And, AGAIN, saying that Obama is a moderate Democrat is not some sort of endorsement or compliment.

I'm hugely disappointed with the direction that he went with his presidency. He had a mandate in 2008 to completely turn the country away from the failed policies of GWB.

Instead, he sort of tilted us down a slightly different but parallel path. He framed his policy arguments poorly and got demolished in the PR battle with Republicans.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 11/11/2014 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2014 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 11/11/2014 10:12:00 AM (view original):
What makes him "not a centrist", or essentially left-wing is more than the few things I mentioned before (which I'll mention again)

• He advocates single payer healthcare and has always wanted us to go that direction.  It's not just that he got ACA passed; it's that ACA is the stepping stone.  He is on record as advocating single-payer.  That's a liberal concept.
• He advocates wealth redistribution through government means.  No, this is not the varying amounts of tax share people pay; this the part of your taxes that directly to those that do not.  That's a liberal concept.
• He is not only pro-choice, but pro-abortion (i.e. his opposition to the infant born alive act).  That's a liberal concept.
• His actions with respect to diplomacy and military / foreign policy are demonstrably liberal.
• His tax policy (especially with respect to the ACA TAX) is again, a liberal concept

I don't care what any study says, as a 50-something educated participant in this economy and in our American culture, I know how to recognize a liberal non-center president. 

The idea that Obama is somehow in the middle is pretzel-twisting logic at best.

 - He doesn't advocate single payer. He advocated the ACA, which was basically written by 1990's Republicans.
 - He advocates social safety nets. I'll wait for your list of presidents who advocated abolishing welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc.
 - No mainstream politicians are pro-abortion. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion.

Again, no one is saying that Obama isn't liberal. He just isn't an extreme, far-left liberal.

- Yes he does.  He has been quoted that way.  He not established it as presidential policy (he would be stupid to do that, but ACA is a logical step in that direction).

- I won't find presidents who want to abolish safety nets.  That doesn't change the fact that he is in favor of a MUCH larger one than conservatives believe in.  And his policies indicate that he believes government is the best solution for that  -  it's a distinction.  It's a matter of degree.  In that respect he is much more to the left than conservatives who still believe in some sort of safety net. 

- Then you don't know your president and what his voting record is.

Your argument was that Obama was a centrist.  I find that to be lacking.

Simply disagreeing with conservatives doesn't make someone an extreme liberal.

I'm not arguing that Obama is a centrist. I'm arguing that he's just left of center. A moderate Democrat.

Okay.  Here is what you posted:  "Guys like Obama and Boehner are relatively close to the center on the political spectrum."

If that doesn't mean centrist, fine.  You call him a moderate.  I believe he is no such thing.  I think you make a poor case that he is "just left of center".  You may want him to be more liberal.  I'm not sure what policies he holds that you don't believe are liberal enough, but it's clear he would go much, much farther if he could.

Relatively close to the center for a national politician is still far from the actual center. I would guess there are exactly zero "at the center" congressmen, senators, or presidents/serious presidential candidates.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2014 1:46:00 PM (view original):
And, AGAIN, saying that Obama is a moderate Democrat is not some sort of endorsement or compliment.

I'm hugely disappointed with the direction that he went with his presidency. He had a mandate in 2008 to completely turn the country away from the failed policies of GWB.

Instead, he sort of tilted us down a slightly different but parallel path. He framed his policy arguments poorly and got demolished in the PR battle with Republicans.

Maybe all this is because he was (a) massively unqualified to assume the role of leader of the free world, to run a country, to act as an effective diplomat and commander-in-chief, and (b) unable to bridge the gap created by the opposing political party, choosing obstinance over dialog and compromise?

What's the title of this thread, again?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/11/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2014 1:46:00 PM (view original):
And, AGAIN, saying that Obama is a moderate Democrat is not some sort of endorsement or compliment.

I'm hugely disappointed with the direction that he went with his presidency. He had a mandate in 2008 to completely turn the country away from the failed policies of GWB.

