Does it really matter who the President is?

[Eric]

It definitely matters.  I forget who it was, but in 2001 after 9/11, some celebrity made an off the cuff remark about how fortunate the country was that that Gore wasn't president, even though he voted for Gore.  In crunch time you need real leadership.

Too bad we didn't get any!  Invading Iraq on false pretense was probably the single worst thing we've done as a country.  We're still paying for it to this day and that bill will continue to come due for decades in the future.

[genealogist]

Everyone knows it matters who the president is, as whoever is president, is the single most powerful person in the world.

J-

This is the probably the only thing we will ever agree upon.

So there you have it.

I'm also pro choice, support gay marriage, think we should reduce the budget of our military, and think we should have an environmental tax and start replacing coal with Solar and Nuclear. I'm just guessing you might agree with a few of those.

Right you are J.

Tough to classify you. Your are like a libertarian with an environmental bent.

The good news is that unlike other libs you are (barely) more than half right.

Sounds a little like the Modern Whig Party

[Jeremy E.]

It definitely matters.  I forget who it was, but in 2001 after 9/11, some celebrity made an off the cuff remark about how fortunate the country was that that Gore wasn't president, even though he voted for Gore.  In crunch time you need real leadership.

Too bad we didn't get any!  Invading Iraq on false pretense was probably the single worst thing we've done as a country.  We're still paying for it to this day and that bill will continue to come due for decades in the future.

Well, we had a civil war that caused over 600,000 deaths, I'm pretty sure that is worse than invading Iraq on false pretense. A lot of people might argue that the bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima were worse, as well as The Korean War and The Vietnam War

[sol]

Well, we had a civil war that caused over 600,000 deaths, I'm pretty sure that is worse than invading Iraq on false pretense. A lot of people might argue that the bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima were worse, as well as The Korean War and The Vietnam War

I think his point was those warts you cited are generally considered to be unavoidable, maybe even productive endeavors, while invading Iraq was a straight up mistake.  Useless, needless, unjustified, unproductive, and erroneous.

That might just be the fog of history talking.  In another 30 years we might look back on Iraq and Vietnam similarly, but for now Vietnam is viewed as taking a stand against the spread of communism and Iraq is seen as lying to the American people to protect corporate oil interests.

[Jeremy E.]

Well, we had a civil war that caused over 600,000 deaths, I'm pretty sure that is worse than invading Iraq on false pretense. A lot of people might argue that the bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima were worse, as well as The Korean War and The Vietnam War

I think his point was those warts you cited ate generally considered to be unavoidable, maybe even productive endeavors, while invading Iraq was a straight up mistake.  Useless, needless, unjustified, unproductive, and erroneous.

That might just be the fog of history talking.  In another 30 years we might look back on Iraq and Vietnam similarly, but for now Vietnam is viewed as taking a stand against the spread of communism and Iraq is seen as lying to the American people to protect corporate oil interests.

Oh, I forgot that everyone agreed that we needed to go to war in Korea and Vietnam. The millions of protestors I think were protesting in agreement with our tens of thousands of troops dying for a cause they totally believed worthy. My bad.

[forummm]

It definitely matters.  I forget who it was, but in 2001 after 9/11, some celebrity made an off the cuff remark about how fortunate the country was that that Gore wasn't president, even though he voted for Gore.  In crunch time you need real leadership.

Good point since we all know that all anonymously quoted celebrities are always right.

[milesdividendmd]

Well, we had a civil war that caused over 600,000 deaths, I'm pretty sure that is worse than invading Iraq on false pretense. A lot of people might argue that the bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima were worse, as well as The Korean War and The Vietnam War

I think his point was those warts you cited ate generally considered to be unavoidable, maybe even productive endeavors, while invading Iraq was a straight up mistake.  Useless, needless, unjustified, unproductive, and erroneous.

That might just be the fog of history talking.  In another 30 years we might look back on Iraq and Vietnam similarly, but for now Vietnam is viewed as taking a stand against the spread of communism and Iraq is seen as lying to the American people to protect corporate oil interests.

Oh, I forgot that everyone agreed that we needed to go to war in Korea and Vietnam. The millions of protestors I think were protesting in agreement with our tens of thousands of troops dying for a cause they totally believed worthy. My bad.

Vietnam was a mistake.  But they it was an honest mistake.

Iraq was something else entirely.  We were lied into that war by people who wanted to go into the war long before 9/11 ever happened.  That's a clear example of where executive branch leadership is incredibly important.

[Jeremy E.]

Well, we had a civil war that caused over 600,000 deaths, I'm pretty sure that is worse than invading Iraq on false pretense. A lot of people might argue that the bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima were worse, as well as The Korean War and The Vietnam War

I think his point was those warts you cited ate generally considered to be unavoidable, maybe even productive endeavors, while invading Iraq was a straight up mistake.  Useless, needless, unjustified, unproductive, and erroneous.

