Voter ID is a universal issue, it is not a race issue. And whether or not Tim Scott wins does not diminish his ability to be a Senator. I think he can be a successful Senator. Like I said...some people are good candidates and some people are good campaigners. Democrats have got the whole campaign thing down.

 

The fact that you thought that Romney was a better candidate than Obama shows how delusional you and your party are.

 

A far cry James? In 2008, the Bush Administration handed out a slew of economic stimulus packages.

Under President George Bush’s administration, the Federal government gave $29 billion to bail out Bear Stearns, $178 billion to American taxpayers in the form of economic stimulus checks, $300 billion to bail out American homeowners, $200 billion to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $150 billion to bailout AIG, and $700 billion to bail out banks (TARP).

All this happened with Republican support, so all of this spending spilled over to 2009 and beyond under President Obama and he gets blamed for it even though it was passed before he took office. So here you see exactly what you were calling for, investment into the private sector, the results have been mixed, and we will still have to wait and see what the repayment record will be.

 

The fact that you thought Obama was a better candidate after four years of no progress shows just how delusional you and the American public are.

 

I've said on this forum that I supported the bailout of the banks because without them we don't have a modern functioning economy. If people felt they could not trust the banks, we would have had a "run on the bank" scenario where everyone took their money out of the bank. I did not support the auto bailout, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the American Recovery economic stimulus. If Obama applied the same $111 billion and said to private companies "If you hire American workers, then we will give you a tax break" we would have already been on the road to recovery.

 

I would want to be delusional and let my party always win. If you are better than someone and he gives you a beatdown doesnt that make you a LOSER?

 

So you can admit that your original point, " If I told you a CEO of a Fortune 500 company added $5 trillion to the company's debt and created a net zero gain on new employees.", was not accurate, because there was a small gain in jobs and the republicans added significantly to the debt was well?

 

So in other words you clearly see yourself as superior to others??


If your answer is "yes" then you now know the underlying problem with the conservatives that currently are making up the Republican Party and why they & you will continue to miscalculate "the American public". SMDH.

 

If you look at that number compared to the overall economy its like saying a company of 1000 employees added 1 job over four years. It is a net gain in the technical sense, but essentially that is no jobs created. And would you say the employees of the company added to the debt when they are not the CEO?

 

Yes.

And here is why- This isn't about Democrat vs. Republican...it is about knowing the issues and not knowing the issues. If you follow the legislation and understand the candidate's political stances/ policies then you are an informed decision maker. So if you looked at everything and voted for Barack based on his policies, then I applaud you. I criticize Republicans who voted for Romney without knowing his positions on issues. There are people who vote on both sides who have no clue about the issues and simply vote based on what they hear in the media or family voting legacy (aka- my parents were Democrat, so I am a Democrat).

The fact that we are having this debate shows me that you are more informed than the American public. It's not about being superior, it's about being informed and qualified to make a good choice regardless of party. We don't leave Heisman voting up to men or women who have never watched a game of football, we let sports writers do the voting.

 

I see what you are saying, however I would argue that to see ANY gains, no matter how small is a monumental achievement given the historically dire economic circumstances he faced on day 1 of his first term. As far as your employee/CEO analogy, it is apples and oranges, because a CEO can act unilaterally on behalf of a company (assuming a board of directors does not have override power) President Obama cannot and did not add to the debt by himself, a significant portion of the spending (the first stimulus) in his first term was set in place prior to him taking office, and the 2nd stimulus that was passed while he was in office was authored by the Fed, and passed by congress (admittedly with little to no republican support).

 

While there are people on both sides who do indeed vote without knowing the fact about candidates or will simply vote along party lines because that's what family and people they associate do so, even when it's against their interest, are you seriously saying that you believe that most people don't recognize the differences between what the two parties represent and put out to the general public? You honestly believe the current incarnation of the Republican Party truly has the best interest of the country in mind?

And I'm asking this as someone who holds no allegiance to either party, because both have their pros & cons quite frankly. No political party or system has the complete answer.

 

Let me wave my flag here...one of the reasons the Republicans maintained the House was gerrymandering, but even so, they didnt do all that well. In addition to their tone-deafness on gay rights, race, and the growing divide between the super wealthy and the rest of us, they have a serious gender issue. When candidates feel comfortable mouthing stupidity about women being incapable of getting pregnant if a rape is 'legitimate,' make bone-dead stupid comments about rape in general, make it seem like only 'sluts' use contraception - they are NOT going to be smiled on by most women.

 

I've probably said this before but the thing that really gets me is the total lack of respect for the office of the president & utter contempt that has been going on by both average hardcore conservative voters and elected officials/leaders alike. Even as much damn hate & fuckery that Clinton had thrown his way when he was in office, he didn't get the open hatred and disrespect that's being thrown at Obama. What the hell is going on when people, especially other elected officials, think its okay to compare a sitting president to individuals like Hitler and Stalin because he belongs to the opposing party and you don't agree with how he chooses to govern? Name the last time that has ever happened? And anyone saying that race isn't play a part in that ignorant equation is living in a fantasy world.........

 

For the most part I agree with what you are saying here Ra, however there were plenty of leftist protestors comparing Bush to Hitler/Stalin/Satan

http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20090816

 

I'm not overlooking the extremes of those that said things about Bush when he was in office, but you have to admit the crazy is far more pumped up from even then. When you have people talking about secession and literally trying to role back the clock with voter suppression & dirty tricks just to have a certain ideology in power in the 21st century something is off. Way off.......

 

Yes. I honestly think some of it is that the Religious Right has been making inroads at the state & local levels for 35 years, and in so doing they've moved the entire discussion right. Obama is barely a liberal. He is where Republicans were when I was a kid.

And yes, his race plays into it for a lot of the rank and file voters.

 

Absolutely agree, the vitriol is completely out of control, from Joe Wilson to the tea baggers, it is abundantly clear that there are many that just can't stand having a man of color in the white house.

 

And I don't understand the extremism (apart from his race), because the President is not truly that liberal, anyway. He's more Bill Clinton than Jimmy Carter (who I liked as President, by the way).

http://otherwords.org/the-real-obama-emerges-again/

Granted, Jill Stein has a political posture here as a former presidential candidate, but she makes some valid points and she's what I consider a true liberal.

 

Considering that prior to 9-11, all the extreme viewpoints and anti-government rhetoric that's constantly out now was always properly seen as fringe element propaganda, now it's "real America"? Really?? Even worst, the various minorities that are embracing some of that foolishness when a lot of the venom in some instances is directed at them/their ethnic make up in not so veiled ways. I just don't get it.