• 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!

Is Obama a lame duck?

Is Obama a lame duck?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 43.2%

  • No

    Votes: 21 56.8%
  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
The election was decisive, and historic because it was so decisive. The One got his ass spanked hard.

If not a decisive victory, then what the hell was it? And again, you stated the following:

The Republicans did not decisively win the election.
Click to expand...

Since that Pelosi-Biden-Obama-styled gaffe, you've been full throttle on the smoke screen and Spin-O-Matic.


It ranks right up there with:
Stand up chuck... Oh my Lord what am I say'in... hey everyone stand up for Chuck...
and
"We did not lose the election because of me"
and
"Insert one of many Obamaflubs... perhaps an Obama bow-wow-wow for the fine performance!"

.
 
Last edited:
I explained why I think the Republican victory wasn't decisive and wasn't historic.

You've utterly failed to respond to the points I've raised beyond LOL DECISIVE.

When you get around to actually addressing what I've said, I'll be interested to read it.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I explained why I think the Republican victory wasn't decisive and wasn't historic.

You've utterly failed to respond to the points I've raised beyond LOL DECISIVE.

When you get around to actually addressing what I've said, I'll be interested to read it.
Click to expand...

And you have the gall to recommend a remedial reading course to me?

ROTFLOL... your prognostications and spin about the post-election possibilities mean nothing about thee election; the decisive and historic nature of the win.

Before you attempt to flame someone, first be sure the nozzle isn't pointed in your very own mug.

.
 
Yes. I believe Obama will be a 1 term president.

He's alienated far too many Americans.
 
zimmer said:
And you have the gall to recommend a remedial reading course to me?

ROTFLOL... your prognostications and spin about the post-election possibilities mean nothing about thee election; the decisive and historic nature of the win.

Before you attempt to flame someone, first be sure the nozzle isn't pointed in your very own mug.

.
Click to expand...

Oh, wait, I get it.

You keep throwing meaningless tripe at me, rather than actually responding to what I actually say because at some point you figure I'll go away and let you have the last word.

Well, that makes a lot more sense.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Oh, wait, I get it.

You keep throwing meaningless tripe at me, rather than actually responding to what I actually say because at some point you figure I'll go away and let you have the last word.

Well, that makes a lot more sense.
Click to expand...
Look, you had a Pelosi-Moment and have no defense for it.

The Republicans did not decisively win the election.
Click to expand...
That statement is utter nonsense, and you're wearing out your Spin-O-Matic.

.
 
Last edited:
If you had stated, the election did not bring a decisive result for the coming Congress, I might buy it, but you didn't. You stated...
The Republicans did not decisively win the election.
Click to expand...
... which is an entirely different proposition. Then you try to justify why it wasn't decisive and historic. That's an all world face-plant buddy.

FAIL.

The latter, or any other Pelosi-like rationalization does not negate the former... the truth.

You throw fuel onto your already burning fire with the following:
TacticalEvilDan said:
I explained why I think the Republican victory wasn't decisive and wasn't historic.
Click to expand...
The election was an overwhelming victory for Republicans. It was decisive and it was historic. It is game changing. Even the journOlists couldn't deny the historic nature of the win.

But you can, because you're Pelosi-like.

I hear The Clintons are coming out with a new and improved Spin-O-Matic... you might want to look into getting one.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
After his term as president of Amerika, he'd be the ideal Secretary-General of the UN. He'd feel right at home leading that anti-American body.

.
Click to expand...

I do not think that the UN is "anti-American".
But, if it is, then WHY????
 
winston53660 said:
And that is a problem?
Click to expand...

IMO, its one huge problem; we need a man we can trust, one with vision, one with oratory skills to counter the spin and lies from the right.
Maddow, Matthews, Olbermann try, but do not represent the majority very well.....
Instead, like the Republicians, they represent the fringes..
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I explained why I think the Republican victory wasn't decisive and wasn't historic.

You've utterly failed to respond to the points I've raised beyond LOL DECISIVE.

When you get around to actually addressing what I've said, I'll be interested to read it.
Click to expand...

In the following video, Charles Krauthammer explains what I stated earlier. With many Dems up for grabs in the Senate, they will go along with R legislation coming out of the House.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Krauthammer Responds To "Shout-Out" From Bill Clinton

The election was decisive, historic and game changing.

.
 
zimmer said:
With many Dems up for grabs in the Senate, they will go along with R legislation coming out of the House.
Click to expand...

