• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Obama voters only!

Vote now:


  • Total voters
    57

Mlinsenbigler

New member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The reason I go after President Obama for that is he is constantly railing against Boehner. I'm not defending Boehner as much as criticizing the President for blatant partisanship. The Senate has gotten NOTHING done during his Presidency but you don't hear about that. All your hear from him is the House this, the House that. The House is passing a budget every year. That's not something special, it's something they are supposed to do by law. The Senate, by law, is supposed to as well. No one notices that, especially him. He continues to criticize the House and Tea Partiers for what he calls "bailing out the rich" when the Senate can't even execute the most basic of required functions. That's my problem concerning that issue. He should use his power as a way to push the Senate to do what it's supposed to do. He doesn't because his party controls it.

The thing is though, if he was tougher on the Ds in the Senate it wouldn't matter because the Rs in the Senate would filibuster any legislation that might reflect good on the Pres. I feel the same frustrations about the Senate not getting crap done. And I can understand where your coming from about the partisenship too, its frustrating when the politicians are more worried about criticizing the other side and their views instead of working to solve the problems that are facing the nation today. I just don't think it's 100% fair to call out the Pres. for being partisan and not say anything about the partisanship of the other side, you know.
'
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
By only one vote both this year and last year. Republicans in the Senate voted against Republican House budgets so it's obvious the Republicans in the Senate do the same thing as their Democrat neighbors. Expecting 100% solidarity in politics is a pipe dream.

Doesn't matter. His party controls it, therefore he would have to call Harry Reid out. He will never do that. BTW, I don't like Republicans anymore than Dems. I'm just pointing out the hackery of our President.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The thing is though, if he was tougher on the Ds in the Senate it wouldn't matter because the Rs in the Senate would filibuster any legislation that might reflect good on the Pres. I feel the same frustrations about the Senate not getting crap done. And I can understand where your coming from about the partisenship too, its frustrating when the politicians are more worried about criticizing the other side and their views instead of working to solve the problems that are facing the nation today. I just don't think it's 100% fair to call out the Pres. for being partisan and not say anything about the partisanship of the other side, you know.
'

Sorry, but its hard to call out the Republican President we don't have. President Obama is a Democrat and Democrats are sucking just as bad as Republicans right now. The difference is the Dems are getting called on it like the other side.
 

Mlinsenbigler

New member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Sorry, but its hard to call out the Republican President we don't have. President Obama is a Democrat and Democrats are sucking just as bad as Republicans right now. The difference is the Dems are getting called on it like the other side.

I didn't suggest you call out a none existent president. But you can call out the Senate Rs for, very literally, stopping Congress from doing their job ( Its not Obama in there using the filibuster ). I would have to apologize to you in advance because I know your not going to like what I say, but the Ds are doing a damn good job taking into consideration their working with a party whos leaders have said that their job is to make Obama a one term president. And I don't know why you think Pres. Obama hasn't been called out, just Youtube or Google "obama called out" he gets it from both sides. The reason things aren't getting done in the Senate or the House is because of the Senate and the House, not the president. His job is not to baby sit the Congress; its to protect our country. He's killed more AQ leadership in his first three and a half years than Bush did in his eight. His leadership in Libya helped lead to the ultimate death of Khadaffy, a man who killed American citizens. He has ended a combat role in Iraq, and has drawn out a very specific deadline in Afghanistan. Don't forget, he ordered the killing of OBL. On the domestic front he has taken us out of recession and consistently added jobs to the work force. Lowered taxes to the lowest rate since 1950 ( which I don't like, but shows he is willing to compromise with the other party )... He is a great president, and we would like your support this upcoming election cycle. Look at the other guy, do you really think he could do a better job? I mean, just because he is rich doesn't mean he has a magic wond that creates jobs.
 

