Is Obama a good president?[W:577]

ToastyOats said:

That was quick, both of these posts were made at 12:40PM.

Click to expand...

I thought I waited a dignified time after voting to voice my, ah, comment, which did not denigrate Obama at all. Love the man.

ChrisL said:

If you recall, you and I had a conversation recently about how to prop up 3rd party candidates.

Click to expand...

There is little doubt that they are becoming more and more attractive when we look at what the two major parties are doing, but 3rd party candidates just don't usually have the money backers to compete, plus the deck is stacked against them by rules made by the two major parties! . Ross Perot spent his own money to run in his bid, and even back then, Perot got 19 percent of the popular vote. IMO, if he were to run today, he could win in a landslide. The ironic thing is that he was right in what he said about America losing jobs due to NAFTA. Sad....

polgara said:

There is little doubt that they are becoming more and more attractive when we look at what the two major parties are doing, but 3rd party candidates just don't usually have the money backers to compete, plus the deck is stacked against them by rules made by the two major parties! . Ross Perot spent his own money to run in his bid, and even back then, Perot got 19 percent of the popular vote. IMO, if he were to run today, he could win in a landslide. The ironic thing is that he was right in what he said about America losing jobs due to NAFTA. Sad....

Click to expand...

Good evening polgara!

That's exactly what Perotista and I were discussing. How could the playing field be leveled to make things more equal for 3rd party candidates? My suggestion was to put caps on spending allowed on campaigns. He had another idea, but that would be for him to explain.

Grant said:

Barrack Obama began his presidency with the overwhelming approval of the American people. Your analogy doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Or you're could be misunderstanding. I'm not sure how you define "good" but I did not mean to imply his popularity had anything to do with it. What's happened is there's an entire industry in America dedicated to seeing the president fail, by their own words. In time they were successful in generating a significant level of strong passions against the president using common propaganda tactics we all learned about in high school. Eventually they were able to get like minded candidates elected in sufficnt numbers who took oaths to support their agenda before they even took the oath to support and defend to constitution. Although they do not represent the majority of elected officials and not even the majority of ther own party, they do have enough numbers to bring the country to a screeching halt by refusing to work with the president in way, even hn the majority of their party is willing to. By this, they have limited to some extent our ability to even know what quality of president Obama could be.

Here's an example. The economy has been less than robust in the first term of the Obama presidency. One reason for this is business has been reluctant to plan for growth. Many on the right would say its because businesses cannot afford the Obama tax rate and other regulatory expenses. I think he more honest reason is business had a difficult time predicting future economic conditions during the course of growth because many of the right refused to come to any agreement leaving. Another reason a cording to one of most promimant voices of the far right said with his own mouth, "business was on strike" essentially refusing to do anything that could have helped the economy grow. Injure the American economy on purpose in order to keep the president from succeeding. Fire employees just to increase the unemployment rate in order to help Obama "fail" out of outrage that he got reelected. Their own words. The same exact people who could afford tens of millions of dollars to donate to anti-Obama superpacs so its not like they couldn't afford the salaries.

humbolt said:

I thought I waited a dignified time after voting to voice my, ah, comment, which did not denigrate Obama at all. Love the man.

Click to expand...

It's funny because there are legitimate criticisms of the president coming from both the left and right, just like with all of them. But nope, someone has to drop their pants, sh-t, and leave without washing their hands.

hes not particularly good as president, he just seems to listen to his advisors to much and never takes risks toward things he actually supports.

ChrisL said:

If you recall, you and I had a conversation recently about how to prop up 3rd party candidates.

Click to expand...

I got you. That may be the only hope.

Perotista said:

I got you. That may be the only hope.

Click to expand...

What was your suggestion again about how to help 3rd party candidates? I'm sorry but I can't recall.

No, he's an atrocious president that puts agenda first over the nation or the will of the people. He's arrogant, immature, and hasn't done much good for the country.

ChrisL said:

What was your suggestion again about how to help 3rd party candidates? I'm sorry but I can't recall.

