• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
157
Reaction score
69
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Associated Press By STEVE PEOPLES | Associated Press – 13 hrs ago"

"They are trying to be hopeful, but the Democratic Party's most passionate voters are struggling to hide their frustration with President Barack Obama."

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama - Yahoo! News


I think many had Hoped Obama was the lesser of two evils last time, I wonder how that Hope will work this time?
 
partisans want partisan things. news at 11
 
I am keeping my powder dry until around Aug/Sep time frame.....


j-mac
 
"Associated Press By STEVE PEOPLES | Associated Press – 13 hrs ago"

"They are trying to be hopeful, but the Democratic Party's most passionate voters are struggling to hide their frustration with President Barack Obama."

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama - Yahoo! News


I think many had Hoped Obama was the lesser of two evils last time, I wonder how that Hope will work this time?

Same way it did last time. Obama is more liberal than Romney.
 
Regardless their frustration with Obama, the progressives will vote for him. They've got nobody else to vote for. So all the points in the article are meaningless. I mean, okay...they won't give him money. Big deal. He doesn't need their money this time around.

I predict this election will have more in common with the 2010 election than the 2008 election.
 
Regardless their frustration with Obama, the progressives will vote for him. They've got nobody else to vote for. So all the points in the article are meaningless. I mean, okay...they won't give him money. Big deal. He doesn't need their money this time around.

I predict this election will have more in common with the 2010 election than the 2008 election.

The true progressives, far left and staunch Obama supporters are going to vote for him no matter what. The people who we need to watch out for are moderates and everyday citizens who are paying an arm and a leg for gas and groceries and/or have been out of work for awhile. These people are going to look at their current situation and ask themselves if they're better off than they were 4 years ago and if not, it's time for a change. Doesn't matter if that change would have been Cain, Santorum, Paul, or Gingrich, they still want a change and I believe they'll vote in hopes that a new guy will improve their circumstances.

I think we will see a drop in progressive/democrat voter turnout and a slight increase in Republican turnout, giving Romney the edge. So yes, Mycroft, VERY much like the 2010 election.
 
Obama has a weird problem. The left doesn't think he is liberal enough and the right thinks that he is the biggest socialist in history of mankind.

The man can't win.
 
Obama has a weird problem. The left doesn't think he is liberal enough and the right thinks that he is the biggest socialist in history of mankind.

The man can't win.

I disagree, I think the left thinks he's too liberal. However, a February gallup poll shows that the left thinks Obama is just about right, proving both of us wrong on that point. Half Say Obama Too Liberal, but 47% Agree With Him on Issues

You have to remember though, the Democratic platform of today is further left from the Democratic platform of 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. Same with the Republican platform. We've all been slowly migrating left while there are those like myself who see that migration and want both parties to return to their original beliefs, focusing on the foundations of this country that made it great.
 
What do partisan liberals want him to do? I don't know what they want.
 
Obama has a weird problem. The left doesn't think he is liberal enough and the right thinks that he is the biggest socialist in history of mankind.

The man can't win.

Well, he can't "win" because he set himself up for absolute failure on the campaign trail against McCain. Virtually everything the Left bitched about under Bush has been ignored by the Left under Obama, despite Obama leading the criticism for years. Liberals have proven to be extremely forgiving about what they believe in. And now that "Hope and Change" didn't really mean anything, Obama fans simply pretend that the struggle for Universal Health Care and gays in the military was all that ever matterred. The illusion goes on. It's the same crap that labeled Kennedy's White House, "Camelot."
 
What do partisan liberals want him to do? I don't know what they want.

That's because even they don't know what they want. This is why the Democratic Party is always at internal odds. This is why liberal illusions and dreams tend to always take the place of the reality. Everything under Bush has been carried on and Liberals have largely fallen silent about what they used to protest. Liberals are largely lost. The global Left won about a century ago at the advent of the worker's union. This struggle moved on to civil rights decades ago. And now with a black man in the White House, wearing military stars, etc., what does the Liberal nation stand for? They are clinging to illusions, hoping for some other social injustice to grand stand on. Gays entering the military relatively easy enough must have been a dissapointment.
 
