Was the 2012 Election a Watershed Moment in U.S. History?

[mudwhistle]

Your $1.4 Billion includes the entire White House Executive Branch staff and you try to sell them as personal servants

What a hack you are

The White House staff vs the entire British Royal family?

It's a matter of perspective. 40 times as much to take care of 4 people as the entire monarchy of England.

A bit much, don't you think?

No of course not.

Still waiting for your link to the $1.4 billion movie guy

Or any link that supports your bullshit...Why not just admit you are lying

While you're waiting hold your breath please, click your heels and say "There's No Place Like Home".

 

[mudwhistle]

This is for anyone who hasn't learned how to Google yet:

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year | The Daily Caller

 

[rightwinger]

This is for anyone who hasn't learned how to Google yet:

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year | The Daily Caller

Thats what I thought you would post

Another rightwing propaganda full of half truths and lies.

You fail to identify what constitutes White House staff and characterize those who hold cabinet level positions as maids and servants

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40980_About_That_Taxpayers_Spent_$1.4_Billion_on_Obama_Family_Last_Year_Fake_Outrage

 

[Oldstyle]

Bull Shit...Cap and Trade was already dead in the water. Obama used his political capital to pass Obamacare. Cap and Trade was put on the back burner

The Republican Congress passed no meaningful legislation after promising Jobs, Jobs, Jobs if the gulible public put them in charge. They delivered NOTHING

Over 8% unemployment ....they did NOTHING

The only purpose of the Republican Congress was to protect unneeded tax breaks for bilionaires. At that they were successful

Cap & Trade was "dead in the water" because the American people were already so pissed off about the Democrats ignoring their pleas to make healthcare more affordable and passing ObamaCare instead that they sent Republicans to Washington in unprecedented numbers. Cap & Trade was put on the back burner because Barry, Harry and Nancy couldn't talk anymore Democrats into committing political suicide supporting a bill that would destroy our economy and put millions more out of work.

As for the Republicans doing "NOTHING"?

They passed over twenty bills in the House which then sat on Harry Reid's desk. You can't pass legislation when you only control one of the three legislative branches. Harry Reid wouldn't even bring those House bills to the floor of the Senate...blocking them from even being discussed on the floor let alone voted on!

The truth is unemployment would be much worse than 8% in this country if it weren't for Republican governors turning around States like North Dakota, Texas and Ohio. Blaming high levels of unemployment on Republicans when the Democrats haven't even put forth a credible plan to lower unemployment in over two years is laughable. Obama gave us a "jobs bill" that he knew didn't have a prayer of being passed simply because it was nothing more than a watered down version of his original stimulus that produced only a tiny number of jobs while spending nearly a trillion dollars.

Republicans played politics and sent up bills they knew were blatant pandering to their Conservative base. Passing legislation is not the "my way or the highway" process that Republicans push. Minority parties have managed to pass legislation for hundreds of years. It involves compromise, give a little to get a little, win-win propositions

Republicans have been obsessed with shutting down government if they don't get their way

Republican motto..."If we can't call the shots, then we will make damned sure that nobody else can"

So let me see if I've got this straight...

When Democrats had super majorities and they told the Republicans to go wait out in the hall while they passed ObamaCare and the Obama Stimulus...because as Barry pointed out..."Elections have consequences"...that was OK, right?

But when the American people responded to what progressives did by electing a record number of Republicans to the House what happened to the whole "Elections have consequences" mantra? It's obvious from the shellacking (to use Barry's own words) that the Democrats took in the mid-term election that the voters were not happy with their agenda yet when those Republicans in the House sent over bill after bill to the Democratically controlled Senate, Harry Reid wouldn't let those bills even come to the floor for discussion, let alone a vote. There are literally dozens of bills sitting on Reid's desk right now collecting dust yet you have the nerve to come here and accuse the Republicans of shutting down government if they don't get their way?

