President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Don]

I think a lot of middle of the road people who voted for Obama in 2008 purely to help clear that "No black man will ever be president" hurdle are now of the mind set of "been there, done that; we'll vote with our head this time."

Well then they're fucked either way come November.

I think it was actually a bigger deal outside of the U.S. where people have grown up learning about the American civil war and Civil rights era in their International history classes with the assumption that we were nothing but a bunch of Racists fucks for the most part here in the U.S.A.

[Gideon]

I think a lot of middle of the road people who voted for Obama in 2008 purely to help clear that "No black man will ever be president" hurdle are now of the mind set of "been there, done that; we'll vote with our head this time."

Well then they're fucked either way come November.

I think it was actually a bigger deal outside of the U.S. where people have grown up learning about the American civil war and Civil rights era in their International history classes with the assumption that we were nothing but a bunch of Racists fucks for the most part here in the U.S.A.

Only when Journey gets a new lead singer.

[Don]

I think a lot of middle of the road people who voted for Obama in 2008 purely to help clear that "No black man will ever be president" hurdle are now of the mind set of "been there, done that; we'll vote with our head this time."

Well then they're fucked either way come November.

I think it was actually a bigger deal outside of the U.S. where people have grown up learning about the American civil war and Civil rights era in their International history classes with the assumption that we were nothing but a bunch of Racists fucks for the most part here in the U.S.A.

Only when Journey gets a new lead singer.

Bubba should be our next Ambassador to the Philippines. Just like the old Colonial days when Teddy Roosevelt introduced Filipinos to water boarding.

[Rick]

I think a lot of middle of the road people who voted for Obama in 2008 purely to help clear that "No black man will ever be president" hurdle are now of the mind set of "been there, done that; we'll vote with our head this time."

That's going to ring true to a few, but the black populous is going to turn out heavy and vote for Obama.

[Don]

I think a lot of middle of the road people who voted for Obama in 2008 purely to help clear that "No black man will ever be president" hurdle are now of the mind set of "been there, done that; we'll vote with our head this time."

That's going to ring true to a few, but the black populous is going to turn out heavy and vote for Obama.

They country is only 13% black and and two percent of that total can't vote due to being incarcerated or having been convicted of a felony..

[Rick]

I think a lot of middle of the road people who voted for Obama in 2008 purely to help clear that "No black man will ever be president" hurdle are now of the mind set of "been there, done that; we'll vote with our head this time."

That's going to ring true to a few, but the black populous is going to turn out heavy and vote for Obama.

They country is only 13% black and and two percent of that total can't vote due to being incarcerated or having been convicted of a felony..

Don, you're the man of numbers. You're not going to discount an 11% voting populous, are you? How many elections were won by fewer than that?

Those numbers, right there, just made FF shit his pants.

I'm absolutely sure Obama will win again. And it's not because he's done a god damned thing, but it's because of the circus that the Republican party is. The way they cheat to win, I'm astounded that their nominee isn't a minority. They have no shame.

[Don]

I think a lot of middle of the road people who voted for Obama in 2008 purely to help clear that "No black man will ever be president" hurdle are now of the mind set of "been there, done that; we'll vote with our head this time."

That's going to ring true to a few, but the black populous is going to turn out heavy and vote for Obama.

They country is only 13% black and and two percent of that total can't vote due to being incarcerated or having been convicted of a felony..

Don, you're the man of numbers. You're not going to discount an 11% voting populous, are you? How many elections were won by fewer than that?

Those numbers, right there, just made FF shit his pants.

I'm absolutely sure Obama will win again. And it's not because he's done a god damned thing, but it's because of the circus that the Republican party is. The way they cheat to win, I'm astounded that their nominee isn't a minority. They have no shame.

And Texas was just told that they can't ask for Voter I.D.

[Gideon]

I'm absolutely sure Obama will win again. And it's not because he's done a god damned thing, but it's because of the circus that the Republican party is. The way they cheat to win, I'm astounded that their nominee isn't a minority. They have no shame.

Lewis Black once famously noted that during the 2004 election, voters essentially had "a choice between two bowls of shit. The only difference was the smell."

