Obama's Candidacy

Pengwuino

So in 2004, you would have agreed not to vote out Bush because why should we replace him with an administration that has a completely different value system? Remember, one persons "he's doing half decent" is another persons "he's destroying this country". That would imply we should just get rid of term limits because "why go through the hassle".

ThomasT

I think that Obama's stage presence and rhetorical ability exceeds any of his possible opponents. But of course we have no way of knowing if a, say, Romney presidency would be substantially different than an Obama presidency.

The problem I have with Obama, and why he's been something of a disappointment to me, is that I don't think he's used the power of the presidency, his bully pulpit, to anywhere near its maximum effect -- assuming that he actually wants the sort of sweeping changes, to the betterment of America, that his rhetoric seems to indicate that he wants. His rhetoric is sort of inspiring, but his actions have been, more or less, in line with the status quo ... imho.

Pythagorean

You're being rather selective in your reading comprehension. "Why go through the hassle" is a conditional. It only applies if the forseeable outcome is the same for both candidates.

So this kind of argument is only a distraction from the real argument (whether another candidate could do a better job, whether the forseeable outcome is not in favor of Obama). What makes you want to avoid that argument? Are you just throwing everything to the wall and seeing what sticks?

For example, why avoid responding to the statistics that show a lower increase in the increase of premiums during Obama's stay? You selectively complained about the function of the data, ignoring the derivative that countered your complaint. Instead, you chose to raise a straw man.

If you want to have a productive discussion, tell me who you think would have a better forseeable outcome and why, instead of using deconstruction tactics.

ThomasT

I think that, if you were a politician, then you would have a prioritized list of people, companies, etc. that you are beholden to, and that that list would be prioritized according to the monetary contributions and power/influence of those people, companies, etc. -- and that how the common folk in a particular district have voted, or not voted, will be less important than that.

Wrt the logical parsing of the statement (a common theme in mainstream ads some years back), "it doesn't matter who you vote for, just as long as you vote", my question remains. If it doesn't matter who you vote for, then why does it matter that you vote?

Pythagorean

I agree, we can only talk about forseeables. Another reason my voting is pointless. Maybe despite Romney's bumbling stage presence, he'd make a much more effective commander and chief. I don't really know what's going on "up there" within the circles of the rich and powerful (no conspiracy theory intended... that they're in competition with each other only convolutes things more).

Yes, he's actually been quite moderate on a lot of issues (such as abortion).

I'm not terribly surprised overall though. Everybody that makes it to president had some people that helped them get there. They're all somebody's corporate puppet to some extent. Ron Paul is probably the least so, but nobody takes him seriously and there's no guarantee his ideas would ever see the light of day if he magically made it to president.

ThomasT

I think it probably is pointless, but it doesn't have to be. That is, as long as we're pretty much confined to voting for either a Republican or a Democratic candidate, either of which is necessarily going to represent the interests of the status quo, then voting for one or the other is essentially pointless. But it doesn't have to be in the sense that it's entirely possible to develop massive support for a third major party that represents the interests of the people and improvements in America, and not just the interests, to the detriment of America, of corporations, the wealthy, and the financial sector.

But I've gotten off topic. Imho, Obama wil win. I'll probably vote for him. And no significant positive changes will ensue.

Pythagorean

Or I could just move to Denmark...

Pengwuino

But that's what you're implying.

I find your attitude insulting. Health premiums HAVE gone up, was I suppose to argue that they haven't? The idea that they haven't gone up as fast is argument against the fact that my parents have seen increases and that we should keep ol' Obama in office is silly.

You still haven't answered my question. I find your notion of keeping a candidate because it's too much of a hassle to change a bit silly. Why aren't you defending this notion beyond situations that are convenient for yourself?

Angry Citizen

Some significant positive changes have already ensued. Health care is huge to me, particularly as I am an uninsured type one diabetic. But you can thank Republicans and blue dog Democrats for keeping most of the 'change' from happening. I swear, the Democrats should've FORCED the filibuster out. What kind of country requires a sixty vote majority to pass legislation? The Democrats had a clear mandate from the people, and they lost it.

ThomasT

Has Obamacare made a positive difference? I honestly don't know. It doesn't affect me, as I'm a veteran and have free health care for life.

lisab

It affects many young people who can stay on their parents' plans until age 26 (I think it's 26).

Very helpful to young folks who have to take jobs that don't offer insurance.

WhoWee

Care to elaborate and support with specifics?

seba102288

I think we should vote them all out and make Chuck Norris president.

Seriously though, they all have their own agenda in mind. So the question is who really has America's best interest in mind?

Personally, I don't feel like Obama has done what he said he was going to do, and he can't blame congress considering it was completely controlled by the democrats for half of his presidency.

Angry Citizen

That's actually false, given that everything the Democrats tried to pass that was of consequence had to pass through the Senate Republicans' filibusters. All it took was one Democrat (Lieberman, I look at you) to join the Republicans on an issue and that was all she wrote. Case in point the "public option". In the Democratic-controlled House sans filibuster, the public option was welcomed with open arms. In the filibuster-prone Senate, it was killed. Why else do you think Obama struck the tone of the "Great Compromiser" for most of his Presidency? He had to at least try to woo Republican Senators to his side. Unfortunately, Obama did not bank on the Republicans' rather pitiful need to unseat him at all costs. I have never seen such obstructionist politics in all my studies of history. I thought the 2006 Congress was bad, but the 2008 Congress was the worst in history. A clear mandate from the people, yet the Republicans blocked everything that came through.

WhoWee

Are you certain the Republicans blocked "everything that came through"? I seem to recall PPACA, Cash for Clunkers, Stimulus, and the tax cuts that were Bush's then Obama's and now Bush's again(something like that - IMO - can't keep track)?

ThomasT

What do you mean "seriously though"?

Angry Citizen

The PPACA was blocked at all possible turns. It was neutered from its original form, which was actually a decent health care law. This current incarnation is the work of the blue dog Democrats and the Republican obstructionists. The stimulus also was forced to include a number of compromises such as massive tax incentives, not to mention the fact that it was undersized by perhaps two to three times what would be required to really jumpstart the economy.

As for the tax cuts, I would have made the same decision. Republicans were yet again playing politics, wanting more money for rich people. They essentially held the unemployed hostage until Obama signed the extension of the tax cuts. Obama was forced to do it, otherwise millions would have lost their unemployment benefits. He probably prevented a new Great Depression in doing so. Not that you likely care. Obama's an evil socialist and the country's about to fall apart under his watch...