Obama out?

Could split hairs on that but fair enough

China comment is not ridiculous unless you wish to explain in economic terms why it is?

I have never said he would be unreservedly my choice. But there are qualities there i believe
 
Last edited:
Here is what I think.

Obama is all mouth and no trousers. He has consistently failed to deliver on what a good president should do: unite both parts of the political divides behind a handful of key goals in his term in office.

Clinton managed it. Reagan managed it. FDR managed it. Eisenhower managed it. This is what people thought they were getting with Obama...somebody who could unite the room, unite the nation, a visionary. He is none of that. He has charisma, but no empathy, in my opinion.`

His stimulus package and health care reforms were poorly handled.

That said, Romney seems like a complete moron, so I would vote for the incumbent.
 
Whether China is or isn't a currency-mainipulator isn't the point, clivex. The point was about 'management'.....or the lack of it in this particular case, from Romney.

The comments may have been accurate from a monetary-perspective, but they were crass from a foreign-policy-perspective; demonstrating an ignorance of both historical perspective and political reality.

If Obama had made similar remarks at the same point in his first Presidential campaign, you would have flamed him. Fact.

If you look just a little harder, you will find three easy-to-follow steps that will take you from 'Romney' to 'Crazee Horses'.....by way of Utah (there's a clue to get you started).

You'll find I was making no comparison between Romney's classic, All-American good-looks, and that of a horse. Such a comparison would be a patent nonsense, for there is no doubting that Mitt is a handsome fellow.

However, he is also an erse, and he can clear right off.

PS. The suffix '-faced' is local to the Embra dialect, and is often appended to denote association, rather than anything literally to do with the 'face' e.g. "That mechanic charged Grey £800 for an oil-filter, the Snap-On-Tools-faced c*nt"
 
Last edited:
Bar the Bull said:
Clinton managed it. Reagan managed it. FDR managed it. Eisenhower managed it. This is what people thought they were getting with Obama...somebody who could unite the room, unite the nation, a visionary. He is none of that. He has charisma, but no empathy, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

All of the above were two-term Presidents. Perhaps you judge Obama too early?
 
I think that is simplistic, Bar.

Comparing the American political scene now to what it was in the era of Reagan*, FDR, Eisenhower, Truman is not a valid comparison at all in my opinion.

The current Republican House of Representatives is probably - in my opinion, at least - the most extreme, intractable House ever seen (see:budget negotiations). Compromise is anathema to these Tea Party guys and they have the unique ability to completely undermine their own leadership if they step out of line and reach out to Obama. More than anything Obama has done, I think the nature of the Republican party House caucus in the last four years has (very deliberately) eliminated the common ground that compromise needs to be based on.

Obama's mistake, in my opinion, was not standing up to them soon enough. The stimulus was haphazard and piece-meal as a result. He also reverted to the idealistic concept of nation-building and the accompanying surge in US troops in Afghanistan, with predictably depressing results.

My ultimate criterion for judging a president would be whether he has the capacity to learn from his mistakes and adapt himself. No person can be fully qualified for the job on Day 1. Presidents will make mistakes. Obama eventually stood up to House Republicans and called their bluff on the deficit talks. Healthcare passed and was upheld by the Supreme Court. The war in Afghanistan is finally being wound down.

All in all, I think he has done alright with the hand he was dealt.

*For all the credit Reagan gets for his Social Compromise, he had Tipp O'Neil willing to stand beside him every step of the way. O'Neil was a shrewd politician for sure, but he wasn't hamstrung in the way that the current Republican House leadership is.
 
Last edited:
I think bar gets it about right about obama

I cannot agree trackside. Not every republican is tea party by a long way and you have to work with what you have got and not just stand aloof

The two term argument is neither here nor there. You cannot wait four years to get started
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
You cannot wait four years to get started
Click to expand...

The only problem I have with this statement, is its wilful ignorance of the economy that Obama inherited, and it's blithe dismissal of Obama's not-insignificant achievements whilst in office.

Otherwise I'm good with it.
 