Come on Winger...try and base your posts on SOME semblance of reality. You speak of compromise? How do you get compromise when the leader of the Senate won't even let bills come to the floor for discussion? Care to show me how THAT concept works?

 

[mudwhistle]

This is for anyone who hasn't learned how to Google yet:

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year | The Daily Caller

Thats what I thought you would post

Another rightwing propaganda full of half truths and lies.

You fail to identify what constitutes White House staff and characterize those who hold cabinet level positions as maids and servants

White House. Cabinet members aren't included. This is the costs Obama charged to the Treasury. I can tell you didn't read it.

There are a lot of stories about it including a youtube video so I didn't make it up.

 

[Oldstyle]

Actually, it can be seen that the recovery stalled after the GOP took the house. Check it out.

Was it really a recovery when what we were doing was spending a trillion dollars of borrowed money to keep people in the public sector working? The so called recovery stalled when that borrowed money ran out. It was terrible fiscal policy, Free...based on a faulty economic premise. This notion that we can fix things by raising taxes on the wealthy is just one more faulty economic premise. We're talking about the revenue side when we are bleeding out on the spending side which nobody in this Administration has even made a half-hearted attempt to tackle.

I would agree with your assertion that the economic recovery was largely fueled by deficit spending, Oldstyle. That was also the case in Reagan's recovery and W. Bush's recovery as well. We have historically engaged in deficit spending to stave off economic recessions. The only thing different in Obama's case was the magnitude--however, the recession was far, far deeper than the examples I cited. It needed a big stimulus.

I know that Republicans are suddenly quite concerned about the the deficit (remembering the Bush years, when the GOP said "deficits don't matter"). Can you explain to me how Americans are being damaged by the deficit? I just don't see the deficit as a compelling problem that we need to tackle at this moment.

I agree that the government overspends--on defense spending, that is. We can easily cut it by 30% without compromising our national defense. Also, our welfare/prison system is horrible. We need to provide opportunity, not subsidization. This applies to farmers as well.

With all due respect, Free? If you can't understand why running trillion dollar a year deficits doesn't damage Americans then I'm not sure you're going to understand much of anything else I tell you either.

Come on...you can't be serious? We just got our credit rating downgraded for the first time in our country's history. It didn't happen during the Great Depression but it's happened now. Why? Because our debt is SO staggering and our future unfunded liabilities are SO large that there is no way at all we can stay solvent unless we fix things and fix them NOW!

This is all simple accounting. Get a sheet of paper and on one side write down all of the cuts that the Obama Administration has made to government spending since he came into office...and then on the other side write down all of the increases to government spending that Barack Obama has made since he took office. Total those two columns up and tell me what you're seeing for a trend. It's not rocket science.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Monday morning Quarterbacking.

If he had won everyone would have said it was pure genius.

If he had won, it would be because Obama blew the first debate. Romney had no chance, none, and was making zero progress towards a chance until Obama dropped the first debate.

Romney's campaign problems stem back to his last run in 2008. He has a poor sense of what he needs to be doing and an inability to close gaps or follow up on leads. I still recall Romney's "Historic Speech on Religion" back in 2008 because it was such a stupidly miscalculated move. He'd clearly lost and NO ONE CARED about his religion, and yet, he needed to make this epic sweeping game changing speech. Which did nothing.

Follow this up with 2012. Romney was the clear favorite to win the nomination and was facing a field of terrible candidates. If you seriously though Bachmann Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, or the rest of those jokers were ever serious candidates, you're mentally impaired.

And yet, Romney literally COULD NOT CLOSE THE DEAL. Despite a massive amount of resources, a better organization, and being the clear party favorite. In the end he only won because he had more cash and could literally buy wins away from Santorum, and Newt was too egotistical to drop out and give Santorum a clear path to victory.

Then you get to the general campaign, where despite the enormous resources of Romney's campaign and Super PAC's AND a hometown boy on the ticket, he could barely even make a dent in Wisconsin, a perennial swing state.

