us the first time.

I don't think that's accurate, really.

I think the politically unwashed (his youth vote) might have been fooled, but I seriously doubt any serious students of American politics were.

Obama was the least worst choice for enough voters, not the messianic person most right wing cranks want to imagine that lefties though he was.

I voted for O not expecting much change and with not a whole lot of hope.

Of course nobody expected the 2008 meltdown so faulting him as having betrayed campiagn promises surrounding that event is pointless since his campaign didn't address a problem that really had not yet occurred.

Are you surprised his Justice Department hasn't filed any charges of securities or control fraud against Wall Street execs? As I recall, his lead over McCain was narrowing when the Great Recession first became noticeable to most voters.

Obama might have been the least worst among major party candidates, but our economy and the world would be a much different place today if Ralph Nader had moved into the White House in 2009.

In one sense I see Obama as an even greater threat to progressive values than Bush or McCain because many liberals/progressives seem incapable of judging Obama by the content of his policies or character.

Which leaves what...?

Yeah trees and dolphins would get the right to vote.

Had Ralph Nader moved into the White House in January 2009 we would have seen hundreds of Wall Street execs charged, tried and probably convicted of securities/control fraud.

The possible fines collected from those convictions would erase this year's deficit.

There would be no US troops, combat, or otherwise, in Iraq or Afghanistan. We would not be dropping bombs in Libya to protect a population that has sent more suicide bombers to Iraq than any other part of the Arab world.

Most importantly, the richest 1% of Americans would NOT have increased their share of national wealth during the last two years, and millions of their countrymen would NOT have lost their jobs, pensions and savings.

Trees and dolphins would also be better off.

 

[georgephillip]

Charlie Sheen would have been a better choice than what we got.
And as far as voting all incumbents out? That's a stupid idea. Just because you don't like the direction the country is headed is a damned poor reason to turn out those that would solve problems if more like minded people were elected.

I am all for voting out incumbents if they have been in there for a decent amount of time and have done nothing to improve this country. If they have been complicit along with the rest they need to go too.

I have to agree, but turning them all away would be disastrous in the short term. The system is built on seniority. To turn out all 535 Reps and Senators would leave us with no one who could work the system. In the long term, it would force a return to the original intent, but it would be chaos for a couple of years.

It would work better if conservatives didn't change their voting patterns in mass in 2012.

FLUSH hundreds of Democrats from DC in 2012 and replace 90% of the incumbents with Greens or Libertarians.

Nothing else imho will break the economic stranglehold Wall Street has on the US Congress.

 

[washamericom]

I think the premise of this thread is flawed even though much of its content isn't.



The above presumes he "fooled" us the first time.

I don't think that's accurate, really.

I think the politically unwashed (his youth vote) might have been fooled, but I seriously doubt any serious students of American politics were.

Obama was the least worst choice for enough voters, not the messianic person most right wing cranks want to imagine that lefties though he was.

I voted for O not expecting much change and with not a whole lot of hope.

Of course nobody expected the 2008 meltdown so faulting him as having betrayed campiagn promises surrounding that event is pointless since his campaign didn't address a problem that really had not yet occurred.

Are you surprised his Justice Department hasn't filed any charges of securities or control fraud against Wall Street execs? As I recall, his lead over McCain was narrowing when the Great Recession first became noticeable to most voters.

Obama might have been the least worst among major party candidates, but our economy and the world would be a much different place today if Ralph Nader had moved into the White House in 2009.

In one sense I see Obama as an even greater threat to progressive values than Bush or McCain because many liberals/progressives seem incapable of judging Obama by the content of his policies or character.

Which leaves what...?

Yeah trees and dolphins would get the right to vote.

treehater...

 

[del]

us?

 

[georgephillip]

I'm not ashamed to say that I'm not happy with Barry Oblammy. I didn't get what I was promised. I don't think it was a purposeful lie...I just think he tried too hard to reach consensus instead of having the balls to do what he campaigned on doing.

Whatever Republican gets on the ticket will be preaching fiscal sanity...which I can't deny is grossly overdue. I'll probably go Repub this time...unless it's Palin or Bat-shitcrazy-Bachmann.

Have you ever seriously considered the possibility that Republicans AND Democrats are the problem. Before cyberspace any individual voting for a third party candidate was essentially casting a meaningless ballot, or worse.

That changes if millions of Democrats/Republicans decide to FLUSH hundreds of incumbents from DC in a single news cycle.

It isn't possible to shrink Wall Street by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican.

 

[uscitizen]

I'm not ashamed to say that I'm not happy with Barry Oblammy. I didn't get what I was promised. I don't think it was a purposeful lie...I just think he tried too hard to reach consensus instead of having the balls to do what he campaigned on doing.

Whatever Republican gets on the ticket will be preaching fiscal sanity...which I can't deny is grossly overdue. I'll probably go Repub this time...unless it's Palin or Bat-shitcrazy-Bachmann.

Have you ever seriously considered the possibility that Republicans AND Democrats are the problem. Before cyberspace any individual voting for a third party candidate was essentially casting a meaningless ballot, or worse.

That changes if millions of Democrats/Republicans decide to FLUSH hundreds of incumbents from DC in a single news cycle.

It isn't possible to shrink Wall Street by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican.

Bingo!

Both parties are playing the voters for fools.

the Tea Party is however not a third party. Just another angle on the same game.

 

[georgephillip]

Huey Long saw the same thing in the 1930s.

When he looked at Washington DC, Huey saw a restaurant that served only one dish. There were Republican waiters along one wall and Democrat waiters along the other, but which ever party delivered your order..."all the grub came from Wall Street's kitchen."

Huey would know how to use the internet to end the two party choke hold Wall Street has on American politics.

 

[Vanquish]

Obviously I've considered it...if you'll read my sig...I'm a centrist for just that reason.

 

[georgephillip]

Obviously I've considered it...if you'll read my sig...I'm a centrist for just that reason.

How bad would the economy have to be in November of 2012 before you would consider voting AGAINST all incumbents and urging others to do likewise?

If the US dollar no longer serves as the world's reserve currency in 11/12, would that be bad enough?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Well when I learned he cut his political teeth in Chicago, I was certain he didn't have a clean enough back ground to become a front runner.

And after a laundry list of wackos were on his freinds list, I was certain he would drop out.

Each time I was certain he was done, he gained more and more popularity.

Anyone that runs against him will have a tuff row to hoe

 

[georgephillip]

Well when I learned he cut his political teeth in Chicago, I was certain he didn't have a clean enough back ground to become a front runner.

And after a laundry list of wackos were on his freinds list, I was certain he would drop out.

Each time I was certain he was done, he gained more and more popularity.

Anyone that runs against him will have a tuff row to hoe

Bush and Clinton won second terms; so I think Obama has at least as much chance as they did. Most people would think having a billion dollars to campaign with would also work in his favor.

That could change if enough voters start asking why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth on Obama's watch as millions of other Americans have lost their jobs, retirements and savings.

What if money becomes a curse instead of a blessing?

 

[Dr.Drock]

The 2012 budget is a perfect reason why anyone should be ashamed to vote for either party.

Both sides agreeing $3.8 trillion is a good budget with the desperate need of americans for them to slash the budget and significantly decrease spending, yet instead they both agree to increase it.