are you happy with Obama's progress so far?

Rob Tomlin said:
Absolutely!



I think we were kind of talking about different things and there was some confusion. I agree with you about a boss/business owner requiring/commanding respect and compliance/obedience.



What I was saying is that the way our government works, you need checks and balances. That means that you will have some opposition from time to time based on disagreements on what is best for the country. That is a very healthy thing. A President who commands "obedience" would be called a dictator by many. But it is a more difficult question when you ask if people who the President selects himself to serve in his administration (i.e, they are not voted in, but are appointed) should be expected to be "obedient". I still say having disagreement and debate is a healthy thing, even (especially?) if it comes from people the President appointed himself.
Click to expand...



Agree with ya, Rob:p
 
Scottwax said:
So happy she is gone, too bad Reid is still around.
Click to expand...



Republicans (actually, more accurately and importantly CONSERVATIVES) had a great (historic!) night last night, but it was very depressing to see Reid win. He's extremely unpopular, so I can't help but wonder what was going on in that election.
 
as 'historic' as it may have been... remember, the republicans still don't have as many seats majority as the democrats did for the last 2 years.
 
madmallard said:
as 'historic' as it may have been... remember, the republicans still don't have as many seats majority as the democrats did for the last 2 years.
Click to expand...



So? Not sure I understand your point?
 
While you're pointing out a factually correct observation about the number of seats changing being historic, excited even, we should not forget to contrast that even after this historic swing, the Republicans will still have fewer seats than the Democrats have had for 2 years after their electoral victory.



It looks like there will be about a 15 seat difference from this congressional majority compared to the last.



It also mimics the 1994 sweep because of this. In that case the Dems had 258 going in, and the Reps had 230 going out. In both cases, the power shift wasn't big enough to swing the pendulum all-the-way back against the Dems as far as it as swung against Reps.



There were no last minute surprise wins or losses in general here.



So Reid being around still has a reason, as does the reason they held onto senate seats. its not surprising he's still around; it woulda been more surprising if he wasn't.
 
madmallard said:
While you're pointing out a factually correct observation about the number of seats changing being historic, excited even, we should not forget to contrast that even after this historic swing, the Republicans will still have fewer seats than the Democrats have had for 2 years after their electoral victory.



It looks like there will be about a 15 seat difference from this congressional majority compared to the last.



It also mimics the 1994 sweep because of this. In that case the Dems had 258 going in, and the Reps had 230 going out. In both cases, the power shift wasn't big enough to swing the pendulum all-the-way back against the Dems as far as it as swung against Reps.



There were no last minute surprise wins or losses in general here.



So Reid being around still has a reason, as does the reason they held onto senate seats. its not surprising he's still around; it woulda been more surprising if he wasn't.
Click to expand...



That's quite the spin.



But if it gives you comfort to think that the Republicans didn't get as many seats as what the Democrats had previously held, you go with it!
 
'spin?' Thats the only response you can come up with? ;p



Obviously, my statement troubled you somehow. I'm guessing you probably read it as a defense of democrats, instead of how it was intended to be a caution for republicans.



It certainly doesn't "give me comfort" with Reid around, but if you think there wasn't a reason Reid is still in power because you yourself are "wonder(ing) what was going on in that election," I hope you decide to find out more about why he stayed in power or you won't be able to do anything about it.



Me pointing out the difference in figures was meant to caution against merely celebrating without further looking into where there were losses. LOTS of union money was spent on Reid, along with other factors. And ignoring them is simply going to assure that he stays around. That same ignoring of those problems leads back to taking all the exclamations of 'historic' and such as a false comfort in the face of the actual numbers.



tl;dr



Don't let Reps get comfy or lazy or sloppy, they still are down overall in house votes compared to the previous Dems session to be thinking they got some kinda huge advantage now.
 
madmallard said:
'spin?' Thats the only response you can come up with? ;p



Obviously, my statement troubled you somehow. I'm guessing you probably read it as a defense of democrats, instead of how it was intended to be a caution for republicans.



It certainly doesn't "give me comfort" with Reid around, but if you think there wasn't a reason Reid is still in power because you yourself are "wonder(ing) what was going on in that election," I hope you decide to find out more about why he stayed in power or you won't be able to do anything about it.



Me pointing out the difference in figures was meant to caution against merely celebrating without further looking into where there were losses. LOTS of union money was spent on Reid, along with other factors. And ignoring them is simply going to assure that he stays around. That same ignoring of those problems leads back to taking all the exclamations of 'historic' and such as a false comfort in the face of the actual numbers.



tl;dr



Don't let Reps get comfy or lazy or sloppy, they still are down overall in house votes compared to the previous Dems session to be thinking they got some kinda huge advantage now.
Click to expand...



Thank you very much for this explanation. If you had put it in these terms earlier I would have understood the point that you were trying to make. Simply stating that the Republicans didn't get as many seats as what the Dems once had really doesn't make much of a point by itself.