Romney was a fairly clear loser in this one, and stayed a loser all the way out to the end. The fact the race was close at all is indicative of just how weak a President Obama was.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If the Queen doesn't live as well as Obama what does that say about spending in Washington.

It says the Queen of England isn't as important or as powerful as Obama.

Folks forget, the original architects of Washington DC's landscapes set out to build the most impressive architectural city in the world because they understood that those first impressions help translate into actual diplomatic power. We could ask the Obama family to take dignitaries to McDonald's if you'd like, but don't expect the world to think much of us.

 

[JWBooth]

No flames, please. I am just wondering how you see this election from an historical perspective. Does it signal a fundamental change in the relationship between our government and people and if so, in what direction are we headed? Will we remain the world's economic superpower? Will our debt become an albatross around our necks? Will religion still play an important role in our national identity? Where do you see us in 50 years?

Nope, to believe it a watershed is to presume that it would have mattered who won. It didn't, so no big deal. Govt. will continue to grow larger and take more powers unto itself.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

No flames, please. I am just wondering how you see this election from an historical perspective. Does it signal a fundamental change in the relationship between our government and people and if so, in what direction are we headed? Will we remain the world's economic superpower? Will our debt become an albatross around our necks? Will religion still play an important role in our national identity? Where do you see us in 50 years?

Nope, to believe it a watershed is to presume that it would have mattered who won. It didn't, so no big deal. Govt. will continue to grow larger and take more powers unto itself.

This I agree with. I think regardless of who won the net result would have been more spending and more executive power.

 

[emptystep]

This is for anyone who hasn't learned how to Google yet:

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year | The Daily Caller

Thats what I thought you would post

Another rightwing propaganda full of half truths and lies.

You fail to identify what constitutes White House staff and characterize those who hold cabinet level positions as maids and servants

White House. Cabinet members aren't included. This is the costs Obama charged to the Treasury. I can tell you didn't read it.

There are a lot of stories about it including a youtube video so I didn't make it up.

 

[JoeB131]

Monday morning Quarterbacking.

If he had won everyone would have said it was pure genius.

If he had won, it would be because Obama blew the first debate. Romney had no chance, none, and was making zero progress towards a chance until Obama dropped the first debate.

Romney's campaign problems stem back to his last run in 2008. He has a poor sense of what he needs to be doing and an inability to close gaps or follow up on leads. I still recall Romney's "Historic Speech on Religion" back in 2008 because it was such a stupidly miscalculated move. He'd clearly lost and NO ONE CARED about his religion, and yet, he needed to make this epic sweeping game changing speech. Which did nothing.

Follow this up with 2012. Romney was the clear favorite to win the nomination and was facing a field of terrible candidates. If you seriously though Bachmann Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, or the rest of those jokers were ever serious candidates, you're mentally impaired.

And yet, Romney literally COULD NOT CLOSE THE DEAL. Despite a massive amount of resources, a better organization, and being the clear party favorite. In the end he only won because he had more cash and could literally buy wins away from Santorum, and Newt was too egotistical to drop out and give Santorum a clear path to victory.

Then you get to the general campaign, where despite the enormous resources of Romney's campaign and Super PAC's AND a hometown boy on the ticket, he could barely even make a dent in Wisconsin, a perennial swing state.

Romney was a fairly clear loser in this one, and stayed a loser all the way out to the end. The fact the race was close at all is indicative of just how weak a President Obama was.

I agree with most of your points, except as follows

1) Wisconsin is not a perrenial swing state. Democrats have carried it in the last 7 elections. I'm not even sure why Romney made a play for it.

2) Romney couldn't close the deal because deep down, the base didn't trust him. Conservatives suspected he was a liberal, and Evangelicals didn't trust him because he was a Mormon. Unfortunately, the thinking now is that the real problem was that long primary chase damaged him, but not really. Being a weak candidate damaged him. If he was struggling with Santorum, Obama was going to cream him.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

No flames, please. I am just wondering how you see this election from an historical perspective. Does it signal a fundamental change in the relationship between our government and people and if so, in what direction are we headed? Will we remain the world's economic superpower? Will our debt become an albatross around our necks? Will religion still play an important role in our national identity? Where do you see us in 50 years?

