U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Prokne]

That guy would be me. And I did give credit to Obama for killing Bin Laden, which you would know had you read the thread.

As for your statement about "Finding bin Laden wasnt a priority" in 2007, that wasn't my point either. I was objecting to Wells' statement that "Bush stopped looking for Bin Laden", which by the way, is different from it not being a priority. Again, you would have known that, if you had read the thread.

Apparently you didn't understand my post. I didn't say you specifically didn't give Obama credit for bin Laden's death, I didn't even say "all republicans" if you are a republican.

Also I answered your question and now you are just using a technicality to be stubborn. How about this: Bush stopped looking for Osama specifically but we were still looking for terrorists so it only makes sense that information about bin Laden would turn up since he is a terrorist.

[redruMPanda]

How many pages has it been since you mentioned Obama? The only think you want to discuss is Bush.

Here I'll end this whole discussion of Bush by using my internet logic for the learning impaired.

Obama>Bush

[Merkava]

...and I gave you solid facts to actually disprove everything you said...instead you ignore me and go after someone else. Go figure. -.-

Bush believed that Bin Laden was in Yemen or in on of the surrounding areas...he had his agents focused on the horn of africa the entire time. You would do well to give credit where credit is deserved to the Seal Team 6 and Obama for giving the executive order.

I did give credit. And even defended Obama as probably the only president who would have done it.

There's of course no way of knowing what someone else, elected president would have done, is there? All we have to go on is what they've said previously on the subject. And Barack Obama was called naive and inexperienced for announcing in 2007 that he would go into tribal regions of Pakistan (to say nothing of Abbottabad) to get Bin Laden or other high value targets. Hillary, Joe Biden (which is interesting because recently we learned that he was against the raid) and Chris Dodd all criticized Bin Laden for his position during the primary, and John McCain joined the chorus during the general election.

So, I would say it wasn't a call that any president of any party would have made.

I give Obama huge credit, and it was a gutsy call.

No offense, but show that you read my posts and I'll respond to you.

---------- Post added 2012-02-03 at 07:11 PM ----------

Apparently you didn't understand my post. I didn't say you specifically didn't give Obama credit for bin Laden's death, I didn't even say "all republicans" if you are a republican.

I'm a not a Republican, but fair enough. Point taken.

Also I answered your question and now you are just using a technicality to be stubborn. How about this: Bush stopped looking for Osama specifically but we were still looking for terrorists so it only makes sense that information about bin Laden would turn up since he is a terrorist.

Again, what does that mean, "Bush stopped looking for him?"

And, again, how did the knowledge of the courier's name "just turn up"? And remember the earlier standard of Bush stopping to look for Osama was the dissolution of the Bin Laden CIA unit that Wells cited.

---------- Post added 2012-02-03 at 07:14 PM ----------

Here I'll end this whole discussion of Bush by using my internet logic for the learning impaired.

Obama>Bush

Who's learning impaired, me or Wells? You quoted him, but I have this lingering suspicion...

[Prokne]

Obama's done just the right amount of flip flopping to get himself in I think.
Plus Romney's biggest hedge bet is the Mormons, and the Mormons are pretty pissed off at the whole "Let's take a shit on the Constitution." Which is pretty much their Holy Grail.

Please let me know how this administration is "taking a shit" on the constitution. The only thing I believe is unconstitutional is the DoD budget law that gives the government the right to arrest you and detain you without trial if they suspect you of terrorism which is against the right of habeus corpus in the Bill of Rights. This bill was approved by 90% of congress and even with a presidential veto could have been passed. Also the Supreme Court saying corporations are people is clearly not in the constitution but the Supreme Court is mostly conservative.

Mormons almost always vote for republicans because of conservative social views so Romney will not get any more votes from them than any other republican.

Again, what does that mean, "Bush stopped looking for him?"

And, again, how did the knowledge of the courier's name "just turn up"? And remember the earlier standard of Bush stopping to look for Osama was the dissolution of the Bin Laden CIA unit that Wells cited.

It means Bush stopped looking for Osama. He wasnt looking for him. There is more evidence for this from the fist post proving it than closing a CIA station including people in his own administration saying he didn't care about finding bin Laden. In contrast Obama told the CIA that catching or killing bin Laden was one of his highest priorities.

[Merkava]

It means Bush stopped looking for Osama. He wasnt looking for him. There is more evidence for this from the fist post proving it than closing a CIA station including people in his own administration saying he didn't care about finding bin Laden. In contrast Obama told the CIA that catching or killing bin Laden was one of his highest priorities.