Instead, he sort of tilted us down a slightly different but parallel path. He framed his policy arguments poorly and got demolished in the PR battle with Republicans.

Maybe all this is because he was (a) massively unqualified to assume the role of leader of the free world, to run a country, to act as an effective diplomat and commander-in-chief, and (b) unable to bridge the gap created by the opposing political party, choosing obstinance over dialog and compromise?

What's the title of this thread, again?

Maybe. I do believe that the GOP decided to go against Obama regardless of the policy positions. If bills that Republicans used to support can't even make it to a vote in the Senate anymore, there isn't much a president can do.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/11/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2014 1:46:00 PM (view original):
And, AGAIN, saying that Obama is a moderate Democrat is not some sort of endorsement or compliment.

I'm hugely disappointed with the direction that he went with his presidency. He had a mandate in 2008 to completely turn the country away from the failed policies of GWB.

Instead, he sort of tilted us down a slightly different but parallel path. He framed his policy arguments poorly and got demolished in the PR battle with Republicans.

Maybe all this is because he was (a) massively unqualified to assume the role of leader of the free world, to run a country, to act as an effective diplomat and commander-in-chief, and (b) unable to bridge the gap created by the opposing political party, choosing obstinance over dialog and compromise?

What's the title of this thread, again?

Maybe. I do believe that the GOP decided to go against Obama regardless of the policy positions. If bills that Republicans used to support can't even make it to a vote in the Senate anymore, there isn't much a president can do.

You are obviously a firm believer in excuses.....

I seem to remember the GOP liking Bill Clinton so much they spent years trying to impeach him. Yet somehow Clinton's reputation is as a guy that was able to reach across the aisle.

Funny how time softens the memory.

I also remember the GOP hating Clinton.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2014 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Funny how time softens the memory.

I also remember the GOP hating Clinton.

my point is the republicans were no easier on clinton than they are on obama. yet clinton can pass bills with heavy republican support. taxpayer relief act - 225 house republicans voted for it - all 50 republican senators did as well. graham-leach-bliley - 207 house republicans voted for it - 52 of 53 republican senators did as well. huge republican support for the defense of marriage act, personal responsibilty act, health insurance portability act, and the list goes on and on and on

Based on your study showing Clinton was more liberal than Obama how do you explain the overwhelming support that Clinton got from Republicans even though as you said he was hated by the GOP.... Yet Obama, a less liberal Democrat than Clinton, can't seem to get even one Republican vote?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/5/2014 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Obama reaching across the aisle the day after the elections:

At the same time, he noted, "Congress will pass some bills I cannot sign. I'm pretty sure I will take some actions that some in Congress will not like."

Can that arrogant **** take one day to try to figure out a way to work WITH Republicans?

This.  He has no idea how to communicate with people who aren't on the same side of the fence.

...and now the Russians consider us adversaries because they are not on the same side of the fence as Obama.

All Obama does is throw insults at them instead of working with them.  Now the Ukraine situation is unsolvable.

Do moderates reach across to solve issues or double down?  Doubling down is what radicals do.  Obama would be a moderate in the Communist party.

Posted by raucous on 11/11/2014 3:38:00 PM (view original):
...and now the Russians consider us adversaries because they are not on the same side of the fence as Obama.

All Obama does is throw insults at them instead of working with them.  Now the Ukraine situation is unsolvable.

Do moderates reach across to solve issues or double down?  Doubling down is what radicals do.  Obama would be a moderate in the Communist party.

Those are Obama's outstanding foreign policy skills in action.

Posted by moy23 on 11/11/2014 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2014 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Funny how time softens the memory.