It sure as hell was a watershed moment.The worst momenet in american history elections.The proof is in the pudding that we dont elect these people,that they are selected for us and put into office by the establishment.

They did not care if Obama got re relected or if Romney got in as long as it was one of those two because neither believe in the constitution and are both funded by the zionists and wall street here to serve them instead of us which is why our corrupt court system thoughout the lawsuit delegates of Romneys had who were being forced to be delegates of his instead of Pauls like they wanted to be and why the RNC made last minute rule changes at the convention sabotoging ron pauls strategy for delegates.

Because of that since we were going to be stuck with ONE of these clowns as the new president,im glad Obama was the one that got reelected since Romney stold the nomination from Paul.Paul didnt quit either this time,He was there till the end.

 

[rightwinger]

No flames, please. I am just wondering how you see this election from an historical perspective. Does it signal a fundamental change in the relationship between our government and people and if so, in what direction are we headed? Will we remain the world's economic superpower? Will our debt become an albatross around our necks? Will religion still play an important role in our national identity? Where do you see us in 50 years?

It sure as hell was a watershed moment.The worst momenet in american history elections.The proof is in the pudding that we dont elect these people,that they are selected for us and put into office by the establishment.

They did not care if Obama got re relected or if Romney got in as long as it was one of those two because neither believe in the constitution and are both funded by the zionists and wall street here to serve them instead of us which is why our corrupt court system thoughout the lawsuit delegates of Romneys had who were being forced to be delegates of his instead of Pauls like they wanted to be and why the RNC made last minute rule changes at the convention sabotoging ron pauls strategy for delegates.

Because of that since we were going to be stuck with ONE of these clowns as the new president,im glad Obama was the one that got reelected since Romney stold the nomination from Paul.Paul didnt quit either this time,He was there till the end.

Interesting

Who did you prefer over either Obama or Romney?

 

[mudwhistle]

Monday morning Quarterbacking.

If he had won everyone would have said it was pure genius.

If he had won, it would be because Obama blew the first debate. Romney had no chance, none, and was making zero progress towards a chance until Obama dropped the first debate.

Romney's campaign problems stem back to his last run in 2008. He has a poor sense of what he needs to be doing and an inability to close gaps or follow up on leads. I still recall Romney's "Historic Speech on Religion" back in 2008 because it was such a stupidly miscalculated move. He'd clearly lost and NO ONE CARED about his religion, and yet, he needed to make this epic sweeping game changing speech. Which did nothing.

Follow this up with 2012. Romney was the clear favorite to win the nomination and was facing a field of terrible candidates. If you seriously though Bachmann Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, or the rest of those jokers were ever serious candidates, you're mentally impaired.

And yet, Romney literally COULD NOT CLOSE THE DEAL. Despite a massive amount of resources, a better organization, and being the clear party favorite. In the end he only won because he had more cash and could literally buy wins away from Santorum, and Newt was too egotistical to drop out and give Santorum a clear path to victory.

Then you get to the general campaign, where despite the enormous resources of Romney's campaign and Super PAC's AND a hometown boy on the ticket, he could barely even make a dent in Wisconsin, a perennial swing state.

Romney was a fairly clear loser in this one, and stayed a loser all the way out to the end. The fact the race was close at all is indicative of just how weak a President Obama was.

That's always the excuse by the right while the left always says their message didn't get out to the people.

Romney was fighting an opponent that would stoop at nothing to win. There is only so much a decent human-being is willing to do. However we're not dealing with decent human-beings in the Obama Campaign.

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/ne...aign_program_could_change_the_2012_race_.html

 

[mudwhistle]

No flames, please. I am just wondering how you see this election from an historical perspective. Does it signal a fundamental change in the relationship between our government and people and if so, in what direction are we headed? Will we remain the world's economic superpower? Will our debt become an albatross around our necks? Will religion still play an important role in our national identity? Where do you see us in 50 years?