Last edited:
Obama is just as right leaning as Romney. Liberals and moderates are fed up with him because of how conservative he is.
 
Obama is just as right leaning as Romney. Liberals and moderates are fed up with him because of how conservative he is.

Yeah, but they will still vote for Obama because he is a "D" and Consrvatives will still vote for Romney because he is an "R". Hence the depthness of our unlicensed ignorant voters.
 
Hence the depthness of our unlicensed ignorant voters.

One would think it a symptom of the fact that they are the only two candidates able to win, and not just the stupidity of the voters. The Soviet system worked pretty much the same way, BTW.
 
Last edited:
What do partisan liberals want him to do? I don't know what they want.

What's a partisan liberal?

Well, he can't "win" because he set himself up for absolute failure on the campaign trail against McCain. Virtually everything the Left bitched about under Bush has been ignored by the Left under Obama, despite Obama leading the criticism for years. Liberals have proven to be extremely forgiving about what they believe in. And now that "Hope and Change" didn't really mean anything, Obama fans simply pretend that the struggle for Universal Health Care and gays in the military was all that ever matterred. The illusion goes on. It's the same crap that labeled Kennedy's White House, "Camelot."

Um, no, we criticize Obama a lot for some of those things. You just selectively forget that.
 
"Associated Press By STEVE PEOPLES | Associated Press – 13 hrs ago"

"They are trying to be hopeful, but the Democratic Party's most passionate voters are struggling to hide their frustration with President Barack Obama."

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama - Yahoo! News


I think many had Hoped Obama was the lesser of two evils last time, I wonder how that Hope will work this time?

He was the better choice. That hasn't changed. And today, he is still the better choice. That doesn't mean we're all completely happy with him. But let's not pretend that any disappointment means there is someone better facing him.
 
What's a partisan liberal?



Um, no, we criticize Obama a lot for some of those things. You just selectively forget that.

Do you mean you criticize Obama while on the phone with your friend or with friends over dinner? Because on the national level I have heard nothing....


1) Let's hit the biggie...Guantanamo Bay. Leading the cry about GITMO was the Democratic Party. We heard comments about Nazi germany and Russian Gulags. Closing GITMO was a campaign promise. Yet, once in office, Obama struggled with the same question Bush had about what to do with the prisoners that nobody wanted. GITMO remains open and in use to the silence of the Left.

2) Car company bail-outs under Bush were mocked for protecting the wealthy by the Democratic Party. Yet, this act was mimicked by Obama along with a stimulus package to protect companies and banks "too big to fail." Liberals immediately changed their minds and supported Obama.

3) Civilian deaths as the result of UAV drones were source of criticism for how badly the conduct of war was going. Yet despite the mulitpliction of these strikes and the amount of civilian deaths involved, the Left is silent. Whatever happend to that great bitch about "sovereignty?" I guess Obama gets a pass. Sending drones into Pakistan and dropping bombs in Libya must have everything to do with obeying the "soveriegnty" of others. And we have ratcheted up sanctions on Iran as well.

4) Bush's surge in Iraq was scoffed. So much so that Pelosi attempted to give credit to Iran for Iraq's turn around. Yet Obama mimicking the surge in Afghanistan was viewed as wise and supported by Liberals.

5) Bush was criticized by Liberals for insulting Europe and our allies. Europeans even gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize to encourage a "Change." This didn't stop Obama from returning the bust of Churchill to England that Tony Blair gave the White House. Obama declined dinner with the Sarkozys to have a night out in Paris. Obama rejected a US-EU summit in Madrid. Obama abruptly changed America’s missile-defense plans with Poland dismissing Pole sentiment. Obama turned down the invitation to attend the 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Despite these snubs, the Liberals no longer criticized relations between the White House and Europe. By the way, today Obama blamed our economic problems on Europe. How does that sit with Europeans?

