Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama - Democratic Reagan?  
User currently offlinebmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2274 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

3 weeks ago there was an edition of Newsweek where Obama, if re-elected, would become the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan.

Can't go into specifics, you have to read the copy, but there is one similarity. Reagan had GOP majority in Senate but faced Democratic House. Obama has the opposite....

[Edited 2012-11-07 10:14:45]


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1531 times:

Quoting bmacleod (Thread starter):
3 weeks ago there was an edition of Newsweek where Obama, if re-elected, would become the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan.

Can't go into specifics, you have to read the copy, but there is one similarity. Reagan had GOP majority in Senate but faced Democratic House. Obama has the opposite....

The big difference is that Reagan frequently invited the Opposition leadership to the White House for discussions. Tip O'Niell (the Democrat Speaker of the House), met with Reagan every single week, and they hashed out their differences over beers. They actually seemed to like each other quite a bit.

Obama is well known for very rarely inviting the opposition. I think Boehner said a couple of weeks ago that he has not been invited to the White House for nearly a year (apart for photo-ops and special events, where no business can be discussed).



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5589 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
The big difference is that Reagan frequently invited the Opposition leadership to the White House for discussions. Tip O'Niell (the Democrat Speaker of the House), met with Reagan every single week, and they hashed out their differences over beers. They actually seemed to like each other quite a bit.

Obama is well known for very rarely inviting the opposition. I think Boehner said a couple of weeks ago that he has not been invited to the White House for nearly a year (apart for photo-ops and special events, where no business can be discussed).

I am hoping that can and will change now with the election over. I think there has been an antagonistic element recently where anything someone says or does became fodder for the election and the opposition. So everyone basically stopped doing anything that could be used against them. It's pretty darned pathetic actually but I understand it too.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20632 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1531 times:

Quoting bmacleod (Thread starter):
3 weeks ago there was an edition of Newsweek where Obama, if re-elected, would become the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan.

I don't know if I agree with the methodology behind his conclusions, but blogger Ben Smith agrees with your thread title.

Welcome To Liberal America

"The first post–baby boomer president was returned to the White House with the widest, clearest reelection win since Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984, yet a smaller mandate than his own 2008 victory. And Democrats now have, in Obama, their Reagan: A figure both historic and ideological, who can carry, if not quite fulfill, a liberal vision of activist government and soft but sometimes deadly power abroad that will define his party for a generation.

Obama lacks Reagan’s sweeping victory, and presides over a more deeply divided country than when he took office. But the breadth of his accomplishments have been validated by Tuesday’s vote."



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6293 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

If you mean as a useless mouthpiece yes, Obama & Reagan are the same.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlinebmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Interesting to note from this election:

Obama won less electoral votes than Bill Clinton in 1992 & 1996.

1992 - Clinton won 370 EVs vs Obama's 365 in 2008.
1996 - Clinton won 379 EVs vs Obama's 303 in 2012 ( he may win Florida increasing his EVs to 332.)

But both times Obama got 50% of the popular vote; Clinton could only make 49%.

Also Obama got a lot more votes than Clinton did in both elections (increase in population and his voter appeal).

Second time since 2000 Florida vote count has not been finished as of yet...

Also like Al Gore in 2000, losing candidate Romney loses home state, MA.



The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20632 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 5):
Obama won less electoral votes than Bill Clinton in 1992 & 1996.

Clinton also had geography going for him, as the former governor of Arkansas. He picked up neighboring states such as LA, TN, and MO that Obama lost to Romney.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 5):
Also Obama got a lot more votes than Clinton did in both elections (increase in population and his voter appeal).

Another factor played into this, being that in '92 a very popular third party candidate, Ross Perot, picked up 18.9% of the popular vote. Perot picked up another 8.4% of the popular vote in '96.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Obama is well known for very rarely inviting the opposition. I think Boehner said a couple of weeks ago that he has not been invited to the White House for nearly a year (apart for photo-ops and special events, where no business can be discussed).

