Democrats Are Privately Calling Obama "Detached," "Flat Footed," "Incompetent"

Good. Run on it. Tell everybody about the reality of how good Obamacare really is and how good the economy really is.

I'm not stopping you. I'm encouraging you. I want you to tell everyone to not believe their lying eyes. I think it's a good move for your party.

I'm not interested in campaign strategy, and I don't claim to know a lot about it. But factually, the ACA has exceeded expectations on every turn. And factually, the U.S. has been one of the top performers among industrialized nations since the GFC. You can argue about how to spin it or whatever, but those are black and white.

Ed: Oh, shit. You're the racist troll that I was trying not to give attention to. Get an AV, please.
 
Really? Every bill that would've helped veterans has been met with a filibuster. Strike that, every bill proposed/supported by President Obama has been met with filibuster. He's the most filibustered President in history. He hasn't been "doing nothing" as you put. He hasn't been allowed to do anything.

Sounds like a campaign speech/I'm sure the Republicans never had a VA bill of their own.

As it would turn out, they are not in charge of the Executive/Leadership branch of the government, that has by everyone's admission except the White House has -not- given any priority to the VA problem, despite Obama's claims to the contrary.

It's a very, very lonely argument these days.
 
Really? Every bill that would've helped veterans has been met with a filibuster. Strike that, every bill proposed/supported by President Obama has been met with filibuster. He's the most filibustered President in history. He hasn't been "doing nothing" as you put. He hasn't been allowed to do anything.

But hey do not take it from me, take it from CNN who outright says President Obama did little to nothing and is being dishonest.

"Obama, Shinseki stories on VA medical care don't add up"
By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst
updated 8:59 AM EDT, Fri May 23, 2014

An excerpt:" But as admirable as Shinseki's and Obama's records have been on behalf of veterans, the story line the administration has been peddling about the VA's care of veterans simply doesn't fit the facts. The underlying problem at the heart of this scandal -- excessive, long waits for medical care for veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan -- has persisted for years.

Running for the White House, candidate Obama promised action. Soon after he took over the VA, Shinseki did take action, ordering that henceforth veterans would not have to wait more than 14 days for a medical appointment.

But the bureaucracy at the VA, second only to the Pentagon in size, is notoriously sluggish. In 2010 -- four years ago! -- the deputy undersecretary of the VA wrote a nine-page memo saying that in order to cover up their continued delays, various parts of the VA system were engaged in "gaming strategies" -- in effect, lying.

The General Accounting Office and VA inspector generals wrote reports saying the practice was widespread. One would have thought that would have set off alarm bells at both the VA and the White House. Where was the anger then? There were some internal investigations, but they never went anywhere and there was little apparent sense of urgency."

Full article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/opinion/gergen-veterans-obama-shinseki/
 
I'm not interested in campaign strategy, and I don't claim to know a lot about it. But factually, the ACA has exceeded expectations on every turn.

Well, that must be why Obama has still yet to unveil the employer mandate then, why he keeps delaying it time after time - because he really wants to save the good stuff for last.

And factually, the U.S. has been one of the top performers among industrialized nations since the GFC. You can argue about how to spin it or whatever, but those are black and white.

Here are more black and white stats.

* Unemployment rate - 6.3% (higher than any point in the last six years of the Clinton administration and the first seven and a half years of Bush administration)

* Labor Force Participation Rate - 62.8%, lower than anytime since the 1970s.

* Poverty rate higher than at any time since the 1960s.

So, yeah, go ahead and run on those black and white stats. I dare you. I double dare you.
 
IEd: Oh, shit. You're the racist troll that I was trying not to give attention to. Get an AV, please.

Do you have an extra Bertrand Russell avatar laying around? You might as well give him to me, since I actually know something about him.
 
Well, it's a fact that healthcare costs have fallen more than projected (which was already a lot), leading to updated CBO projections showing far more long-term debt reduction than expected. It's a fact that enrollment in exchanges exceeded expectations and that the uninsured percentage fell by more than anyone expected. It's a fact that the U.S. has done a better job recovering from the GFC than 90% of developed nations.

You can try to argue that the ACA and ARRA aren't behind those things or you can play the TS's game of "hey, look over there" when the subjects come up, but you can't deny reality.



