rydawg5;1622726 wrote:Not sure how your first sentence and rest connect. At all. Were they voting the 2nd term as well to "make up for history?"

I personally agree with you with the distaste you have, but the first sentence you stated was stupid.

No way there are 60 million "sympathizers" - Mccain and Romney were douche bags and America doesn't get a 3rd choice.

Just unbelievably pissed off. Wasn't trying to string along a complete thought.

Other than because he was black, what reason was there to vote for this man.


We used to laugh at Baghdad Bob, our whole fucking media is Baghdad Bob

gut;1622752 wrote:Fixed it for ya.

LOL, yeah, the Great Depression was really his fault. And Romney had experience as a governor and with the Salt Lake Olympics, which is more than either Hoover or Obama could claim. And there's no comparison to Romney's business experience - he had a hand in literally dozens of successful companies across several industries.

Gosh a ruddies Mitt Romney born into wealth and influence. Born into the crony system. Herbert Hoover was a self made millionaire who built successful corporations from the ground up. Gosh Mitt was chairman of the committee to organize the winter Olympics at Salt Lake and governor of Mass. During World War I Hoover was first the Chairman of the Commission in Belgium Relief, later the American Relief Administration that fed 10.5 million people a day during German occupation, saving them from starvation. When the US entered the war he headed the government Food Administration providing food to feed our troops and our allies. In the immediate post war working for the American Friends Service he saved millions from starvation in Central Europe and Russia. He then became Secretary of Commerce in the Harding and Coolidge Administration. He is rated by many historians as the best at that position.
Romney just doesn’t come close to him. He is everything you want. And he was a horrible President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

bases_loaded;1622788 wrote:Just unbelievably pissed off. Wasn't trying to string along a complete thought.

Other than because he was black, what reason was there to vote for this man.


We used to laugh at Baghdad Bob, our whole fucking media is Baghdad Bob

well lets see we elected a politician
trained as a lawyer
served some terms in the Illinois legislature
a short time in Congress
and had given some great speeches.

Hey guise, nothing to see here anymore. Obama says this is just a "whipped up controversy."

rydawg5;1622726 wrote:Not sure how your first sentence and rest connect. At all. Were they voting the 2nd term as well to "make up for history?"

I personally agree with you with the distaste you have, but the first sentence you stated was stupid.

No way there are 60 million "sympathizers" - Mccain and Romney were douche bags and America doesn't get a 3rd choice.

True on all points. The answer is actually simple for anyone willing to work their brain. Charisma and very little else else goes into decision-making at the polls nowadays. Clinton was super-charismatic; Bush had it in spades over the stiff-as-a-board Gore and Kerry and Obama easily outmatched McCain and Romney.

On one hand, it's understandable. The poli-world has just gotten so mean-spirited thanks to how it's about a requirement for TV ads to focus on the other guy's negatives than your guy's positives and how painfully divisive idiots like Quaker have the loudest voices that's it's easy to see how people just tune everything out and pick the guy they think is more cool to hang with.

On the other hand...yeah, this might be the D&D/video-game geek side in me showing, but make charisma-based stats your focus there and see how that treats you when you come in conflict with monsters/adversaries who aren't interested in giving you a change to let you flash the pearly whites and give a rousing speech. And then enjoy starting from scratch with a more practical character.

isadore;1622795 wrote:well lets see we elected a politician
trained as a lawyer
served some terms in the Illinois legislature
a short time in Congress
and had given some great speeches.

I see nothing on that list that is a good reason to vote for someone. Based off that list there are well over a 100 Congressmen that can give a good speech, are they all worthy of votes for POTUS?

jmog;1622842 wrote:I see nothing on that list that is a good reason to vote for someone. Based off that list there are well over a 100 Congressmen that can give a good speech, are they all worthy of votes for POTUS?

What is important is what he didn't do. With his academic background (whether warranted or not) he could have clerked for any judicial panel, including SCOTUS. He could have worked at any law firm. He didn't do it....he hasn't done anything. He seems to be a lazy person and with this new scandal it solidifies his status as the worst POTUS in recent history.