Ok, that's' fine although I would say that the statement "Bush stopped looking for Osama" would mean that agencies or elements in his administration or under his control and authority were instructed by him, to stop their search. And I've seen very little evidence to support that.

You say that the closing of the the CIA unit isn't really evidence of this, and I'd agree, and say again that the closing of the CIA unit was Well's point, not mine, and that the flow of the discussion proceeded from there.

So if you have some evidence that Bush "stopped looking for Osama" feel free to link it here.

But the discussion had proceeded to a point where a couple of posters including Wells, had said that even though Bush had stopped the search for Osama, the intelligence community had continued collecting information in a passive manner. Wells said this

We take in all kinds of information from a huge number of sources and monitoring actions in a rather passive manner. Just because we found out about the courier doesn't mean we were really looking for or trying to catch Osama.

my emphasis.

This is the point that the discussion deviated, and several people responded to me at once, which is fine, it just took some time to sort it out. I'm nor sure if Wells is in the mood to reply to this, but I took his statement to mean two things. One, that even though Bush ordered certain agencies or elements under his authority to stop looking for Osama, counter terrorism intelligence gathering didn't stop altogether, and two, that is was through this type of passive monitoring that we learned the name of the courier in 2007. Would you agree with his statement as I've described it?

[vaajtswv]

His parents were not citizens when he was born, thus making him ineligible for office. If he was truly eligible to be in that office, he wouldn't have made such a fuss about releasing his certificate. He even sealed his records with an executive order almost immediately after being elected. But I know you Obama dick riders won't listen to logic. I mean, you do support Obama after all.

If you even cared about knowing his background, you'd know that his mother was a US citizens. But that's besides the point. You don't even know the laws governing what it takes to be a US citizen. Making up stuff as you go does not make it US law. If you're unwilling to educate yourself, simply accept that Obama is a US citizen.

[starlord]

im kind of worried for obama, seems the republican smear campaign has been quite effective.

[Dacien]

im kind of worried for obama, seems the republican smear campaign has been quite effective.

Republican attack coupled with Obama's shortcomings look to make this a more competitive race than some might believe. Depends on how effective Romney campaigns.

[starlord]

Republican attack coupled with Obama's shortcomings look to make this a more competitive race than some might believe. Depends on how effective Romney campaigns.

i think romney's the only one with a real chance.. hes got the "presidential look" about him the others lack.
i know i should focus on their policies etc, but a lot of people vote on that sort of thought level.

obama is much more charismatic though.

[Dacien]

i think romney's the only one with a real chance.. hes got the "presidential look" about him the others lack.
i know i should focus on their policies etc, but a lot of people vote on that sort of thought level.

obama is much more charismatic though.

Oh yeah, he's def more presidential-looking than any of the other Republican candidates, and a lot of people vote that way, oddly. But more than that, he's simply more electable than any of the other candidates. Most importantly, he has the best chance of defeating Obama.

[Shamanberry]

i think romney's the only one with a real chance.. hes got the "presidential look" about him the others lack.
i know i should focus on their policies etc, but a lot of people vote on that sort of thought level.

obama is much more charismatic though.

Thing about Romney is that he's got a bit too much of a "presidential look". He kinda looks like what you would expect an actor hired to play the president on a TV show would look like.

Dacien has it right, though, it's really going to come down to how well he campaigns, and how good his strategy is. If he plays a straight campaign on the issues, keeps the focus on Obama's record vs his economic plan and can keep independents from buying too much in to the democrats' class warfare attack plan that he (unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your take) is an all-too-easy target for, then he can win.

[Grummgug]

The crux of Obama's problem is this. Under his administration, we are not trying to grow the economy by selling goods and services to the world. Instead, we are trying to grow the economy by stimulus. Stimulus has 3 parts:

1. Creating more money by running up the federal debt.
2. Creating money by buying treasuries to also hold long-term interest rates low.
3. Cutting short-term interest rates low and holding them there for a long period of time.

This is called a weak-dollar policy. It is not healthy for an economy to do this. You can stimulate an economy to grow and lower unemployment using this method, but it has nasty side effects. If his policy succeeds, it will cause unemployment to fall, but prices to rise. Obama's policy is to destroy the dollar. That will get the economy moving, but it will get people to move out of dollars.

Where some people get confused though is that there is a bit of a lag effect. A 1% drop in the unemployment rate won't equate to an x% rise in the price of oil during the same time frame. Its a lot like how unemployment is a lagging indicator. The economy goes bad first, then unemployment starts rising about a year later. Likewise, the economy starts moving first, then unemployment improves maybe a year later. What is happening today is that unemployment has been dropping for a few months, but it won't show up in the price of oil right away.

