I just don't understand how people think that a guy who used to buy-out and restructure businesses by cutting jobs in order to boost returns would be good for creating new jobs.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Obama passed Universal Health Care reform...meaningful.
Drone attacks are working.
Gun laws is a fight he did not want to take on for obvious reasons
btw Clinton repealed Glass Seagel which was responsible for the ecenomic collapse..though obviously that was not his intention.
Business business *mumble mumble* something about business.
Add to that, he did enforce stricter prop trading rules and increased bank capital requirements. Punishing wall street is not easy as the wallstreet pretty much runs the fed. Republicans are certainly not going to do a better job.
People expect him to some kind of Messiah to just put America back into the growth seen in the 90s. That is not so easy after such a recession and America has recovered pretty well compared to the mess that is Europe.
Yes drone attacks are pretty sad, but he has done well to reduce the Afghanistan's Al-Qaeda influence. How he handles the arising Pakistani terrorism threat is yet to be seen.
This part is harsh, even congressional Democrats were skeptical of a bigger stimulus.
The main criticisms I agree on about Obama are - drones, civil liberties and lack of Wall St prosecutions (also his failure to turn his oratorical skills towards better general communication, but that's minor). I also see the reasons why he acted in the way he did, though (essentially, pragmatism).
What gun laws do you want to see Obama tackle?
He knows what it takes.
But which other leader would have the balls to tackle these issues (Democrats and Republicans included)?
I don't disagree (hence my point about pragmatism), they're just the criticisms which I think stick the most to a liberal mind, and are disappointing. I think the good he's done far, far outweighs the bad. I also think it's important to recognise that worse stuff as well though.
Foreign policy - same as Dubya? That's a bit of a hard sell...
Wall Street reforms - he fixed a little bit of the mess Clinton created by repealing Glass-Steagall, not enough obviously, but in comparison to the Big Dog, he comes off very well there.
Prosecution of inv. banks - well, interestingly what little he has done, has Wall Street (including Democratic execs) crying blue murder. Clinton, of course, was the one who made sure the Democratic party courted Wall St. after decades of perceived Democratic arrogance towards the money-men. Oh, and Marc Rich - and all the last minute pardons he handed out as favours to his bundlers - not a very strong case that he would have gone after Wall St.
The stimulus - when Christina Roehmer tried to push for a $1.8 tr. package, it was Larry Summers (formerly Clinton's Treasury Secy.) who made sure that figure didn't even come up for discussion and made a political judgement that $800 bn. would be the upper limit that Congress would pass.
And then, there's universal healthcare, which even Clinton is in admiration of Obama for getting done, and has fiercely repudiated any suggestion that Obama didn't push hard enough for single-payer.
By Clinton's own standards then, it would appear that Obama has done a better job, in the face of unprecedented Repub obstructionism.
It's easy to forget how obstructionist congressional Republicans were under Gingrich. They were essentially the same, even if the Tea Party element was lacking in the wider party. And then they impeached the President.
That's true but have a look at this graph:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html
I'm sorry, but defending drone strikes because they 'work' is similar to Republicans defending torture.
The US policies on drone strikes, specifically with signature strikes and double tapping only serve to piss people off and make more enemies. Attacking rescuers and funerals? ffs..
I think anyone who thinks that Obama is not leading going into this election is clearly insane.
It's a terrible policy that has been abused under the current administration.
Obama has been very vocal on the previous administrations abuse of power. Sadly many Americans actually believe there is a difference in foreign policy between Obama and Romney.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/opinion/pakistan-drone-attacks-akbar/index.html
assume you are talking about national polls?
Maybe in your eyes. Most Americans are fairly supportive of the policy to say the least. The information and statistics regarding the effectiveness of the strikes is mixed and confusing. Some reports have high civilian casualties and others have relatively lows numbers. There have certainly been some fairly significant militants and terrorists killed in the strikes.
No, I saw on twitter that people were saying that this race is a 'toss-up' and Nate saying it's not. I agree with Nate, Obama is a clear favourite to win, all the relevant polling shows that.
Lots of conservatives and gullible pundits, essentially.
There is a difference in foreign policy between Obama and Romney.
There is
US foreign policy really doesn't change much from term to term. The interests of the US and Americans are fairly contsant, the rhetoric is the only real difference.
Depends on which Romney.
Well, if the Democrats says killing rescuers and mourners at funerals is good and Republicans agree, who is presenting the counterarguments? People who can easily be written off as crazies because they don't fit in the Washington spectrum.
It's a short term measure. The Middle East and Southern Asia will remember this just like South America remember US meddling in the 60s and 70s- better pray that there is still an economic/military reason for the US to not face the consequences of these decisions in the future.
With the loony Bush neo-cons Romney has around him, Iran will be invaded within the year on some made up 'evidence'.