That might just be the fog of history talking.  In another 30 years we might look back on Iraq and Vietnam similarly, but for now Vietnam is viewed as taking a stand against the spread of communism and Iraq is seen as lying to the American people to protect corporate oil interests.

Oh, I forgot that everyone agreed that we needed to go to war in Korea and Vietnam. The millions of protestors I think were protesting in agreement with our tens of thousands of troops dying for a cause they totally believed worthy. My bad.

Vietnam was a mistake.  But they it was an honest mistake.

Iraq was something else entirely.  We were lied into that war by people who wanted to go into the war long before 9/11 ever happened.  That's a clear example of where executive branch leadership is incredibly important.

I'm sure everyone had pure reasons to go to war in Vietnam and Korea, they surely didn't tell any lies.

[milesdividendmd]

Well, we had a civil war that caused over 600,000 deaths, I'm pretty sure that is worse than invading Iraq on false pretense. A lot of people might argue that the bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima were worse, as well as The Korean War and The Vietnam War

I think his point was those warts you cited ate generally considered to be unavoidable, maybe even productive endeavors, while invading Iraq was a straight up mistake.  Useless, needless, unjustified, unproductive, and erroneous.

That might just be the fog of history talking.  In another 30 years we might look back on Iraq and Vietnam similarly, but for now Vietnam is viewed as taking a stand against the spread of communism and Iraq is seen as lying to the American people to protect corporate oil interests.

Oh, I forgot that everyone agreed that we needed to go to war in Korea and Vietnam. The millions of protestors I think were protesting in agreement with our tens of thousands of troops dying for a cause they totally believed worthy. My bad.

Vietnam was a mistake.  But they it was an honest mistake.

Iraq was something else entirely.  We were lied into that war by people who wanted to go into the war long before 9/11 ever happened.  That's a clear example of where executive branch leadership is incredibly important.

I'm sure everyone had pure reasons to go to war in Vietnam and Korea, they surely didn't tell any lies.

This strikes me as trolling, but I'll take the bait.

Whether Nixon or Kennedy or Johnson were the president, we were going to go to war with Vietnam.  There was a fear of the spread of communism, and vietnam was a hot spot in the global cold war.  Did the leaders lie?  Do leaders always put their spin on reality to control the narrative during war? 

Yes.  But this is not equivalent to lying our country into a war on false pretenses.  The Neocons wanted to invade Iraq before Bush was ever elected, and they used 9/11 as a justification to do just that.  They lied about Iraq/al quaeda ties.  They lied about WMD. They lied us into a war pure and simple.

It was a special kind of deception, and the current mideast morass is largely a direct consequence of their ill considered acts.

[Meowkins]

It definitely matters.  I forget who it was, but in 2001 after 9/11, some celebrity made an off the cuff remark about how fortunate the country was that that Gore wasn't president, even though he voted for Gore.  In crunch time you need real leadership.

Good point since we all know that all anonymously quoted celebrities are always right.

Omg. Dying.


But seriously is there any way I can stop following a post? Because this has quickly devolved into the crazy train. Anyone who can seriously, with a straight face, say that the federal government and global-scale events don't at the very least shape the confines in which they live individual lives is just utterly and completely baffling to me.

[firewalker]

Meowkins, I can seriously say that each of the candidates are different before election vs once elected. There's no telling what your gunna get. Most of the stuff they said to get elected is immediately tossed. So, may as well flip a coin. Who was it who said "It's not an election. It's a coronation"?

[regulator]

In a sense, it really doesn't matter. With each passing year the executive branch becomes ever more powerful and ever more intrusive into pretty much everything.  Yay.

In a sense, it does matter.  If Bernie gets elected for his single term, I plan to go on the dole.

[vern]

"But this is not equivalent to lying our country into a war on false pretenses."

The Gulf of Tonkin incident anyone!?

[Fuman]

It definitely matters.  I forget who it was, but in 2001 after 9/11, some celebrity made an off the cuff remark about how fortunate the country was that that Gore wasn't president, even though he voted for Gore.  In crunch time you need real leadership.

AHHH HAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, our nation was attacked on Cheney/Bush's watch.  Part of the reason was THIS:
George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” We’ve known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.  Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”

Good thing Al Gore wasn't President!

[Thegoblinchief]

Yes the President is important, but not as much as the news-cycle makes them out to be. I wish more people knew the kind of impact they could have on their local communities if they only turned off TV "scare them shitless to sell advertisements" programs.

I'm afraid that this intense focus on the executive becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that allows way too much power to concentrate in a single person.

[Bob W]

I used to think not so much --  Then I realized that I have lived through something like 8 Presidencies.   The last 3 have been a complete disaster for our country.   By many measures -- health, quality of food,  education,  imprisonment rate,  liberty/freedom, immigration we have fallen to 3rd world statistics or worse. 