Well, in that case you must blame Boehner and the Republicans. If people don´t want to talk with you, it makes no sense at all inviding them. Obama after all had a Republican Minister of Defence in the beginning.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13591 posts, RR: 61
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting columba (Reply 7):
Obama after all had a Republican Minister of Defence in the beginning.

Secretary of Defense, not Minister.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4512 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Exactly, the Republicans have basically been so impossible to deal with in the last four years there's no point in reaching out as they refuse to reciprocate.


Their arrogance is a big part of why they were so overwhelmingly defeated.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13591 posts, RR: 61
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
Their arrogance is a big part of why they were so overwhelmingly defeated.

Actually, the Republicans shot themselves in the foot; they didn't even turn out in the same numbers that supported McCain/Palin in 2008! Had they turned out the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, we'd be talking about President-elect Romney.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 8):

Quoting columba (Reply 7):
Obama after all had a Republican Minister of Defence in the beginning.

Secretary of Defense, not Minister.

uupss. yes sorry my fault but still my point is still the same.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):
Had they turned out the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, we'd be talking about President-elect Romney.

So if a different amount of people voted for someone in an election the result could have been different?
Thanks Yeah sure

Fred

[Edited 2012-11-12 03:35:02]

User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

There is no doubt in the view of 'liberals' and 'progressives' that President Obama is more like Ronald Reagan than historical Democrats. Part of that is so he and the Democrats keep executive contol of government where the real power is and so have to make deals with Republicans to satisfiy their demands to keep their power position.

User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Actually the first post in the 'Fiscal Cliff' thread points out that Obama called Boehner to discuss the topic, amongst others.

As for not inviting him over, I suppose that's poor form, but then again it's more important they have a working relationship rather than a social one.

Personally I wish Obama was as good a politician as was Reagan, but IMHO Reagan was an exceptional politician, although I don't agree with his fiscal or social policies. Obama's style is to work the phones in the background over time, not to bash things out in big summit meetings like Reagan did. Obama hardly ever uses his "bully pulpit", Reagan did all the time, at all levels of discourse.

IMHO LBJ was a better politician too. Even though he had lots of skeletons in his closet and one can question his motivations, the fact is he that he was a master at getting Congress to do what he wanted them to do via the carrot and stick technique.

Obama's main skills seems to be in the rhetorical domain, but he claims he's been learning more about how to be President, and we shall see if he has or not. He seemed shocked that his base was pissed at him for caving into the GOP on the last extension of the Bush tax cuts, he won't be able to claim that if it happens again.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinedl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Whoever said that is stumping for President Obama. He is nothing like Presidnt Reagan, and got nowhere near the popular vote percentage, and nowhere near the mandate. He doesn't seek to cooperate, or negotiate. His idea of bipartisan leadership,is to tell the Republicans to fall in line or he's going to blame them for not giving in.

President Reagan gave Tip O'Neill and the Dems when he asked for things, while maintaining his principles in most cases.

Another case of the media trying to elevate the stature of Pres. Obama.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
The big difference is that Reagan frequently invited the Opposition leadership to the White House for discussions. Tip O'Niell (the Democrat Speaker of the House), met with Reagan every single week, and they hashed out their differences over beers. They actually seemed to like each other quite a bit.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Obama is well known for very rarely inviting the opposition.
Quoting columba (Reply 7):
Well, in that case you must blame Boehner and the Republicans.

We had a more intelligent form of government 30+ years ago when a President knew he had to work with the opposition, and the other party knew they had to work with the President to get things done.

We've seen hundreds of candidates run for office this year on a public vow to NEVER WORK WITH THE OTHER PARTY.

And people vote for them.

That is where the root of the problem exists - with voters who would rather their congressmen and senators do nothing than actually work with the administration.

We have met the enemy and he is us.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7906 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16):
We've seen hundreds of candidates run for office this year on a public vow to NEVER WORK WITH THE OTHER PARTY.

And people vote for them.

Yeah it is extremely ridiculous. They'll complain about the other side not compromising, then when they are presented with a bill that slightly raises taxes while slashing a lot of the budget, they refuse! That's why in this year's senate race, I voted for the guy I agreed with less because from his website, he actually seemed like he'd work for compromise while the other guy ranted, didn't give any specifics, and basically resorted to name calling. Luckily, my guy won



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2086 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 12):

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):
Had they turned out the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, we'd be talking about President-elect Romney.