If unemployment continues to fall, oil prices are going to go crazy high very soon though. Remember, the price of oil was $44/barrel when Obama was elected. Its $97/barrel now, and that's with unemployment rising sharply since Obama was elected. So now add people to the workforce who commute and burn gas, who buy goods from stores that are shipped via trucks that burn gas, and there is just a multiplier effect pushing oil prices higher. If you wanted to bring unemployment down to pre-banking crisis levels, factoring in the destruction of the dollar the past 4 years, oil would probably be north of $300/barrel.

In short, Obama will face one of two fates:

1. Obama's stimulus fails, and Americans vote him out of office due to high unemployment.
2. Obama's stimulus succeeds, and American vote him out of office due to high prices (especially the high price of gas).

This is because his policy to fix the nation is just awful. Its probably better for the nation if he failed, because if he succeeds, he will distort every sector of the economy and leave a huge mess for the next person to clean up.

[Zecora]

Here I'll end this whole discussion of Bush by using my internet logic for the learning impaired.

Obama>Bush

Yeeeah...but that's a bit like saying that it's better to get kicked in the arse than hit in the head by a brick. Doesn't take a lot to be better than Bush.

[La]

I have a question, why do people vote for the same thing? Like a sort of "I`ve voted Republican for 50 yearss and I ain`t changing, even if the Democrat is better!". I mean, I vote for who I think I would want to be president, not by what they`re labelled as running under. I get that they in the past may have done this or that or, maybe they have some odd belief here or there, but why set yourself to one?

I mean, I can`t imagine wanting to vote for a president who is anti-abortion, is against gay marriage, doesn`t believe people who make millions and millions whether, hard earned or not should be taxed more while people fight to keep their homes, working harder living a harder life, getting less, etc.

Right now all I can say is Obama has done NOTHING that I elected him to do, for someone so high on "change" i don`t expect that to happen in another 4 years, either. It meant a LOT to people when he said he`d get the troops home earlier, and all he did was follow Bush`s timeline.

[Tastyfish]

I don't understand this. Wait until which debates start? Debates between who, exactly?

Which ever of the two bigots, and Obama.
[LEFT]In 3 words i can explain to you why Mitt should not win: [FONT=arial black]Supports Posthumous Baptisms
<mod snip>

Careful about the religion-bashing, please. - Dacien

[Shamanberry]

I have a question, why do people vote for the same thing? Like a sort of "I`ve voted Republican for 50 yearss and I ain`t changing, even if the Democrat is better!".

It's hard to do. It's like if you love pizza, but hate pork chops. You could end up getting some great pork chops cooked by a 5-star chef and some cheap pizza. The former may be the better food by any objective measure, but it's still pork chops, so you'd probably enjoy the pizza more. Same deal - no matter who it is selling it, if you're a Democrat, it's hard to suddenly like a small-government, lower-taxes approach when what you want is a more services, government stimulus approach.

It would be more of a contest if the parties ran more varied candidates. I know a lot of democrats would swap over to vote for Ron Paul, for a solid example. If the democrats ran a "Blue Dog" (the fiscally moderate-right group of the Democratic party), then a lot of republicans would switch over for that. But when the ticket is always a conservative vs a liberal, it's hard to justify switching, no matter how charismatic the other guy is.

[obdigore]

It's hard to do. It's like if you love pizza, but hate pork chops. You could end up getting some great pork chops cooked by a 5-star chef and some cheap pizza. The former may be the better food by any objective measure, but it's still pork chops, so you'd probably enjoy the pizza more. Same deal - no matter who it is selling it, if you're a Democrat, it's hard to suddenly like a small-government, lower-taxes approach when what you want is a more services, government stimulus approach.

It would be more of a contest if the parties ran more varied candidates. I know a lot of democrats would swap over to vote for Ron Paul, for a solid example. If the democrats ran a "Blue Dog" (the fiscally moderate-right group of the Democratic party), then a lot of republicans would switch over for that. But when the ticket is always a conservative vs a liberal, it's hard to justify switching, no matter how charismatic the other guy is.

Except of course that the republicans aren't going for a smaller government approach anymore. This country has two political parties, the first is tax and spend and the second is spend and spend. Enjoy the blame game!

[Grummgug]

Not to nitpick, but blue-dog democrats are socially conservative Democrats.

The myth is that either party is fiscally conservative. The truth is that neither are(as obdigore said very eloquently, IMO).

The bolded is the myth. The truth is, the modern republican party has never held a supermajority in the United States. Without a supermajority, the democrats can block and stonewall them.