This is a short sentence, but it contains a lie, and a major strawman. No one has ever said that "everything (or anything) Obama screws up is Bush's fault." Seriously, if you have any integrity, point to one person saying that ever. And why do you feel the need to lie here?



How can he not? Healthcare reform is a huge improvement in America, and the evidence supporting the ARRA is overwhelming.

Jack just look in the war room and people blame Bush for any problems Obama has or had. As with most administration Obama was handed down some things. Obama care is bloated bill that even it's supporters don't fully understand it. The bill is more then just his doing and others share the blame for this bill.
 
If Jack Savage was an honest person - and he's not - he might be concerned about trying to portray the relative recent success of the U.S. economy compared to what he says is 90 percent of the other developed economies.

But of course what Jack doesn't mention is that most of the developed economies in the world have had to negotiate their way through the aftermath of the global financial crisis by adhering to a single currency - the euro - which has inhibited their ability to adapt less brittle economic standards after 2008.

Instead, Jack tries to sell Obama's stewardship of the economy as a success because compared to, say, Spain and Italy, we haven't had as bad a time of it. What he doesn't tell you is that they wouldn't have had as bad a time of it, either, if they were not stuck in a single currency.
 
I remember being in a feminist class the day Obama was first elected back in 2008 and people were crying, hugging, clapping, and shouting out the words "hope" and "change." It was a nauseating spectacle. What is even more bizarre is that this was happening in Canada.

I wonder what those people are thinking now after Obama's failed presidency. It seems like most people just want to blame George W. Bush.
 
Jack just look in the war room and people blame Bush for any problems Obama has or had.

When and where does this happen? I've literally never seen it. I've seen accusations that people do it a lot, but never the actual thing. In this thread, you appeared to be responding to someone noting the fact that the economy was in bad shape before Obama took office as if he were saying that. But he clearly wasn't. The economy was in bad shape. Obviously that affects any metrics you use to measure the economy over the period 2009-present. If the economy were booming, surely, you wouldn't say that it's because of the president, right? You measure the president by how he has performed his actual job. If we're looking at the economy, note that we had a moderately sized stimulus, which Obama deserves a lot of credit for, while a lot of other developed nations responded with austerity, and the U.S. has significantly outperformed them. Right? That's not a matter of partisan dispute. It's just a fact. Again, you can say it was a coincidence or something, but the facts are the facts. If you want to argue against his performance on the economy, you need to show why things are not as they appear, which is possible (I guess), but requires work.

As with most administration Obama was handed down some things. Obama care is bloated bill that even it's supporters don't fully understand it. The bill is more then just his doing and others share the blame for this bill.

It's not actually that confusing. There are a lot of small, cost-cutting measures, but the basic structure is pretty simple. Others do deserve credit for it, but remember that there have been ideas--many of them good--for healthcare reform for decades, but it never got done. The president deserves a lot of credit for the effort taken to make it happen, and in turn a share of the credit for the spectacular success of the law. And, IMO, future generations will give him almost all of the credit for it, which is one of two main reasons he'll go down as a great president (the other being the ARRA).
 
Of course many people still blame Bush, but they should blame Bush. He was a shitty president and leader.

Obama's mistakes don't make Bush's mistakes any better. They're both crappy presidents.
 
Of course many people still blame Bush, but they should blame Bush. He was a shitty president and leader.

Obama's mistakes don't make Bush's mistakes any better. They're both crappy presidents.

I agree Bush did some stupid thing (as I view them any way).
 
Our current infrastructure as Obama said is old and outdated. It is improbable to counter every problem because we take on a ton of responsibility. Why can't a state handle it's own problems effectively? I'll tell you why they are run by politicians not the true talent of a state. The scholars are the only true reliable people you can trust. The only thing most politicians do is wait for the other to fail and then pounce for their opportunity to grab the limelight. In the future and right now the problems are mounting and each state is swamped with problems. Inevitably you will either have to devise a new system to solve problems or all future leaders will be overwhelmed. Look at the world the people are fed up with the party system, it's more a pageant rather than a group facing reality.
 
Last edited:
I agree Bush did some stupid thing (as I view them any way).

Bush was terrible, but his problems are his problems. You're just making up stuff (or, more likely, repeating propaganda without thinking about it) when you say that anyone blames Bush's failures for anything Obama has done.
 
