• 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!

America's Fed Up: Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low, Poll Shows [W:256]

But what is a voter to do when the most qualified refuse to even seek the nomination? When the two major parties give us a choice between dumb and dumber.

Then don't vote.

If the turnout gets low enough then better candidates will feel empowered to try.

Now, what's the point?

I would never vote for someone whom I did not think would do a good job...that would be ridiculous, imo.


Also, if someone knowingly votes for a crap candidate, then they have no business whining when that candidate performs like crap when elected.

It is still the voter's fault that Obama and G.W. Bush suck/sucked as POTUS...especially those that re-elected these two jokes.
 
I never get tired of conservatives trying to pretend that George W. Bush never existed.


Pretense is still blaming Bush 6 years into Obama's presidency.
 
Then don't vote.

If the turnout gets low enough then better candidates will feel empowered to try.

Now, what's the point?

I would never vote for someone whom I did not think would do a good job...that would be ridiculous, imo.


Also, if someone knowingly votes for a crap candidate, then they have no business whining when that candidate performs like crap when elected.

It is still the voter's fault that Obama and G.W. Bush suck/sucked as POTUS...especially those that re-elected these two jokes.

There is another option, I voted third party. But third party candidate do not stand a chance as the election laws are written, by Republicans and democrats by the way, as a mutual protection act for the major parties. Then both parties have sold their heart and soul to special interests, corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, huge money donors and that is where their loyalties lie. Third party candidates get none of these tens of millions or like in 2012, hundreds of millions.

It is like when one goes to the polls these days, you end up voting for which company will have the most political influence over our elected officials, Goldman Sachs or Bank of America. But then these firms and corporations aren't dumb either, quite a lot end up donating their tens of millions to both parties, that way no matter who wins the election, the winner owes them big time.
 
Spoken like someone who believes what they are told and ignores the actual results. Name for me one, JUST ONE economic number that Obama has that has been better than Bush? Bush won the Iraq War and Obama lost the peace, We had the Afghanistan War won but again Obama is losing the peace. What exactly is it going to take for you and others to realize what a disaster Obama is? Do you pay any attention at all to what is really going on in this country(economic results) or foreign policy? This is really sad, such poor leadership.


The funny thing about about your reply is that it insinuates that I think Obama is a decent president. I don't, he's sorely lacking one like the president before him.
 
Your post was too simple minded ... in essence.
By his actions on energy, as one example, he affected our economic growth negatively and not as economically dominant ... and don't get me started on foreign policy.
And given that he's known for apologizing to the world for our strength before he came along, it's not surprising the UN would recognize him for that.

On energy, as one example, the U.S. is in a better position than when Obama was inaugurated.

Reuters: U.S. June crude oil exports highest since 1957, passing Ecuador


us-crude-oil-production-monthly-jan-2000-jan-2012.png


Natural gas:
us-crude-oil-and-natural-gas-production-2000-2011.png
....

us-price-of-natural-gas-jan-2000-feb-2012.png


Fact Checker - Obama's 'Apology Tour'
pinocchio.gifpinocchio.gifpinocchio.gifpinocchio.gif
 
The funny thing about about your reply is that it insinuates that I think Obama is a decent president. I don't, he's sorely lacking one like the president before him.

The results show that Obama couldn't hold Bush's jockstrap. Bush was much maligned by people who don't have a clue as to what he actually did and what he was prevented from doing. He is judged by his 2008 numbers with a Democrat Controlled Congress. I defy you to research the numbers prior to 2008 and then tell me how bad he was?
 


Lol !

Are you allergic to reality ? Honesty ?

Or do you think everyone is as gullible as the average Obama supporter ? That they would beleive your nonsense ?

You're seriously trying to give Obama credit for new oil exploration on PRIVATE LANDS ?

I mean forget the fact that every year in his bugdet proposals Obama has sought to increase taxes on domestic Oil, Gas and Coal production.

The permitting delays for Oil and Gas exploration under Obama have doubled to almost 350 days.

He's gone on to attack Coal and do everything in his power to shut down fracking through EPA mandates.

The State offering the most permits for Oil and Natural gas exploration ?

Texas.

Obama has NOTHING to do with new Oil and Gas exploration.
 
The results show that Obama couldn't hold Bush's jockstrap. Bush was much maligned by people who don't have a clue as to what he actually did and what he was prevented from doing. He is judged by his 2008 numbers with a Democrat Controlled Congress. I defy you to research the numbers prior to 2008 and then tell me how bad he was?

You hold Obama solely responsible for everything that's happened during his time in office, but give Bush a pass because he had a Democratic congress. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
 
You hold Obama solely responsible for everything that's happened during his time in office, but give Bush a pass because he had a Democratic congress. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.


That is what any low information voter would believe. Bush is certainly responsible for the results generated during his term, but it seems he is also responsible for the poor results 6 years after leaving office. The point being that the 8 years of Bush are ignored as you and others focus on 2008. Even with 2008 there aren't any Obama numbers better than Bush and Obama said he had the answers and today you still believe him after all the lies.
 