The last Presidency and Congress have pretty much screwed us for decades and it will be almost impossible to overcome the race relations damage, trade  damage and health system damage.   Employment at an all time low.  Incomes stagnant or worse.  More welfare dependency than ever before.   Family units no longer intact. 

So yeah,  it matters more than ever IMHO.   It really is time for a non corporate funded, non party, non religious person to take the helm. 

[Alex321]

I don't think my life has been meaningfully different as a result of Bush vs. Gore being president. But ask any Iraqi and they'll have a different answer.

You could also ask Hillary, since she was a strong supporter of the war.

[forummm]

I used to think not so much --  Then I realized that I have lived through something like 8 Presidencies.   The last 3 have been a complete disaster for our country.   By many measures -- health, quality of food,  education,  imprisonment rate,  liberty/freedom, immigration we have fallen to 3rd world statistics or worse. 

The last Presidency and Congress have pretty much screwed us for decades and it will be almost impossible to overcome the race relations damage, trade  damage and health system damage.   Employment at an all time low.  Incomes stagnant or worse.  More welfare dependency than ever before.   Family units no longer intact. 

Your feelings don't exactly equal the facts. Welfare is down dramatically since the 90s welfare reform. Unemployment is down to 5% again. I think race relations are better than they have ever been--we're just seeing some of the problems more in-our-face lately, but they used to be MUCH worse and for hundreds of years now. And if people choose not to get married or stay married for whatever reason, that's really none of our business. I think separate parents is better than people being in a bad marriage and ruining their own and their children's lives because of the unhappiness.

[firewalker]

So, on the angle of "what can be done," who do you vote for? What can one do to get Mr or Mrs Right up the political mountain, maintain the course of the right qualities and goals, survive the Washington food chain, actually get elected without selling out, and then finally, start taking action? On the practical level, it may matter, but it's all out of our hands.

[milesdividendmd]

I used to think not so much --  Then I realized that I have lived through something like 8 Presidencies.   The last 3 have been a complete disaster for our country.   By many measures -- health, quality of food,  education,  imprisonment rate,  liberty/freedom, immigration we have fallen to 3rd world statistics or worse. 

The last Presidency and Congress have pretty much screwed us for decades and it will be almost impossible to overcome the race relations damage, trade  damage and health system damage.   Employment at an all time low.  Incomes stagnant or worse.  More welfare dependency than ever before.   Family units no longer intact. 

Your feelings don't exactly equal the facts. Welfare is down dramatically since the 90s welfare reform. Unemployment is down to 5% again. I think race relations are better than they have ever been--we're just seeing some of the problems more in-our-face lately, but they used to be MUCH worse and for hundreds of years now. And if people choose not to get married or stay married for whatever reason, that's really none of our business. I think separate parents is better than people being in a bad marriage and ruining their own and their children's lives because of the unhappiness.

+1

Reality and impressions are seldom the same thing.

[Bob W]

I used to think not so much --  Then I realized that I have lived through something like 8 Presidencies.   The last 3 have been a complete disaster for our country.   By many measures -- health, quality of food,  education,  imprisonment rate,  liberty/freedom, immigration we have fallen to 3rd world statistics or worse. 

The last Presidency and Congress have pretty much screwed us for decades and it will be almost impossible to overcome the race relations damage, trade  damage and health system damage.   Employment at an all time low.  Incomes stagnant or worse.  More welfare dependency than ever before.   Family units no longer intact. 

Your feelings don't exactly equal the facts. Welfare is down dramatically since the 90s welfare reform. Unemployment is down to 5% again. I think race relations are better than they have ever been--we're just seeing some of the problems more in-our-face lately, but they used to be MUCH worse and for hundreds of years now. And if people choose not to get married or stay married for whatever reason, that's really none of our business. I think separate parents is better than people being in a bad marriage and ruining their own and their children's lives because of the unhappiness.

You've gotta be kidding with this stuff right?    Fact is there was never a marriage to begin with.  We aren't talking divorce here. 

And the Unemployment one.  That is funny as hell.   We have the lowest "employment" rate ever with those who are employed working for meager wages and often two jobs.   Unemployment rate is a huge lie. 

"Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty"  -- http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/17367-welfare-hits-record-levels-after-50-years-of-war-on-poverty

And the part about "I think race relations are better than they have ever been"  --  wow,  seriously?   I realize we are supposed to be on the low information diet but it would be hard to miss the deterioration of race relations over the last few years.

What are you going to tell us next? -- That we have the greatest healthcare system and best educational system in the world?  That our food supply is safe, pesticide, hormone free and practically as organic as my great grandma's garden?  That we have a great immigration policy and that imprisoning the most people of any country in the world is because we have more criminals? 

[Jeremy E.]

I used to think not so much --  Then I realized that I have lived through something like 8 Presidencies.   The last 3 have been a complete disaster for our country.   By many measures -- health, quality of food,  education,  imprisonment rate,  liberty/freedom, immigration we have fallen to 3rd world statistics or worse. 

