You’re in the Mid-Atlantic? 
Good news on that front!: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/obama-leads-gop-in-battleground-virginia/
Yeah, I don’t understand that. In terms of market performance, everything’s been chugging away pretty well since he took office. I think folks forget how much in the shitter the markets were in early 2009. Here’s the numbers I got, for those interested. Let’s start with the numbers on Jan 20, 2009, Obama’s inauguration date.
Dow
Then: 7949.59
Now: 13,170.19 (Up 65.7%)
DAX
Then: 4239.85
Now: 7054.94 (Up 66.4%)
FTSE 100
Then: 4091.40
Now: 5891.41 (Up 44%)
Nikkei 100
Then: 8.065.79
Now: 10,086.49 (Up 25%)
CAC 40
Then: 2925.28
Now: 3530.83 (Up 20.7%)
Now, there are other metrics by which you can be more critical of his performance (say, unemployment), or I suppose you can argue that the markets did well in spite of his presidency, but to say the world market is “down on his watch” is simply not correct factually. Do you really not remember how shitty the end of '08 and early '09 was?
Do you have examples of specific things you think support your position of “failed Democratic President”?
For nearly thirteen years on this board, I’ve marvelled at this: that posters seem to forget that they’re not in a spoken conversation where they can bullshit people about what they’ve already said, but rather in a conversation where their previous words can be completely and precisely recalled.
Now that I’ve gotten that digression out of the way, let’s roll tape. Here’s what you said you were talking about:
It’s hard to read this as anything besides, “The things that politicians do don’t affect anyone’s life much, hence politics is like rooting for different sports teams.”
If you’ve decided that what you now mean is, “individual voters don’t have much effect on election/policy outcomes, so in that sense it’s like rooting for sports teams,” that’s fine, but it damned sure isn’t where you started out in this thread.
I don’t see a huge difference between the two statements. It boils down to “don’t hate people that vote differently”. Obama does not hate America. Neither does Romney. Nor do most people that plan to vote for either candidate. Rational minds can differ as to which policies are best for the country. For many people, everyday life is not going to change a whole lot no matter which candidate wins this fall.
If you somehow think this is some Perry Mason-style shocking reveal…I disagree.
No they don’t. It doesn’t help their effortsd to paint Obama as a reckless spendthrift if they acknowledge taht the world was on the brink of economic collapse and that we are still operating under severeeconomic pressures.
So they pretend that the increase in the deficit is largely the result of Obama’s increased spending rather than the result of the recession and tax cuts (by Obama and Bush). In fact I have heard commentators try to pin the deficit on Obamacare.
If they repeal Obamacare, the future changes for a signficant percentage of the population.
I disagree that the Republicans believe they are pursuing policies that they believe are good for the country. I think theya re pursuing policies that will unseat the Democrats regardless of the merits of the pocilies because they think they have a monopoly on good ideas and it is worth any price (even short term harm to the country) because a Republican government will be so fucking good for the country over the long term thaat its worth whatever harm they may wreak now.
I also don’t think they have been particularly rational lately.
They aren’t going to repeal Obamacare. SCOTUS is going to strike it as unconstitutional. The opinion may have some harsh language in it, as certain members of the Court are still pissed at Obama’s blatantly inappropriate scolding during one of his State of the Union speeches. Payback is a bitch.
The entire thing? Really? On what grounds would they strike down expanding Medicaid eligibility or broadening the degree to which insurers must cover the adult children of policyholders?
Non-severability, I believe.
With some laws, if one clause is struck down, it really doesn’t affect the workings of the other parts. That’s way less true of the PPACA. In particular, nondiscrimination against persons with pre-existing conditions only works if you have the mandate.
At any rate, it remains to be seen whether this Court will strike down the PPACA, in whole or in part. But it certainly demonstrates the practical importance of who will be the next President.
With the fraction of Americans covered by employer-based health insurance down to 53.5%, whether tens of millions of Americans are just one major health crisis away from financial ruin hangs in the balance here.
The next President has an excellent likelihood of being able to determine the orientation of the Court, given that both Scalia and Kennedy will turn 80 during the next Presidential term.
Yeah, just like rooting for a sports team. :rolleyes:
[ETA: I doubt there’s any confusion, but just in case there is, the rolleyes aren’t aimed at you, Feldon.]
Wait, what?
You’re saying that the Supreme Court would decide a case based on a petty grievance, but at the same time they’re so above it all that it’s inappropriate for the head of one branch of government to comment negatively on what SCOTUS does?
Uhhuh. :rolleyes:
No, that is pretty clearly not what I am saying. Read it again, carefully, to realize your error.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Please take any further discussion of healthcare reform or what SCOTUS might do to the appropriate thread. Thanks.
Let’s just look at one part of your post, since it’s the source of the confusion, IMHO.
“Payback is a bitch” only makes sense if either (a) the payback is a Supreme Court decision being decided adversely when otherwise it wouldn’t have been, or (b) you regard some sharp language in a decision that would have come down the same way anyway as the sort of payback that’s a bitch.
I guess you’re saying (b). But if so, you must realize that your view of payback is quite different from the norm.
Please take the Supreme Court discussion to a separate thread.
I wouldn’t expect an answer to this. Oakminster is just parroting the “failed President” bullshit that the GOP and Fox have been spewing as of late. Note they don’t cite anything specific because there is nothing specific to cite. They just think that if they say it enough, people will start to believe it.
Unfortunately this tactic does seem to work well on people with diminished mental capacities.
It is offensive.
A new video of Romney “severely conservative” moments is now up: Mitt Romney: Memories to Last a Lifetime - YouTube
I just changed my location, but as a Guest, no one will know unless they check my profile. But I’d like to add a suggestion that I see several have already thought of – add your geographic location after Obama Country. My location is now Obama Country - Ohio (and I think the OP’s would read the same). It might make it a little more interesting to see how many Red State / Blue State / Swing State supporters we have here.
Not a bad idea - I’ll do it!