American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=HotRod11;441550]In my lifetime its hard to choose the best president from Harry Truman to Obama. Its easy to name the worst W. I voted for papa Bush the first term. Never voted for W so you can't blame me. Truman Eisenhower and nixon were probably the most influental I mean that in a positive way. Johnson and Carter passed the best legislation. Clinton raised taxes and that put our economy in such good shape we ran surpluses. I think this will light up this site. So Ok it needs a little life.[/QUOTE]I believe the Clinton surpluses were a result of counting social security / medicare revenues in the general budget. Another key factor was going to short term financing for our national debt. That change is going to hurt the US greatly at exactly the wrong time in the next few years. Clinton also oversaw the repeal of Glass Steagal Act and that has lead to the financial chaos of the last few years.

For me, Nixon and Obama are clearly the worst two Presidents during my lifetime. I never thought anyone could challenge Nixon's record of economic incompetence, but Obama is catching up and I think he can pull it off in two more years.

Best President for me would probably be a choice between Eisenhower and Kennedy.

If anyone wants to see a competent leader, look at John Key of New Zealand. That country has gone through the GFC, two major earthquakes in its 3rd largest city and their current bickering is over how to spend the projected surplus and why their currency and housing prices are too high.

[QUOTE=Esten;441541] Bill Clinton said as much recently, when he said "The last thing they want you to do is think. "

[URL]http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/217679-clinton-republicans-trying-to-get-you-to-check-your-brain-at[/URL][/QUOTE]Bill Clinton says something at a fundraiser and you are trying to present that as his real position? Everyone with a functioning brain cell knows that what is said at fundraisers is red meat for the target audience. With Clinton, you will need him to clearly define what each word means. Because, after all, it depends on how you define "is".

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441565]Gosh that was an odd and contradictory statement! You stated that there was nothing wrong with the system then went on to list a number of problems affecting said system and even offered a solution to fix the system. The last paragraph of your post is as oxymoronic as the first but too vitriolic to respond to.[/QUOTE]Nothing odd or contradictory about it at all. Please follow along, I'll use little words for you.

We have a representative republic form of government, not a problem there as it is in my opinion the best option currently available.

The problem comes with the rise of career politicians and inherent conflicts of self interest vs public interest. Career politicians were not foreseen by the founding fathers when these documents were drafted, they foresaw people would serve their term then return to their "day jobs" after their term was over. Can you follow along so far?

The examples presented were suggestions to fix the current form of government making it more effective in its delivery of services to the electorate.

When Congress passed the 22nd Amendment to limit presidential terms in office it was not considered "odd or contradictory". Perhaps you disagree?

Regarding the reference to Obamacare, Obama's trademark legislative accomplishment, Obama's lack of foreign or domestic policy and Obama's poll numbers, as those poll numbers support the majority of the nation agrees the preceding are a disaster, if in your opinion this represents being oxymoronic and vitriolic then please feel free to stick your head back in the sand and don't look up again until after the mid-terms or possibility November 2016.

Regarding the worst presidents of my lifetime it would have to be Carter, Obama and Nixon in that order. Of course Carter is loving Obama as he will probably replace Carter at the very bottom of the list.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;441486]I think Republicans already have a strategy. It is called we are not Obama. [/QUOTE]

[b][size=3]LOL ![/size][/b]

In other words, another strategy based on emotion.

I have made a few comments on this site. Most of you may not recognize that I am a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. I demand that my congresional representative spend my tax revenue wisely. No one can disagree with that. Also I think we need to refresh and update our infrastructure. The benefits from working on our infastructure are gigantic. Putting people to work increases our tax revenue. Also, even though we spent. Off budget. A trillion dollars fighting a war in Iraq, we must never loose site that our military must be the best trained with the most advanced equipment available. Bad things will happen if we loose site of this. I can't remember his exact words but Eisenhower warned us that the military equipment providers were a future problem. Wow, how do we balance a need for superior military equipment with the understanding that equipment providers have always and will always try to rip us off.

Most people have a great deal of respect for former defense secretary Gates. I just wonder if Mr Gates has rested enough and ready for another challenge and become the head of a new cabinet post. Head of government military procurement. Military procurement represents a huge chunk of the military budget.