It sure as hell was a watershed moment.The worst momenet in american history elections.The proof is in the pudding that we dont elect these people,that they are selected for us and put into office by the establishment.

They did not care if Obama got re relected or if Romney got in as long as it was one of those two because neither believe in the constitution and are both funded by the zionists and wall street here to serve them instead of us which is why our corrupt court system thoughout the lawsuit delegates of Romneys had who were being forced to be delegates of his instead of Pauls like they wanted to be and why the RNC made last minute rule changes at the convention sabotoging ron pauls strategy for delegates.

Because of that since we were going to be stuck with ONE of these clowns as the new president,im glad Obama was the one that got reelected since Romney stold the nomination from Paul.Paul didnt quit either this time,He was there till the end.

Interesting

Who did you prefer over either Obama or Romney?

What part of "Romney stole the nomination from Ron Paul" didn't you understand?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

What part of "Romney stole the nomination from Ron Paul" didn't you understand?

The part where Paul had the nomination in the first place so Romney could steal it.

Romney was always going to be the GOP nominee. He was selected by the GOP Party officials, he had the backing of almost all of the major donors, and he had the best network of the GOP candidates in the primary. The fact he just couldn't sew up the nomination despite all that told you just how weak Mitt was. It isn't a surprise that Obama beat him, it's a surprise it was that close.

I'm pretty sympathetic with the Paul folks and agree with a decent chunk of his ideas, but Ron Paul doesn't have a shot at winning either major party nomination. He's too extreme for either party in his domestic and foreign policy. He and his supporters would be better served spending their time building a third party movement.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

That's always the excuse by the right while the left always says their message didn't get out to the people.

There's really no further excuse needed for the Right in this election than the weakness of Romney as a candidate. He was horrible at running his campaign and managed to botch every opportunity handed to him.

Obama SHOULD NOT HAVE WON RE-ELECTION any more than GWB should have. Both were extremely weak incumbents with terrible polling among the electorate. The reasons both won were:

1. They were incumbents. It's hard to unseat a sitting President.
2. Kerry and Romney were Massachusetts liberals that ran horrible campaigns.

Maybe the two parties will stop picking candidates from Massachusetts.

 

[mudwhistle]

That's always the excuse by the right while the left always says their message didn't get out to the people.

There's really no further excuse needed for the Right in this election than the weakness of Romney as a candidate. He was horrible at running his campaign and managed to botch every opportunity handed to him.

Obama SHOULD NOT HAVE WON RE-ELECTION any more than GWB should have. Both were extremely weak incumbents with terrible polling among the electorate. The reasons both won were:

1. They were incumbents. It's hard to unseat a sitting President.
2. Kerry and Romney were Massachusetts liberals that ran horrible campaigns.

Maybe the two parties will stop picking candidates from Massachusetts.

I think Kerry and Romney lost because they had r's in their names.

 

[rightwinger]

It sure as hell was a watershed moment.The worst momenet in american history elections.The proof is in the pudding that we dont elect these people,that they are selected for us and put into office by the establishment.

They did not care if Obama got re relected or if Romney got in as long as it was one of those two because neither believe in the constitution and are both funded by the zionists and wall street here to serve them instead of us which is why our corrupt court system thoughout the lawsuit delegates of Romneys had who were being forced to be delegates of his instead of Pauls like they wanted to be and why the RNC made last minute rule changes at the convention sabotoging ron pauls strategy for delegates.

Because of that since we were going to be stuck with ONE of these clowns as the new president,im glad Obama was the one that got reelected since Romney stold the nomination from Paul.Paul didnt quit either this time,He was there till the end.

Interesting

Who did you prefer over either Obama or Romney?

What part of "Romney stole the nomination from Ron Paul" didn't you understand?

Ron Paul?

That is even more bizarre than saying Obama stole the election from Romney

Ron Paul couldn't even get Republicans to vote for him