So if a different amount of people voted for someone in an election the result could have been different?
Thanks 

No, it's more interesting than you make it out to be. If you lose enough voters to another party, you lose the election, that's pretty obvious. But in this case, Republican voters didn't switch to the Democrats, they simply stayed at home. It'd be interesting to know why they did so. I can see why Obama would attract less voters than in 2008 when he was carried by a huge wave of public enthusiasm. But why would significantly fewer people vote for Romney than for McCain? McCain didn't run a particularly engaging campaign after all.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7906 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 18):
I can see why Obama would attract less voters than in 2008 when he was carried by a huge wave of public enthusiasm. But why would significantly fewer people vote for Romney than for McCain? McCain didn't run a particularly engaging campaign after all.

Honestly, I think that the haze from right wing media fooled us all. They built up a world where most of the American people HATE the President and screw polls, there's no way the President will win reelection! That seemed to be the rhetoric from that side this year. It was so intense, it actually bled off a bit and made us think that at least the Republicans would come out in record numbers...

Both accounts were wrong... the American people may not love the President, but they do not hate him and they actually liked him enough to get reelected over the GOP challenger. Also, the fervor from the right about this being the most important election in our nation's history and the right was going to flood the polls was also wrong, to our surprise.

I think this delusion is why the right lost this election and wasted the past 2 years. I don't mean delusion in a negative way, I just think they shut off many other media outlets and other ways of thinking and mostly talked among themselves... when this happens, it perpetuates many feelings and intensifies them. In their minds, public opinion was a lot more anti-Obama than reality.

But that situation is human nature. It's not that Republicans are stupid people. It can happen to any group of people. They lost and I think they realized what happened now. I'm actually optimistic for the next 4 years... I see compromises in the works. I can only hope



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3093 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1531 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Obama is well known for very rarely inviting the opposition. I think Boehner said a couple of weeks ago that he has not been invited to the White House for nearly a year (apart for photo-ops and special events, where no business can be discussed).

It's pretty difficult to 'invite the opposition' when the opposition said that they would not work on anything with the president. Of course, when the 'opposition' sees its favorite things threatened with cuts, they cry foul and say that the president will not work with them.

Republicans in the House (at least in the Senate there are a couple more who are moderate enough to cross party lines) must see that the president was reelected. Their goal of a one-term president is no longer functional, and while it's true that they maintained their majority, it's also true that either they work together or together they fall. Of course, Obama has nothing to worry about. His second and final term is about to begin, so if the fiscal cliff happens, he'll still serve up to January 2016, but the Republicans in the House will face an election two years prior.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 404 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1531 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Well, in the last 100 years only 4 presidents have won the popular vote with >50% in both election and re-election: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama.

User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

Quoting dl021 (Reply 15):
He doesn't seek to cooperate, or negotiate. His idea of bipartisan leadership,is to tell the Republicans to fall in line or he's going to blame them for not giving in.

I think that was true in his first 2 years (Obamacare) but not in his second (debt ceiling crisis, renewal of Bush tax cuts).

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
Also, the fervor from the right about this being the most important election in our nation's history and the right was going to flood the polls was also wrong, to our surprise.

It certainly motivated those who did not want to see the right wing in control to get out and vote.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13591 posts, RR: 61
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 12):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):Had they turned out the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, we'd be talking about President-elect Romney.

So if a different amount of people voted for someone in an election the result could have been different?
Thanks

Way to miss the point!   

Rara understood:

Quoting Rara (Reply 18):
If you lose enough voters to another party, you lose the election, that's pretty obvious. But in this case, Republican voters didn't switch to the Democrats, they simply stayed at home. It'd be interesting to know why they did so. I can see why Obama would attract less voters than in 2008 when he was carried by a huge wave of public enthusiasm. But why would significantly fewer people vote for Romney than for McCain? McCain didn't run a particularly engaging campaign after all.