And you raise good points about the Reid election. There are many facets to that one, including the issue that you correctly point out regarding the union money. I would add the fact that I don't believe that Angle was a particularly good candidate either.



Anyway, I completely agree with you regarding not letting Repubs getting comfy, lazy, sloppy or losing sight of what got them elected in the first place!
 
Obama's done all right, but the economic mess isn't "W's" fault or Obama's fault. Going back a decade or so, nobody forced us to take on risky mortgages, nobody forced up to charge up the credit cards, nobody forced us to stop saving. We did these things because we got greedy and now it's payback. We were encouraged by bankers & politicians, but we did this and we need to undo this... and it's starting. Folks have started to pay off credit cards & save money. That means less $$ to spend in the economy. If we accept that it's our responsibility, then we can fix it.
 
SATracker said:
Obama's done all right, but the economic mess isn't "W's" fault or Obama's fault. Going back a decade or so, nobody forced us to take on risky mortgages, nobody forced up to charge up the credit cards, nobody forced us to stop saving. We did these things because we got greedy and now it's payback. We were encouraged by bankers & politicians, but we did this and we need to undo this... and it's starting. Folks have started to pay off credit cards & save money. That means less $$ to spend in the economy. If we accept that it's our responsibility, then we can fix it.
Click to expand...



What's with all this "us" and "we" stuff?



A majority of American's didn't do the things that you mention. Most of us lived within our means. Most of us pay or mortgage on time and didn't apply for a loan that we couldn't afford. And let's not forget the government pressure that was placed on lenders to make loans to low income family's (who really couldn't afford it) because "everyone deserves a house".
 
It is pretty clear the American vote attention span is like 1 year. They just want something different. They are very fickle but then 45% of Americans always seem to vote either Republican or Democrat and the last 10% change their mind every election cycle.
 
Bunky said:
It is pretty clear the American vote attention span is like 1 year. They just want something different. They are very fickle but then 45% of Americans always seem to vote either Republican or Democrat and the last 10% change their mind every election cycle.
Click to expand...



Let me guess: the vote doesn't go your way so it means that the American voters attention span "is like 1 year"?



There is a reason that the Democrats had their a$$es handed to them. Just like there was a reason Obama and the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008. And it doesn't have anything to do with the American voters attention span being "like a year".
 
Rob Tomlin said:
Let me guess: the vote doesn't go your way so it means that the American voters attention span "is like 1 year"?



There is a reason that the Democrats had their a$$es handed to them. Just like there was a reason Obama and the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008. And it doesn't have anything to do with the American voters attention span being "like a year".
Click to expand...



I was referring to the Obama landslide win in the last cycle. Dems took many GOP house seats. Was it some fluke? They were given hope so they voted for something different. The economy still is in the dumps so they voted for something different. This is happened in many election cycles. Why did Bush 1 lose to Clinton? The GOP won in 1994 because it still was weak. In 2006 Clinton won again by a good margin. It was a supreme court decision that decided 2000. The economy faltered in 2002/3 so by 2006 the Dems start to gain traction then win big in the last cycle.



This is how it works. The GOP out campaigned the Dem's as they had no strong message. You need good candidates, a good message (fear or hope), money, and then get the vote. This is how politics works regardless of your party alliance. When idiots get elected (applies to both parties), you learn to lose hope it is based upon sound judgment.
 
Bunky said:
I was referring to the Obama landslide win in the last cycle. Dems took many GOP house seats. Was it some fluke? They were given hope so they voted for something different. The economy still is in the dumps so they voted for something different. This is happened in many election cycles. Why did Bush 1 lose to Clinton? The GOP won in 1994 because it still was weak. In 2006 Clinton won again by a good margin. It was a supreme court decision that decided 2000. The economy faltered in 2002/3 so by 2006 the Dems start to gain traction then win big in the last cycle.



This is how it works. The GOP out campaigned the Dem's as they had no strong message. You need good candidates, a good message (fear or hope), money, and then get the vote. This is how politics works regardless of your party alliance. When idiots get elected (applies to both parties), you learn to lose hope it is based upon sound judgment.
Click to expand...



Well I agree with much of what you say here, but I don't see that it has anything to do with your statement that "the American voters attention span is like one year".
 
Rob Tomlin said:
Republicans (actually, more accurately and importantly CONSERVATIVES) had a great (historic!) night last night, but it was very depressing to see Reid win. He's extremely unpopular, so I can't help but wonder what was going on in that election.
Click to expand...



From my layman's point of view:

It's like the Carnauba vs Sealants battle.

After a long time of using nubas, you're kinda sick and tired of the same 'ol results, and switch to the more cutting-edge sealants and coatings.

After a while, you kinda miss the old-school nubas and decide to revert to nubas.:drool::drool::drool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top