The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[JB Lions]

UW Madison Students: 'Unfair' That Obama Couldn't Use Teleprompter in Debate

The 2 video interviews were just great. Interesting to see these Liberal students and Obama supporters answers to the various questions. A must see!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...President-Couldn-t-Use-Teleprompter-in-Debate

:gl: :o :red: :lol: :lol:

Interesting to note that one of the women interviewed had the exact same answer as JB Lions. She said: "maybe it was his anniversary, maybe he was tired?

I suppose she was just kidding... just like JB Lions

Teleprompter gets another shout out, shocking.

In the end, I think this is only going to help Obama, this first debate.

With all the dumping on him, even from his own supporters, do you think next time, it might be a little different? Probably, just what he needed. He's not going to have two of these type of performances in a row. And last time, I remember him doing pretty well, against Hillary and the rest of the Democrat candidates, and then McCain.

Also, expectations and a boxing reference. In a Championship fight, the challenger has to take it, win decisively to take that belt. Now the expectations with Romney are high, he's going to have to win these next three. Merely breaking even, it'll go to Obama.

Gilsan, what did you think of the charts above?

I think sometimes when talking politics, we have all these numbers thrown around, it's hard for people to visualize. Something as simple as some charts, and the picture becomes more clear. We are actually doing better than 4 years ago. That's really all he needed to do this first term.

 

[RogueWriter]

In the end, I think this is only going to help Obama, this first debate.

With all the dumping on him, even from his own supporters, do you think next time, it might be a little different? Probably, just what he needed.

If he takes a shellacking like this in the 2nd debate, you might as well sleep in on election day.

 

[JB Lions]

I bet Obama will come back strong the next debate.

I agree.

It's funny listening to Mittens on the campaign trail today:

"By any rational measure, it's crystal clear we're in the middle of a jobs crisis," Romney said in a fundraising message to supporters. "My priority is jobs. And from Day One of my presidency, I will lead us out of this crisis."

When it's getting better now. Sucks to have your main line of attack, weakened right before the election.

GDP - "The gross domestic product (GDP) is one the primary indicators used to gauge the health of a country's economy."

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...dp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp

That chart spans 50 years. See where it went down in 2009? That's the only time I see it going down. Now look at it, back on track.

The other argument, are we better off than we were 4 years ago? Looking at the charts, the actual numbers, it's an obvious yes. I think people have short term memories and actually forgot how bad it was. Again, all he had to do is stop the bleeding/slide, show indications that we're going back in the right direction. That's been done. That's a good thing for this country and it should be continued, that progress.

 

[GILSAN]

Teleprompter gets another shout out, shocking.

In the end, I think this is only going to help Obama, this first debate.

With all the dumping on him, even from his own supporters, do you think next time, it might be a little different? Probably, just what he needed. He's not going to have two of these type of performances in a row. And last time, I remember him doing pretty well, against Hillary and the rest of the Democrat candidates, and then McCain.

Also, expectations and a boxing reference. In a Championship fight, the challenger has to take it, win decisively to take that belt. Now the expectations with Romney are high, he's going to have to win these next three. Merely breaking even, it'll go to Obama.

Gilsan, what did you think of the charts above?

I think sometimes when talking politics, we have all these numbers thrown around, it's hard for people to visualize. Something as simple as some charts, and the picture becomes more clear. We are actually doing better than 4 years ago. That's really all he needed to do this first term.

Will Obama do better in the next debate? Who knows. I would be inclined to believe that he will be told to be more agressive, but that will also depend on the type of format of the next debate. If they only allow 1 minute per candidate then Romney has an advantage as he speaks faster than Obama. Barack requires more time to explain himself.

I'm sure Obama will do his homework better this time, but I still think it will be tough to beat Romney. Perhaps a draw is the best Obama can hope for, because on Foreign Policy (3rd debate) I believe Obama is at a disadvantage due to being too soft with the Middle East countries, failing in Afghanistan and especially because of the Libya fiasco.

As for next weeks debate between Biden and Ryan I really have no idea of the outcome. Since Biden has tons of public experience it would seem that, on paper, he should be a clear winner... but if he starts making gaffes then the youngster may take advantage. We'll see

I like numbers as well as charts. The above charts have their proportions un-constrained, meaning that their width is wrong in relation to their height. Because the width of the image has shrunk, the ups and downs in the graphics look much more dramatic.
Possibly they were re-sized to fit better in some website, or it was done on purpose to give it a different perception.