OK so again I'm just babbling. I'm sure the retired english teachers will have a field day with this and of course the scalars in our group are licking there chops. Just think about it.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441558]You're an independent voter in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly who also regularly claims to be independent but spends his nights bashing Obama and the democrats for everything while exculpating Bush and the right on most issues. An independent would go after both sides equally unless they've reached a conclusion as to which party they prefer as you seem to have done by your postings. Which is fine BTW, but in that case you cease to be independent.[/QUOTE]I know it's a hard pill for progressives to swallow but you and your ilk (yes that means you Rev BS) do not get to decide who is and who is not an independent voter. We are a free country and as such we all get to decide for ourselves what our political alliances will be, and we have the freedom to change our alliances at any time. Furthermore an independent does not have to "go after both sides equally" they have the freedom to speak out selectively. Sorry but independents also do not have to meet your self serving definition of being an independent, you simply don't get a say in the matter other than for yourself. End of story.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441558]What are the chances you will vote for a democrat in the next election given that their policies will always be liberal and appear to be in direct contrast to your postings? Your countering of the factual conclusion with an opinion is so not persuasive. Prior to Bush no groups dared to operate from Iraq because of the tyrant that was running the country and that is not an opinion. You missed the point about war presidents as that was a response to the post below and not anything you wrote but your derisive labeling of Obama again eliminates any doubts as to where your allegiance lies.[/QUOTE]The chances of me voting for a Democrat are slim to none, but I do not accept that their policies are and always will be "liberal". In fact I don't think todays Democrat party is "liberal" at all, it's progressive totalitarian (aka: nannyism) and that's a far cry from being "liberal". Show me a Democrat that meets the following definitions of "liberal" and I'll consider voting for them.

1. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.

4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:

Individual freedom or rights, get it?

Your claim that ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion is so not persuasive. ISIS is a spin off of al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and several other militants, al-Qaeda formed long before the US invaded Iraq. Using your way of thinking one might say ISIS is a direct result of the killing of Osama bin Laden. Both claims are absurd if you ask me. Even if ISIS wasn't in Iraq it wouldn't prove they would not be in some other country such as syria.

If your conclusion was correct (which it's not) you act as if Bush got us in the Iraq war all by himself, do I need to remind you that Bush had bipartisan support for going into Iraq. And "Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a US invasion. Members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period. ".

[B]Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer [/B]just to name a few Democrats who voted for the Iraq Resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441558]As to where do we go from here, we need more independent lawmakers to take action for the good of the country domestically and internationally. The two party system is screwing the tax payers royally. Very little gets done while both sides continually blame each other while they get rich off the tax payers. A large threat to the tax payers is right under our noses, our own law makers. Specifically as it relates to ISIS or any other terrorist groups which affect all countries; its quite simple, ALL countries need to step up and participate in or support the war against these groups. The US cannot be the constables of the world, the US needs to sit one or two of these conflicts out and let the chips fall. A lot of these countries sit on their hands because they know that America will always give up its citizens to die for the cause.[/QUOTE]Are you suggesting a single party system? We don't have a two party system per se, we have a system that two parties dominate, but the system is not limited. FYI, I didn't vote for Obama or Romney in the last election, but I did vote. I pretty much agree with the rest of what you say here, but we might not agree on what's good for the country.

As usual, steam emanating from your head and vaporizing into thin air.

[B]Why so angry?[/B]

[QUOTE=RevBS;441598]As usual, steam emanating from your head and vaporizing into thin air.[/QUOTE]I just call it the way I see it.

I have an opinion, and you have yours, remember?

Are you could circle the wagons again, up to you.

Anyway I'm ROFLMAO.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441596]I know it's a hard pill for progressives to swallow but you and your ilk (yes that means you Rev BS) do not get to decide who is and who is not an independent voter. [/QUOTE]By the process of deduction reasoning, a reasonable and impartial trier of fact would reach the conclusion that you are not independent. If any other poster was here consistently bashing the right the way you do to the left, say that the chances they would vote for a republican is slim to none, then claim to be independent, you and your fan club would similarly draw the same conclusion. You can venture down the semantical road as politicians love to do but at that point the conversation becomes useless.

The Iraq war has been debated enough so I'll skip that as we won't change each other's view on that topic. I will maintain what I wrote and will say that people voted for that war based on the intentionally inaccurate information and "faulty intelligence" that was presented to them. Flip the script where a democratic president did what Bush did and the right would also claim ex post facto that their vote was based on the faulty intelligence presented to them and therefore not responsible for it.
and
[QUOTE=Punter127;441596] Both claims are absurd if you ask me [/QUOTE]I didn't ask you but its now becoming an argument which won't accomplish anything so I'll maintain what I wrote and am sure you'll do the same.