I'd say the same largely applies here. If Obama wins, it won't be so much that Romney is an underwhelming alternative but because of the tremendous advantage an incumbent almost always enjoys: better the devil you know and all that.

[Rick]

I think a lot of middle of the road people who voted for Obama in 2008 purely to help clear that "No black man will ever be president" hurdle are now of the mind set of "been there, done that; we'll vote with our head this time."

That's going to ring true to a few, but the black populous is going to turn out heavy and vote for Obama.

They country is only 13% black and and two percent of that total can't vote due to being incarcerated or having been convicted of a felony..

Don, you're the man of numbers. You're not going to discount an 11% voting populous, are you? How many elections were won by fewer than that?

Those numbers, right there, just made FF shit his pants.

I'm absolutely sure Obama will win again. And it's not because he's done a god damned thing, but it's because of the circus that the Republican party is. The way they cheat to win, I'm astounded that their nominee isn't a minority. They have no shame.

And Texas was just told that they can't ask for Voter I.D.

Yep. That whole ID card thing was to make it harder for poor people (Democrats) to vote.

They're that despicable.

[Don]

I think a lot of middle of the road people who voted for Obama in 2008 purely to help clear that "No black man will ever be president" hurdle are now of the mind set of "been there, done that; we'll vote with our head this time."

That's going to ring true to a few, but the black populous is going to turn out heavy and vote for Obama.

They country is only 13% black and and two percent of that total can't vote due to being incarcerated or having been convicted of a felony..

Don, you're the man of numbers. You're not going to discount an 11% voting populous, are you? How many elections were won by fewer than that?

Those numbers, right there, just made FF shit his pants.

I'm absolutely sure Obama will win again. And it's not because he's done a god damned thing, but it's because of the circus that the Republican party is. The way they cheat to win, I'm astounded that their nominee isn't a minority. They have no shame.

And Texas was just told that they can't ask for Voter I.D.

Yep. That whole ID card thing was to make it harder for poor people (Democrats) to vote.

They're that despicable.

Now, I can't agree with that. They need to have I.Ds because of WIC and cashing their assistance checks but they don't have them when they show up to vote?

[Memorex]

No one answered me previously on this. How in the world does this affect democrats more than republicans? How does it affect hispanics more than whites, blacks more than whites? Someone please tell me why needing an id is an issue?

And by the way - if someone is over 18 and doesn't have an id, do you really want to claim them in your party?

[Memorex]

Here's how I see it. Democrats are great at the rhetoric of economic and half the legal issues, but unable to answer a logical question. Republicans are great at the rhetoric of social issues and the other half of the legal issues and unable to answer with any logic to support their positions.

Let's see. 1 + 1 = hypocrites!

[slucero]

[Memorex]

Saturday, September 01, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 44% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

That doesn't seem like much of a bump.

I think the only poll that matters is likely voters in the 5 or 6 swing states after the Dem convention. Everything else is already decided.

[Memorex]

Last Monday Rassmussen had O up by 3...

5 days later Romney up by 3...

That's a 6 point swing.

Understood. I guess it's just hard to put in perspective when the Dems haven't had their party yet. It's not like that swing is going to hold. Dems will get a bump, then a month will go by and that will be more realistic.

[brandonx76]

Bill Maher: Eastwood 'killed' it

“As a performer, as a stand-up comedian for 30 years who knows how hard it is to get laughs, excuse me, he went up there … without a net, on a tightrope. There was no teleprompter. He did a bit with just an empty chair and killed,” Maher said. “He committed to it, it was consistent and it worked.”

“People have been saying for years: these conventions are too scripted, they’re too slick, they’re too overproduced,” he added. “A guy who went up there who wasn’t slick … and killed with the crowd? I gotta give him props for that.”

+ 1

[Monker]

Bill Maher: Eastwood 'killed' it

“As a performer, as a stand-up comedian for 30 years who knows how hard it is to get laughs, excuse me, he went up there … without a net, on a tightrope. There was no teleprompter. He did a bit with just an empty chair and killed,” Maher said. “He committed to it, it was consistent and it worked.”

“People have been saying for years: these conventions are too scripted, they’re too slick, they’re too overproduced,” he added. “A guy who went up there who wasn’t slick … and killed with the crowd? I gotta give him props for that.”