So, the sum total of your argument is now a broad generalization based on a prediction of future events.

My argument is to point out:
  • The composition of the next Congress, over which neither party has definitive control
  • That the Republicans had to make "historic" gains in order to come back from having so little power to having roughly half of the power
. . . and to say, "So what was so decisive about the election, again?" :lol:

You have yet to decisively address either of those points beyond simply shaking a stick at me and shouting LOL DECISIVE.

It's kind of sad, actually.
 
Minority in the Senate and ~55% in the house... yeah, not exactly decisive. Yes, they gained a crapload of seats, but that just shows you how badly they had been trounced in 2006 and 2008. It took a nearly unprecedented number of gains just to put them at a bit above even, and they didn't even manage to take a majority in the Senate. (although I think they could have, if they'd done better at picking sane candidates)
 
My understanding of the term "lame duck" at least with regard to the presidency is one where either by declaration or rule the incumbent is no longer a candidate for re-election. Barack Obama will run for re-election so he's not a lame duck. Period.
 
zimmer said:
Oh my!

Has Pelosi joined Debate Politics? "did not decisively win the election"... ROTFLOL... Upstate NY importing BC Bud?
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/86620-did-republicans-win-midterms-5.html

Try again Zimmer Fail.

Earth to Nancy... ahhhhhhhh... the second largest midterm swing in history???..."did not decisively win the election"??? ROTFLOL...
Click to expand...

So having no cohesive plan, pledging cuts they will never do, arguing for cuttings programs they scared the voters into thinking Obama will, preventing security bills necessary to America's defense and otherwise having no actual policy positions means "you won decisively?" That's some crazy talk there. Did the Democrats win decisively in 2006? No. The Republicans gave them the election.

McConnell outright stated they don't have positions on a wide variety of topics, from China to trade. The mantra of the GOP is no to everything Obama says. That's not a policy position.

As for the Senate, had the entire Senate been up for grabs, we would have kicked scrotum hard there too... but we made very decent progress... 23-seats are up in 2012... hold on to your sack, we're gonna boot yer junk... and hard.
Click to expand...

How much do tickets to your delusional train ride cost?

I don't mind if nothing gets done, except starving ObamaKare.
Click to expand...

Which basically means jacking up the deficit. And Obamacare is nothing more than an old Republican idea.

It's hilarious watching diehard hacks like you come out against former Republican policy positions merely because a Democrat is pushing it.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
How can you call it a decisive win when nobody controls the government?
Click to expand...

How do you call it decisive when the party that won has no actual plan for anything than "No Obama?"
How do you call it decisive when the party that won pushes a budget plan that is mathematically impossible to pull off?
How do you call it decisive when the party that won is pushing to cut programs they defended against the Democrats?
How do you call it decisive when the party that won wants to enact policies that historically never worked against financial recessions?

The Republicans are just as lost and hopeless as the Democrats. What is morbidly funny is people like Zimmer can't figure that out.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Well, then, you should have no trouble whatsoever addressing what I said. If it's that easy to see through, it should take no effort at all.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA does not constitute an appropriate rebuttal.
Click to expand...

I feel like you should know that. It's how Zimmer "argues." And I use that term exceedingly loosely.
 
It really depends on the Republican nominee. There are so many possible choices that we can't rule out.

Also, anything can happen in two years. He could become a total Republican policy wise. He could offer actual change. Either of these possibilities will change his approval ratings.
 
I don't think he's a lame duck yet, but I would say that he is lame for not showing proper leadership to maintain control, getting his arse handed to him in November, and now alienating his party. He needs to move to the center. No more gays in the military, closing gwantawnimo, fat cat class warefare at the forefront.

Let's get the economy rolling and then we can address the bleeding heart B.S. with more open minds...
 
SirPwn4lot said:
It really depends on the Republican nominee. There are so many possible choices that we can't rule out.

Also, anything can happen in two years. He could become a total Republican policy wise. He could offer actual change. Either of these possibilities will change his approval ratings.
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen.. He does? He will lose my support!
 
Awesome! said:
I don't think he's a lame duck yet, but I would say that he is lame for not showing proper leadership to maintain control, getting his arse handed to him in November, and now alienating his party. He needs to move to the center. No more gays in the military, closing gwantawnimo, fat cat class warefare at the forefront.