As it relates to the worst presidents in our history, Bush has to be at the top of the list. On his watch, over 3000 Americans were needlessly killed as a result of the ineptitude of his administration not sharing intelligence and not following up on intelligence leads despite being warned on multiple occasions about the suspicious behaviors of the 9-11 killers. The inept manner in which they governed the Iraq war costing countless Americans lives which drew the ire of both parties. An embarrassingly incompetent Defense Secretary being forced to resign after members of his own party called for it because of his poor management of the aforementioned war. Bush's Katrina debacle and his extreme economic failings, put it all together and he is the top candidate for worst president. If a democratic president did what Bush did the right would use every bit of those instances to make the same point.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441599][B]Why so angry?[/B]

I just call it the way I see it.

I have an opinion, and you have yours, remember?

Are you could circle the wagons again, up to you.

Anyway I'm ROFLMAO.[/QUOTE]Hardly! I just have fun on AP. You think I am serious about all this? And all because I gave kudos to RC Collins, so silly. I am getting worried about you.

For sheer ineffectiveness: Carter. Maybe nice guys really do finish last.

For pure evil: Nixon. When Nixon was re-elected in 1972 (also the year I fucked my first hooker), I knew I was living with some stupid people.

For sheer stupidity and cluelessness: Bush II. Not too impressed with my fellow citizens for re-electing him after there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Now as far as the best, there is not a lot to choose from but I choose Clinton because things went pretty smoothly under him. The president gets too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they go astray.

I am also a social liberal and fiscal conservative and I would also add that I favor a largely isolationist foreign policy. I really don't care how many diaper heads kill each other in the name of religion. Oh yeah, and despite being (mostly) a social liberal, anyone who's in the country illegally, kick their asses out and if they sneak back in, shoot them. Just call it an extension of my isolationist policy.

The one statistic Esten can't spin.

[URL]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-03/labor-participation-rate-drops-36-year-low-record-926-million-americans-not-labor-fo[/URL]

Obama has taken forward to the past.

"the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% - the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!

[URL]http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/09/participation%20rate%20sept%202014_0.jpg[/URL]

The labor force participation rate, peaked. Notice that about 70-80% of the decline in the labor force participation rate has happened under BO's Presidency.

248,000 jobs created in September, and a 69,000 jobs upward revision for July and August. As a chief economist at RBC Global Asset Management said today, [I]"This is a very muscular report. Its showing powerful job creation, no matter how one cares to slice it."[/I]. Once again, more evidence that Republicans lied to the American people when they said the Affordable Care Act would be a big jobs killer.

Does Obama get the credit? Partly. But most of it is simply because we have a fundamentally private-sector driven capitalist economy. The structure of the U.S. economy hasn't changed significantly because of anything Obama did.

Wet blanket Republicans will continue trying to make things sound bad anyway they can, like Dccpa posting about the LFPR. I wonder if he can explain why the decline in LFPR is a bad thing (which he seems to imply), and what the underlying causes are.

This is an excellent jobs report, and a milestone to have brought the unemployment rate back into the 5's. All Americans should see this as a good thing.

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/03/hiring-rebounds-in-september-unemployment-rate-falls-to-5-9-percent/[/URL]

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441600]By the process of deduction reasoning, a reasonable and impartial trier of fact would reach the conclusion that you are not independent.[/QUOTE]You just don't get it do you? I have declared myself as an independent, I have meet the legal requirements of being an independent and my home state has recognized me as an independent. That trumps your bullshit "process of deduction reasoning" and leaves it inconsequential. So you can scream your meaningless opinion from the fucking roof tops if you like, but at the end of the day I'll still be an independent, like it or not.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441600]The Iraq war has been debated enough so I'll skip that as we won't change each other's view on that topic.[/QUOTE]OK works for me.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441600]I will maintain what I wrote and will say that people voted for that war based on the intentionally inaccurate information and "faulty intelligence" that was presented to them. Flip the script where a democratic president did what Bush did and the right would also claim ex post facto that their vote was based on the faulty intelligence presented to them and therefore not responsible for it.[/QUOTE]I will repeat myself "Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a US invasion. Members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period. " It's Congress job to investigate the facts before authorizing military action or war. Congress is the only branch with the power to declare war, the president can only request that they do so. I'm not giving them a pass for for failing to perform their duties just because there Democrats, as apparently you do. If Bush did something illegal why hasn't he been prosecuted? Without said prosecution your argument is trivial and hackneyed.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441617]You just don't get it do you? I have declared myself as an independent, I have meet the legal requirements of being an independent and my home state has recognized me as an independent. That trumps your bullshit "process of deduction reasoning" and leaves it inconsequential. So you can scream your meaningless opinion from the fucking roof tops if you like, but at the end of the day I'll still be an independent, like it or not.[/QUOTE]Say RcCollins, the man is right. He is a force unto himself. Reminds me of the guy I met on the subway who told me he was Juan Peron. And he was!!! He even show me his ID.