The last Presidency and Congress have pretty much screwed us for decades and it will be almost impossible to overcome the race relations damage, trade  damage and health system damage.   Employment at an all time low.  Incomes stagnant or worse.  More welfare dependency than ever before.   Family units no longer intact. 

Your feelings don't exactly equal the facts. Welfare is down dramatically since the 90s welfare reform. Unemployment is down to 5% again. I think race relations are better than they have ever been--we're just seeing some of the problems more in-our-face lately, but they used to be MUCH worse and for hundreds of years now. And if people choose not to get married or stay married for whatever reason, that's really none of our business. I think separate parents is better than people being in a bad marriage and ruining their own and their children's lives because of the unhappiness.

You've gotta be kidding with this stuff right?    Fact is there was never a marriage to begin with.  We aren't talking divorce here. 

And the Unemployment one.  That is funny as hell.   We have the lowest "employment" rate ever with those who are employed working for meager wages and often two jobs.   Unemployment rate is a huge lie. 

"Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty"  -- http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/17367-welfare-hits-record-levels-after-50-years-of-war-on-poverty

And the part about "I think race relations are better than they have ever been"  --  wow,  seriously?   I realize we are supposed to be on the low information diet but it would be hard to miss the deterioration of race relations over the last few years.

What are you going to tell us next? -- That we have the greatest healthcare system and best educational system in the world?  That our food supply is safe, pesticide, hormone free and practically as organic as my great grandma's garden?  That we have a great immigration policy and that imprisoning the most people of any country in the world is because we have more criminals?

race relations are much better than 50 yrs ago, unemployment is down. Welfare is up because of Obamacare.

[Bob W]

I used to think not so much --  Then I realized that I have lived through something like 8 Presidencies.   The last 3 have been a complete disaster for our country.   By many measures -- health, quality of food,  education,  imprisonment rate,  liberty/freedom, immigration we have fallen to 3rd world statistics or worse. 

The last Presidency and Congress have pretty much screwed us for decades and it will be almost impossible to overcome the race relations damage, trade  damage and health system damage.   Employment at an all time low.  Incomes stagnant or worse.  More welfare dependency than ever before.   Family units no longer intact. 

Your feelings don't exactly equal the facts. Welfare is down dramatically since the 90s welfare reform. Unemployment is down to 5% again. I think race relations are better than they have ever been--we're just seeing some of the problems more in-our-face lately, but they used to be MUCH worse and for hundreds of years now. And if people choose not to get married or stay married for whatever reason, that's really none of our business. I think separate parents is better than people being in a bad marriage and ruining their own and their children's lives because of the unhappiness.

+1

Reality and impressions are seldom the same thing.

Must be nice living in your gated community and not to be troubled with the common man's reality?   

[Cressida]

I don't think my life has been meaningfully different as a result of Bush vs. Gore being president. But ask any Iraqi and they'll have a different answer.

You could also ask Hillary, since she was a strong supporter of the war.

What's your point?

[milesdividendmd]

I used to think not so much --  Then I realized that I have lived through something like 8 Presidencies.   The last 3 have been a complete disaster for our country.   By many measures -- health, quality of food,  education,  imprisonment rate,  liberty/freedom, immigration we have fallen to 3rd world statistics or worse. 

The last Presidency and Congress have pretty much screwed us for decades and it will be almost impossible to overcome the race relations damage, trade  damage and health system damage.   Employment at an all time low.  Incomes stagnant or worse.  More welfare dependency than ever before.   Family units no longer intact. 

Your feelings don't exactly equal the facts. Welfare is down dramatically since the 90s welfare reform. Unemployment is down to 5% again. I think race relations are better than they have ever been--we're just seeing some of the problems more in-our-face lately, but they used to be MUCH worse and for hundreds of years now. And if people choose not to get married or stay married for whatever reason, that's really none of our business. I think separate parents is better than people being in a bad marriage and ruining their own and their children's lives because of the unhappiness.

+1

Reality and impressions are seldom the same thing.

Must be nice living in your gated community and not to be troubled with the common man's reality?

I will never live in a gated community. Don't confuse your aspirations with mine.

[forummm]

I used to think not so much --  Then I realized that I have lived through something like 8 Presidencies.   The last 3 have been a complete disaster for our country.   By many measures -- health, quality of food,  education,  imprisonment rate,  liberty/freedom, immigration we have fallen to 3rd world statistics or worse. 

The last Presidency and Congress have pretty much screwed us for decades and it will be almost impossible to overcome the race relations damage, trade  damage and health system damage.   Employment at an all time low.  Incomes stagnant or worse.  More welfare dependency than ever before.   Family units no longer intact. 

Your feelings don't exactly equal the facts. Welfare is down dramatically since the 90s welfare reform. Unemployment is down to 5% again. I think race relations are better than they have ever been--we're just seeing some of the problems more in-our-face lately, but they used to be MUCH worse and for hundreds of years now. And if people choose not to get married or stay married for whatever reason, that's really none of our business. I think separate parents is better than people being in a bad marriage and ruining their own and their children's lives because of the unhappiness.

