Board 8 > I'm starting to think a Republican winning in 2012 would be better for America

(+) Yeah! (+)

Obama has to be seen as something of a heartbreaking disappointment for progressives.
I tend to consider myself more of a centrist Democrat these days and even I think Obama's been a bit too far to the right for my liking.

--
The Legend of Snake: http://tinyurl.com/3cal86z
The LoS Instruction Manual: http://tinyurl.com/3jlax8h

I am completely devastated by how Obama's presidency has gone.

And I still don't even know if he's just incompetent or a corporate tool.

--
The box says "Online Gameplay not rated by ESRB", I should be able to trade my phallic named Wobbufetts to a bunch of 8 year olds. - MarvelousGerbil

Obama is very supportive of big corporations and Wall Street, which really isn't that surprising. I think he's been quite competent and reasonable in office, which is a huge contrast from his campaign (hope and change). He's been ineffective because he's not willing to play as hard or as dirty as the Republicans, and as the president he feels he has to be responsible.

--
90s games > 00s games

Iamdead7 posted...

And I still don't even know if he's just incompetent or a corporate tool.

I'm in the 'incompetent' camp.
Looking into Obama's past, he certainly doesn't seem to have been groomed to bend over backwards for corporate America.
But I do now think we'd have been far better off if Hillary got the Presidency, despite having supported Obama over her at the time. Obama's primary problem is his inexperience, he's letting himself get completely trampled and outsmarted by every turn. The Dems control the White House and the Senate but you wouldn't guess it based on how Obama's capitulated to the House.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is why Hillary and other halfway experienced Democrats on Obama's team have enabled this to happen. With Hillary, I'm guessing it's because she wants to replace Biden as VP in 2012 so she can align herself as Obama's successor, and in order to do so Hillary needs to ensure Obama's in enough of a sticky situation by 2012 to require a change. Biden's specialization was always foreign affairs, and his foot-in-mouth syndrome has eradicated a fair deal of his credibility.

The Obama tragedy in my opinion is he'd have made a great President if he waited another decade or so and built up serious Senate cred and established a solid network of his own progressive supporters in high-ranking positions before running. He needed to have staffers who were his own people, not opponents like Hillary and Biden. And he needed more of a reputation as a progressive firebrand who'd accomplish something to ensure opponents would actually begrudgingly respect him. He could have begun garnering that reputation by pushing a better Healthcare Reform package through the Senate for President Hillary.

--
The Legend of Snake: http://tinyurl.com/3cal86z
The LoS Instruction Manual: http://tinyurl.com/3jlax8h

Obama got screwed by having uncooperative peers who were more interested in playing political hardball and pushing their own agendas than actually making a difference.

Real talk.

--
I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo
Now this is entertainment!

The thing is Obama quit being a firebrand the day he took office. Ever since then, it's been pragmatism and more pragmatism- he's been more focused on governing than on politics. There were a number of things Obama could have changed himself using only the power of the presidency: Guantanamo/National Security issues, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He made almost no changes on these things, and ended up just continuing the policies of Bush's 2nd term. Instead he spent his political capital pushing for healthcare, which turned the country against him. This was the wrong time to push healthcare; he was elected to change/cut government, which had failed under Bush, not to expand it. He could push healthcare......after we were out of a recession, after we were out of war, after we were out of a debt crisis.

And of course Obama has not played hardball. What could he have done? Perhaps he could have threatened to immediately withdraw all US troops from overseas unless the Republicans agreed to passing healthcare. It's extreme, but so is voting no on absolutely everything unless we continue tax cuts for the top 1%.

--
90s games > 00s games

Ideally, Obama wouldn't have to play rough to get the Republicans to do things that actually benefit the country and not themselves. Unfortunately, he kind of has to, and I'll readily admit that he's balls at it.

--
I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo
Now this is entertainment!

red sox 777 posted...
This was the wrong time to push healthcare; he was elected to change/cut government, which had failed under Bush, not to expand it.

...Huh?
It's almost as if you're comparing why Obama was elected to why Ronald Reagan was elected. There's no comparison there. Americans do not vote a Democratic progressive with an oratory reputation into office in hopes of discovering the next Reagan. We were hoping for the next FDR.

--
The Legend of Snake: http://tinyurl.com/3cal86z
The LoS Instruction Manual: http://tinyurl.com/3jlax8h

...Huh?
It's almost as if you're comparing why Obama was elected to why Ronald Reagan was elected. There's no comparison there. Americans do not vote a Democratic progressive with an oratory reputation into office in hopes of discovering the next Reagan. We were hoping for the next FDR.

I think America really was hoping for the next Reagan more than the next FDR. America knew things were bad, knew that Bush was a disaster, and hated big government. People wanted change, any change, so they voted for guy from the party that hadn't been in power. But what was it that made Bush unpopular?

1. Too much war.
2. Too much security/paranoia.
3. Too much spending/debt.
4. A tanking economy.
5. Bailouts.
6. Lack of transparency in government.

All of these except #4 are cases of too much government, not too little, and more than half the country thinks too much government is also responsible for #4. So America wanted change, and we voted for Obama, who promised change. But Obama didn't address or change these things. Instead he went after social and cultural issues, and expanded the size of government further. I don't think there was really that much support for things like healthcare except from the left (yes, people said they wanted it in polls at first, but people always want more things, and lower taxes at the same time, so it doesn't mean that much). So the Republicans bet that this was indeed the case, pulled out all the stops to slow or halt Obama's agenda as much as they could (not easy with only 40 senators), and correctly read the American public, which resulted in their winning the 2010 elections.

--
90s games > 00s games

lol the two parties are both "conservative" because they both buy into bulls*** supply side economics

Something tells me you're in no position to comment on the merits of supply-side economics.

There's nothing like politics for making a bunch of uninformed people pretend to be experts.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
I watch Planet Chasers Starlight Excellent all day, every day.

Well I've got plenty of evidence over here that shows that the only people who have gained wealth since 1980 are the top 10%-top 1% of America and middle class wages have actually gone DOWN since 1980 when adjusted for inflation, as well as tons of other stuff if you'd like to see it.

Got any proof it does work?

--
The box says "Online Gameplay not rated by ESRB", I should be able to trade my phallic named Wobbufetts to a bunch of 8 year olds. - MarvelousGerbil