To clairy, that wasn't Obama. That was.. that comedian.
To clairy, that wasn't Obama. That was.. that comedian.
Looks like the Republicans are having difficulty ponying up a credible opponent to face Obama. I seriously doubt many of the presumed candidates think they have what it takes to win. Obama's team must be salivating about the likes of Trump, John Bolton, and Ron Paul (and Barbour before he pulled out).
AJEnglish Al Jazeera English
Gingrich set to join White House race: Conservative standard bearer ranks among best-known Republican candidates... Gingrich set to join White House race - Americas - Al Jazeera English
Looking at polling numbers two weeks old, 64% and 65% of the electorate respectively say they wouldn't vote for Donald Trump or Sarah Palin.
He's highly rated in Republican circles as some sort of intellectual conservative who can take on Obama. In reality, he has little independent appeal, mainly because he comes across as a bit of a hawkish dinosaur who cut his political teeth in the 80s and 90s, and has been using Fox News as a platform to relaunch himself onto an audience that has probably moved on. So his hype is mainly conservative and he'd get hammered in the primaries, much less against Obama.
His followers must be idiots as I have never seen him stick with a policy, he seems to have created a 'leader of the opposition' portfolio for himself where he opposes whatever the administration does and then reverses his position if Obama changes direction. His statements with regard to Libya are hilarious, he urges Obama to get involved, and then says it was wrong to get involved after he had done so.
AP-Gfk poll: Obama approval hits 60 percent - Yahoo! News
Early days as far as the election goes, but things are looking increasingly ominous for Republicans. No credible candidates to offer at a time where Obama's popularity is spiking at a two year high. The issue where Republicans were banking Obama would be a lightweight on - Foreign Policy - is shaping up to be one of his strengths.
I cannot fathom why Palin is still in the picture, Trump is a bit more realistic but still a pretty weak candidate.
I'm not exactly sure how many votes will be coming from the 'Immigration' issue. I'm not latin, so maybe I'm off on this... Having lived in Los Angeles, I remember most mexican-amierican being just as anti-immigration as most people, especially in a bad economy.
This is a collosal waste of time by Obama, the GOP House would never pass a bill on immigration... not in an Obama term, no fecking way! What will happen is Democrat voters will look back and say, 'He shoulda know it would never pass, why did he waste all that time on it.. like so many other issues, whilst getting feck-all done.'
Don't know which part of the USA Raoul is referring to having increased employment.
Jobs are in a free-fall dive with the sharp climb in fuel at the pump. Wall Street and/or the Oil Corporations are unwilling to let the prices come down, despite the hit on the comodities market, last week. Everyone is suffering badly. The 100k jobs gains each month can not be keeping up with job losses, no fecking way.
Well A) you are off on it, but B) it's not just about how many immigrants come here, legally or otherwise, but what the process is for them to come here, how we treat them when we are here, etc. A construction worker in California of Mexican descent may not be all that supportive of amnesties for illegal immigrants, but that doesn't mean he wants the ones who are here to be treated like shit.
Even before the rise of the Teahadist nutters, the GOP tended to shoot itself in the foot in these debates because the right-wing would frame it as "brown people flooding over the border, threatening our (white) way of life". I can only imagine how hilariously they'll conduct the debate this time.
So, according to you, Democrat voters will blame the Democratic President because Republicans won't pass a bill.
...okay
Wait, you're aware of the large net job gains, (it's actually been over 200k/month the last three months) but you don't know which parts of the USA are having increased employment.
Are you mental?
Lovely chart... I can find dozens of charts that show jobs of a living wage the dive off over the past 20-30 years, showing no improvement.
Your 200k figure is debatable
and would be barely a measurable factor compared to the jobs lost in the past 10 years.. or 20 years for that matter.
.. but I don't have time for it. I'm one of the few people in America still working.
Oh, and I didn't say the Dems would blame him for not passing a bill, rather they'd blame him for bangin' his wagon up a dead end, the same way the Republitards bang on about abortion.
If you expect me to respond with something that resembles a conversation, please go back and address the economic points I made.
The USA should have the same labor policy as the UK. No immigrant can occuppy a position if an American is willing and able...
...and excal, I worked in the CA construction field. Don't be telling me... I know all about it.
What on Earth does that have to do with employment statistics and their changes over the past 2+ years?
Debate it, then. BTW, it's a net change figure, not just "jobs added".
Were you just waiting for anything vaguely related to the economy to have a screaming rant about, or are you actually unable to grasp the fact that the performance of the economy over the past 2 years is more relevant to President Obama's reelection prospects than that of the past 10-20?
By your own (unsubstantiated) 17-18% claim, that still means that >80% of America is working, so kindly climb off your high I-beam?
Interesting that you use abortion as your analogy, given that the failure of the GOP to push any legislation to change national abortion law, despite the certainty that any such legislation would surely have failed, is a frequent sticking point among conservative voters, and indeed, a contributing factor in the rise of the Tea Party.
Which "points" were those, precisely. Your baseless assertion that job growth can't exist due to rising oil prices? The irrelevant article about public assistance cuts that you copied and pasted? I ignored them the same way I would ignore a gob of spittle on your chin. They added nothing to your argument and made you look silly.
Completely contradictory with existing state laws, unconstitutional on the federal level, and a complete non-starter, politically. As useless a proposal as the "build a giant fence and that'll solve the problem". Moreso, since at least there you'd have to hire a workforce to build a fence.
Splendid. You can teach me how to rivet things, and I can teach you how to read a chart. The reverse would be far less productive.
Don't get snippy, boyo. You demanded I "go back and address" your "economic points", which consisted of a few ranty assertions and an article on an entirely different topic you copied and pasted. If you want to treat those as pearls you've cast before swine and claim that I've "omitted facts" because I didn't bother to respond to your off-topic digressions, don't get offended when I mock you for it.
In the meantime, I'll be enjoying double-barreled belly laughs at your belief that I'm conservative (have you actually read any of this thread at all?) and your comment that you've had "hundreds of these conversations" and that "they go nowhere." (What do you think the single unchanging element all those conversations had in common was?)
Ignorance of the facts... on the part of people such as yourself.
Dems Retake Edge In Generic Ballot For First Time Since 2009 | TPMDC
wont just be the President coming back it seems.
He's highly rated in Republican circles as some sort of intellectual conservative who can take on Obama. In reality, he has little independent appeal, mainly because he comes across as a bit of a hawkish dinosaur who cut his political teeth in the 80s and 90s, and has been using Fox News as a platform to relaunch himself onto an audience that has probably moved on. So his hype is mainly conservative and he'd get hammered in the primaries, much less against Obama.