Click to expand...

i have a idea: win at the local level and state level.

Unitedwestand13 said:

i have a idea: win at the local level and state level.

Click to expand...

That would be a good start, and a much more affordable goal. It's still a very difficult road for a 3rd party candidate to compete against the Democrat and Republican money machines though.

ChrisL said:

That would be a good start, and a much more affordable goal. It's still a very difficult road for a 3rd party candidate to compete against the Democrat and Republican money machines though.

Click to expand...

start locally and build a recognizable party.

and most of all don't compete against the big money political ads, do something original like personally go door to door, neighborhood to neighborhood and campaign in person.

Unitedwestand13 said:

start locally and build a recognizable party.

and most of all don't compete against the big money political ads, do something original like personally go door to door, neighborhood to neighborhood and campaign in person.

Click to expand...

But the problem is you still can't get to everyone that way. The candidates who do well are the ones who spend the money on commercials and really get their names out there, and those are the candidates backed by the Rep/Dem parties, because they have money to burn, and they can throw fancy parties to get campaign donations and so forth.

ChrisL said:

What was your suggestion again about how to help 3rd party candidates? I'm sorry but I can't recall.

Click to expand...

People have to be willing to vote for them and I think, at least according to the polls the public is ready for a third party. Back in Perot's day only 39% said they would consider voting for a third party candidate, today that number is 81%. Then I think for a third party to become viable it has to be grass roots up. The mistake of my Reform Party is it was top driven. If I was to start one, I would start at the state level, concentrating on state legislatures which write the elections laws for the states. I would try to get a hand in writing those laws for the few few years and then move up to governor and different state wide elections. Doing this would bring I think more bang for the buck. Running a presidential race takes close to a billion dollars these days not counting the funds spent getting on the ballots and lawyers to bring suits against the states or to defend your candidate against the two major parties who will try every trick in the book to keep you off the ballot. It would probably take at least ten years or more, but you need the infrastructure in place to compete nationally.

Perotista said:

People have to be willing to vote for them and I think, at least according to the polls the public is ready for a third party. Back in Perot's day only 39% said they would consider voting for a third party candidate, today that number is 81%. Then I think for a third party to become viable it has to be grass roots up. The mistake of my Reform Party is it was top driven. If I was to start one, I would start at the state level, concentrating on state legislatures which write the elections laws for the states. I would try to get a hand in writing those laws for the few few years and then move up to governor and different state wide elections. Doing this would bring I think more bang for the buck. Running a presidential race takes close to a billion dollars these days not counting the funds spent getting on the ballots and lawyers to bring suits against the states or to defend your candidate against the two major parties who will try every trick in the book to keep you off the ballot. It would probably take at least ten years or more, but you need the infrastructure in place to compete nationally.

Click to expand...

I still think it would be incredibly difficult given their limitations monetarily compared to the major parties. No matter what level of government you're talking about, the Dem and Rep parties are always going to have more money to spend on their campaigns, and as a result it makes it much easier and more efficient to get their names and platforms out there.

ChrisL said:

I still think it would be incredibly difficult given their limitations monetarily compared to the major parties. No matter what level of government you're talking about, the Dem and Rep parties are always going to have more money to spend on their campaigns, and as a result it makes it much easier and more efficient to get their names and platforms out there.

Click to expand...

That's true for the time being, corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, huge money donors are the one behind the faces of the two major party candidates. It is their millions and tens of millions the two major parties spend on their campaigns. Third parties do not have these types of backers. But once it is seen by these moneyed people that a third party is winning locally, then statewide they will want their assets, butts covered and start to give I am sure.

I am not sure this is a good thing, I mean owing these moneyed people who finance your campaign. But to compete, one will have to accept their money and some of the restraints that come with it. So it probably wouldn't be long before our third party is just a corrupt and owe all these behinds the scenes moneyed folks as the two major parties do and are now. So after 10-20 years of work, where exactly are we?

