Obama is Cruising!!!

[candycorn]

You must have slept through the 2010 mid-term elections then, Candy...because the electorate sent progressives about as strong a message as possible that they didn't like their policies. If you'll recall the Obama line in 2009 was "Elections have consequences...we won!"...a viewpoint which they immediately abandoned once the 2010 elections happened. From 2010 on their NEW line became..."We know better than you so this LAST election doesn't count!"

And what happened exactly? The GOP took the House and gained 3 or 4 seats in the Senate. Big whoop.

So I guess it's a chicken-and-the-egg dynamic...is that what you're saying? Obama and the Dems won handly in 2006 and 2008. Right? Agree? So when the GOP digs in it's heels in 2008, 2009, and 2010 before the midterms...were you here on this board saying, "Guys, the Dems have a mandate..work with them." I doubt it. But somehow, the GOP takes the house and has minor gains in the Senate in 2010 and it's supposed to be a watershed moment for the Dems to come over and lay down for the GOP?

Not one of your more intelligent posts but pretty average none the less.

When Obama wins on Tuesday, that will be a mandate. If the GOP continues to be the party of "no", the public should blame them.

Big whoop? The gains by the GOP in the House and Senate were the largest Party "swing" in recent history. It was indeed a "big whoop". The truth is Barack Obama did come into power with a mandate for "change" from the American people but what the mid-term elections two years later proved without question is that the vast majority of the electorate weren't happy with the version of change they received from the Obama Administration and made that displeasure abundantly clear with their votes.

So did Obama listen to the voters? Or did "he" dig in his heels and threaten to veto any legislation that the House passed that he felt was too conservative? Did he use "Executive Orders" in order to circumvent the elected representatives that the people sent to Washington? Did he continue to blame Republicans or the former President for the shortcomings of his own policies?

I'm sorry, Candy but the Party of No has been the Democrats for the past two years because they have refused to accept the message that the voters sent to them LOUDLY AND QUITE CLEARLY.

Well there was that whole healthcare thing before the midterms which received 0 support among republicans of any stripe.

But whatever....you know you're wrong and everyone else does too.

When Obama wins on Tuesday, are you saying that is a mandate and that the GOP should now finally come around to his way of thinking?
Yes or no?

 

[Oldstyle]

And what happened exactly? The GOP took the House and gained 3 or 4 seats in the Senate. Big whoop.

So I guess it's a chicken-and-the-egg dynamic...is that what you're saying? Obama and the Dems won handly in 2006 and 2008. Right? Agree? So when the GOP digs in it's heels in 2008, 2009, and 2010 before the midterms...were you here on this board saying, "Guys, the Dems have a mandate..work with them." I doubt it. But somehow, the GOP takes the house and has minor gains in the Senate in 2010 and it's supposed to be a watershed moment for the Dems to come over and lay down for the GOP?

Not one of your more intelligent posts but pretty average none the less.

When Obama wins on Tuesday, that will be a mandate. If the GOP continues to be the party of "no", the public should blame them.

Big whoop? The gains by the GOP in the House and Senate were the largest Party "swing" in recent history. It was indeed a "big whoop". The truth is Barack Obama did come into power with a mandate for "change" from the American people but what the mid-term elections two years later proved without question is that the vast majority of the electorate weren't happy with the version of change they received from the Obama Administration and made that displeasure abundantly clear with their votes.

So did Obama listen to the voters? Or did "he" dig in his heels and threaten to veto any legislation that the House passed that he felt was too conservative? Did he use "Executive Orders" in order to circumvent the elected representatives that the people sent to Washington? Did he continue to blame Republicans or the former President for the shortcomings of his own policies?

I'm sorry, Candy but the Party of No has been the Democrats for the past two years because they have refused to accept the message that the voters sent to them LOUDLY AND QUITE CLEARLY.

Well there was that whole healthcare thing before the midterms which received 0 support among republicans of any stripe.

But whatever....you know you're wrong and everyone else does too.

When Obama wins on Tuesday, are you saying that is a mandate and that the GOP should now finally come around to his way of thinking?
Yes or no?