It's interesting how not only were conservative pundits wrong about projected GOP voter turnout, but they were staggeringly wrong and that GOP voters who came out for McCain stayed home for Romney for some reason.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11336 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 23):
Rara understood:

Quoting Rara (Reply 18):
If you lose enough voters to another party, you lose the election, that's pretty obvious. But in this case, Republican voters didn't switch to the Democrats, they simply stayed at home.

Actually, that does not look so much like the case.

Voter turnout was on par with 2008 turnout in most states, but even improved in most of the contentious states.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...s-but-many-votes-remain-uncounted/

The problems that the GOP are going to have to wrap their brains around is that 1) contrary to their belief, America does not hate Obama and his policies, and 2) America does not particularly like the GOP. America has not shifted to the left, but rather, the GOP has become so far extreme to the right that it no longer can capture the votes it needs to survive.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1560 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 24):
America has not shifted to the left, but rather, the GOP has become so far extreme to the right that it no longer can capture the votes it needs to survive.

It seems to me that the right has very well developed "talking circles" that seem to convince themselves that they are mainstream when they really are not.

As mentioned earlier, I spent the week before the election in a place where the only English language TV I could get was FOX NEWS, and it was very enlightening to see how insular the conservative set is.

As it turns out, they set themselves up for a great fall, leaving us all to wonder if all they can put Humpty Dumpty back together again, or not...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7906 posts, RR: 51
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 24):
The problems that the GOP are going to have to wrap their brains around is that 1) contrary to their belief, America does not hate Obama and his policies, and 2) America does not particularly like the GOP. America has not shifted to the left, but rather, the GOP has become so far extreme to the right that it no longer can capture the votes it needs to survive.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 25):
It seems to me that the right has very well developed "talking circles" that seem to convince themselves that they are mainstream when they really are not.

     

And honestly, if they drop a bit of their more social issues, compromised a bit better, and didn't oppose the President on EVERYTHING, I could see them taking the White House in 2016. The country needs at least 2 semi-competent parties lest we be ruled by one party



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1569 times:

I believe that Obama will be the "Reagan" for people of color.

Bill Clinton will probably be the Democrats Reagan. Just look at the reception he received on the campaign trail for Obama.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
The big difference is that Reagan frequently invited the Opposition leadership to the White House for discussions.

I don't believe that the problem was with Obama so much as with the Tea Party & Cantor.. The TPer's were more than a little rancid in their relationship with anyone not on the far side and Cantor leveraged that performance to try to become Speaker.

Now the situation is very different. Obama only needs to keep discussions going until January 1st. At that point the TPer's will have lot al leverage they have held until now. At that point I believe that we can see some reasonable discussions that will rapidly cut taxes for the poor & middle class. The only question is what changes to FICA contributions are included with the middle class tax cut.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13591 posts, RR: 61
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1566 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting D L X (Reply 24):
Voter turnout was on par with 2008 turnout in most states, but even improved in most of the contentious states.

Are you sure about that? Re-read the chart from Nate Silver's blog that you posted:



As Mr. Silver himself says:

turnout in the battleground states over all was generally near its 2008 levels. In contrast, it is down by about 9 percent in the other 40 states, based on ballots counted so far.

Competitive states generally turn out voters at slightly higher rates than noncompetitive ones. But as the list of swing states narrows, and as the campaigns become increasingly effective at aiming their resources toward them, the discrepancies may widen in the coming years.

Americans outside the battleground states, knowing that their votes will make little difference in the Electoral College, may become less likely to vote at all.




"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
Now the situation is very different. Obama only needs to keep discussions going until January 1st. At that point the TPer's will have lot al leverage they have held until now. At that point I believe that we can see some reasonable discussions that will rapidly cut taxes for the poor & middle class.

Taxes for the poor and middle class are already rock-bottom. There is nothing more to reduce.

Dems have said for years that things were peachy under Clinton rates, and that the Bush Tax cuts were "Tax cuts for the rich". I think the GOP should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire - all of them. The Dems won't be able to complain without showing their hypocrisy. Nothing needs actually to be passed.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

This quote is from the blog quote in Reply 28 - Not the words of EA CO AS

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):
contrast, it is down by about 9 percent in the other 40 states, based on ballots counted so far.