dontworrybehappy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
1,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I didn't suggest you call out a none existent president. But you can call out the Senate Rs for, very literally, stopping Congress from doing their job ( Its not Obama in there using the filibuster ). I would have to apologize to you in advance because I know your not going to like what I say, but the Ds are doing a damn good job taking into consideration their working with a party whos leaders have said that their job is to make Obama a one term president. And I don't know why you think Pres. Obama hasn't been called out, just Youtube or Google "obama called out" he gets it from both sides. The reason things aren't getting done in the Senate or the House is because of the Senate and the House, not the president. His job is not to baby sit the Congress; its to protect our country. He's killed more AQ leadership in his first three and a half years than Bush did in his eight. His leadership in Libya helped lead to the ultimate death of Khadaffy, a man who killed American citizens. He has ended a combat role in Iraq, and has drawn out a very specific deadline in Afghanistan. Don't forget, he ordered the killing of OBL. On the domestic front he has taken us out of recession and consistently added jobs to the work force. Lowered taxes to the lowest rate since 1950 ( which I don't like, but shows he is willing to compromise with the other party )... He is a great president, and we would like your support this upcoming election cycle. Look at the other guy, do you really think he could do a better job? I mean, just because he is rich doesn't mean he has a magic wond that creates jobs.

All I can say is holy crap, I wouldn't know where to start. It's like walking back to your house after a tornado with nothing but debris everywhere. I think this post is too far gone to save.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I didn't suggest you call out a none existent president. But you can call out the Senate Rs for, very literally, stopping Congress from doing their job ( Its not Obama in there using the filibuster ). I would have to apologize to you in advance because I know your not going to like what I say, but the Ds are doing a damn good job taking into consideration their working with a party whos leaders have said that their job is to make Obama a one term president. And I don't know why you think Pres. Obama hasn't been called out, just Youtube or Google "obama called out" he gets it from both sides. The reason things aren't getting done in the Senate or the House is because of the Senate and the House, not the president. His job is not to baby sit the Congress; its to protect our country. He's killed more AQ leadership in his first three and a half years than Bush did in his eight. His leadership in Libya helped lead to the ultimate death of Khadaffy, a man who killed American citizens. He has ended a combat role in Iraq, and has drawn out a very specific deadline in Afghanistan. Don't forget, he ordered the killing of OBL. On the domestic front he has taken us out of recession and consistently added jobs to the work force. Lowered taxes to the lowest rate since 1950 ( which I don't like, but shows he is willing to compromise with the other party )... He is a great president, and we would like your support this upcoming election cycle. Look at the other guy, do you really think he could do a better job? I mean, just because he is rich doesn't mean he has a magic wond that creates jobs.

You're going to have to wait until the weekend for me to respond to this because I just don't have the hour to dedicate to it right now. Believe you me, I will though.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
.....if we are just going to go ahead and add another 1.5 trillion dollar to the debt because Congressional Rs. want to give a huge tax break to the WEALTHIEST people in our society (Bush/Obama tax cuts).
Oh the irony. It's Congressional R's fault for the Bush/OBAMA tax cuts when A) The Senate where Dem controlled when it was originally passed and B) The Senate is still Dem controlled C) The tax cuts were passed by the Dem controlled House and Senate in 2010.
Also, don't act like those tax cuts don't effect anyone other than the rich. They effect everyone and you know it.

And we can't only look at cuts to solve the problems we are facing. I mean look at Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, they all cut, cut, cut their governments and now they are on their way to bring down the Euro-zone. They needed to, and we need to, stimulate the economy, consolidate government programs, and like you said cut the wasteful spending. But the beef I have is that one side (Rs) won't even acknowledge the only way we are going to close the gap in the deficit and ultimately lower the national debt is by increasing taxes.
The fact of the matter is, you don't raise taxes when the gov't is spending millions on researching shrimp running on treadmills and funding Pakistani Sesame Street. By your account, we should raise taxes so we can fund more programs like these. When our gov't actually makes some real cuts, cuts to stupid programs like those, then we can talk about taxes.
The reason the Euro austerity isn't working is because it was done irresponsibly. They cut huge portions of their gov't virtually overnight. No one is saying that should happen. However, cuts should be made in a slow and responsible manner. I agree that we can't just cut people off from money they depend on ie welfare, Medicaid/care, etc. Those programs need to be reformed, the reforms need to be instituted over a period of time, and a "grandfathering" agreement should be put into play for a certain age.