“It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking by telephone on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

Nice job Obama 👍

ccrunner609;1622883 wrote:It wasn't by accident that he all of a sudden appeared as the Democratic presidential candidate over Hilary out of thin air.

Look on the bright side, there's a chance Hillary won't run or won't win the POTUS....but if she had back in 2008, then many people would be eagerly looking forward to 8 years of "hope and change" in 2016.

If Obama's election was inevitable at some point, then blocking Hillary could be the most productive thing he's accomplished.

jmog;1622842 wrote:I see nothing on that list that is a good reason to vote for someone. Based off that list there are well over a 100 Congressmen that can give a good speech, are they all worthy of votes for POTUS?

gosh a ruddies I was describing Abe Lincoln.

isadore;1622909 wrote:gosh a ruddies I was describing Abe Lincoln.

If you are truly comparing Obama to Lincoln you have lost all sense of reality.

jmog;1622914 wrote:If you are truly comparing Obama to Lincoln you have lost all sense of reality.

well lets see we elected a politician
trained as a lawyer
served some terms in the Illinois legislature
a short time in Congress
and had given some great speeches.

gosh a ruddies that was Lincoln's resume in 1860 and Obama's in 2008

isadore;1622917 wrote:well lets see we elected a politician
trained as a lawyer
served some terms in the Illinois legislature
a short time in Congress
and had given some great speeches.

gosh a ruddies that was Lincoln's resume in 1860 and Obama's in 2008

Pretty true actually. And then when elected they decided to go on much different paths. One helped bring America to prominence, one is effectively destroying it.

ohiobucks1;1622931 wrote:Pretty true actually. And then when elected they decided to go on much different paths. One helped bring America to prominence, one is effectively destroying it.

Exactly.

I honestly don't fault America for voting in Obama the first time. It was cool/hip, there was a euphoric feel to voting in the first non-caucasian President (should have happened sooner), everyone hated Bush, etc. I get all that.

What I don't understand is how the stupid country voted him in a second term after seeing how bad he was was the job.


I said back when Bush won a 2nd term that the ONLY reason he did was because the idiot democrats were so SURE they could win with anyone that they put the worst possible candidate up there in Kerry.

The Ds gave America honestly no choice with Kerry being so bad.

I don't know what most people where thinking other than they got boondoggled by the left wing media into the "We are the 99%" BS and that "Romney is in the 1%!" while conveniently forgetting that Obama is in the 1% as well and hasn't done jack crap for the poor to this point in his Presidency (look at the growing number of people in poverty...yeah, he's really helping).

jmog;1622936 wrote: What I don't understand is how the stupid country voted him in a second term after seeing how bad he was was the job.

I think a lot of those 2008 voters were extremely vested in his success, particularly African Americans. This goes beyond the whole "back the winner", liberals and minorities NEEDED him to succeed...and, well, for some reason they thought he could turn it around.

We're talking about a guy who is literally going to mail it in (even more so than he does already) if the Repubs take the Senate. That would be simply astonishing for someone who aspired to, and got elected to, the most powerful position in the world. Obama wants the title, not the job.

ohiobucks1;1622931 wrote:Pretty true actually. And then when elected they decided to go on much different paths. One helped bring America to prominence, one is effectively destroying it.

during his Presidency Lincoln was criticized with as vitrolically as Obama by Southerners of course but also by Northern Democrats and even his own party. Only in the aftermath of his Presidency was he truly appreciated.

Lincoln freed slaves, not terrorists.

and unified a nation rather than divide it

TedSheckler;1622951 wrote:Lincoln freed slaves, not terrorists.

Lincoln made many prisoner exchanges that allowed thousands of traitors to return to the war and kill thousands of union troops.

TedSheckler;1622951 wrote:Lincoln freed slaves, not terrorists.

and obama has enslaved tens of millions, to government debt.

QuakerOats;1622957 wrote:and obama has enslaved tens of millions, to government debt.

lol

both Obama and Lincoln were attacked by the most virulent racists of their time.

bases_loaded;1622955 wrote:and unified a nation rather than divide it

and never told a lie

gut;1622964 wrote:and never told a lie

And slayed vampires.

Rotinaj;1622965 wrote:And slayed vampires.

His war on the undead would not go over well with Democrats today...would cost them too many votes.