Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It's actually from the wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#2006
Because he will bow out of the race for the Presidential nomination?
Of course we will. How could we forget what happens when a politician is against gay rights? When you have your name inserted into the urban dictionary like that, the laughter will last for more than one campaign cycle. However, I take it that your point is that he will be irrelevant as it regards the Presidential election, as if he hasn't been all along. In which case I would agree with you.
o___________O
All. Of. My. Hate.from another message board said:
Including or excluding Obama?
I don't. I just wanted to know Dark Horse thought. I actually think he's doing a halfway decent job. Apart from the NDAA, he's been pretty good as far as I can tell.
I highly disagree with you. I believe he should have vetoed it and they would have fought over it, but still passed something, except this time it wouldn't have this stupid provision in the bill they hacked onto it.
Isn't the constitution America's sacred cow? If someone attaches something to a bill that the country should not be in favor for, which ultimately sinks the bill that has really important features in it, then the President can highlight that fact. It's almost like only Republicans are the only ones that use the media...It's available to Democrats too, so they should counter their points if they have the facts on their side. He can vote no and then explain why it is best for the country to stand strong by her principles while simultaneously exposing those who want to sacrifice liberty for security. After all, it was Ben Franklin who said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I understand that it might not be in his self-interest, but it would be in the best interest of the country. I think that Matt Damon was right when he said that he would prefer a "one term President with some balls." I'm tired of hearing the excuse, well that's politics. He promised not to play the game, and that he was going to change the nature of the game. This was the platform he was elected on, and he failed to deliver. Instead, it's more of the same political BS.Aesir said:
And these people voted against him before and will vote against him regardless of what he does so it shouldn't be a factor in his decision making process. The only way it could be considered is if he thinks it will win him votes from this demographic that has an irrational prejudice against him. If this is the case, I'm not sure who is more irrational. It's like the Vulcan straw-man of rationality.
I agree that the Democrats are horrible at influencing public opinion. Let's say that you would excuse Democrats for caving to Republican demands since Republicans have won the public opinion and it is the politically correct move to make, it is still their failure for letting that happen. Imagine if a politician conceded every time they had an attack ad played against them? They would get nowhere. Instead, they run ads of their own platform and call out opponents for making inaccurate statements about them. When it comes to major issues, it should be no different. Democrats should counter the talking points and they haven't; for that, they have failed.
This is the same president, who got binladin, saved the auto industry, saved 400,000 jobs, repealed DADT, ignores the DOMA, ended the Iraq War, along with a bunch of other campaign promises.
It's not really about those votes, it's about the swing voters, it's about the voters who listen to sound bite politics. The ones who may not think the's stalin incarnate but the ones who think they might be better with Mitt Romney. (as much as that's a far cry. However! you don't want to take chances.)
I'm not gonna disagree here, but unless you start making major advancements in the science of time travel and can perform a flawless inception on the president, then it's best not to think about the passed and coulda woulda stuff.
I don't see why the death of Bin Laden should be seen as a good thing. When it happened, I likened it to a compulsive gambler who hit a small jackpot of $100 after sinking $1,000 into the machine as if that makes up for the string of bad decisions leading up to that small victory. It doesn't. This is the sort of thing that I am advising against. Sinking billions of dollars, causing countless human misery, for what? A headline that says "We got him!" so that he can get re-elected? The cost is hidden by the news with only the positive result shown. When placed in the big picture, it is not an achievement; but an illustration of what is wrong with this country. As for the Iraq War, I think the promise was to end our overseas wars, not to shift our focus to another country.
We weren't exactly the one who set those expectations. Ever hear the phrase "under promise and over deliver"? When you make such a large promise, you set yourself up to fail. If he knew he couldn't keep his promise, he should have not made it in the first place.
If it's about the voters who listen to sound bites, then provide sound bites. What is Obama's counter sound bite to the passing of NDAA? That he won't indefinitely detain American citizens under his administration? Really, that's a counter to something unconstitutional?
Wow, talk about unrealistic expectations. How exactly with our current political atmosphere was he going to pull off more than ending the war in Iraq? Already Republicans all claim it was a bad decision. Hell, Rick Perry wants to send troops back there. How exactly do you want him to go about doing more than he already has?
Naive idealism. What is this nonsense? You honestly feel the Republicans up in Washington have anything close to "bipartisan support"? Did you actually follow the repeal of DADT? Do you have any idea how much BS it had to go through? They honestly wasted so much money and time on a stupid STUDY on this garbage! And there are politicians like Santorum who want to turn back the clock on it. Why can't you be actually happy about a victory in the right direction? What, did you think change was going to happen overnight?