You mean the whole "healthcare thing" that a majority of Americans didn't want? There is a REASON why the Democrats took that "shellacking" (to use Barry's own description) in the mid-term elections. They didn't listen to what the people wanted.

From the looks of things the race on Tuesday is going to be a squeaker...in which case whoever wins will not have a "mandate" from the people. I think that's something that Mitt Romney will understand if he wins...Barack Obama on the other hand thought he still had a "mandate" AFTER getting thrashed in the mid-term so I'm guessing that won't be the case with him.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for me coming around to Barack Obama's "way of thinking"...

I'm sorry, Candy but I can't support policies which aren't rational. If you're telling me that we should raise taxes in the midst of a down economy and I've learned from my economics classes all those years ago that doing so is a recipe for even slower growth and less revenue...then why would I "come around" to what is simply an irrational approach to our problems based on political dogma rather than sound economic principles?

I didn't like Bill Clinton's morals but I respected his understanding of economics and thought he did a nice job handling the economy.

Barack Obama on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand basic economic principles and has done an awful job with creating growth.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

As for me coming around to Barack Obama's "way of thinking"...

I'm sorry, Candy but I can't support policies which aren't rational. If you're telling me that we should raise taxes in the midst of a down economy and I've learned from my economics classes all those years ago that doing so is a recipe for even slower growth and less revenue...then why would I "come around" to what is simply an irrational approach to our problems based on political dogma rather than sound economic principles?

I didn't like Bill Clinton's morals but I respected his understanding of economics and thought he did a nice job handling the economy.

Barack Obama on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand basic economic principles and has done an awful job with creating growth.

I know facts are uncomfortable for the right wing.

But....

Fact is, since early 2010, until the present... there has not been a single month without positive private sector job creation. Corporate profits have skyrocketed. The DOW has come close to doubling.

I know the Goopers always like to claim they are better for the economy... but all real evidence points to the exact opposite.

 

[Meathead]

Obama fans miss the obvious point. A great leader has the ability to reach over partisan divides and forge consensus regardless of resistance, In this Obama has clearly failed. In light of that failure, the default position is to whine about the intransigence of the opposition.

That pretty much covers the abject failure of Obama's four years.

 

[auditor0007]

As for me coming around to Barack Obama's "way of thinking"...

I'm sorry, Candy but I can't support policies which aren't rational. If you're telling me that we should raise taxes in the midst of a down economy and I've learned from my economics classes all those years ago that doing so is a recipe for even slower growth and less revenue...then why would I "come around" to what is simply an irrational approach to our problems based on political dogma rather than sound economic principles?

I didn't like Bill Clinton's morals but I respected his understanding of economics and thought he did a nice job handling the economy.

Barack Obama on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand basic economic principles and has done an awful job with creating growth.

I know facts are uncomfortable for the right wing.

But....

Fact is, since early 2010, until the present... there has not been a single month without positive private sector job creation. Corporate profits have skyrocketed. The DOW has come close to doubling.

I know the Goopers always like to claim they are better for the economy... but all real evidence points to the exact opposite.

First jobs reports by Gallup and ADP are out. Tomorrow's official numbers are expected to be the same. Obama wins in a landslide.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Obama fans miss the obvious point. A great leader has the ability to reach over partisan divides and forge consensus regardless of resistance, In this Obama has clearly failed. In light of that failure, the default position is to whine about the intransigence of the opposition.

That pretty much covers the abject failure of Obama's four years.

Honestly, when your "other side of the aisle" is backwards, obstinate, stubborn, and worthless, it's time to stop giving a shit what they think.

 

[Meathead]

Obama fans miss the obvious point. A great leader has the ability to reach over partisan divides and forge consensus regardless of resistance, In this Obama has clearly failed. In light of that failure, the default position is to whine about the intransigence of the opposition.

That pretty much covers the abject failure of Obama's four years.

Honestly, when your "other side of the aisle" is backwards, obstinate, stubborn, and worthless, it's time to stop giving a shit what they think.

