Then why would the people on food stamps blame Obama?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/3/2015 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Then why would the people on food stamps blame Obama?

because they are more than likely too ignorant to blame themselves.

So it isn't Obama's fault?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/3/2015 11:36:00 PM (view original):
So it isn't Obama's fault?

"More Americans have a favorable view of former President George W. Bush than of President Barack Obama, a new CNN/ORC poll finds." - seems like after 6 years less Americans are saying 'it was Bush's fault they are on food stamps (or have had stagnant wages)' and more are blaming Obama for making promises to help them when after 6 years he has not helped them. A president's policies may make it harder or easier for one to become successful but ultimately its up to the individual to devise and execute a plan for their own life (no matter what the obstacles ahead may be)

IN THAT POLL JIMMY CARTER BEAT DUBYA AND OBAMA.

PEOPLE TEND TO VIEW OLD PRESIDENTS LIKE GRANDFATHERLY FIGURES WHO CAN NO LONGER DO HARM.

THAT IS A POLL ON HOW THEY ARE VIEWD PRESENTLY, NOT THEIR TIME IN OFFICE

Posted by stinenavy on 6/4/2015 2:07:00 AM (view original):
Or it could be a outlier poll of 1,000 people. Or a bunch of Republicans answered the phone, lied, and said they were independent, and it ended up skewing the poll.

But whatever. Please tell me how awesome President W. Bush was. Every decision he made turned out great.

Sounds like you are reaching.

Plus, no one said EVERY decision Bush made turned out great. I still loathe the 'bailout' bill which was unpopular at the time and still is today. No kid left behind had the right motivation but was not a smashing success. Even the patriot act to some extent may have been too much. The difference between Bush and Obama is Bush passed bills with bipartisan support, even when he was at his all time low likability (see the bailout bill). Obama on the other hand cannot get two party support which is a sign of poor leadership.

Posted by stinenavy on 6/4/2015 2:07:00 AM (view original):
Or it could be a outlier poll of 1,000 people. Or a bunch of Republicans answered the phone, lied, and said they were independent, and it ended up skewing the poll.

But whatever. Please tell me how awesome President W. Bush was. Every decision he made turned out great.

Or it could be Obama is terrible.
If two things are bad, and the one thing is worse than the other, it doesn't mean the other isn't still really bad.

Same old ****.

"Obama sucks."
"SO DOES DUBYA!!!!"

For once, I'd like to see a liberal argue for Obama without bringing up Bush.   Just one time.

Posted by moy23 on 6/4/2015 5:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 6/4/2015 2:07:00 AM (view original):
Or it could be a outlier poll of 1,000 people. Or a bunch of Republicans answered the phone, lied, and said they were independent, and it ended up skewing the poll.

But whatever. Please tell me how awesome President W. Bush was. Every decision he made turned out great.

Sounds like you are reaching.

Plus, no one said EVERY decision Bush made turned out great. I still loathe the 'bailout' bill which was unpopular at the time and still is today. No kid left behind had the right motivation but was not a smashing success. Even the patriot act to some extent may have been too much. The difference between Bush and Obama is Bush passed bills with bipartisan support, even when he was at his all time low likability (see the bailout bill). Obama on the other hand cannot get two party support which is a sign of poor leadership.

A) The bailout bill was necessary, even if people think they didn't like it.

B) Obama can't get any GOP support because Republicans decided there was no political downside to saying no to everything.

The bailout bill was necessary because the banks were deemed "too big to allow to fail", yet now they are even bigger.

How foolish we are.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/4/2015 9:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/4/2015 5:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 6/4/2015 2:07:00 AM (view original):
Or it could be a outlier poll of 1,000 people. Or a bunch of Republicans answered the phone, lied, and said they were independent, and it ended up skewing the poll.

But whatever. Please tell me how awesome President W. Bush was. Every decision he made turned out great.

Sounds like you are reaching.

Plus, no one said EVERY decision Bush made turned out great. I still loathe the 'bailout' bill which was unpopular at the time and still is today. No kid left behind had the right motivation but was not a smashing success. Even the patriot act to some extent may have been too much. The difference between Bush and Obama is Bush passed bills with bipartisan support, even when he was at his all time low likability (see the bailout bill). Obama on the other hand cannot get two party support which is a sign of poor leadership.

A) The bailout bill was necessary, even if people think they didn't like it.

B) Obama can't get any GOP support because Republicans decided there was no political downside to saying no to everything.

1) was all the pork necessary?

2) is going at it alone your definition of a strong leader or would a strong leader find a way to muster up support from both parties? There are plenty of ways to get the GOP on board to pass a bipartison bill - like, instead of being stubborn and name calling he should throw the Republicans the occasion bone. You cannot tell me there are not 'mutual' options that both parties could agree on.

Yes, I am saying that. The GOP decided to say no to everything. You can't negotiate with someone who refuses to negotiate.

Odd.

You ask "was all that pork necessary" and then say "he should throw the Republicans the occasion bone".    Surely you see the irony in that.

Not that I disagree about Obama's "negotiation" skills.    He points, blames and threatens.   No one will negotiate with someone whose idea of negotiation is "This is how it's going to be done.   If it isn't, it's all your fault and I will happily blame you."

Throwing Repubs a bone doesn't have to be pork. It could be as simple as giving a little on an issue that is important to the Repub base. There are numerous examples, and he could have gave a little on any one of them to start the process of "working together". He never did, and never will.