"Low information voter" is an arrogant insult used to deride those who disagree with you.

I didn't call you a low information voter, now did I? You looking for a personal attack vs. addressing what I posted? Name for me just one Obama economic result that is better than Bush's?
 
The results show that Obama couldn't hold Bush's jockstrap. Bush was much maligned by people who don't have a clue as to what he actually did and what he was prevented from doing. He is judged by his 2008 numbers with a Democrat Controlled Congress. I defy you to research the numbers prior to 2008 and then tell me how bad he was?

You think Bush was a decent president?
 
You think Bush was a decent president?

The results say he was, his communication skills however led to the total destruction of his Presidency and distortion of his record. I look at results and results matter. Up to 2008 his numbers rivaled the best.
 
Lol !

Low information strikes again !

No actually it was the LA Times that FIRST called Obama a " Magic Negro ".

In March 2007.

Rush just parodied the article.

Low information is people who listen to Limbaugh, or who think the last five Republican presidents were anything but god awful.
 
This was the post I was responding to:
Your post was too simple minded ... in essence.
By his actions on energy, as one example, he affected our economic growth negatively and not as economically dominant ... and don't get me started on foreign policy.
And given that he's known for apologizing to the world for our strength before he came along, it's not surprising the UN would recognize him for that.
Lol !

Are you allergic to reality ? Honesty ?

Or do you think everyone is as gullible as the average Obama supporter ? That they would beleive your nonsense ?

You're seriously trying to give Obama credit for new oil exploration on PRIVATE LANDS ?

I mean forget the fact that every year in his bugdet proposals Obama has sought to increase taxes on domestic Oil, Gas and Coal production.

The permitting delays for Oil and Gas exploration under Obama have doubled to almost 350 days.

He's gone on to attack Coal and do everything in his power to shut down fracking through EPA mandates.

The State offering the most permits for Oil and Natural gas exploration ?

Texas.

Obama has NOTHING to do with new Oil and Gas exploration.
Then, Fenton and bubbabgone are contradicting each other. bubbabgone clearly said 'Obama negatively effected economic growth' due to unknown policies in energy while Fenton claims Obama has NOTHING to do with new Oil and Gas exploration. The results (facts) are that oil and gas production are up and natural gas prices are down -- which contradicts bubbabgone's claim that Obama policies on energy are negatively effecting the economy.

I find it both sad and funny that right-wingers hold beliefs that they are convinced are true but don't withstand simple researching of results. Another one of those beliefs -- we call them myths, about Reagan. Everyone on the right knows that Reagan presided over job creation on a scale never seen before or since. But what they know just isn’t so.

If we look at monthly job creation as a measure, to factor out the length difference in presidential terms, we get this:

080814krugman1-blog480.png


So, when the general gum chewing public rates presidents, do you think that they have any idea that Carter's average monthly job creation was greater than Reagan's or that Bush II had essentially no job gains? No, their polled viewpoint reflect what they "know" even if what they no is completely wrong. That's something one doesn't get when polling historians.
 
Last edited:
The trick is to NOT buy wholesale into the lefts definition of the Bush Presidency.
What you would have us do is not buy into the facts of the Bush presidency.

Bush's first tax-cut arrived in the middle of a recession, but that was an accident. It was devised in 1999, when the economy was booming, to defend Bush in the primaries against the right-wing and Steve Forbes. During the 2000 campaign, Bush sold it as a way of returning budget surpluses to the people, with not a hint that it had something to do with fighting recession. The recession story was an after-the-fact reinvention. Weee, tax-cuts are the medicine for all ailments.

While conservatives today are obsessive compulsive about deficits and debt under Obama, the two biggest policy changes responsible for the swing into deficit were the big tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and the war of choice in Iraq -- neither of which was necessary.

While complaining about costs associated with Obamacare, Republicans were just fine the budget-busting was Medicare Part D, whose plan was needlessly expensive, not because that’s the way the public wanted it that way -- it could easily have been simply an addition to traditional Medicare -- but to please the drug lobby and the anti-government ideologues.

While Republicans now act if they are firm constitutionalists, they had no problem with Bush tapping American's phones without court orders; locking up Americans accused of terrorism -- without charges or access to a lawyer, as required by the Constitution.

Of course, the biggest failure of Bush was his preemptive invasion of Iraq, a war that needed no preempting. Much of the destabilizing of today's Middle East is due to this invasion.

That isn't the "left's" definition. That's what happened.
 
MTAtech;1063620544]What you would have us do is not buy into the facts of the Bush presidency.

Bush's first tax-cut arrived in the middle of a recession, but that was an accident. It was devised in 1999, when the economy was booming, to defend Bush in the primaries against the right-wing and Steve Forbes. During the 2000 campaign, Bush sold it as a way of returning budget surpluses to the people, with not a hint that it had something to do with fighting recession. The recession story was an after-the-fact reinvention. Weee, tax-cuts are the medicine for all ailments.

Bush's tax cuts weren't fully implemented until July 2003. His first cut was similar to Obama's, a rebate that once it was gone it was gone. The full tax cut were the rate cuts which gave people more spendable income in each paycheck. You don't seem to understand the difference or when they actually benefited the taxpayers. The economy wasn't booming when Bush took office, it was going into recession, a recession that started in March 2001. That recession ended in November 2001 but was compounded by 9/11 which the GAO says cost the taxpayers over a trillion dollars and that trillion dollars is part of the Bush debt of 4.9 trillion dollars. It does seem you have a problem keeping more of what you earn.

While conservatives today are obsessive compulsive about deficits and debt under Obama, the two biggest policy changes responsible for the swing into deficit were the big tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and the war of choice in Iraq -- neither of which was necessary.

Name for me the time in American History when debt was over 100% of GDP? What exactly did this country and the American people get for that debt? It is claimed that Obama kept us out of depression but since the recession ended in June 2009 please provide the economic policy that was implemented that prevented that so called depression? Misguided war in Iraq? Bush won the war and Obama lost the peace.

While complaining about costs associated with Obamacare, Republicans were just fine the budget-busting was Medicare Part D, whose plan was needlessly expensive, not because that’s the way the public wanted it that way -- it could easily have been simply an addition to traditional Medicare -- but to please the drug lobby and the anti-government ideologues.

Typical revision of history and buying of the leftwing spin. Medicare Part D was proposed to put the consumer in charge of their Medicare Expense and we know that Liberals want the govt. doing that. Medicare Part D had two proposals, the 400 billion dollar GOP Plan and the 800 billion dollar Ted Kennedy Bill. Now which one was the most expensive. Now we understand how liberals want to blame Bush for budget busting but what would 800 billion do to the deficit? By the way what were the results of the Bush Medicare Part D program. Did expenses go up or down?

While Republicans now act if they are firm constitutionalists, they had no problem with Bush tapping American's phones without court orders; locking up Americans accused of terrorism -- without charges or access to a lawyer, as required by the Constitution.

Another revisionist history, name for me the number of Americans who had their phones tapped and Americans locked up without access to a lawyer. You are reaching here and you know it. It is interesting that when any thread is formed that challenges Obama or is negative to Obama, you are one of the people I can count on being there to ignore the Obama record and try to divert to Bush. Accept the responsibility that Obama made a fool out of you. Will be happy to post the actual comparison of Bush results vs Obama for you but doubt you would read them

Of course, the biggest failure of Bush was his preemptive invasion of Iraq, a war that needed no preempting. Much of the destabilizing of today's Middle East is due to this invasion.

I find it interesting how many Democrats supported the war in Iraq when the Senate was held by Democrats and all the quotes made by Democrats prior to Bush taking office about Iraq and the WMD? Guess those quotes didn't matter nor did the fact that the Senate oversight Committee under Control of the Democrats had the same access to intelligence information as did the President. Guess that was a fact that you wanted to ignore?

What you also want to ignore is that Bush won the Iraq War and Obama lost the peace. The problems in Iraq right now are due to the arrogance and incompetence of Obama who failed to negotiate a U.S. Presence in Iraq just so he could tell people like you he got us out of Iraq. It was the Bush Status of Forces Agreement that set the terms for withdrawal. Obama failed to negotiate in good faith an American Peace Keeping force. ISIS is Obama's responsibility and most know it.

That isn't the "left's" definition. That's what happened

That is your opinion what happened, thanks for giving me the opportunity to provide the rest of the story and the real truth.
 
On energy, as one example, the U.S. is in a better position than when Obama was inaugurated.
...
...
...]

Obama is killing coal and ... fill your car up lately to go to work? Do you have a car? Or a job?

"The electricity price index soared to a new high in January 2014 with the largest month-to-month increase in almost four years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Meanwhile, data from the Energy Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, indicates that electricity production in the United States has declined since 2007, when it hit its all-time peak.

The U.S. is producing less electricity than it did seven years ago for a population that has added more than 14 million people."


Obama’s Green Energy: Electricity Prices Increased 33%, Electricity Production Fell | FrontPage Magazine


Remember ... "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008) - Barack Obama
That's one promise he kept.
He always keeps the wrong promises, have you noticed that?
 
Obama is killing coal and ... fill your car up lately to go to work? Do you have a car? Or a job?

"The electricity price index soared to a new high in January 2014 with the largest month-to-month increase in almost four years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Meanwhile, data from the Energy Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, indicates that electricity production in the United States has declined since 2007, when it hit its all-time peak.

The U.S. is producing less electricity than it did seven years ago for a population that has added more than 14 million people."


Obama’s Green Energy: Electricity Prices Increased 33%, Electricity Production Fell | FrontPage Magazine


Remember ... "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008) - Barack Obama
That's one promise he kept.
He always keeps the wrong promises, have you noticed that?

You mean the cap and trade system that we don't have?
 
Low information is people who listen to Limbaugh, or who think the last five Republican presidents were anything but god awful.

Your opinions aren't worth the bandwidth you just wasted posting them.

You actually thought Limbaugh came up with the term " Magic Negro ".
 
Back
Top Bottom