This is what Powell was alluding to when he endorsed Obama again.
Bloomberg Endorses Obama For Re-Election
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/bloomberg-endorses-obama-for-re-election
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has endorsed President Obama for re-election. In an op-ed for Bloomberg News titled "A Vote for a President to Lead on Climate Change," Bloomberg wrote:
One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.
Bloomberg continues:
Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both found success while their parties were out of power in Congress -- and President Obama can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And that’s why I will be voting for him.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/bloomberg-endorses-obama-for-re-election
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has endorsed President Obama for re-election. In an op-ed for Bloomberg News titled "A Vote for a President to Lead on Climate Change," Bloomberg wrote:
One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.
Bloomberg continues:
Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both found success while their parties were out of power in Congress -- and President Obama can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And that’s why I will be voting for him.
Romney's drone policy could potentially be infinitely more severe. At least Obama wasn't so vocal.
The RW pundits were saying the polls were fixed before the 1st debate.
After the second and third they were saying only the state polls were fixed...thus attacking poor nate Silver.
not being callous about innocent deaths.
There are...as in all war. It is absolutely necessary to target and kill terrorists. Unfortunately non combatants will sometimes be killed.
Ah yes because Obama has never gone back on his word? ALL of Washington flip-flops, it's basic job security. The irony is in those who chose to see their candidate as the one sticking to their word.
We are a short term memory Nation and this will eventually catch up with us. It 's the reason all those in Washington are able to say one thing on Monday and another on Tuesday, we are all too segregated to call them on it. It's either claimed as being too left or right biased. Oddly similar to some of the RAWK postings I've read, it's either red or blue tint glasses.
So you actually believe The Secretary Of State under "loony Bush" who invaded Iraq without Congressional consent, that Obama will simply turned a blind eye if Iran attacks Israel or is found to have nuclear capabilities?
So Eric Holder not prosecuting any banks, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, brokers is Bill Clinton's fault now?
I think Obama's administration decided to give all of Wall Street a pass on pre-crisis offenses, supposedly in the interests of staving off a market panic. I can see the logic in it, though I don't agree with it.
On the stimulus, Roemer, Krugman, Stieglitz et al repeatedly argued that $800 Billion would be too little. Obama had majority in the house and senate, and could have obviously passed whatever stimulus he wanted. Obviously he relied on Summers, Geithner and Rubin and made the wrong call.
Republican obstructionism was pretty fierce during Clinton. I recall they were able to shut down the govt when budget talks collapsed, and even managed to impeach him.
You have not read the various books and reports on how the Bush Administration made up 'intelligence'?
"Slam Dunck" ring a bell?
How about Valrie Plane????
Obama would never have allowed such things to have happened.
Unlike air head Bush Obama is a Real President.
EDIT:
Under Obama Iran would not have the balls to attack Isreal...cause the Ayatollah knows Obama would send a drone through his bathroom window whenevr he felt like it.
kin ell...the US can level Iran without one boot on the ground.....and they know it
You're obviously a nice guy I don't think you are being callous.
The main problem is that the policy is not targeted enough. (ignoring the violation of international law- that's a given these days) Where there is actionable intelligence it is arguable that the greater good is served by target strikes.. signature strikes- targeting any 'behaviour that could be observed to be terrorist-like' and double tapping are different.
I've heard that they don't count men over the age of 15 as civilians anymore- they are 'potential combatants' or some other Orwellian title just to keep the numbers down. The families who knew they were innocent don't forget this.
In the long term it will only breed more hatred of the US in the region.
Obam could have spent his entire Presidency prosecuting the Bush Administration....
He made a decision not to do that for obvious reasons.
Obama is no saint...fortunately.
He is hawkish...but not a fool.
No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. Your criticism of Obama is justified.
But there are no grounds to argue that Clinton would have done better.
On the stimulus, do you think Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman would have gone along with a $1.8 tn. package? The notion that 'Obama had majority in the house and senate, and could have obviously passed whatever stimulus he wanted' is a fallacy. It was a technical and tenuous super-majority in the Senate. Maybe he didn't fight hard enough, I'll give you that, but that isn't nearly the same as saying he had the run of Congress to do as he pleased.
Eh? Who said anything about voting for Romney. I mean I'm no fan of Obama but Romney would be infinitely worse.
Other parties exist too! I don't buy this idea of voting for a lesser evil, that's not really bonafide democracy.
If the US observed international law, we could not have got bin Laden...
Do you think these people would love us if we had not got him?
In the end I guess I trust Obama. He is not a raving war monger nor does he have an ulterior motive to invade countries like the neo-cons.
But he will keep this country safe...that I am sure of.
If some of these people want to attack us...and they will try...He will ensure they are killed.
Except you're forgetting why 'these people' are trying to attack you. You can't just bomb your problems away.
- Status