Obama Should Have Been More like Trump

[calamity]

The fact that you think Trump is "manly" speaks volumes about how far the right has gone off the deep end. You're all the people who grew up and never learned the difference between talking tough and being tough.

Donald Trump has the thinnest skin of any president I've ever seen. He gets into childish twitter slapfights with everyone. That's not tough, apdst. I really don't know how you got it in your head that a big manly tough man gets into insulting grieving widows. Obama ever do that? How about describing, repeatedly, a sitting US Senator as "liddle." Making fun of the height of a senator. Oooh, so tough. :lamo What a man.

To you, manly is just being an asshole, I guess. Yeah, that's conservatism for ya.

No man attacks grieving widows, even when he thinks they're attacking him. No man sits in the White House and gives dumb nicknames to other world leaders. No man claims to "know more about ISIS than the generals." These are the behaviors of a child. Not a man.

Alpha males are quiet and reserved; it's the yippers who have to pretend they are big and bad. Just watch dogs in a group. The alpha lets the little ones hump him all day. But, the Omega, he snarls at cats and ****. Trump is a Yipper. An Omega wimp who snarls at ***** cats.

 

[Dittohead not!]

When attacks go unanswered, even the fake Fox News kind, like they did during the Obama years, you lose. I think that has been proven.

You mean proven in the election of '12?

 

[BitterPill]

Specifically in regards to Garland, Obama should have hit the tweeter like the Dotard. No matter what is said, or who says it, Trump attacks via the social media platform. Prime example of that this week is seeing George HW Bush's anti-Donald comments not going without retort.

Contrast that with Obama, who simply took the hits and smiled. Bad strategy. Obviously going high when they go low is a stupid plan.

That garbage works with Trump's followers, but I don't it would work with Obama's followers.

 

[eohrnberger]

Real or not...the damage done by not fighting back is obvious. See below.

2009

2015

2017

So in response to the Democrat party losing political influence because of moving further left, your choice of the path forward is to move even further, harder to the left?

Does that really seem as a reasonable course of action to you?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Specifically in regards to Garland, Obama should have hit the tweeter like the Dotard. No matter what is said, or who says it, Trump attacks via the social media platform. Prime example of that this week is seeing George HW Bush's anti-Donald comments not going without retort.

Contrast that with Obama, who simply took the hits and smiled. Bad strategy. Obviously going high when they go low is a stupid plan.

Obama not only has a tendency to be a prick, he seems to like it, so the premise is bad.

 

[calamity]

You mean proven in the election of '12?

I mean in 10, 12, 14 and, most importantly, 16. You do realize that during those years the D's lost almost a 1000 seats in Congress, governorship and state legislators before finally losing the whole enchilada to a nut named Trump. Right?

 

[calamity]

So in response to the Democrat party losing political influence because of moving further left, your choice of the path forward is to move even further, harder to the left?

Does that really seem as a reasonable course of action to you?

You'll have to show me how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote. That should be interesting.

 

[calamity]

That garbage works with Trump's followers, but I don't it would work with Obama's followers.

I believe a constant drum beat railing against the GOP for freezing the Garland nomination would have been very effective.

 

[BitterPill]

I believe a constant drum beat railing against the GOP for freezing the Garland nomination would have been very effective.

Maybe it would have been effective, and I'm surprised the Democrats didn't attack McConnell's move more vigorously - probably didn't realize trump had a chance, but beating that drum like Trump would also mean employing bigotry, misogyny and, of course, pathological lying as Trump does.

I don't believe acting like Trump would have helped Obama. It certainly would have given me serious pause.

 

[eohrnberger]

You'll have to show me how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote. That should be interesting.

Your maps are showing a receding political relevancy by the Democrat party, specifically from what is was in 2009 to what it has become Jan 2017.
Gee. That's the same span of time in which Obama was president, was it not? (well roughly anyway).

If I understand your post, and I admit I may not have interpreted correctly, you think that Obama wasn't fighting back enough for the left's agenda.
Might it not also be that Obama was pushing too far left? More so than what the electorate was willing to accept?

I recall the deep divisions during the ObamaCare legislation and passage. Do you think that the left picked up more votes or fewer votes from the electorate as a result of this process? This shoving a deeply unpopular law down the throat of the nation? And things only went downhill from there.

You can see the impact that Obama and his agenda had on the Democrat party:

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Stunning Graph Shows the Wrecking Ball Obama Has Taken to the Democrat Party
Matthew K. Burke November 13, 2016
http://politistick.com/stunning-graph-shows-wrecking-ball-obama-taken-democrat-party/

And just this week we find that Obama left the Democrat party in dire financial straights, care of Donna Brazil, with a large deep hole which Hillary used as leverage to gain control of the entire DNC, and also led it to ruin in which is currently stands.

No, my friend, going further or harder left is the last thing the Democrat party needs and should do. It should return more to the center, where there are more votes and voters. But if you insist, do continue further, hard to the left, and inflict even greater damage, if you must.

 

[calamity]

Maybe it would have been effective, and I'm surprised the Democrats didn't attack McConnell's move more vigorously - probably didn't realize trump had a chance, but beating that drum like Trump would also mean employing bigotry, misogyny and, of course, pathological lying as Trump does.

I don't believe acting like Trump would have helped Obama. It certainly would have given me serious pause.

Funny thing is, Obama would not have had to lie, race bait or speak down to women in order to run McConnell's nose in it. Sad thing is, McConnell never had to worry about it anyway.

 

[calamity]

Your maps are showing a receding political relevancy by the Democrat party, specifically from what is was in 2009 to what it has become Jan 2017.
Gee. That's the same span of time in which Obama was president, was it not? (well roughly anyway).