My personal opinion is that as the public has become more aware of the importance of the 'swing states' in the Electoral College and the lack of importance of the 'safe states' - we are creating a massive apathy and feeling of helplessness among voters.

Here in Texas - voting dropped 125,000+ from 2008. While that's only 1.5% - it matches the reason I heard a lot of people were not voting - "Why bother. Romney has the state locked up. Our vote make any difference."

Which is sad.

I put down the 14.8% and 19.0% drops in New Jersey and New York respectively to the effects of the hurricane. I hope they will return to previous levels in 2016.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7906 posts, RR: 51
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 30):
Here in Texas - voting dropped 125,000+ from 2008. While that's only 1.5% - it matches the reason I heard a lot of people were not voting - "Why bother. Romney has the state locked up. Our vote make any difference."

This is why I think there should be some sort of proportional awarding of EVs. In each state, 2 will go to the candidate with the most votes and the rest go to candidates proportionally. That seems like a good compromise between EC and popular vote. Of course, I wouldn't oppose popular vote. I hear that candidates would only go to big cities to campaign... well nowadays they only go to big cities in a few states it seems. At least their messages would have to apply to the whole country. Why should any candidate nowadays campaign on a measure that would be good for TX or CA? We all know all those EVs are going to R and D respectively anyway...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1565 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
Taxes for the poor and middle class are already rock-bottom. There is nothing more to reduce.

Taxes for the poor should be rock bottom, because that is only income taxes.

Now add in all the other taxes the poor pays. Start with FICA, sales taxes, petrol taxes, property taxes (either directly or through rent) and it gets obvious that the poor pay a greater percentage of their income than the rich.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
Dems have said for years that things were peachy under Clinton rates, and that the Bush Tax cuts were "Tax cuts for the rich". I think the GOP should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire - all of them. The Dems won't be able to complain without showing their hypocrisy. Nothing needs actually to be passed.

Letting the cuts die is what I would like to see. Then there can be some intelligent discussions on what taxes will be cuts and what taxes will not be cut. That is the only way I can see rational discussions out of the House without obstructions from the Tea Party. Even Botox McConnell can move to the background this time a round.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 30):
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 30):
we are creating a massive apathy and feeling of helplessness among voters.

Try living in Oklahoma. The most exciting vote we had was to repeal prohibition somewhere around 1960.

I keep voting, though, because there are local & state questions that are important. I also take the grandkids and let them mark the ballot & put it in the canner. They get rather proud of their "I Voted" stickers.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 30):
Here in Texas - voting dropped 125,000+ from 2008. While that's only 1.5% - it matches the reason I heard a lot of people were not voting -

I believe that Texas is going to have a turnaround at some point simply because of the changing demographics. Bush was the first to see these changes and work to build a relationship with the Hispanic population, Things have gone downhill since then and the GOP has more work to do than I think they are able to do. Toss in the vocal Tea Party that I believe will continue to be both vocal & inflexible and Texas might well go blue.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
Bush was the first to see these changes and work to build a relationship with the Hispanic population,

I disliked George as governor and as president for a lot of reasons. One of which was leaving us with Rick Perry for Gov.

However, I have to give him credit because he always had a very clear understanding of the reality of the immigration issues and the need to find a workable solution.

Which is not 'send them all home'.

His worker permit system would stop illegals from feeling they are forced to bring wife and kids to the US. It would increase federal tax income because the workers would be in a position to demand legal wage rates, and it would be enforceable. It might not be the end solution, but it was on which would work.

He just could never get that point across to the Republicans, and he never pushed his cabinet secretaries and to help him with Congress.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
Taxes for the poor should be rock bottom, because that is only income taxes.

Now add in all the other taxes the poor pays. Start with FICA, sales taxes, petrol taxes, property taxes (either directly or through rent) and it gets obvious that the poor pay a greater percentage of their income than the rich.