Take for example the Bush years, 2000-2008. Some people want to say the republicans had total power, but they did not. For one, Bush barely defeated Al Gore in 2000, via Supreme Court decision. He had no mandate to govern. Then Senator Jim Jeffords bolted from the GOP 4 months after Bush took office, which handed the Senate to the democrats. The democrats controlled the Senate in Bush's first term. Bush couldn't make major changes domestically in that environment.

Bush won re-election in 2004, and his party held control of both houses on congress. But they didn't have a supermajority. They couldn't push their domestic agenda without getting stonewalled by democrats. Even then, Bush opened his second term with an attempt to privatize social security , which is a MAJOR tentpole of fiscal conservatism. But they didn't have enough power in Washington to overcome democrat opposition, and it failed.

When Obama won in 2008, he won in a landslide and his party obtained a supermajority in congress. That allowed Obama to ram through Obamacare on a straight party vote.

The myth is that republicans aren't fiscally conservative. But as we have seen with Bush, they tried to privatize social security in 2005. They just didn't have enough power. What we need is for the republicans to control the white house plus a supermajority in congress. Given their past history, they should use it to enact a fiscally-conservative agenda.

[obdigore]

The bolded is the myth. The truth is, the modern republican party has never held a supermajority in the United States. Without a supermajority, the democrats can block and stonewall them.

Take for example the Bush years, 2000-2008. Some people want to say the republicans had total power, but they did not. For one, Bush barely defeated Al Gore in 2000, via Supreme Court decision. He had no mandate to govern. Then Senator Jim Jeffords bolted from the GOP 4 months after Bush took office, which handed the Senate to the democrats. The democrats controlled the Senate in Bush's first term. Bush couldn't make major changes domestically in that environment.

Bush won re-election in 2004, and his party held control of both houses on congress. But they didn't have a supermajority. They couldn't push their domestic agenda without getting stonewalled by democrats. Even then, Bush opened his second term with an attempt to privatize social security , which is a MAJOR tentpole of fiscal conservatism. But they didn't have enough power in Washington to overcome democrat opposition, and it failed.

When Obama won in 2008, he won in a landslide and his party obtained a supermajority in congress. That allowed Obama to ram through Obamacare on a straight party vote.

The myth is that republicans aren't fiscally conservative. But as we have seen with Bush, they tried to privatize social security in 2005. They just didn't have enough power. What we need is for the republicans to control the white house plus a supermajority in congress. Given their past history, they should use it to enact a fiscally-conservative agenda.

Why did Bush lower taxes and increase the size of the government.

The truth is that the republican party, from what they have done since Clintons era, are not fiscally responsible or fiscally conservative, which is why you didn't get that agenda. The GOP claims to be fiscally conservative, so that they can get votes from people who like that sort of thing (and all smart people do, to an extent.). They just don't follow through, just like the Dems dont follow through on their socially liberal agenda.

If you are claiming that Bush did not have a supermajority and Obama did, we see your bias come to life. Do you honestly think the blue dogs vote along party lines at all times? Did you ignore those months where Obama asked for input from the GOP, even though he apparently didn't need to since you claim he had a supermajority?

[Grummgug]

Why did Bush lower taxes and increase the size of the government.

The truth is that the republican party, from what they have done since Clintons era, are not fiscally responsible or fiscally conservative, which is why you didn't get that agenda. The GOP claims to be fiscally conservative, so that they can get votes from people who like that sort of thing (and all smart people do, to an extent.). They just don't follow through, just like the Dems dont follow through on their socially liberal agenda.

If you are claiming that Bush did not have a supermajority and Obama did, we see your bias come to life. Do you honestly think the blue dogs vote along party lines at all times? Did you ignore those months where Obama asked for input from the GOP, even though he apparently didn't need to since you claim he had a supermajority?

Bush did not have a supermajority in congress. Bush did not have a domestic mandate. He never had the power to fundamentally change the domestic agenda of the United States. He had to compromise with democrats. To get tax cuts, he had give the democrats something - he boosted the size of the government.

From 2006-2008, Bush had to work with a democrats controlling both houses of congress, and his polls in the 30% range. He can't push a conservative agenda in that position.

---------- Post added 2012-02-05 at 08:49 PM ----------

If the republicans ever win a supermajority (and remember, its never happened in modern times) and they don't push fiscally conservative reforms, then you can say they are for big government. But you can't have them constantly weak, constantly being forced to compromise, while the democrats get supermajorities when they are in office, and expect change.

---------- Post added 2012-02-05 at 08:52 PM ----------

The story of US politics for the last 80 years has been strong, powerful democratic supermajorities that push big government, and weak republican regimes that hold the line as best they can but never have enough power to cut government.