We have three different branches of government, all with a specific job, the Pres. does not run the Senate, he is not the boss of Reid or Boehner. All and all I think the Pres. is a civil person, even when he is criticizing someone, not like most R's who call his a "Liar" or "the most Leftist president in US history" or insist that "Pres. Obama is wants the economy to fail". The Presidents constitutional responsibilities are as commander-and-chief of the US Military to over see foreign policy, not economic policy. The Congress is responsible for the problems pertaining to our fiscal policies and our overall economy. And even so, the Senate Ds wouldn't be able to pass a budget when the Rs would just filibuster because they don't want history to show that when Ds were running things they got stuff done. I probably couldn't find a quote of Pres. Obama criticizing Reid, could you find a quote of Boehner criticizing, McConnoll for leading the Senate in filibuster history, probably not because those (both Rs and Ds) bastards kiss each others arses.

The POTUS is responsible for economic policy because he has to approve of policy passed, does he not? In addition, the excuse you give the Senate is a cop out. Why do we pay our Senators if they can just throw their hands up and say screw it when they can't come to an agreement? Harry Reid is the Senate Majority leader. As such, he should lead the Senate to a budget, simple as that. The POTUS, instead of focusing on bickering through the media with Boehner, should apply pressure to the Senate to DO THEIR JOB that they are obligated to do BY LAW. I don't understand why our President feels like he can address Trayvon Martin, the NCAA basketball tourney, or the Kardashians marriage arrangements but not his Senate failing to do their job for 3 straight years. He is the leader of the country. As such, he should lead by addressing the issue with the Senate.
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't understand why our President feels like he can address Trayvon Martin, the NCAA basketball tourney, or the Kardashians marriage arrangements but not his Senate failing to do their job for 3 straight years. He is the leader of the country. As such, he should lead by addressing the issue with the Senate.
You mean how a previous president got involved in case about a woman in a coma???
 

Mlinsenbigler

New member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Oh the irony. It's Congressional R's fault for the Bush/OBAMA tax cuts when A) The Senate where Dem controlled when it was originally passed and B) The Senate is still Dem controlled C) The tax cuts were passed by the Dem controlled House and Senate in 2010.
Also, don't act like those tax cuts don't effect anyone other than the rich. They effect everyone and you know it.
Yes it is the Rs fault for the Bush/Obama tax cuts. Before Obama repassed them the were called the Bush tax cuts for a reason, Bush and Rs drafted them. I put fault on Obama for repassing them, don't think i'm some partisan trying to defend that, I'm just defending the fact he doesn't run the Senate. And they do effect everyone, the rich get tax breaks and the poor feel the cuts in all the social program cuts.


The fact of the matter is, you don't raise taxes when the gov't is spending millions on researching shrimp running on treadmills and funding Pakistani Sesame Street. By your account, we should raise taxes so we can fund more programs like these. When our gov't actually makes some real cuts, cuts to stupid programs like those, then we can talk about taxes.
I agree, wasteful spend needs to be addressed, but I don't hold Pres Obama accountable for what should be a discussion that should be happening in Congress. But the fact is, if your trying to address the debt and deficit, your going to need to raise taxes. You can't close the gap in the budget deficit by not cutting wasteful spending and not collecting taxes, and can't reduce the national debt unless the economy is doing good. The way you get the economy to prosper is by having more people buying and selling goods and services, the way the government can promote the buying and selling of goods and services is to make sure it is funding programs like food stamps, unemployment, and job retraining and not cutting funding for all these programs. (which Congressional Rs have repeatedly proposed in many different pieces of legislation )

The reason the Euro austerity isn't working is because it was done irresponsibly. They cut huge portions of their gov't virtually overnight. No one is saying that should happen. However, cuts should be made in a slow and responsible manner. I agree that we can't just cut people off from money they depend on ie welfare, Medicaid/care, etc. Those programs need to be reformed, the reforms need to be instituted over a period of time, and a "grandfathering" agreement should be put into play for a certain age.
The Rs might not be purposing to cut all government spending overnight, but they have made a pledge to Grover Norquest to not increase tax revenue one cent. They want to cut everything and more but can't raise taxes even when taxes are at a 60 year low. 60YEAR LOW. The rich are doing the best they ever had, meaning they have never been richer. It seems to me that we agree about what should be happening we are just in disagreement on who to hold accountable for why it's not happeneing. Respectfully I disagree with you, you can not hold the president accountable for what the congress is or is not doing..... breaking news, spending is lower dollar for dollar under Obama than the last five presidents....


The POTUS is responsible for economic policy because he has to approve of policy passed, does he not? In addition, the excuse you give the Senate is a cop out. Why do we pay our Senators if they can just throw their hands up and say screw it when they can't come to an agreement? Harry Reid is the Senate Majority leader. As such, he should lead the Senate to a budget, simple as that. The POTUS, instead of focusing on bickering through the media with Boehner, should apply pressure to the Senate to DO THEIR JOB that they are obligated to do BY LAW. I don't understand why our President feels like he can address Trayvon Martin, the NCAA basketball tourney, or the Kardashians marriage arrangements but not his Senate failing to do their job for 3 straight years. He is the leader of the country. As such, he should lead by addressing the issue with the Senate.

He has veto power yes, but he does not write legislation. It's not a cop out if it's true. very basic. There are 57 Ds, 40 Rs, 2 Is (cacuse with Ds) one empty seat because Sen. Kennedy died. lets just say 60 Ds 40 Rs. In order to pass legislation under the filibuster you need 2/3 votes. 2/3 or 100 is 66.6 lets say 66 to round down, guess what the Ds don't have 66 to break a filibuster to do their jobs. why because Senate Rs are filibustering. Heres a graph hope it can paint a better picture than I can. Google Image Result for http://www.discourseanddiatribe.com/filibuster_files/image002.gif
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes it is the Rs fault for the Bush/Obama tax cuts. Before Obama repassed them the were called the Bush tax cuts for a reason, Bush and Rs drafted them. I put fault on Obama for repassing them, don't think i'm some partisan trying to defend that, I'm just defending the fact he doesn't run the Senate. And they do effect everyone, the rich get tax breaks and the poor feel the cuts in all the social program cuts.


I agree, wasteful spend needs to be addressed, but I don't hold Pres Obama accountable for what should be a discussion that should be happening in Congress. But the fact is, if your trying to address the debt and deficit, your going to need to raise taxes. You can't close the gap in the budget deficit by not cutting wasteful spending and not collecting taxes, and can't reduce the national debt unless the economy is doing good. The way you get the economy to prosper is by having more people buying and selling goods and services, the way the government can promote the buying and selling of goods and services is to make sure it is funding programs like food stamps, unemployment, and job retraining and not cutting funding for all these programs. (which Congressional Rs have repeatedly proposed in many different pieces of legislation )


The Rs might not be purposing to cut all government spending overnight, but they have made a pledge to Grover Norquest to not increase tax revenue one cent. They want to cut everything and more but can't raise taxes even when taxes are at a 60 year low. 60YEAR LOW. The rich are doing the best they ever had, meaning they have never been richer. It seems to me that we agree about what should be happening we are just in disagreement on who to hold accountable for why it's not happeneing. Respectfully I disagree with you, you can not hold the president accountable for what the congress is or is not doing..... breaking news, spending is lower dollar for dollar under Obama than the last five presidents....




He has veto power yes, but he does not write legislation. It's not a cop out if it's true. very basic. There are 57 Ds, 40 Rs, 2 Is (cacuse with Ds) one empty seat because Sen. Kennedy died. lets just say 60 Ds 40 Rs. In order to pass legislation under the filibuster you need 2/3 votes. 2/3 or 100 is 66.6 lets say 66 to round down, guess what the Ds don't have 66 to break a filibuster to do their jobs. why because Senate Rs are filibustering. Heres a graph hope it can paint a better picture than I can. Google Image Result for http://www.discourseanddiatribe.com/filibuster_files/image002.gif

I will respond to your entire post with this.
1) Senate: President Obama is not the leader of the Senate, I agree. But, he's not the leader of the House either. So why do you think he feels the need to address issues with the House but not the Senate? I believe it's because his party controls the Senate and it would require him to call out a fellow Dem to do that.
2) Taxes: Your statements on taxes show the exact socialist like mentality that President Obama possesses. You statement was "You can't close the gap in the budget deficit by not cutting wasteful spending and not collecting taxes" [/I]"the way the government can promote the buying and selling of goods and services is to make sure it is funding programs like food stamps, unemployment, and job retraining and not cutting funding for all these programs" I have a few issues with this. A) The gov't should not be into market dictation. Which is what this is. B) By your logic, we should take money from the middle to upper class to give to the lower class. Who do you think is more likely to invest their money, the lower class or the other two? The lower class is worried about paying the electric bill. The other two classes take the additional income from tax breaks and use it on the market. I don't believe in putting people in a ditch, but a I also don't agree with paying people a year of unemployment when I'm driving by a McDonalds with help wanted signs out. C) The rich are doing well, as good as they ever have. However, when the rich do well, what does the gov't get more of? Taxes. Thats how it works.
3)Spending: "breaking news, spending is lower dollar for dollar under Obama than the last five presidents...." Let's see proof of that.
4)Filibusters: The reason Dems were kicked out of the House and Senate is because spending was out of control. The graph below shows that. The people that replaced them, Tea Party types, were put there to stop spending. That is what they have done. The people spoke and got what they wanted. Just because it's not what you want doesn't mean that it's not what others wanted.
untitled.jpg
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And that has what to do with the current subject?
You're the one that introduced the idea of stupid things presidents do, not me. You listed a couple and I added one more. :shrug:
 