I also remember the GOP hating Clinton.

my point is the republicans were no easier on clinton than they are on obama. yet clinton can pass bills with heavy republican support. taxpayer relief act - 225 house republicans voted for it - all 50 republican senators did as well. graham-leach-bliley - 207 house republicans voted for it - 52 of 53 republican senators did as well. huge republican support for the defense of marriage act, personal responsibilty act, health insurance portability act, and the list goes on and on and on

Wait, you mean to tell me that Republicans supported a taxpayer relief act? No way. And DOMA? Real shocker there.

Maybe Clinton wasn't really very liberal?

Maybe no modern president has been all that far down the ideological scale?

How conservative was Reagan? I mean, he nearly tripled the budget deficit, he grew the size of the government, he liberalized California abortion laws while governor, he gave amnesty to illegal immigrants...Christ, the guy is practically an atheist communist.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 10:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 11/10/2014 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 11/10/2014 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 4:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/10/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 11/10/2014 3:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd like to know what issues Obama is "close to the 'center'" on.

It's hard to be "close to center" on most issues.

Abortion and gay marriage are cut and dry issues.   You can't lean a "little" left or right. 
"Re-distribution of wealth" sounds like it comes right out of the socialism handbook.    Can't be slightly left of center and use phrases like that. 
If Obama leaned right on a few things, and nothing comes to mind, you could balance some things out.  I just can't think of any right leanings. 

All income taxes are redistribution of wealth. Any politician not in favor of abolishing the income tax would be a socialist under your definition.

All income taxes are redistribution of wealth. REALLY??

I don't consider income taxes that I pay that go to the Military to protect me and my country a "redistribution of wealth". I consider it my cost to keep me safe. Or how about income taxes that go to Medical research to help find the cure for diseases? Or income taxes that go to upgrade the infrastructure of our roads and bridges? There are a lot of income taxes that get used to help ME. I don't consider paying my fair share a "Redistribution".

Guy A pays $40,000 a year in Federal Income Taxes.
Guy B, because of the EIC, get's $2,000 back, even after paying nothing in taxes.

Does guy A get better military protection? Does he get to drive on special, tax-payer-only roads and bridges?

I'll answer. No, he does not.

His "fair share" is significantly more than guy B despite getting no additional benefit. Guy A's income is taken and redistributed for the good of all, whether that be in the form of military protection, infrastructure, or welfare.

To say, "All income taxes are redistribution of wealth" is moronic. You are assuming all of Guy A's income taxes are redistributed.

Here is proof that you are wrong:

Let's say the FAIR SHARE for funding the military is $1000 for every citizen of the US and, using YOUR example, Guy A is paying $40,000. Then $1000 of that $40,000 is his cost for that benefit. Therefore he is NOT REDISTRIBUTING that $1000 in taxes. He is getting the benefit of that $1000.

Guy B is paying $0 for that same benefit.

NO SH*T Sherlock. Glad you were able to figure that one out on your own.

Guys, no sense in arguing with an idiot. Instead of being man enough to post that he was WRONG he thinks his "Guy B is paying $0 for that same benefit." comment makes him a genius and should put an end to his stupid comment that "All income taxes are redistribution of wealth".

It is interesting to see that when BL posts a fancy graph or article cut and pasted from some other web site that it is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH yet when someone else does it he says that the content of their article must have been edited. That is so rediculous that it is almost funny!

Posted by moy23 on 11/11/2014 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2014 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Funny how time softens the memory.

I also remember the GOP hating Clinton.

my point is the republicans were no easier on clinton than they are on obama. yet clinton can pass bills with heavy republican support. taxpayer relief act - 225 house republicans voted for it - all 50 republican senators did as well. graham-leach-bliley - 207 house republicans voted for it - 52 of 53 republican senators did as well. huge republican support for the defense of marriage act, personal responsibilty act, health insurance portability act, and the list goes on and on and on

When the Repubs took Congress in 1994, Clinton got it.  He worked with them to get things done.

When the Democrats took Congress in 2007, Dumbass II got it.  He worked with them to get things done.

When the Repubs took Congress in 2014, Obama doesn't seem to get it.  He is even dumber than Dumbass II.