Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:
This is making light of the issue, the economy is still an albatross around Obama's neck (through no fault of his own, of course, but people don't like to think the guy isn't able to just fix everything).

Didn't Obama* kind of say "Hey guys, step back, I got this" when he was running for presidency the first time?

* His campain, not necessarily him.

You have to hope you can make a difference, but in the end you have to contend with outside forces, The House, the Senate, and the Electorate. It would be nice if candidates could say "Well I hope I can make a difference but this is a huge problem and will take a long time to fix even if everything goes smoothly", but it has been shown people speaking like that rarely win. You also want a candidate that has the temerity to think they can make a difference and reflect that in their speech's as opposed to half-stepping it. There is always a difference between wanting to govern and making assumptions based on what one would do if they had power, and actually being in that position. It isn't just Presidential candidates (though I imagine it is more pronounced considering the pressure and the stakes involved) that deal with that, but anyone that runs for office.

Mario Cuomo wrote:You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.

Oh, I fully understand that.

But the fact that he ran on "I will get gak DONE!" and then failed to do much of anything (Not including the health care bill), even when he had the Majority, hasn't exactly endeared him to many people.


Honestly, I would instantly vote for whoever runs their campain by the immortal words "I'll let my opponent have the monopoly on the Mudslinging- as I will have no part in it". But that's not going to happen.....

Slarg232 wrote:Oh, I fully understand that.

But the fact that he ran on "I will get gak DONE!" and then failed to do much of anything (Not including the health care bill), even when he had the Majority, hasn't exactly endeared him to many people.

Is it time for the Obama hasn't done anything argument again?

d-usa wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Oh, I fully understand that.

But the fact that he ran on "I will get gak DONE!" and then failed to do much of anything (Not including the health care bill), even when he had the Majority, hasn't exactly endeared him to many people.

Is it time for the Obama hasn't done anything argument again?

When Bush was president, despite the fact that he created several National Parks, he was "A Dumb Ape who didn't know anything but War, Terrorism, and other such things".

It's not about what Obama HAS done, it's about what he has been PERCEIVED as doing. And common perception is that he's been sitting in the white house, twiddling his thumbs, getting injured playing basketball. Whoop-de-do.

Slarg232 wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Oh, I fully understand that.

But the fact that he ran on "I will get gak DONE!" and then failed to do much of anything (Not including the health care bill), even when he had the Majority, hasn't exactly endeared him to many people.

Is it time for the Obama hasn't done anything argument again?

When Bush was president, despite the fact that he created several National Parks, he was "A Dumb Ape who didn't know anything but War, Terrorism, and other such things".

It's not about what Obama HAS done, it's about what he has been PERCEIVED as doing. And common perception is that he's been sitting in the white house, twiddling his thumbs, getting injured playing basketball. Whoop-de-do.

Don't forget all those expensive vacations and summits where nothing got done.

biccat wrote:
Why would the US send their own troops in to the United States?

Wait, do you mean other countries contribute troops to UN "peace keeping missions"?

You really should stop embarrassing yourself.

Of the 82,656 UN peacekeepers currently operating, 125 are from the US.

Bromsy wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Oh, I fully understand that.

But the fact that he ran on "I will get gak DONE!" and then failed to do much of anything (Not including the health care bill), even when he had the Majority, hasn't exactly endeared him to many people.

Is it time for the Obama hasn't done anything argument again?

When Bush was president, despite the fact that he created several National Parks, he was "A Dumb Ape who didn't know anything but War, Terrorism, and other such things".

It's not about what Obama HAS done, it's about what he has been PERCEIVED as doing. And common perception is that he's been sitting in the white house, twiddling his thumbs, getting injured playing basketball. Whoop-de-do.

Don't forget all those expensive vacations and summits where nothing got done.

Again; perception of him. I'm highly doubtful NO president before Obama went on vacation.

Slarg232 wrote:
Again; perception of him. I'm highly doubtful NO president before Obama went on vacation.

He isn't even particularly notable as that goes.

Really though, the issue is general dissatisfaction in the electorate. When people are unhappy with a politician they will find reasons to criticize them regardless of their veracity, which is sad because there's always plenty of legitimate gripes against any particular pol.

Slarg232 wrote:
It's not about what Obama HAS done, it's about what he has been PERCEIVED as doing. And common perception is that he's been sitting in the white house, twiddling his thumbs, getting injured playing basketball. Whoop-de-do.

So it's basically the same argument that Rick Santorum made? It's not about truth, it's about what "feels true".

As regards politics it is about what "feels true" (belief). Lots of people get paid lots of money to make things "feel true".

Didn't Steven Colbert make that argument first?

Mannahnin wrote:Didn't Steven Colbert make that argument first?

He sure did!

d-usa wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:
It's not about what Obama HAS done, it's about what he has been PERCEIVED as doing. And common perception is that he's been sitting in the white house, twiddling his thumbs, getting injured playing basketball. Whoop-de-do.

So it's basically the same argument that Rick Santorum made? It's not about truth, it's about what "feels true".

For the general population, yes, yes it is.

Also giving tax breaks to ther rich helps everyone

The "trickle down" policy has provably failed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:As regards politics it is about what "feels true" (belief). Lots of people get paid lots of money to make things "feel true".

Aren't you one of them?

Melissia wrote:

Also giving tax breaks to ther rich helps everyone

The "trickle down" policy has provably failed.

No, I'm pretty sure the rich and super rich are still weeing on everyone else just as much as ever

n0t_u wrote:Our system is starting to head towards what yours is, campaign style at least. Not there yet but getting there...

Oh bad luck

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:
You know, before we have to send UN peace keeping force in to stop the civil war between the dems and reps fighting it out on the streets

I know its horrible, yet strangely we manage to survive whilst our European betters well, how many Spanish banks are going to fail today?

Nearly as many as American banks folding later


Automatically Appended Next Post:

captain collius wrote:

EDIT: also Frazzled remember the franch conquered the english in 1066 (i know it was my family.)(ohh and my ancestor was the first person born in quebec so. I take slight offense.)

Wrong it was the normans(short for norse men), who landed. Not the french.

I like you americans, you're so funny.
You talk about the american dream, wake up.
You're in worse gak than the rest of us, and don't even know it.

USA conquering the uk, will never happen. You couldn't handle 1 matty, 10'000 matty's all landing at once, GAME OVER

Melissia wrote:Aren't you one of them?

Yep, and I'm good at my job because I know exactly what it is.