Last edited:

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
He should be a shoe-in. I've got no idea what the GOP's strategy for this upcoming election is, I'm pretty sure they, themselves, have no idea. The GOP keeps pushing further to the right, when they need to lean to the center to attract the undecided, independents, and moderates.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're the one that introduced the idea of stupid things presidents do, not me. You listed a couple and I added one more. :shrug:

I introduced stupid things the current POTUS is doing. You brought up things the POTUS prior to him did, there by introducing the typical strawman when a criticism of President Obama is introduced.
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I introduced stupid things the current POTUS is doing. You brought up things the POTUS prior to him did, there by introducing the typical strawman when a criticism of President Obama is introduced.
It's not a strawman if it shows that it's common practice among presidents to do this kind of thing. If you bitched about Obama taking a vacation I would also point to other presidents taking vacations. It's typical behavior for any president to do these things and unworthy of any special attention in debate.
 
Last edited:

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not a strawman if it shows that it's common practice among presidents to do this kind of thing. If you bitched about Obama taking a vacation I would also point to other presidents taking vacations. It's typical behavior for any president to do these things and unworthy of any special attention in debate.

So, by your account, we can't "bitch" about anything any POTUS has done if another has done it before? You are fine with something that should not be a common practice simply because it is a common practice? In addition, President Obama is clearly the most socially involved POTUS we have ever had. I don't ever remember a POTUS going on ESPN to give them his NCAA tourney bracket. I don't recall a POTUS discussing TV shows with people on a regular basis, much less a reality show. It is a very worthy of special attention in a debate when the POTUS fails to address the Senate serving during his Presidency is breaking Federal law for 3 straight years by not passing a budget yet has time to do the aforementioned things. But if you're good with that, that's your perogative.
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, by your account, we can't "bitch" about anything any POTUS has done if another has done it before? You are fine with something that should not be a common practice simply because it is a common practice? In addition, President Obama is clearly the most socially involved POTUS we have ever had. I don't ever remember a POTUS going on ESPN to give them his NCAA tourney bracket. I don't recall a POTUS discussing TV shows with people on a regular basis, much less a reality show. It is a very worthy of special attention in a debate when the POTUS fails to address the Senate serving during his Presidency is breaking Federal law for 3 straight years by not passing a budget yet has time to do the aforementioned things. But if you're good with that, that's your perogative.
No, you can bitch all you want. But you shouldn't be too surprised when someone else also bitches about the same thing, whether it's the current Pres or not. :shrug:

Personally, I wish they would ALL, POTUS and Congress, pay much more attention to their job. However, the system we live in suggests they will all continue to pander to the Media more than work with each other. :(

Ed:
And, quite frankly, no one knows what goes on behind closed doors in DC. For all we know he has been urging them to do something - but that doesn't mean they have to listen to him. After all, they are separate branches of government. One does not report to the other.
 
Last edited:

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ed:
And, quite frankly, no one knows what goes on behind closed doors in DC. For all we know he has been urging them to do something - but that doesn't mean they have to listen to him. After all, they are separate branches of government. One does not report to the other.

What I do know is that he calls out John Boehner and the House pubicly all the time. Just wondering why the double standard is all. Wait, nevermind, I know why. It's that whole (D) thing. Partisan hackery is really getting old with our gov't, I think we can agree.
 