We are talking about a specific aspect of his presidency. A vital one too. Try and keep up
 
PS. The suffix '-faced' is local to the Embra dialect, and is often appended to denote association, rather than anything literally to do with the 'face' e.g. "That mechanic charged Grey £800 for an oil-filter, the Snap-On-Tools-faced c*nt"
Click to expand...

You mean, to take another example, "Leave me out of it, you Fly-faced loser"?
 
That is an excellent example, Arthur, though the words "twat" and "myopic" could have been added for even more oomph e.g. "you myopic-Fly-faced twat".
 
Obama inheirited a very difficult situation both economically, and in Iraq and Afghanistan both of which were a mess made by Republicans. The most partisan Congress in memory made his tenure difficult in the extreme. I hope he wins, and wins well. The Tea Party Republicans are a dangerous crowd of moonbeams and I would fear a President Romney would veer to the right to keep them on-side.
 
I've sussed out where my unease about Obama comes from, it's Michelle.

What an attractive lady. The fact he gets to the snuggle up to that every night, the fact she loves him to bits and see's something in him, really angers me.

I'd do my time in Guantanimo to get a chance to unleash a load inside the first lady:)
 
clivex said:
I cannot agree trackside. Not every republican is tea party by a long way and you have to work with what you have got and not just stand aloof
Click to expand...

No argument there. The Tea Party caucus in the House have a remarkable ability to stifle any form of engagement across the aisle on the part of the leadership though.

To be quite honest, I think the prospect of being unshipped in the next primary by an up-start Tea Party candidate (as happened to Dick Lugar and others) scares the **** out of a lot of the more reasonable Republicans.

More broadly, I just don't agree with the general assertion that unifying the country is the supreme barometer by which the success or failure of a presidency should be measured.
 
Bar the Bull said:
Here is what I think.

Obama is all mouth and no trousers. He has consistently failed to deliver on what a good president should do: unite both parts of the political divides behind a handful of key goals in his term in office.

Clinton managed it. Reagan managed it. FDR managed it. Eisenhower managed it. This is what people thought they were getting with Obama...somebody who could unite the room, unite the nation, a visionary. He is none of that. He has charisma, but no empathy, in my opinion.`

His stimulus package and health care reforms were poorly handled.

That said, Romney seems like a complete moron, so I would vote for the incumbent.
Click to expand...


I agree with Bar. Romney seems like a complete mormon.
 
yes...thats a fair trackside... a bit like the left and labour in the eighties here but thats the key isnt it? he could have isolated the tea party within the gop maybe? look how stupid the awful newt looked when he played up against clinton. Clinton had him for toast i reckon
 
clivex said:
I cannot agree trackside. Not every republican is tea party by a long way and you have to work with what you have got and not just stand aloof
Click to expand...
They have a saying in the States: Not all Republicans are idiots, but most idiots are Republicans.
 
They have a saying in the States: Not all Republicans are idiots, but most idiots are Republicans.
Click to expand...

they probably have a saying for those that still laugh at third form humour too
 
Nothing humourless about it. Just a general truism. I mean, the Reps hamstring Obama at every turn through their power in the other houses of Goverment, the Nazis at Fox spew their bullshit at the masses about him getting nothing done despite these huge obstacles that are in his way. And a large minority of them swallow it whole. How this race can be close is beyond belief.
 
Oh fancy them using their elected power in the congress eh? How dare they! I mean they should just role over and ignore their representation shouldnt they?

as for fox, no mention of the democrat leaning mainstream media? NBC etc?

i dont like fox but its influence is surely overstated by patronising old europe

Its close for a very good reason. Romney is seen as credible having actually had a track record and obama is seen as a timid washout. Many will buy into a doer rather than some fcking lawyer or like we have hear, profesional party people who's life experience is that of a 'researcher" or "advisor'
 
clivex said:
Oh fancy them using their elected power in the congress eh? How dare they! I mean they should just role over and ignore their representation shouldnt they?
Click to expand...

Electing a President and then hamstringing him with the other houses of power is an American thing. It's happened numerous times. But to then go to the other guy because the incumbent hasn't done enough is ridiculous. A lot of the good policies Obama had have not gone through because of a lack of support via Congress. Not his fault.

You have a multi millionaire running for President promising tax cuts to other millionaires whilst the poor minority in America continues to grow.
 
Back
Top