What do I think of the Graphics? The first 2 graphics are about: Real Gross Domestic Product What does that mean? Whats the difference between Real Gross Domestic Product and Gross Domestic Product? Do you know? I know that the US GDP has been dropping and if I'm not wrong it's down to about 1.3 (a fairly poor number) :O

What can I say about graphics from the US Department of Labor. They are supplied by the Obama Administration so its obvious they will look good. I'm sure Republicans will also show great graphics. What counts is: How many people are without jobs?

That's the #1 concern in the US today, just as it is in Portugal or any other country. Our OFFICIAL unemployment here is 16%. People and the Media allways call it the OFFICIAL unemployment rate because we all know and feel that its much closer to 20%. We know our governments Bullshit us. We don't trust their numbers. :td:

 

[JB Lions]

"Because the width of the image has shrunk, the ups and downs in the graphics look much more dramatic."

Well, then stretch it out if it makes you feel better, numbers still aren't going to change.

As far as the Unemployment Rate, there really isn't anything to debate. It got up to 10%, it's now down to 7.8%. What direction is that moving in? The right direction. Of course there is more work to be done.

I am curious to some people's expectations, what did you seriously expect. Be rational for a second.

You get handed the worst economy since the Great Depression and you expected __________ in 3.5 years? With ongoing wars, the economic crisis etc. What? And based on what he was handed and then looking at the numbers above, that's looks pretty damn good to me.

I shudder to think where we would be at with McCain/Palin. Probably another war if you listened to McCain at the convention. And let's not even get into Palin. Do you think under them we would have, what, 5% Unemployment or something? What exactly?

 

[Theo Goodman]

You get handed the worst economy since the Great Depression and you expected _AN IPHONE_________ in 3.5 years? Yep,

3 and a half years, I still ant got no Iphone, who should I vote for? :O:tu::talk::talk::talk

 

[GILSAN]

"Because the width of the image has shrunk, the ups and downs in the graphics look much more dramatic."

Well, then stretch it out if it makes you feel better, numbers still aren't going to change.

As far as the Unemployment Rate, there really isn't anything to debate. It got up to 10%, it's now down to 7.8%. What direction is that moving in? The right direction. Of course there is more work to be done.

I am curious to some people's expectations, what did you seriously expect. Be rational for a second.

You get handed the worst economy since the Great Depression and you expected __________ in 3.5 years? With ongoing wars, the economic crisis etc. What? And based on what he was handed and then looking at the numbers above, that's looks pretty damn good to me.

I shudder to think where we would be at with McCain/Palin. Probably another war if you listened to McCain at the convention. And let's not even get into Palin. Do you think under them we would have, what, 5% Unemployment or something? What exactly?

Why don't you talk about the 23 million without work? That's a lot more than 7.8% and you don't need a calculator to figure that out. Perhaps you are better off now than 4 years ago, but 23 million others cannot say the same.

I'm still curious to know the answer to the question I made a few posts back:

If Obama has created all these new jobs, how come 18 million more people are receiving food stamps, since he came to office?

Shouldn't many of these people be working with all these new jobs created, or is the amount of lazy people increasing dramatically since Obama came to office? Something doesn't add up

 

[Theo Goodman]

Maybe they are no longer ashamed to apply for food stamps, plenty that qualify for food stamps do not even know. There could be a lot of reasons, in any case with all these numbers keep in mind correlation is not causation. Who is the better puppet? The one that needs a teleprompter or the one that sneeks in a sheet of paper?

 

[GILSAN]

Maybe they are no longer ashamed to apply for food stamps, plenty that qualify for food stamps do not even know. There could be a lot of reasons, in any case with all these numbers keep in mind correlation is not causation. Who is the better puppet? The one that needs a teleprompter or the one that sneeks in a sheet of paper?

You mean a handkerchief?
The main diference between the two is that:
Romney's life is full of success.
Obama's success was created by the media

 

[verbster]

The main diference between the two is that:
Romney's life is full of success.
Obama's success was created by the media

Whoa! Get a grip, Pork Chop.

 

[JB Lions]

Why don't you talk about the 23 million without work? That's a lot more than 7.8% and you don't need a calculator to figure that out. Perhaps you are better off now than 4 years ago, but 23 million others cannot say the same.

I'm still curious to know the answer to the question I made a few posts back:

If Obama has created all these new jobs, how come 18 million more people are receiving food stamps, since he came to office?

Shouldn't many of these people be working with all these new jobs created, or is the amount of lazy people increasing dramatically since Obama came to office? Something doesn't add up

Doesn't add up? Gilsan, we just went thru this.