You really haven't got a clue as to what leadership is, have you? Obama was never qualified for much beyond community organizing anyway.

 

[candycorn]

Big whoop? The gains by the GOP in the House and Senate were the largest Party "swing" in recent history. It was indeed a "big whoop". The truth is Barack Obama did come into power with a mandate for "change" from the American people but what the mid-term elections two years later proved without question is that the vast majority of the electorate weren't happy with the version of change they received from the Obama Administration and made that displeasure abundantly clear with their votes.

So did Obama listen to the voters? Or did "he" dig in his heels and threaten to veto any legislation that the House passed that he felt was too conservative? Did he use "Executive Orders" in order to circumvent the elected representatives that the people sent to Washington? Did he continue to blame Republicans or the former President for the shortcomings of his own policies?

I'm sorry, Candy but the Party of No has been the Democrats for the past two years because they have refused to accept the message that the voters sent to them LOUDLY AND QUITE CLEARLY.

Well there was that whole healthcare thing before the midterms which received 0 support among republicans of any stripe.

But whatever....you know you're wrong and everyone else does too.

When Obama wins on Tuesday, are you saying that is a mandate and that the GOP should now finally come around to his way of thinking?
Yes or no?

You mean the whole "healthcare thing" that a majority of Americans didn't want? There is a REASON why the Democrats took that "shellacking" (to use Barry's own description) in the mid-term elections. They didn't listen to what the people wanted.

I'm sure people want to pay $0.00 in taxes. Should the government accommodate what is wanted?

From the looks of things the race on Tuesday is going to be a squeaker...in which case whoever wins will not have a "mandate" from the people. I think that's something that Mitt Romney will understand if he wins...Barack Obama on the other hand thought he still had a "mandate" AFTER getting thrashed in the mid-term so I'm guessing that won't be the case with him.

Okay, so either party is justified in shutting down any and all legislation because of the margin of victory?

After 2010, the Dems still controlled 2/3 of the government. What had happened was that several congressional districts switched seats; some only a few miles wide in some places.

Try again.

 

[The Rabbi]

As for me coming around to Barack Obama's "way of thinking"...

I'm sorry, Candy but I can't support policies which aren't rational. If you're telling me that we should raise taxes in the midst of a down economy and I've learned from my economics classes all those years ago that doing so is a recipe for even slower growth and less revenue...then why would I "come around" to what is simply an irrational approach to our problems based on political dogma rather than sound economic principles?

I didn't like Bill Clinton's morals but I respected his understanding of economics and thought he did a nice job handling the economy.

Barack Obama on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand basic economic principles and has done an awful job with creating growth.

I know facts are uncomfortable for the right wing.

But....

Fact is, since early 2010, until the present... there has not been a single month without positive private sector job creation. Corporate profits have skyrocketed. The DOW has come close to doubling.

I know the Goopers always like to claim they are better for the economy... but all real evidence points to the exact opposite.

First jobs reports by Gallup and ADP are out. Tomorrow's official numbers are expected to be the same. Obama wins in a landslide.

Another crappy jobs report, no doubt subject to massive revision, will give Obama a landslide victory?

Just how fucking stupid are you?

 

[Amazed]

I know facts are uncomfortable for the right wing.

But....

Fact is, since early 2010, until the present... there has not been a single month without positive private sector job creation. Corporate profits have skyrocketed. The DOW has come close to doubling.

I know the Goopers always like to claim they are better for the economy... but all real evidence points to the exact opposite.

First jobs reports by Gallup and ADP are out. Tomorrow's official numbers are expected to be the same. Obama wins in a landslide.

Another crappy jobs report, no doubt subject to massive revision, will give Obama a landslide victory?

Just how fucking stupid are you?

Apparently the single pre-requisite for being an Obamaite is to be stupid.

NOTHING says landslide for anyone yet these moron's simply cannot help themselves...ANYONE who thinks 7.9 is "good news" simply hasn't a brain in their head.

 

[candycorn]

I know facts are uncomfortable for the right wing.

But....

Fact is, since early 2010, until the present... there has not been a single month without positive private sector job creation. Corporate profits have skyrocketed. The DOW has come close to doubling.