You've gotta be kidding with this stuff right?    Fact is there was never a marriage to begin with.  We aren't talking divorce here. 

And the Unemployment one.  That is funny as hell.   We have the lowest "employment" rate ever with those who are employed working for meager wages and often two jobs.   Unemployment rate is a huge lie. 

"Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty"  -- http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/17367-welfare-hits-record-levels-after-50-years-of-war-on-poverty

And the part about "I think race relations are better than they have ever been"  --  wow,  seriously?   I realize we are supposed to be on the low information diet but it would be hard to miss the deterioration of race relations over the last few years.

What are you going to tell us next? -- That we have the greatest healthcare system and best educational system in the world?  That our food supply is safe, pesticide, hormone free and practically as organic as my great grandma's garden?  That we have a great immigration policy and that imprisoning the most people of any country in the world is because we have more criminals?

Again, why is it any of our business if two people have a child together and decide not to have some state-sponsored relationship? Shouldn't people be allowed to do what they want? If they decided it was right for them to not be legally bound to a particular person, but still want to have a child, why is that a problem?

And if "employment" is down because we have more retirees (the goal of every person on this forum) or stay at home parents or whatever, why is that a problem? As long as the percent of people who are looking for a job but can't find one is small, it's a good sign.

I don't think welfare is the same as food stamps. Food stamps is like a couple hundred bucks per month that you can only spend on food. Versus welfare that (traditionally as I think of it) was a check for your living expenses. There are a bunch of different ways of calculating this. If you include healthcare, then the numbers are certainly going to be a record because healthcare is so expensive compared to the past. If you're just looking at cash payments, I think inflation adjusted numbers are going to be similar to history. But I'm not an expert on this. But I also give no credence to the obviously biased article you linked to and can't trust its claims. There are a bunch of ways of skewing this data to make it say what you want it to say.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-misleading-chart-on-welfare-spending/2013/02/20/1b40bcde-7ba4-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_blog.html

Your opinions of race relations are biased by the recent media coverage of it vs the long history of not covering it. It was worse before but you didn't hear about it as much.

[Eric]

And the part about "I think race relations are better than they have ever been"  --  wow,  seriously?   I realize we are supposed to be on the low information diet but it would be hard to miss the deterioration of race relations over the last few years.

Yeah, the racists really came out of the woodwork when we elected a non-white president.  While this was certainly a cause of the deterioration, it's also the solution.

[Spork]

And the part about "I think race relations are better than they have ever been"  --  wow,  seriously?   I realize we are supposed to be on the low information diet but it would be hard to miss the deterioration of race relations over the last few years.

Yeah, the racists really came out of the woodwork when we elected a non-white president.  While this was certainly a cause of the deterioration, it's also the solution.

I have mixed feelings on that.  I live in the South -- and yes -- there are plenty of idiot racist Bubbas out there.  But the other side of this is: often any criticism of the president becomes "that's because you're a racist."  No -- I was critical of the white guy before him, too.   

[milesdividendmd]

And the part about "I think race relations are better than they have ever been"  --  wow,  seriously?   I realize we are supposed to be on the low information diet but it would be hard to miss the deterioration of race relations over the last few years.

Yeah, the racists really came out of the woodwork when we elected a non-white president.  While this was certainly a cause of the deterioration, it's also the solution.

I have mixed feelings on that.  I live in the South -- and yes -- there are plenty of idiot racist Bubbas out there.  But the other side of this is: often any criticism of the president becomes "that's because you're a racist."  No -- I was critical of the white guy before him, too.

Being critical of Obama is absolutely not racist.

Implying that he was not born in the country when he provably was, saying that he "shucks and jives" or claiming that he is Muslim when he is Christian, are all quite obviously racist, on the other hand.

[PeachFuzzInVA]

As an admitted anarchist with zero ties to either political party, I will say that I'm far less concerned about which team the president plays for than I am which policies the federal reserve pursues. The federal reserve is what enables to irresponsibility of both parties to continue.

[sol]

As an admitted anarchist...

Can you elaborate on that for me?  I don't think I've ever met a real anarchist before.

Like you would prefer the absence of government to any alternative political system, ala Mad Max?  Only the strong survive, dog eat dog, women and children make good barbeque kind of anarchy?

[Gin1984]

As an admitted anarchist...

Can you elaborate on that for me?  I don't think I've ever met a real anarchist before.

Like you would prefer the absence of government to any alternative political system, ala Mad Max?  Only the strong survive, dog eat dog, women and children make good barbeque kind of anarchy?

Sol, you do have a way with words.  Also irony given the last Mad Max.

[Spork]

As an admitted anarchist...

Can you elaborate on that for me?  I don't think I've ever met a real anarchist before.