To his immediate audience at the convention, that may be true. But, to the wider audience of America as a whole, he came across as a rambling, senile, old man who had to vent hatred to an empty chair.

Maher was speaking to his 'performance'. He also said, in very same segment, ""I had no idea he was such a down the line, right-wing asshole." and "I find it so disappointing that someone whose films I like so much is politically an idiot." and in response to Jason Alexander saying, "I go on Twitter and make a political comment and the right says I'm an actor and to shut the hell up. Why are they applauding him, he's an actor for God's sake!" Maher, "An actor with fine family values, too. Seven children with five different women.. They seem forget about that, too."

To those watching outside of the convention hall, that is how he came across.

And, his guests were not exactly agreeing with Maher.

The bottom line is this has been a distraction for Republicans and damaged their message in the end.

Full segment here:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-d ... -loved-it/

[Memorex]

Clint Eastwood and Jason Alexander do not pay anyone's gas bill or employ anyone. That's what this election will come down to for the small few that will decide it, all distractions aside.

[brandonx76]

Bill Maher: Eastwood 'killed' it

“As a performer, as a stand-up comedian for 30 years who knows how hard it is to get laughs, excuse me, he went up there … without a net, on a tightrope. There was no teleprompter. He did a bit with just an empty chair and killed,” Maher said. “He committed to it, it was consistent and it worked.”

“People have been saying for years: these conventions are too scripted, they’re too slick, they’re too overproduced,” he added. “A guy who went up there who wasn’t slick … and killed with the crowd? I gotta give him props for that.”

To his immediate audience at the convention, that may be true. But, to the wider audience of America as a whole, he came across as a rambling, senile, old man who had to vent hatred to an empty chair.

Maher was speaking to his 'performance'. He also said, in very same segment, ""I had no idea he was such a down the line, right-wing asshole." and "I find it so disappointing that someone whose films I like so much is politically an idiot." and in response to Jason Alexander saying, "I go on Twitter and make a political comment and the right says I'm an actor and to shut the hell up. Why are they applauding him, he's an actor for God's sake!" Maher, "An actor with fine family values, too. Seven children with five different women.. They seem forget about that, too."

To those watching outside of the convention hall, that is how he came across.

And, his guests were not exactly agreeing with Maher.

The bottom line is this has been a distraction for Republicans and damaged their message in the end.

Full segment here:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-d ... -loved-it/

+ 2

[Monker]

Clint Eastwood and Jason Alexander do not pay anyone's gas bill or employ anyone. That's what this election will come down to for the small few that will decide it, all distractions aside.

The election is going to come down to gas bills? LOL

The election is going to come down the economy, and who can inspire the most hatred for the other side.

[Memorex]

Clint Eastwood and Jason Alexander do not pay anyone's gas bill or employ anyone. That's what this election will come down to for the small few that will decide it, all distractions aside.

The election is going to come down to gas bills? LOL

The election is going to come down the economy, and who can inspire the most hatred for the other side.

You know what I mean. Gas Prices. Grocery bills. Un/under-employment. The economy. As far as the hatred, that's all decided. Thus the reason I said the election would be decided by a small few. Die hards won't change sides no matter how bad things are or what their party represents.

To me, if I just take a step back and look at all the indicators, and focus only on what independents will likely do, I just don't see how Obama survives. I think most non-die hards fear the situation with the economy more than Roe V Wade being turned over. But hey, I've been wrong before. So we'll just see on that day in November where a few hundred thousand people set the direction of the whole country.

[Monker]

Clint Eastwood and Jason Alexander do not pay anyone's gas bill or employ anyone. That's what this election will come down to for the small few that will decide it, all distractions aside.

The election is going to come down to gas bills? LOL

The election is going to come down the economy, and who can inspire the most hatred for the other side.

You know what I mean. Gas Prices. Grocery bills. Un/under-employment. The economy. As far as the hatred, that's all decided. Thus the reason I said the election would be decided by a small few. Die hards won't change sides no matter how bad things are or what their party represents.