TheLastIndependent

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
466
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Anyone who is very sure is undermining the "adaptiblity" of Romney. He can form to any situation that pops up. That is good in that that is a key characteristic of a president, however he has proven that he abuses it. He forms not to better policy, but to better his position. I think Obama has been a decent president so far and that the right is selling his accomplishments short. I'm not one for pointing fingers but I dont think that we should elect someone from a party who put their country behind their personal gain. Saying that their main goal is to make Obama a one term president could very well be a vital mistake. One of my favorite quotes said by my basketball coach who he got from who knows where :"The main thing is to make the main thing the main thing." So far, the Republicans in power have not done so with the exception of a select few. The greatest example is Boehner with the default crisis. He made a deal with Obama and other advisors, said it was good, and then came on tv and was against a deal that he helped construct. I think Romney would do the same thing as it would make him look like a conservative savior. His track record in Mass was good, yet he hides the actual what of what he did as if it were despicable. Either way, I don't think that either presidency will be all bad. The only candidates that I feared are out. Romney is a seasoned politician and knows his way around a government. I think it's gonna he really close, but I think Obama will have his glove raised at the final bell
 

TheLastIndependent

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
466
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What I do know is that he calls out John Boehner and the House pubicly all the time. Just wondering why the double standard is all. Wait, nevermind, I know why. It's that whole (D) thing. Partisan hackery is really getting old with our gov't, I think we can agree.

Partisanship is crushing America. Compromise is the only way to work. No one side is completely correct, but both sides together is incredibly strong. That's why the 90's was filled with success; we had success together in government.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Partisanship is crushing America. Compromise is the only way to work. No one side is completely correct, but both sides together is incredibly strong. That's why the 90's was filled with success; we had success together in government.

Things were different in the 90's. The left is more far left and the right doesn't know what it believes anymore. We need a new party, preferably a libertarian like party, to gain traction.
 

TheLastIndependent

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
466
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Things were different in the 90's. The left is more far left and the right doesn't know what it believes anymore. We need a new party, preferably a libertarian like party, to gain traction.

The polarization of the parties can be fixed though. When the silent majority steps up and says that they arent afraid to compromise, then we will have a strong nation. As long as this loud, obnoxious, and relatively small group of legislators are yelling, we will have a mess. The simplest solution is using the democratic process and voting these people out. A third party would be nice, but further complicates our already Byzantine government.
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just wondering why the double standard is all. Wait, nevermind, I know why. It's that whole (D) thing. Partisan hackery is really getting old with our gov't, I think we can agree.
It's that whole (R) thing, as well, which is what I've been trying to say for three posts. Yes, it's partisan hackery.


I've been watching this circus awhile but regardless of how bad things got in public, these guys usually knew they were there to take the lumps & bumps and get **** done. Today they've lost that, they don't want to negotiate, it's either their way or the highway. Well, it doesn't work that way in DC. Insisting on everything being your own way only stalls the process, so nothing moves forward. :(
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The polarization of the parties can be fixed though. When the silent majority steps up and says that they arent afraid to compromise, then we will have a strong nation. As long as this loud, obnoxious, and relatively small group of legislators are yelling, we will have a mess. The simplest solution is using the democratic process and voting these people out. A third party would be nice, but further complicates our already Byzantine government.

Eh, you get more of the same from the two parties because of the role of money in our politics. Superpacs aren't going to back Joe Schmo. They will back the guy that will scratch their back once elected. In other words, they will back the typical politician. Not an honest American. Also, the uneducated masses that is the American population sees John Doe (R) and John Doe II (D) on the ballot and votes for what their parents voted for or the name they are most familiar with. Voting people out sounds all well and good, but, I just don't have the confidence in our population that A) Isn't smart enough to figure it out B) Doesnt care enough to figure it out C) Continues to elect nuts like this lady
imagesCALCEQSR.jpg
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Things were different in the 90's. The left is more far left and the right doesn't know what it believes anymore. We need a new party, preferably a libertarian like party, to gain traction.
The right is more far right as well. What both sides are missing is the "old fashioned" conservatives. Yes, there used to be things like that, conservative D's and conservative R's. D's that understood the need for a strong military and R's that weren't afraid of social programs and education, especially the latter. We've lost that group in DC because media sensationalism has taken over politics. (To some extent it's also altered the public worldview.) The ones heard more and more are the radicals on both sides, so we end up with more of them in DC. :(
 
Top Bottom