Like you would prefer the absence of government to any alternative political system, ala Mad Max?  Only the strong survive, dog eat dog, women and children make good barbeque kind of anarchy?

Oh good heavens no!  Barbecue is an art where you take the terrible tough old cuts of meat and transform them into something wonderful.  You would NEVER use prime cuts of meat like this.  I'd think you should use the old and infirm.

Mmmmm.  Long pig.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

No.

[forummm]

And the part about "I think race relations are better than they have ever been"  --  wow,  seriously?   I realize we are supposed to be on the low information diet but it would be hard to miss the deterioration of race relations over the last few years.

Yeah, the racists really came out of the woodwork when we elected a non-white president.  While this was certainly a cause of the deterioration, it's also the solution.

I have mixed feelings on that.  I live in the South -- and yes -- there are plenty of idiot racist Bubbas out there.  But the other side of this is: often any criticism of the president becomes "that's because you're a racist."  No -- I was critical of the white guy before him, too.

Being critical of Obama is absolutely not racist.

Implying that he was not born in the country when he provably was, saying that he "shucks and jives" or claiming that he is Muslim when he is Christian, are all quite obviously racist, on the other hand.

Some things are clearly racist, like Miles' examples. More Republicans believe Obama was born outside the country than believe that Ted Cruz was. That comes from somewhere.

With others it's hard to say what is racially motivated. There has been a very unusual reaction to Obama. Is shouting "You lie!" during the State of the Union racist? Not in and of itself, no. But it's an example of how...differently he is treated than any other modern president. Bush and Clinton were known to do some fibbing and were very unpopular with the other party. But they were never treated with that kind of open hostility by a member of Congress. Another called him "boy" in a particular way. Something just smells funny about a lot of it.

[dramaman]

And the part about "I think race relations are better than they have ever been"  --  wow,  seriously?   I realize we are supposed to be on the low information diet but it would be hard to miss the deterioration of race relations over the last few years.

Yeah, the racists really came out of the woodwork when we elected a non-white president.  While this was certainly a cause of the deterioration, it's also the solution.

I have mixed feelings on that.  I live in the South -- and yes -- there are plenty of idiot racist Bubbas out there.  But the other side of this is: often any criticism of the president becomes "that's because you're a racist."  No -- I was critical of the white guy before him, too.

Being critical of Obama is absolutely not racist.

Implying that he was not born in the country when he provably was, saying that he "shucks and jives" or claiming that he is Muslim when he is Christian, are all quite obviously racist, on the other hand.

Some things are clearly racist, like Miles' examples. More Republicans believe Obama was born outside the country than believe that Ted Cruz was. That comes from somewhere.

With others it's hard to say what is racially motivated. There has been a very unusual reaction to Obama. Is shouting "You lie!" during the State of the Union racist? Not in and of itself, no. But it's an example of how...differently he is treated than any other modern president. Bush and Clinton were known to do some fibbing and were very unpopular with the other party. But they were never treated with that kind of open hostility by a member of Congress. Another called him "boy" in a particular way. Something just smells funny about a lot of it.

I see Obama's presidency as a sign how far we've come in regards to race relations and how far we still have to go.

Despite Bob's complaints that race relations have gotten worse, I think the U.S. is actually making progress. While some see the demonstrations and riots in the past year as a sign that relations have deteriorated, I see them as evidence of long simmering problems that have been ignored until now. Progress has rarely come easy. Changes to the status quo in regards to racial and social progress has generally been preceded by demonstrations, protests, unrest, riots and/or war. My hope is that we can come together to address the underlying issues.

[Bardo]

I suppose the President is important, but not so much as to justify blanket election coverage MORE THAN A YEAR before the election.  I generally try to stick to a pretty low-information diet, but I've had to move to outright news avoidance to get away from political coverage.  The obsession with politics has always stuck me as strange. 

 

[libertarian4321]

Of course it does. Think how different the world would be if Al Gore (or anyone smart and sane) was president 2001-2009. We've done so much more damage to our own country than any enemy could have. The wars alone have cost the federal budget $3 trillion in long-term obligations, ignoring the increased costs of terrorism and global ill will that we generated through our blundering actions. A bad president can be disastrous.

Because "smart and sane" (meaning you like their politics) Democrats would never support continuing the war in Iraq, widening the war in Afghanistan, targeting AMERICAN CITIZENS for death without trial (something even Dick Cheney never advocated), getting entangled in Syria, getting entangled in Libya, etc.  Right?

Oh, wait, that's exactly what "smart and sane" Dem Barack Obama did.

I despised George W. Bush, but if you think Gore would have been substantially different from him and Obama, I think you are delusional.

Unless you support a candidate who denounces the use of force as a tool of politics (as opposed to you know, actual defense), you will keep getting clowns like Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr who see military force as preferable to diplomacy.