To me, if I just take a step back and look at all the indicators, and focus only on what independents will likely do, I just don't see how Obama survives. I think most non-die hards fear the situation with the economy more than Roe V Wade being turned over. But hey, I've been wrong before. So we'll just see on that day in November where a few hundred thousand people set the direction of the whole country.

No, the side who inspires enough hatred will be able to get their side to the polls this time. The Democratic side is uninspired...and the Republicans would obviously rather have had somebody else, anybody else it seems, then Romney.

All you have to do is look at what FF posts...pure Obama hatred, and nothing else. That's the Republican line. Even Clint Eastwood knows that. That is how they'll try to win. Obama will respond in kind...and I think his campaign has held back some of the trash talk specificaly for the sprint to the end...because he is low on campaign dollars You'll see when the debates happen. Also, the Republicans have the same "anything but Bush" attitude the Democrats had with John Kerry running...and we all know how that turned out.

When the alternative is cutting taxes for the rich while raising taxes for the middle class from a canidate who lead a company which ships jobs overseas, buys company for a quick $ while laying off thousands. A person who is hiding his tax records because he is embaressed by the rate he paid, and has a "my position is whatever the current polls say it should be" attitude towards what seems to be every major issue...then I think it's a wash at best....and that is the message that is going to driven home in the next couple months...be it true or not.

[Memorex]

Well, your post proves my point.

FF will never vote for a Dem prez, at least not some as left as Obama. And you will never vote for a Republican. So to me, the hatred is already there. The people that get more and more into the hatred were already going to vote that way or they would not have been susceptible to the hatred in the first place.

That said, where I do think it has an affect is the inability for Washington to do much of anything. Once in office, the hatred definitely hurts the whole country.

By the way - that Bain stuff is absolutely wrong. Your entire premise of Bain is way off. I work in the industry and I can tell you companies like Bain do FAR more good than harm. Obviously they have to make the decisions it takes to make a company profitable and sometimes those are hard decisions. I just had to fire most of my staff, so I know how it feels. Doesn't make me a bad guy, just someone that has to deal in the real world.

What's the alternative to laying off people to save or build a company? Lower wages, stagnant growth, and more often than not, bankruptcy. Sometimes companies, both large and small, need a company with expertise to come in and right the ship. If the company was overstaffed, than clearly they were mis-managed in the first place.

As far as outsourcing - The company I work for outsources and we have lost people state-side because of it. But if I am at the top making the decision, I simply cannot justify the cost of a US employee if it causes me to lose the bid for the job. It's just how it is. Now, I think we need leaders that can move the entire country away from having to use offshore resources, but if you are playing in today's rules, that's just reality. Anyone that doesn't see that is not paying attention.

How many people work somewhere and bitch and moan about management and how the company is being run into the ground? I bet they'd welcome a company like Bain coming in to make the company more viable. Where they ought to start is the teacher and auto unions. When 50% of the LAUSD budget is used to pay for retired teacher's benefits, before a penny goes to current teachers or the students, you know you have a problem that needs some hard changes.

[Memorex]

Here's a question I was pondering today. And I know this is probably a republican talking point. But I'm asking it in a more sincere fashion.

If you are John Doe and you have been out of work for 6 months, and you can't find a job for anything. And let's say you voted for McCain last time around. Do you vote for the Dems in hopes that they increase your unemployment and food stamps, etc knowing it may be all your family has to survive on? Or do you vote for the GOP in hopes that they can get the job market going so you can eventually get to work?

I know someone like FF will come along and say that the Dem plan is built to sink the economy and get everyone reliant on government. But that's not what this question is.

It's kind of like the Carter/Reagan thing. Of course, Carter had some additional devils around his neck, but the hatred wasn't all that it is now.

It's kind of like the coal miner or the oil rig working. I think no matter your feelings on abortion, gay marriage, and medicare, you are voting GOP down the ticket this time. If you you are comfortable in what you do or what you have, the social issues will factor in more, I think.

[Monker]

Well, your post proves my point.

FF will never vote for a Dem prez, at least not some as left as Obama. And you will never vote for a Republican. So to me, the hatred is already there. The people that get more and more into the hatred were already going to vote that way or they would not have been susceptible to the hatred in the first place.