Let's get the economy rolling and then we can address the bleeding heart B.S. with more open minds...
Click to expand...

There will always be gays in the military-always have been and always will be. People need to deal and get the hell over it.
 
Kali said:
Not gonna happen.. He does? He will lose my support!
Click to expand...

I know, and he'll push a lot of his base over to the point where they either don't vote or they vote for an independent. Lets be honest... he's not going to get any Republican votes. That segment of the voting population will remain fairly constant. Some Republicans might say they approve of him, but ultimately very little (by definition, none) will vote for him. Independents are the segment that can swing back and forth. Currently only about 42% of them approve of him, and that's not even those who will vote for him. Then there's the Democrats. It's unacceptable for a President to lose his base; they're the only segment that will solidly vote for him.

If he loses the Democrats he loses the Presidency. It's really that simple. No matter how far to the right he goes, he can't get enough votes. Even if he became the most conservative guy in government the conservative base want real lardy chocolate milk, not this low fat watery crap (thanks, Glenn Beck :p)

Therefore, at least politically it's a good move to generally not get your base approval below 3/4 ;)

Kali said:
There will always be gays in the military-always have been and always will be. People need to deal and get the hell over it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, even a repeal of DADT won't put gays into the military, it'll just allow those that already serve to comment on their sexuality... DADT doesn't get rid of homosexuals, it just makes them secret >_>
 
Chappy got it right on the last page. Let's not change the meaning of "lame duck". It's the term for politicians that are in office yet are no longer able to run for re-election.

You might use 'dead duck', because 'lame duck' is already taken.
Go back to history class.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
So, the sum total of your argument is now a broad generalization based on a prediction of future events.

My argument is to point out:
  • The composition of the next Congress, over which neither party has definitive control
  • That the Republicans had to make "historic" gains in order to come back from having so little power to having roughly half of the power
. . . and to say, "So what was so decisive about the election, again?" :lol:

You have yet to decisively address either of those points beyond simply shaking a stick at me and shouting LOL DECISIVE.

It's kind of sad, actually.
Click to expand...

Your point was the election was not a decisive victory. Shall we go back to the contentious post? It was decisive, historic and game changing.

And you crap on my reasoning of political pressure, and claim the election is not decisive (which was an idiotic statement) by making "a prediction of future events" of your own. :doh But you're God and have the Godly Crystal Ball... ROTFLOL. That Krauthammer endorsed my view... I think speaks to some level of understanding politics. Yes, you have those that endorse yours too... the one, the only... Nancy Pelosi. My, what nice company you keep.

You suspect that in this game changing political environment Dems will vote party line, all-day... everyday. Perhaps they will... but not if they want a hope of survival. The Tea Party movement is not going away.

The election was decisive, historic and game changing. Only a fool would state otherwise.

.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
So having no cohesive plan, pledging cuts they will never do, arguing for cuttings programs they scared the voters into thinking Obama will, preventing security bills necessary to America's defense and otherwise having no actual policy positions means "you won decisively?" That's some crazy talk there. Did the Democrats win decisively in 2006? No. The Republicans gave them the election.
Click to expand...
Junior... the election was historic, game changing... decisive. You can throw in whatever you believe they sold across the country... but in short the people were pissed at the spending and ObamaKare.

They won in a historic fashion.

Don't you ever tire of getting your ass kicked Junior?

McConnell outright stated they don't have positions on a wide variety of topics, from China to trade. The mantra of the GOP is no to everything Obama says. That's not a policy position.
Click to expand...
Doesn't change the fact the election was decisive.

How much do tickets to your delusional train ride cost?
Click to expand...
I have no idea... let me know when you find out. I'll pass it on to your relatives just in case you forget to take your meds.

Which basically means jacking up the deficit. And Obamacare is nothing more than an old Republican idea.
Click to expand...
Yeah... for 100-years R's have been itching to inch towards ObamaKare and KanuckistaniKare. Forcing people to by insurance, and fining them if they do not? That's the Republican's position??? In your mind perhaps.

It's hilarious watching diehard hacks like you come out against former Republican policy positions merely because a Democrat is pushing it.
Click to expand...
You are as thick as a brick. The argument has been about a line T.E.D. posted ages ago about the election not being either decisive or historic... but you pull your age-old tactics of trying to twist the argument and put words into folks mouths that never uttered them.

You just can't seem to expunge that poison from your system. But I will always help you overcome this mental disorder whenever I can.

.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom