Do Any of You Gimps Still Believe in Obama?

[GePap]

As for the question, the only thing I have really approved of this entire precidency is Bush's significant increase of foreign aide for Africa, and the increase in funding for AIDS related programs. No child left behind began as a good idea, but implementation has been spotty and funding insufficient.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gore would have handled 9/11 reasonably well, but would have been hampered by Republicans attempting to use it for political gain. Right wing lunatics would have started blaming Gore for 9/11 (and don't say they wouldn't, because a lot of them erroneously blame Clinton).

They blame Clinton because OBL was a big enough issue then to lob missiles, but Clinton didn't think he was important enough to do anything significant about. Then a terrorist attack that kills Americans comes from OBL again, you can say cause and effect.

Why didn't Clinton attempt to do something about OBL? After all he saw the crisis in Serbia as enough to engage in the longest sustained bombing since the second world war.

We already know that the radical right used 9/11 for political gain, because they used it to garner support for the Iraq fiasco.

The support from Iraq came from the fact that they were sponsoring terrorism, the same terrorists that attacked the US. Now I disagreed with the war in Iraq, but not because I disagreed that Saddam was financing terrorism.

But if the tables had been turned, the right wing authoritarians would have been all over Gore like a cheap suit. They have no shame and would have kept slinging mud until something stuck.

Sounds exactly like the left wingers have done to Bush in 8 years. I don't think there has been a single point when they haven't slung mud at him, blamed him for 9-11, except maybe 9-12 and that they called restraint.

Americans still don't realize that there can be no accommodation with these people. If you want to stop them, they must be eliminated from the political process... completely and irrevocably.

Eliminated from the political process? Assassination? I disagree with the Dems, but I don't believe they should be eliminated from the process.

I can tell you one thing: it would be unlikely that the US would be running a secret gulag or torturing prisoners if Al Gore was in charge

Torturing prisoners?

Does that include or not include descrating a Koran?

Seriously, the US feeds it's prisoners Halal meat, and I would gamble that a significant portion of US citizens subsist on a lesser diet.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The support from Iraq came from the fact that they were sponsoring terrorism, the same terrorists that attacked the US. Now I disagreed with the war in Iraq, but not because I disagreed that Saddam was financing terrorism.

Wow Ben. You beat Ned in terms of being out of it. Really, you do. Congratulations, you deserve a prize of some type for most deluded poster EVER if you actually believe this.

Jesus

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Damn, I was hoping you were a complete loon. Instead you're just bad at engaging in constructive debates.

Don't be so quick to rule out the former.

[Ben Kenobi]

Bush won re-election in 2004 (by the smallest ever margin by a sitting president

Margin of what? Percentage of the popular vote? Electoral college?

He won a higher percentage of votes then Clinton, Truman, and Wilson. None of them ever won a majority of voters, even as a sitting president. He won more College votes then Wilson, and had a largin margin of voters then both Truman and Wilson.

Of those who lost, he beat out his dad, Carter, Ford, and Hoover who failed to garner a second term.

So for sitting presidents who ran for re-election, he was less popular then Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, Eisenhower, Coolidge, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt.

He was more popular then Carter, Ford, Hoover, Truman, Wilson, Bush Sr, and Clinton.

That leaves Harding, Kennedy and McKinley. I'd say he was more popular then Harding and less then Kennedy and McKinley.

That puts him in the middle of the pack.

because a bulk of the electorate at that time preferred a continuity in government during what they saw as a time of crisis, that and because the economy appeared to be "recovering", and thus people had expectation of things improving.

Most folks agreed with him and how he was doing things which is why he gained more votes then previous. They felt the war was going well, since the US destroyed the Iraqi forced and toppelled Saddam, which is generally the measure used to declare victory in most wars.

Are you willing to acknowledge reality Ben and the fact that Bush is currently if not the most unpopular sitting president EVER, only second to Nixon at the depths of Watergate?

No. I think he's more popular then Wilson, Truman and Clinton for sure. He's also more popular then Carter, Hoover during the depression, LBJ in 1968.

You can't forget that LBJ RESIGNED in 1968 rather then challenge for re-election!

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by GePap


To be president you need to be able to rule, most importantly to work with Congress to get anything done. Any third party candidate would have instant issues in this country with both the parties that control the legislative. MOre importantly, Nader does not seem the type to carry out the necessary compromises that a good leader makes. I would hope that he would pick experienced hands for his cabinet but then I don't know who he would pick, and how much time would be wasted in nominarting battles.

Picking a complete outsider to lead isn't going to change squat, specially one who had never been elected for anything before, EVER. So why waste four years of bitter politics just to go back to the same old afterwards?

Again, Nader has done a lot of good, but just because you have doesn't make one presidential.

That is funny because it's almost as if you do not know how he had things done, he was not a politician himself but had to work with them in washington all those years. If anything his time there showed what he can do, before they started closing doors on citizen groups. What is even more important is what he is saying now, but then again he has been saying most of the same things for years now.
As for "outsider", I think any insider is not going to be able to change anything either, they will not even try, you will get same old. Somebody who is not part of the two corporate parties might even be somebody who can think for themselves.
And what is this "time wasted on nominating battles", are you saying he is gonna waste more time than others? He already has a VP.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Margin of what? Percentage of the popular vote? Electoral college?

Popular vote, and its the margin of victory that I mentioned, notoverall votes. Sorry, pay attention.

Most folks agreed with him and how he was doing things which is why he gained more votes then previous. They felt the war was going well, since the US destroyed the Iraqi forced and toppelled Saddam, which is generally the measure used to declare victory in most wars.

Yes, and just a few months later the people saw how wrong that was, given that far more American soldiers have died during his second term than his first.

No. I think he's more popular then Wilson, Truman and Clinton for sure. He's also more popular then Carter, Hoover during the depression, LBJ in 1968.

You can't forget that LBJ RESIGNED in 1968 rather then challenge for re-election!

The opinion polls are pretty definitive, as in, they have NEVER seen such poor numbers, though they do not go as far back as the Depression. So what you think is really irrelevant.

[GePap]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

That is funny because it's almost as if you do not know how he had things done, he was not a politician himself but had to work with them in washington all those years. If anything his time there showed what he can do, before they started closing doors on citizen groups. What is even more important is what he is saying now, but then again he has been saying most of the same things for years now.

Working with elected officials as an aide, or asa lobbyist is different from being a politician and working then. And politicians haven't "closed their doors on citizen groups."

As for "outsider", I think any insider is not going to be able to change anything either, they will not even try, you will get same old. Somebody who is not part of the two corporate parties might even be somebody who can think for themselves.

All fine and dandy until he needs to get a piece of legislation passed, or put together a 2+ Trillion dollar budget.

And what is this "time wasted on nominating battles", are you saying he is gonna waste more time than others? He already has a VP.

VP's are an elected post. Here in the US the members of the president's cabinet must be approved by the Senate. Usually, this is a non-issue at first, unless the President picks someone "controversial" to any Senator. And yes, I do think a Nader presidency would spend more time at it than others, specially with a confrontational mindset coming in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why do you people even bother to try to argue sense in response the inane ramblings of Ben? It's like trying to argue why capitalism is good to a die hard Marxist.

[Ben Kenobi]

Popular vote, and its the margin of victory that I mentioned, notoverall votes. Sorry, pay attention.

Then Bush won more then either Wilson in 1916 or Truman in 1948, and your statement is false.

He had a larger MARGIN of votes in his victory.

Yes, and just a few months later the people saw how wrong that was, given that far more American soldiers have died during his second term than his first.

Bitter much? You may have disagreed, but we are looking at the overall electorate, not just a subsample of leftists who are in the minority.

The opinion polls are pretty definitive, as in, they have NEVER seen such poor numbers, though they do not go as far back as the Depression. So what you think is really irrelevant.