Not true. I vote for a mix in every election. This election I see a Republican party who has been so obstructionist in everything the President has tried to do that I absolutely can NOT vote for them. They have put their agenda of winning the Presidency above the good of the country and that is treasonous, IMO.

That said, where I do think it has an affect is the inability for Washington to do much of anything. Once in office, the hatred definitely hurts the whole country.

See point above. And, if Romney wins, it proves the strategy of obstruction works.

By the way - that Bain stuff is absolutely wrong. Your entire premise of Bain is way off.

You did not read my post. "Be it true or not". It's what is going to be presented. No different then Obama being a socialist, secret Muslim who was not born in the US. The fact is that FF simple pukes up the Republican party line in his posts...and that line is "this is why you should hate Obama". Romney really offers nothing, other then he's not Obama....even FF has explicitly said "anybody but Obama".

Truth doesn't matter....pulling the strings of hatred and getting people to the polls does.

[Monker]

Here's a question I was pondering today. And I know this is probably a republican talking point. But I'm asking it in a more sincere fashion.

If you are John Doe and you have been out of work for 6 months, and you can't find a job for anything. And let's say you voted for McCain last time around. Do you vote for the Dems in hopes that they increase your unemployment and food stamps, etc knowing it may be all your family has to survive on? Or do you vote for the GOP in hopes that they can get the job market going so you can eventually get to work?

Or, do you vote for Obama thinking that Romney will make things worse.
Or, do you vote for Obama thinking that Republicans will raise your middle income taxes while lower the taxes on the rich.
Or, do you vote for Obama because you are a religious bigot who can stand the thought of a Mormon psycho in the White House

Or, do you vote for Romney because you are a racist ass who doesn't want a nigger in the White House
Or, do you vote for Romney because you believe Obama is a socialist
Or, do you vote for Romney because you blame Obama for, well, everything.

Or, are you gay and just vote for whoever has the sexiest smile and has no Chic-fil-a stuck between his teeth.

What you say above is WAY over-simplified.

[Memorex]

Not even sure how to reply to that. It was a sincere question, not a simple one.

[Behshad]

Classic !
Love the part when Eastwood is blaming Obama for STARTING the war in Afghanistan ! Senile or ignorant ?! Or simply blind like FakeFinder ?!

http://www.upworthy.com/jon-stewart-cut ... -8-minutes

[Rick]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ack-obama/

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –



So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

[Rick]

Rove, Koch Brothers Call it Quits in Pennsylvania



I guess money can’t buy everything…including the state of Pennsylvania.

Karl Rove’s Super PAC, Crossroads GPS, and the Koch Brother’s Americans for Prosperity have given up the ghost in the Keystone State and pulled their advertising dollars, conceding victory to President Obama. From The Daily Kos:

Two polls over the weekend confirmed the lopsided numbers—a Philly Inquirer poll gave Obama a 51-42 lead, while a Muhlenberg University poll gave him a 49-40 advantage.

In fact, the only pollsters to give Romney as much as 44 percent of the vote in the state was Rasmussen (of course), and Quinnipiac way back in March. The most recent Q-poll, in late July, had Obama winning 53-42.

The only surprise in Pennsylvania was that conservative groups were willing to keep pissing away their money in a state that clearly wasn’t going anywhere.

That leaves Mitt Romney’s Super PAC as the only conservative outfit left in the state, having spent nearly a million in the Keystone State this past week. Hopefully they keep pissing their money away here, because this state ain’t going nowhere.

To date, Crossroads GPS has forked over $2.8 million in advertising in Pennsylvania, while Americans for Prosperity have wasted $3.6 million, all to no avail.

However, it should be noted that Pennsylvania is one of the few states that has turned the tables on right-wing domination — whether by chance or through pressure. 16 of their legislators have dumped their membership in ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, funded by the Brothers Koch, and their state’s Supreme Court seems to have little to no patience for some of their “model legislation.”

Still, throwing that amount of money out the window toward a fruitless endeavor kinda makes me want to heave – it’s obscene and obnoxious – but it gives me hope, in a weird, twisted sort of way.

Just because you have the most dollars, doesn’t mean you’re gonna win – at least in Pennsylvania.