[libertarian4321]

Obviously, the Republican party is not a monolith and there's nothing wrong with being more conservative in your views. But, as of right now, the Republican party's loudest members:

- don't believe in climate change (A REAL PROBLEM that we NEED to move on in the next decade before it's really too late) I agree
- have more respect for the rights of corpses than they do for the rights of women over their own bodies I agree

See my responses bolded above

When you say "I agree," do you mean you agree with Meowkins that the Republican Party doesn't believe in climate change and has more respect for the rights of corpses than of women over their own bodies? Or are you going further and saying that you agree with the Republican Party in believing these things?

I agree that most of the Republican party has shitty stances on social issues, in my opinion. As well as they need to get more serious about climate change.

The extremist right wing religios have made the Republican Party, in my opinion, not worthy of support.

That said, I don't support the big government "throw more money at every perceived problem" kind of rule the Dems prefer, either.

I guess I'll be voting Libertarian this year.

[libertarian4321]

TL;DR: Yes, huge difference. Vote Bernie Sanders! :D

Unfortunately, the Clinton's not only control the Dem Party establishment, they also have their hooks deep into the Wall Street Big Money boys.  Hillary Clinton is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs (or is it the other way around?  Whatever.  It ain't good for America either way).

I don't agree with Sanders on a whole lot, but I'd love to see him beat Hillary Clinton just to see an underdog who doesn't tow the party line win once in a while.

But we both know that ain't going to happen.

Elizabeth Warren, maybe, had a shot, only because she's younger, more charismatic, and more energetic than Sanders. 

But basically, Hillary and the power brokers have this one locked down.

[libertarian4321]

It matters a whole lot less than people think.  Yes, executive orders are up with every term and out of control.  Ignore that for a moment.

Presidents get credit and blame for a shit ton of stuff that they don't do.  The majority of the awesome and terrible things that happen are done by Congress.  The president then vetoes or signs it... but it is Congress that deserves credit/blame.

It is rule by committee.  Think to your actual work environment.  Every environment I've ever been in had a general rule of thumb:  The amount of reasonable work done was inversely proportional to the number of people in the meeting.  With 535 people in the meeting, nothing sensible is likely to happen.

Sure, people blame/credit the president for all sorts of shit he doesn't control, most notably the economy. But, to extend your workplace analogy further, is your company different if Elon Musk is your CEO rather than Donald Trump? Probably. Because leadership matters.

a) I've never worked somewhere where the CEO actually seemed to make much of a difference.  I am sure such places exist.  I just don't have personal experience with it.
b) This is politics.  If you think the president is leading congress, I think you are mistaken. THEY certainly think you are mistaken.

a) I've worked in those places. I can make a big difference, but doesn't always.
b) The president can absolutely lead Congress when he wants to if he's good and has some leverage. Bush was a master at bitchslapping Congress until they bowed to his agenda. Obama can't get them to do anything he wants.

So we had Bush "bitch slapping" Congress into doing the wrong thing and getting us bogged down into a pointless, unwinnable war that really had no purpose, no objectives, and no way out.

Makes me "proud to be a 'Murrican."  I hear Lee Greenwood in the background, as I listen to the daily news about ISIS.  'Murrica, Hell yeah!

Geez, when the best we can hope for is a cock sure unthinking dim wit like George W. Bush, we are truly screwed.

BTW, I'm an ex-military, ex-Republican.  I'm not a liberal peace-nik Dem.  But we do NOT need to be starting STUPID WARS like Iraq.

Good God, haven't we learned anything yet from costly, pointless military misadventures like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afganistan?

[libertarian4321]

It matters...

Clinton and Obama are the only Presidents in the last 50 years that have reduced the deficit on their watch.

OMG, this is the kind of thing what makes me weep for the level of education/civics in America.

Obama hasn't "reduced the deficit."  The deficit has increased MASSIVELY every year under Obama.

His BULL SQUAT claim is that he's reduced the RATE OF INCREASE in the deficit.  Which is kinda sorta true.  The percentage INCREASE in the deficit has dropped slightly each year since 2009, as the economy has slowly improved.

But that's like your dumb ass financially irresponsible friend who proudly claims he has been "been responsible" this year because they only increased their credit card debt by $2,000 this year after increasing it by $2,500 last year.

You would rightly call "BA" on your friend.  You should do the same with Obama.

Clinton's claims, during a roaring economy and record revenues, were still smoke and mirrors, based on "balancing" the budget by robbing money from the social security trust fund, which, of course, was BS.

The last President to truly balance the budget, in any sort of a sane, non-BS way that would make sense to any rational money manager, was CALVIN COOLIDGE, about 90 years ago.

Both major parties piss your money away- they simply disagree on how to waste your money.

[libertarian4321]

When it comes to war, the problem most of you (like most Americans have) is that you will forgive any misdeed by "your guy" when he uses costly and misguided military aggression, but will immediately excoriate anyone from "the other party" when he does the same.

You've STOPPED THINKING and just react to the "D" or "R" next to the President's name.

Is it any wonder we have the bad government we have?