6) Obama promised the most transparent administration in history while on the campaign trail. He praised whistleblowing in the past under Bush, arguing that "such acts of courage and patriotism should be encouraged rather than be stifled." Yet, his Justice Department has pressed criminal charges against five suspected leakers under the Espionage Act, which is more than all other administrations combined, including Nixon’s. As far as wire tapping, a few laws of accountability have merely allowed the program to go on. Where's the Liberal complaint over the last few years? And today, despite the transparency that leaks provide, Obama denies his part in any leaks. Obama can't have it both ways, yet Liberals are more than willing to allow him to.

7) Despite gaining the votes from minority immigrants with the promise of dealing with the southern border, he has yet to make a serious attempt to reform immigration nor even talked about the importance of our immigrants from the south to the dismay of Hispanic voters.

8) Despite his expression on the importance of global warming and energy consumption, the Copenhagen Summit was a flop and the cap-and-trade energy billed got stuck in the Senate because of Obama's decision to make health legislation his priority.


For all the criticisms of Bush, Liberals really are forgiving of Obama. Unemployment remains at a high level. The economy is still struggling. So....where's this fabled "Change?" Wasn't "A Vote for McCain a Vote for Bush?" Where's the national level Liberal whining today? It doesn't exist, because Liberals don't want to acknowledge how foolish they are. They want Obama to be that dream just as much as they wanted Kennedy to be Camelot. Hell, even Clinton's infidelities and treatment of his wife and child was forgiven quite quickly among Liberal women. Liberals often forget what they believe in.
 
Last edited:
MSgt:

1. Not quite true. What Obama struggled with was getting support. Remember the fear mongering done by conservatives and how democrats didn't have the backbone to resist what was clearly nonsense. But Obama did try to close GITMO.

2. And many opposed Obama for this. Both sides showed some hypocracy here, but some of us knew both parties would bail them out.

3. Still criticized. This is one of his worse failures.

4. Afghanistan is a different animal. Most of us wanted the focus to return to Afghanistan. What was different in Iraq was not the Surge, but the awakening. Without a simplar movement in Afghanistan, the surge was not likely to be successful. We can't be beaten militarily, but democracies don't lend themselves to long term occupations.


There are real differences between the two. Obama doesn't try and excuse torture as merely enhanced interogation techniques. He did not invade a country on a pretext. And no president, democrat or republican control the economy. it is a fool who believes the economy depends on who is in office.

McCain exercised poor judgment in picking Palin. This cost him a lot of votes. What he ahd to do to get past the more radical elements of the republican party and that poor judgment hurt him a lot. It certainly cost him my vote. I really would have voted for the McCain of 2000.
 
It is what it is. Obama is a better choice than Romney, though Romney is better than the others that ran with the possibile exception of Paul.

Barrack Obama doesn't agree with you.

Just today he was asking Romney and Congress for leadership as to what to do about the ongoing economic problems.

His pretending to be president and obvious lack of leadership abilities has worn on the American electorate and Romney will win big.
 
Barrack Obama doesn't agree with you.

Just today he was asking Romney and Congress for leadership as to what to do about the ongoing economic problems.

Link? This I've got to see.
 
Barrack Obama doesn't agree with you.

Just today he was asking Romney and Congress for leadership as to what to do about the ongoing economic problems.

His pretending to be president and obvious lack of leadership abilities has worn on the American electorate and Romney will win big.

:roll: :roll: :roll:
 
“What I’m interested in hearing from Congress and Mr. Romney is, what steps are they willing to take right now that are going to make an actual difference?” Obama said after the meeting with the president of the Philippines.

Obama Dials Back Optimism After Romney Jumps on Comments - Bloomberg

Right -- as expected, a ridiculous interpretation by you. What Obama was obviously saying is that it's very easy for Romney and republicans to take pot shots at him, but they haven't offered any positive proposals of their own.
 
Back
Top Bottom