If I understand your post, and I admit I may not have interpreted correctly, you think that Obama wasn't fighting back enough for the left's agenda.
Might it not also be that Obama was pushing too far left? More so than what the electorate was willing to accept?

I recall the deep divisions during the ObamaCare legislation and passage. Do you think that the left picked up more votes or fewer votes from the electorate as a result of this process? This shoving a deeply unpopular law down the throat of the nation? And things only went downhill from there.

You can see the impact that Obama and his agenda had on the Democrat party:


And just this week we find that Obama left the Democrat party in dire financial straights, care of Donna Brazil, with a large deep hole which Hillary used as leverage to gain control of the entire DNC, and also led it to ruin in which is currently stands.

No, my friend, going further or harder left is the last thing the Democrat party needs and should do. It should return more to the center, where there are more votes and voters. But if you insist, do continue further, hard to the left, and inflict even greater damage, if you must.

Ah, a born again follower of Donna Brazil now. Are ya?

 

[eohrnberger]

Ah, a born again follower of Donna Brazil now. Are ya?

No, just noticed the latest news reporting on her and her book.

Still, your post doesn't address the point that I raised, if you are willing to address it. Or perhaps not. That'll be fine as well.

 

[calamity]

No, just noticed the latest news reporting on her and her book.

Still, your post doesn't address the point that I raised, if you are willing to address it. Or perhaps not. That'll be fine as well.

IMO, Brazil is more to blame than Obama, but as I wrote in the OP, Obama not fighting back was definitely a huge problem.

 

[Perotista]

Specifically in regards to Garland, Obama should have hit the tweeter like the Dotard. No matter what is said, or who says it, Trump attacks via the social media platform. Prime example of that this week is seeing George HW Bush's anti-Donald comments not going without retort.

Contrast that with Obama, who simply took the hits and smiled. Bad strategy. Obviously going high when they go low is a stupid plan.

Wouldn't have mattered. The Democrats no longer controlled the senate when Garland was nominated. The republicans, McConnell had the votes to defeat Garland's nomination handily. Had McConnell let Garland's nomination come up for a vote, the GOP would have refused the confirmation 54-46, party line vote. This is why I will never understand why McConnell just didn't let the vote happen. He should have.

 

[cuban smokes]

Wouldn't have mattered. The Democrats no longer controlled the senate when Garland was nominated. The republicans, McConnell had the votes to defeat Garland's nomination handily. Had McConnell let Garland's nomination come up for a vote, the GOP would have refused the confirmation 54-46, party line vote. This is why I will never understand why McConnell just didn't let the vote happen. He should have.

McConnel is a ****ing weasel; a sign of bad luck & evil ...................... **** him ..............

 

[eohrnberger]

IMO, Brazil is more to blame than Obama, but as I wrote in the OP, Obama not fighting back was definitely a huge problem.

Yes you did, and perhaps Brazil does have some responsibility for the present DNC and Democrat party situation.

However, trying to push a center right nation further left hasn't proven itself as successful with the electorate, and your premise of "not fighting back", i.e. fighting back to push it further left than it wanted to go, as being advantageous somehow doesn't seem to stack up with the facts nor the current state without this "fighting back" that you speak of.

It is a fact, is it not, that the electorate is a bell curve, and that the most votes are in the middle of that bell curve. Shouldn't this be where the DNC and the Democrat party should be moving? Where the most voters are?

 

[Mycroft]

Specifically in regards to Garland, Obama should have hit the tweeter like the Dotard. No matter what is said, or who says it, Trump attacks via the social media platform. Prime example of that this week is seeing George HW Bush's anti-Donald comments not going without retort.

Contrast that with Obama, who simply took the hits and smiled. Bad strategy. Obviously going high when they go low is a stupid plan.

Obama didn't need to troll the media like Trump does. They were always on his side.

 

[Lovebug]

Obama didn't need to troll the media like Trump does. They were always on his side.

and there is that.

 

[eohrnberger]

Obama didn't need to troll the media like Trump does. They were always on his side.

and there is that.

Indeed. In the years of Obama, seems like the 'news' media turned over and played dead, with little more than softball questions and love in fests like Steve Crowley's. made me thrown up in my mouth that one did.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I mean in 10, 12, 14 and, most importantly, 16. You do realize that during those years the D's lost almost a 1000 seats in Congress, governorship and state legislators before finally losing the whole enchilada to a nut named Trump. Right?

I have to admit, you do have a point there.

But, had Obama picked fights like Trump is doing, would the Democrats have fared better? Surely the voters aren't that stupid, are they?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Obama didn't need to troll the media like Trump does. They were always on his side.

Not necessarily on his side, but he at least didn't pick a fight with the media.

 

[eohrnberger]

Not necessarily on his side, but he at least didn't pick a fight with the media.

Oh please. The media was on Obama's side. Never any tough questions, and softball interviews, love-ins basically, the pinnacle of which was the 60 Minutes interview by Steve Kroft, made me throw up in my mouth.

 

[calamity]

Oh please. The media was on Obama's side. Never any tough questions, and softball interviews, love-ins basically, the pinnacle of which was the 60 Minutes interview by Steve Kroft, made me throw up in my mouth.

You must mean how Hannity and the rest kiss Trump's ass on Fox News :roll:

 

[DebateMe1985]

Specifically in regards to Garland, Obama should have hit the tweeter like the Dotard. No matter what is said, or who says it, Trump attacks via the social media platform. Prime example of that this week is seeing George HW Bush's anti-Donald comments not going without retort.

Contrast that with Obama, who simply took the hits and smiled. Bad strategy. Obviously going high when they go low is a stupid plan.

I wish Obama would have been tough on immigration
this is main reason trump won.