Jack writes this:

If we're looking at the economy, note that we had a moderately sized stimulus, which Obama deserves a lot of credit for, while a lot of other developed nations responded with austerity, and the U.S. has significantly outperformed them. Right? That's not a matter of partisan dispute. It's just a fact. Again, you can say it was a coincidence or something, but the facts are the facts. If you want to argue against his performance on the economy, you need to show why things are not as they appear, which is possible (I guess), but requires work.

Fact #1 - The reason why the U.S. has done moderately better than most other developed countries since the 2008 financial crisis is because most of those other developed countries are in the euro, and so their flexibility in responding to the crisis has been limited.

Fact #2 - A smaller percentage of working-age Americans - equal to millions of Americans - are working today than when Obama took office. Check out the labor force participation rates for 2009 and 2014 and see the large difference.

February 2009 - 65.8%

April 2014 - 62.8%

Those are just some facts to keep in mind the next time Jack comes around talking about his selective facts.
 
Last edited:
The Democrats will turn on Obama just as many Republicans turned on Bush. The Democrats are doing it to save face while sweeping Obama under the rug as if all the problems were solely his fault. We know this is bullshit because the same people that will blame him supported him for an entire 6 years. It's just as much their fault as anyone else's but instead they will point fingers and lay ALL the blame on the president once again. This is exactly why nothing changes- the president is nothing more than a front man to lay all the blame on rather than the entire government in the pockets of a few.
 
The Democrats will turn on Obama just as many Republicans turned on Bush. The Democrats are doing it to save face while sweeping Obama under the rug as if all the problems were solely his fault. We know this is bullshit because the same people that will blame him supported him for an entire 6 years. It's just as much their fault as anyone else's but instead they will point fingers and lay ALL the blame on the president once again. This is exactly why nothing changes- the president is nothing more than a front man to lay all the blame on rather than the entire government in the pockets of a few.

You actually got suckered in by the TS's transparently bad argument. Wow. Didn't think that would happen. You realize that even if a president's approval rating were 90%, there would be thousands of members of his own party (whichever it was) who had bad things to say about him, right?
 
The Democrats will turn on Obama just as many Republicans turned on Bush.

I doubt it. Obama is more of a symbol for the Democrats than Bush ever was for the Republicans. They need him to succeed and so they'll call him a success no matter what.
 
You actually got suckered in by the TS's transparently bad argument. Wow. Didn't think that would happen. You realize that even if a president's approval rating were 90%, there would be thousands of members of his own party (whichever it was) who had bad things to say about him, right?

This from the guy who thought I was an idiot when I said Obama would probably end up a virtual lame duck before the midterms.

Ready to thank me for my keen analysis yet? :(

Also it is not just "my argument," a lot of commentators on the right and some on the left have said the left may abandon President Obama if he continues down the road of failure. It is the crazy idea of "saving your political party and own political fortunes."
 
This from the guy who thought I was an idiot when I said Obama would probably end up a virtual lame duck before the midterms.

Ready to thank me for my keen analysis yet? :(

Huh? I called you an idiot when you kept insisting that despite the polling numbers, Romney was going to win (and kept badgering me to bet on it), when you insisted that the GOP was going to take the Senate, when you fell for the fake Benghazi email story, etc. I don't respect your analysis in general. By definition, a second-term president is a lame duck.

Also it is not just "my argument," a lot of commentators on the right and some on the left have said the left may abandon President Obama if he continues down the road of failure. It is the crazy idea of "saving your political party and own political fortunes."

I do suspect that you actually believe that there is reality to political propaganda. Kind of endearing, to be honest, but not something to take seriously.
 
Here are more black and white stats.

* Unemployment rate - 6.3% (higher than any point in the last six years of the Clinton administration and the first seven and a half years of Bush administration)

* Labor Force Participation Rate - 62.8%, lower than anytime since the 1970s.

* Poverty rate higher than at any time since the 1960s.

So, yeah, go ahead and run on those black and white stats. I dare you. I double dare you.


You can't be serious here. I don't really give a fuck either way about Obama or his legacy but there was this thing called the Global Financial Crisis which had far more bearing on those metrics than Obama ever could.

Surely you recognise this? It isn't a black and white picture at all.
 
Back
Top