Continuing to downplay every success...
Hello, he's a politician. Candidates can't possibly under-promise, they can't win that way. And to be quite blunt, what he has had to face with the party of no (the Republicans) has NEVER had to be faced BY ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN ALL TIME. Seriously, the filibustering hit record numbers WITHIN HIS FIRST YEAR as president. How could he possibly have predicted how hard it would be to pass anything?
Since my position on this has already been said, I'm sticking with it. I still say the President should have vetoed the NDAA as it was. There were harder battles fought before over smaller issues. I'm informed and entirely not convinced it was absolutely necesssary, even if I understand the point of view Aesir explained.
It has about the same level of support in the country as the removal of troops from Iraq. It doesn't really matter what Republican opponents say since renewing operating in Iraq (even if Iraqi forces are not able to maintain security) is not supported by Americans by a 2-1 margin.
My mistake, I was talking about Republican voters. A super majority of the country was in favor of its removal so he has the support of both Democrats and a large chunk of Republicans. If he doesn't have support in Washington, then take it to the public, they are on his side. If he's after swing voters, then highlight issues like these. Not only highlight he fact that it is discriminatory, but highlight the fact that we are discharging soldiers after we contribute a lot of capital in training them and then highlight the fact that Republicans are, as you say, wasting resources on "studying" this issue. After all, the people side with him on this issue so highlight the fact that the Republican party is not acting with the America's interests in mind. Like I keep on saying, results are not the goal here, it's the decision making process being considered. If he can't pass the appropriate legislation because he is being railroaded, then he needs to take a different route. However, he's not taking that route, which is why he's taking flack for it.
One bailout totaled 14 billion dollars. One bailout totaled 770 billion dollars. This is simple enough reason to place emphasis of one over the other.
I agree, but you haven't been listening to what I have been saying. He should make this transparent. Make those who railroad efforts to help the American people accountable for the next election term by highlighting these actions. The Democratic party hasn't been doing this, which is part of the criticism directed at them. Let's say that the Republicans refused to cooperate with him every step of the way and Obama stuck to his principles, meaning that no legislation had passed (and then try to win in the court of public opinion); I would prefer that to conceding victories to the Republicans with little to show for it.
I'm sure he will as the general election comes closer, but in the meantime, I really get the feeling his strategy is simply to sit back and let the republicans talk themselves out of a possible chance for victory. What I mean is...
What exactly has the same level of support? I'm just confused about what you're referring to here.
I recall him asking for public support in other situations, for example with the debt ceiling negotiations. I recall him making public statements urging the public to take action. The result didn't change very much. What exactly do you expect him to do? Ask the public to do what exactly? What can they do if the people they elected are acting like morons?
I'm not familiar enough with this to know exactly what you're talking about. There's a number of reasons the bailout was a success and a number of reasons you could say it was a failure. The biggest example I can think of is the fact that the bailouts to the banks were interest-free and had no restrictions on what they can be used on, so all the banks just invested the money in high-risk securities instead of, oh, I don't know, giving people loans. I haven't researched why in the world this is true, I just heard it once on the news.
Ok, so I agree with your frustration with the Democratic party absolutely failing to play the media well with this, but I disagree with your preference. I absolutely do not prefer the idea of passing no legislation whatsoever. I also really hate this idea of "sticking to your principles". This is an ideological line of thinking in which your "principles" are always right, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary. I don't buy this. I know most Americans like this whole "principle" garbage, but I think it's one of the problems we face in politics that I doubt is ever going to end. We should be making the smart choice based on what we know, not sticking to mostly corrupt "principles".
In my opinion it stems from our 2-party polarized system. On the right is the list of ideas you mentioned above. There exists almost zero evidence to support it, but people like the sound of it, so they latch onto it. And because people latch onto it, it's the same mantra that politicians have been touting for the last few decades or further back I'm not sure.
We are few and therefore don't represent a lot of votes.
I agree with most of what you said, but I think you're seeing correlation and assuming causation with how the republicans won. I think it has more to do with the fact that people are frustrated with the current situation, and being too uninformed find it's easier to blame whoever is in power now. My father is Republican and so are almost all of his friends. No one I've ever met is that far right. It's just that there are only two sides, and since people felt they didn't like the results of one side they would vote for the other. That's my opinion on it anyway.
I really want Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum to become the Republican candidate. Or to at least maul Mitt very badly and tarnish his image. That way Obama stands a better chance of winning.