Almost everyone is wrapped up in party politics.  "Our guy" is always right (even when he clearly is NOT) and "their guy" is always wrong, even if he isn't.

Y'all need to start using your brains and stop just dumbly nodding your heads if the guy in charge is "your guy" and knee-jerk opposing "the other guy" based on nothing more than party.

I know, I'm naive.  It will never happen with most of you.

[firewalker]

So, what's the point in voting? Why bother?

[sol]

His BULL SQUAT claim is that he's reduced the RATE OF INCREASE in the deficit.  Which is kinda sorta true.  The percentage INCREASE in the deficit has dropped slightly each year since 2009, as the economy has slowly improved.

I think you're confusing the deficit with the debt.  The 2500 to 2000 improvement you mentioned is reducing the deficit, but not the debt.  The deficit is how much new debt you add each year.  Deficits can go down as the debt continues to go up.

So don't be so angry.  Obama's claim to have reduced the deficit is literally true, even if it's not as impressive as you were hoping for.

[milesdividendmd]

His BULL SQUAT claim is that he's reduced the RATE OF INCREASE in the deficit.  Which is kinda sorta true.  The percentage INCREASE in the deficit has dropped slightly each year since 2009, as the economy has slowly improved.

I think you're confusing the deficit with the debt.  The 2500 to 2000 improvement you mentioned is reducing the deficit, but not the debt.  The deficit is how much new debt you add each year.  Deficits can go down as the debt continues to go up.

So don't be so angry.  Obama's claim to have reduced the deficit is literally true, even if it's not as impressive as you were hoping for.

+1

Looks like it's time for Mr Lib to weep for his own poor understanding of civics/budgets.

[Spork]

His BULL SQUAT claim is that he's reduced the RATE OF INCREASE in the deficit.  Which is kinda sorta true.  The percentage INCREASE in the deficit has dropped slightly each year since 2009, as the economy has slowly improved.

I think you're confusing the deficit with the debt.  The 2500 to 2000 improvement you mentioned is reducing the deficit, but not the debt.  The deficit is how much new debt you add each year.  Deficits can go down as the debt continues to go up.

So don't be so angry.  Obama's claim to have reduced the deficit is literally true, even if it's not as impressive as you were hoping for.

+1

Looks like it's time for Mr Lib to weep for his own poor understanding of civics/budgets.

Aside from the fact we're talking about changes in rates of change* ... the point is really moot.  Presidents do submit budgets.  Those budgets are then tossed in the trash and Congress determines all spending.  Yes, the president does attempt to set a tone.  But that really doesn't mean much.  Congress spends the money.  That's pretty much section 8 of the Constitution.

*This applies to righties and lefties alike.  Not always -- but in general -- when someone is talking about the second derivative in a political discussion, they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  If you believe we shouldn't do massive deficit spending (and not everyone believes this) then descending into hell at 90mph instead of 100mph isn't overly important unless someone is actually planning on stopping the train entirely.

Edit: I called it second derivative and further thinking ... pretty sure it's the 1st.  Its been 30 years since calculus, forgive me.  (And I still might be wrong on my terms.)

[Sailor Sam]

The second derivative is information about the rate of change itself is changing. So you were spot on. Well done!

[Jeremy E.]

His BULL SQUAT claim is that he's reduced the RATE OF INCREASE in the deficit.  Which is kinda sorta true.  The percentage INCREASE in the deficit has dropped slightly each year since 2009, as the economy has slowly improved.

I think you're confusing the deficit with the debt.  The 2500 to 2000 improvement you mentioned is reducing the deficit, but not the debt.  The deficit is how much new debt you add each year.  Deficits can go down as the debt continues to go up.

So don't be so angry.  Obama's claim to have reduced the deficit is literally true, even if it's not as impressive as you were hoping for.

+1

Looks like it's time for Mr Lib to weep for his own poor understanding of civics/budgets.

Aside from the fact we're talking about changes in rates of change* ... the point is really moot.  Presidents do submit budgets.  Those budgets are then tossed in the trash and Congress determines all spending.  Yes, the president does attempt to set a tone.  But that really doesn't mean much.  Congress spends the money.  That's pretty much section 8 of the Constitution.

*This applies to righties and lefties alike.  Not always -- but in general -- when someone is talking about the second derivative in a political discussion, they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  If you believe we shouldn't do massive deficit spending (and not everyone believes this) then descending into hell at 90mph instead of 100mph isn't overly important unless someone is actually planning on stopping the train entirely.

Edit: I called it second derivative and further thinking ... pretty sure it's the 1st.  Its been 30 years since calculus, forgive me.  (And I still might be wrong on my terms.)

...And then when congress is done with it, it's sent back to the president for approval

[brainfart]

The world remembers the 90+% approval ratings for Dubya's wars. We told you so, you wouldn't listen. Thanks a lot.

As long as you guys have a two party system (which are close to indistinguishable from each other) where the winner takes it all nothing will change.