Perotista said:

That's true for the time being, corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, huge money donors are the one behind the faces of the two major party candidates. It is their millions and tens of millions the two major parties spend on their campaigns. Third parties do not have these types of backers. But once it is seen by these moneyed people that a third party is winning locally, then statewide they will want their assets, butts covered and start to give I am sure.

I am not sure this is a good thing, I mean owing these moneyed people who finance your campaign. But to compete, one will have to accept their money and some of the restraints that come with it. So it probably wouldn't be long before our third party is just a corrupt and owe all these behinds the scenes moneyed folks as the two major parties do and are now. So after 10-20 years of work, where exactly are we?

Click to expand...

That's a great point, and another reason why I like the idea of capping the amount they are able to spend on campaigning. Maybe that would help things.

Perotista said:

So it probably wouldn't be long before our third party is just a corrupt and owe all these behinds the scenes moneyed folks as the two major parties do and are now. So after 10-20 years of work, where exactly are we?

Click to expand...

Same place we are now, I guess....thinking we need yet another third party.

Perotista said:

People have to be willing to vote for them and I think, at least according to the polls the public is ready for a third party. Back in Perot's day only 39% said they would consider voting for a third party candidate, today that number is 81%. Then I think for a third party to become viable it has to be grass roots up. The mistake of my Reform Party is it was top driven. If I was to start one, I would start at the state level, concentrating on state legislatures which write the elections laws for the states. I would try to get a hand in writing those laws for the few few years and then move up to governor and different state wide elections. Doing this would bring I think more bang for the buck. Running a presidential race takes close to a billion dollars these days not counting the funds spent getting on the ballots and lawyers to bring suits against the states or to defend your candidate against the two major parties who will try every trick in the book to keep you off the ballot. It would probably take at least ten years or more, but you need the infrastructure in place to compete nationally.

Click to expand...

While I agree, we are probably already too late for 2016, and we need someone sooner than 10 years!. Do you think Perot is willing to try again? On the other hand, if we do go over the cliff, it might be a 3rd party person who will lead us back to the top, assuming there are any hills left to climb!

ToastyOats said:

It's funny because there are legitimate criticisms of the president coming from both the left and right, just like with all of them. But nope, someone has to drop their pants, sh-t, and leave without washing their hands.

Click to expand...

Who did that?

polgara said:

While I agree, we are probably already too late for 2016, and we need someone sooner than 10 years!. Do you think Perot is willing to try again? On the other hand, if we do go over the cliff, it might be a 3rd party person who will lead us back to the top, assuming there are any hills left to climb!

Click to expand...

Isn't he like 100 now? :mrgreen:

ChrisL said:

That's a great point, and another reason why I like the idea of capping the amount they are able to spend on campaigning. Maybe that would help things.

Click to expand...

That and maybe total public financing of campaigns. But with the recent SCOTUS ruling that money is speech, no way with out a constitutional amendment.

radioman said:

Same place we are now, I guess....thinking we need yet another third party.

Click to expand...

I love it. Exactly. What is the old saying, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

Perotista said:

That and maybe total public financing of campaigns. But with the recent SCOTUS ruling that money is speech, no way with out a constitutional amendment.

Click to expand...

At first I didn't think that was such a big deal, but now the more I think about it the more horrible I think it is.

Wasn't it more accurately corporations are people though?

polgara said:

While I agree, we are probably already too late for 2016, and we need someone sooner than 10 years!. Do you think Perot is willing to try again? On the other hand, if we do go over the cliff, it might be a 3rd party person who will lead us back to the top, assuming there are any hills left to climb!

Click to expand...

Too old and has been enjoying being out of the limelight since 2000. I think if someone who has the money Perot had, the middle of 2015 would probably be the cut off date. But whoever it is going to be, he better have charisma and a vision for America that people can relate to. He also must have a cause, an issue that is near and dear to the peoples heart. Back in 1992, the rising debt was just that as people started to worry about their children s future. Who that might be, I haven the faintest idea.