Again, Hoover in the depression had the largest margin of defeat by any sitting president.

I think that's a pretty good quantitative measure of popularity.

LBJ also resigned rather then run again, so I will stand by my statement that both were less popular then Bush at his worst in his president.

Secondly, if we measure according to opinion polls, then you have to count his overall AVERAGE, not just the very low point.

You are cherry picking stats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Imran Siddiqui]Why do you people even bother to try to argue sense in response the inane ramblings of Ben? It's like trying to argue why capitalism is good to a die hard Marxist.[/q]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then Bush won more then either Wilson in 1916 or Truman in 1948, and your statement is false.

He had a larger MARGIN of votes in his victory.

And here be proof. Either Ben is being deliberately obtuse or is insane (in his inability to find the obvious meaning of a poster's post), but in either case the solution to quit responding to his drivel.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks for your insight Imran.

Gepap might think it obvious, but all he said is the margin of victory. That statement in and of itself is ambiguous.

Then he clarifies, and his statement is still ambiguous.

I asked, if he meant electoral college (which is actually a good question), or percentage of the popular vote.

If I'm being obtuse, why is it that the first thing I mentioned is what you think he meant?

All gepap had to say is that he meant the margin of the percentage of the popular vote, and then bob's your uncle.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

stuff

So you're arguing that he's not the worst/least popular president, just the 3rd or 4th from the bottom. Aim high.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by GePap


Working with elected officials as an aide, or asa lobbyist is different from being a politician and working then. And politicians haven't "closed their doors on citizen groups."

As for "outsider", I think any insider is not going to be able to change anything either, they will not even try, you will get same old. Somebody who is not part of the two corporate parties might even be somebody who can think for themselves.

All fine and dandy until he needs to get a piece of legislation passed, or put together a 2+ Trillion dollar budget.



VP's are an elected post. Here in the US the members of the president's cabinet must be approved by the Senate. Usually, this is a non-issue at first, unless the President picks someone "controversial" to any Senator. And yes, I do think a Nader presidency would spend more time at it than others, specially with a confrontational mindset coming in.

That's not what I have heard about the closed doors.
Naders record puts most politicans in shame. Isn't his history full of acts that he has been able to get through, but you are saying getting things done is his weakness...
I am seriously confused what you are saying about the VP, are you saying Matt Gonzalez would not be his VP were he to be elected and senate would force somebody else for an independent candidate? Is VP only an elected post if it's R or D? Please explain what you are talking about.

Besides, this has been a strawman gone too long, I know he is not going to be the president, I just want you to vote for him (or some other 3rd party). Or you can vote against your self interest like usual.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then Bush won more then either Wilson in 1916 or Truman in 1948, and your statement is false.

He had a larger MARGIN of votes in his victory.

Wrong. According to Wikipedia, Bush won in 2004 with a margin of 2.9% of the electorate. IN 1916 Wilson won with a margin of 3.1% of the electorate, and in 1948 Truman won with a margin of 4.5% of the electorate.

Again, Hoover in the depression had the largest margin of defeat by any sitting president.

I think that's a pretty good quantitative measure of popularity.

No, it's not. After all, he got close to 40% of the vote. Bush doesn't even poll 30% support. So besides being a different type of data, even if we assume it the same, Bush's numbers are worse.

LBJ also resigned rather then run again, so I will stand by my statement that both were less popular then Bush at his worst in his president.

There were polls in LBJ's days, and his numbers weren't as bad as Bush's current numbers. The fact he resigned means nothing, since that is a personal action by one man.

Secondly, if we measure according to opinion polls, then you have to count his overall AVERAGE, not just the very low point.

You are cherry picking stats.

NO, you are as usual not understanding the point. My point is that Bush is reaching unprecedented lows. RIGHT NOW, Bush is as unpopular as any president has ever been, as far as we can tell from polls since we have had consistent polling data. That right after 9/11 he got an immense jump in popularity doesn't mean **** today, since, unless you have missed it, its 2008, not 2001.