Once more. Obama got handed the worst economy since the Great Depression and it was still sliding in the wrong direction his first years in office. So with that, would you expect:

a. less people on food stamps
b. more people on food stamps

I'll bold the correct answer for you. As far as the unemployed, again, what direction is it headed? It's getting better.

Let's try another. Somebody sets themselves on fire, are they more likely to feel:

a. cooler
b. warmer

I'll let you tackle that one. Let me know if you need some help.

Was curious, and if you actually look at some charts:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/chart-newt-gingrich-obama-food-stamp-president

That one clearly shows who the Food Stamp President was, Bush. Under Clinton, it actually went down from 14% of the population to 8%. Then Bush got in there, and left with it back over 14% again. Handed it over to Obama, still sliding in the wrong direction, but then look:

http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly2.jpg

The last year of that chart, it's slowing down/leveling off, it only went of 1 million. I think with Obama's next term, it'll start going down again, just like it did with Clinton.

 

[GILSAN]

Let's try another. Somebody sets themselves on fire, are they more likely to feel:

a. cooler
b. warmer

I'll let you tackle that one. Let me know if you need some help.

Damn, you really got me there. :red: You're not supposed to ask such tough questions. Give me a few days and I'll get back to you with, hopefully the right answer. :gl:

Your answer to my question continues to leave me in the dark. You obviously don't know or don't want to answer.

 

[JB Lions]

I did answer, if you want to pretend I didn't, that's your choice.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think things are getting better or worse, looking at some of the charts posted above?

And for those Republicans, let's play a simple game of role reversal. Let's say we had 8 years of a Democrat President and he handed the worst economy since the Great Depression over to McCain/Palin. And let's say we had the same exact numbers posted above. Would you say it got worse or better under McCain/Palin? It's going from 10% down to 7.8%, in your book is that getting worse or better? I think we all know the honest answer to that one, we probably just won't hear it here tho.

 

[GILSAN]

So when Obama took office almost 4 years ago the unemployment rate was at 7.8% and yesterday it conveniently dropped to 7.8%. It still makes no sense why an extra 18 million have joined the food stamp lines. That's a massive amount of people. Who are they? And who will they more than likely vote for?

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think things are getting better or worse, looking at some of the charts posted above?

23 million without work and 47 million on food stamps is the answer to your question. You figure out if it's bad or good.

And for those Republicans, let's play a simple game of role reversal. Let's say we had 8 years of a Democrat President and he handed the worst economy since the Great Depression over to McCain/Palin. And let's say we had the same exact numbers posted above. Would you say it got worse or better under McCain/Palin? It's going from 10% down to 7.8%, in your book is that getting worse or better? I think we all know the honest answer to that one, we probably just won't hear it here tho.

Let me take you back to my post #389 that shows you that Bush was not completely to blame for everything as you so like to say:

The financial collapse of 2007-2008 goes back to the Clinton administration and Congress when they decided to deregulate the Banks and Financial Institutions. Check out this article:

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

BTW let me remind you that the Democrats took over and controlled a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, from the beginning of 2007. Till then The unemployment rate was about 4.5% and Bush's economic policies had set a record of 52 consecutive months of Job Creation. The Financial crisis and subsequent meltdown started after the Democrats took over both Houses in Jan 2007.

And what to say about the dumping of about $6 Trillion of toxic loans on the economy from the famous fiascoes by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, not to mention the dumping of several more Trillions of Dollars of US toxic shit on European Banks as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bush ask Congress almost 20 times to impose more regulation and oversight on Fannie & Freddie because of the financial risk it could bring on the US Economy, but was blocked by the (in the closet at the time) Democrat Barney Frank, as well as the Liberals, repeatedly?

Very interesting to note also and that many Liberals have forgotten that Senator Barack Obama was one of those Democrats who fought against reform of Fannie May and Freddy Mack, and you want to know why?

Because your dear President was the second highest receiver of political pay-offs by Freddie and Fannie. Yes that's right. Here's a video to remind you, just to refresh your memory:

Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions - YouTube

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube

As for the stock markets, Dow Jones was doing very well till the Democrats took over both houses in Jan 2007. After that we all know the story, so don't try to blame Bush for everything that happened.

Bush may have been the driver, but the Democrats had the foot on the accelerator to drive the economy into the ditch.

 

[eyedomainous]

Before the recession, only about half of those eligible for aid signed up for it, but now the number is over 70 percent.