I know the Goopers always like to claim they are better for the economy... but all real evidence points to the exact opposite.

First jobs reports by Gallup and ADP are out. Tomorrow's official numbers are expected to be the same. Obama wins in a landslide.

Another crappy jobs report, no doubt subject to massive revision, will give Obama a landslide victory?

Just how fucking stupid are you?

No.

Mitt flip flopping all over the place will. That and his aloof aristocracy, amateurish campaign, programs that have no hope of working, lies about Obama etc...

The "landslide" depends on what you call a landslide.

Get used to it beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeotch

 

[The Rabbi]

First jobs reports by Gallup and ADP are out. Tomorrow's official numbers are expected to be the same. Obama wins in a landslide.

Another crappy jobs report, no doubt subject to massive revision, will give Obama a landslide victory?

Just how fucking stupid are you?

No.

Mitt flip flopping all over the place will. That and his aloof aristocracy, amateurish campaign, programs that have no hope of working, lies about Obama etc...

The "landslide" depends on what you call a landslide.

Get used to it beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeotch

This election isn't about Mitt. It is about Obama. It is a referendum on his performance. And that performance is dismal, the worst of any president elected by white people.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Another crappy jobs report, no doubt subject to massive revision, will give Obama a landslide victory?

Just how fucking stupid are you?

No.

Mitt flip flopping all over the place will. That and his aloof aristocracy, amateurish campaign, programs that have no hope of working, lies about Obama etc...

The "landslide" depends on what you call a landslide.

Get used to it beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeotch

This election isn't about Mitt. It is about Obama. It is a referendum on his performance. And that performance is dismal, the worst of any president elected by white people.

It's a shame that facts actually indicate otherwise. Those darn, inconvenient facts!

 

[candycorn]

Another crappy jobs report, no doubt subject to massive revision, will give Obama a landslide victory?

Just how fucking stupid are you?

No.

Mitt flip flopping all over the place will. That and his aloof aristocracy, amateurish campaign, programs that have no hope of working, lies about Obama etc...

The "landslide" depends on what you call a landslide.

Get used to it beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeotch

This election isn't about Mitt. It is about Obama. It is a referendum on his performance. And that performance is dismal, the worst of any president elected by white people.

Ahh, the racist/birther tendencies comes out when the chips are down. I'm surprised you kept it under wraps for so long.

 

[The Rabbi]

No.

Mitt flip flopping all over the place will. That and his aloof aristocracy, amateurish campaign, programs that have no hope of working, lies about Obama etc...

The "landslide" depends on what you call a landslide.

Get used to it beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeotch

This election isn't about Mitt. It is about Obama. It is a referendum on his performance. And that performance is dismal, the worst of any president elected by white people.

It's a shame that facts actually indicate otherwise. Those darn, inconvenient facts!

What fact would that be, genius?

 

[Cheddarmelon]

This election isn't about Mitt. It is about Obama. It is a referendum on his performance. And that performance is dismal, the worst of any president elected by white people.

It's a shame that facts actually indicate otherwise. Those darn, inconvenient facts!

What fact would that be, genius?

that depends. What area would you like to focus on?

 

[Meathead]

I'm sure people want to pay $0.00 in taxes. Should the government accommodate what is wanted?

The government does accommodate them. Who do you think the 47% are?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm sure people want to pay $0.00 in taxes. Should the government accommodate what is wanted?

The government does accommodate them. Who do you think the 47% are?

Senior citizens. The men and women serving in our military. People that have been out of a job for a long time. Those with severe disabilities. People working for minimum wages.

Strange that in this economy your side chooses to demonize those who have the least, and work for the enrichment of those who already have vast wealth. Priorities.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a shame that facts actually indicate otherwise. Those darn, inconvenient facts!

What fact would that be, genius?

that depends. What area would you like to focus on?

Oh, the economy, Obamacare, etc. Bad poll numbers on every issue for Obama.

But I'll look at any evidence you have that the election is not a referendum on the incumbent. Like they always are.