Why don't you talk about the 23 million without work? ... If Obama has created all these new jobs, how come 18 million more people are receiving food stamps, since he came to office?

With millions out of work, Obama's real accomplishment in the "worst recession since the great depression" is pairing a core message of Hope with Stimulus spending.

The result; this is the first recession in history where crime rates actually fell. Historically, a 1% increase in the unemployment rate produced a 2% increase in the crime rate.

Hopelessness, and empty stomachs... drives crime rates.

Unable to complain about high crime rates, the fact that Republicans resort to complaining that Obama is feeding the hungry, and stimulating hope, during the worst recession ever... is deeply pathetic.

 

[DU]

Housing market picking up again

I think we need some more of this.

I think we need to allow a proper correction.

 

[RaiderGirl]

You get handed the worst economy since the Great Depression

We hear this line quite often from the left, Obama even went as so far to open up the debate with it, I'm not sure if it's the worse economy since the great depression, but let's assume that is was for a moment, Is the solution to improve our troubled economy to throw Trillions of dollars of borrowed money at the problem?..

This is the liberal solution to everything, when something needs fixing, throw more money at it and problem solved, but it didn't work, DID IT?.. It rarely does UNLESS you have the right policies in place to make it work.

The $1 Trillion in job stimulus did very little to create jobs in the PRIVATE sector... And if you go back and research when the recession officially ended, it ended BEFORE any of the Stimulus money was spent.

The Stimulus was nothing but a sham, it was used as a pay off to the unions and contributors who donated to Obama's 08 campaign... The rest went to states to retain public sector jobs, shore up budget shortfalls to states, colleges and public employee pensions, growing the size of Government while the public sector suffers, keeping our growth rate below 75% GDP which is LOWER than Cuba and Pakistan.. Nice.

The reason we have LOW growth and a national unemployment rate of 14.7% is primarily because of the failed policies of the last 4 years, When you shut down coal plants, you LOSE jobs, When you shut down deep well oil rigs off the Gulf coast you LOSE jobs, When you shut down oil refineries you LOSE jobs and drive UP the cost of fuel, $5 per gal. in California right now, What was it when Bush left office? Oh yeah, $1.68 per gal!

When you pass ObamaCare that says to businesses big and small that you MUST provide health care to all your employees, you LOSE jobs and slow growth, When you increase the corporate tax rate you LOSE jobs and slow growth.

Jobs are PEOPLE, Real human beings that have suffered under the reckless policies of the last 4 years.. These are NOT Bush policies, Bush did not give us Obamacare or unleash the EPA to go after energy companies, Bush did NOT increase the corporate tax rate, Bush did NOT increase regulations on businesses, Bush did NOT give us Dodd/Frank, It was Obama with the help of his stooges in congress that gave us all these.. These are ALL Obama's job killing policies, NOT Bush's.

And Obama has the audacity to go on the campaign stump and try and convince America he cares about the middle class, LOL.. that's certainly NOT what his policies tell us.

Over 4 MILLION private sector job losses under Obama's watch AFTER the country was OUT of recession in 2009, And Obama took full credit for ending the recession remember?

So do me a favor Sam, spare me the "Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression", because it NO LONGER APPLIES.

 

[JB Lions]

"This is the liberal solution to everything, when something needs fixing, throw more money at it and problem solved, but it didn't work, DID IT?.. It rarely does UNLESS you have the right policies in place to make it work."

Paul Ryan thought so:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlwAToAj7cE"]Inspirational speech on stimulus spending by Paul Ryan, 2002 - YouTube[/ame]

And I see you skipping over all those charts and stats. So yes, things are getting better. So yes, going from a high of 10% Unemployment to now 7.8% is going in the right direction.

"So do me a favor Sam, spare me the "Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression", because it NO LONGER APPLIES."

Well it was true, but we're now in a Recovery. Are we better than we were 4 years ago? Did you forget where we were 4 years ago (see charts)? That one is an easy Yes. We're on the right track, and I realize that sucks if you want Romney to win but it's good for our country and that's what's important.

 

[Theo Goodman]

 

[RogueWriter]

JB, while you are at it, could you post a chart that depicts deficit spending for the last 4 years? Also, how about a month by month unemployment rate for 4 years. Also, could you point out the last time Obama proposed a budget that the majority of =>Senate Democrats<= voted for. Also, how about a chart depicting the number of troops in Afghanistan over the last four years. Also, how about a chart depicting the number of civilians killed by drones in Pakistan over the last four years. Gee, this chart making is kinda fun, you can make any point you want to make without it actually meaning anything.