Most of those are state and local. They don't count. FICA supposedly goes to your own "account" (cough, cough). I'm talking about the General Fund - the one they use to defend the country, fund Solyndra, bail out states, and fund Pell Grants. EVERYONE needs to pay into the kitty and feel some of the pain. I'd say 10% from an income of $10K upwards is appropriate (that's the German rate BTW, and the have 20% VAT and all the other stuff too).

I am certainly not in the top 1%. If the Bush tax rates go away entirely (instead of only on the rich, like Obama wants), I will be penalized significantly. Close to $1,000 per month, I think, which pretty much wipes out most of my discretionary spending. But I am willing, if EVERYONE feels the pinch. Then, maybe, people will start to think a little harder when politicians promise them free sh&t.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 33):
Which is not 'send them all home'.

Mitt's solution was to have them 'self-deport' - what???

Now we read:

Senators Propose Comprehensive Immigration Changes which says:

Quote:

Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who promoted similar proposals on separate Sunday news shows said that no path to citizenship would be available until the country's borders were secure.

Only then could those in the U.S. without authorization "come out of the shadows, get biometrically identified, start paying taxes, pay a fine for the law they broke," Graham told CBS' "Face the Nation." ''They can't stay unless they learn our language, and they have to get in the back of line before they become citizens. They can't cut in front of the line regarding people who are doing it right and it can take over a decade to get their green card." A green card grants permanent residency status — a step toward citizenship.

Schumer told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he and Graham have resumed talks on immigration policy that broke off two years ago and "have put together a comprehensive detailed blueprint on immigration reform" that has "the real potential for bipartisan support based on the theory that most Americans are for legal immigration, but very much against illegal immigration."

...

Both senators (Schumer and Graham) said the overhaul would include developing a secure document to assure employers they're hiring people authorized to work in the country, and allowing legal immigration for needed workers at all skill levels. The path to citizenship would require immigrants to learn English, go to the back of the citizenship line, have a job and not commit crimes.

Seems the GOP has woken up and realized that this issue is important to many people, and they need to get a moving!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11336 posts, RR: 52
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1567 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):
As Mr. Silver himself says:

turnout in the battleground states over all was generally near its 2008 levels. In contrast, it is down by about 9 percent in the other 40 states, based on ballots counted so far.

It still blows up your thesis, that Republicans lost because of turnout. Of the 9 swing states plus Pennsylvania (which wasn't really a swing state), turnout was higher in 7 of them and flat in an 8th. Do you disagree?

Don't blame it on turnout. Blame it on your party's shift to extremism in a country that just isn't extreme.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
In each state, 2 will go to the candidate with the most votes and the rest go to candidates proportionally.

I've advocated this for quite a while. If Texas and California want to be relevant, they should do just this.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
Of course, I wouldn't oppose popular vote.

I would.

Think about what happened last week with Sandy putting a real hurt on New Jersey and New York. New Jersey's and New York's vote should not be diminished by a disaster hitting at a very inopportune time. (Could be an earthquake out west, or a tornado in the breadbasket, etc.) The electoral college helps fix that problem.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1564 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):
Seems the GOP has woken up and realized that this issue is important to many people, and they need to get a moving!

That's funny - It's pretty much the same general proposal that the GOP has been advocating for at least a decade. Secure the borders first, then we can fix the rest. As we learned 25 years ago, granting amnesty while having a porous border will just make matters worse.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4617 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1562 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 37):
Secure the borders first, then we can fix the rest.

This seems so simple, yet it is highly complex, and as the recent Jeep episode shows us, there are countless ways that a " Wall " can be comprimized. Either 10's of thousands of border agents are needed ,or a wall 100 feet deep , 100 feet wide, and 100 feet tall will be needed across 1800 miles of southern border. And then we need to be consistent and secure the 3000 + miles of Canadian Border along the 48th and Alaska.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13591 posts, RR: 61
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week ago) and read 1561 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting D L X (Reply 36):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):
As Mr. Silver himself says:

turnout in the battleground states over all was generally near its 2008 levels. In contrast, it is down by about 9 percent in the other 40 states, based on ballots counted so far.

It still blows up your thesis, that Republicans lost because of turnout.

No, it blows up your statement of yours:

Quoting D L X (Reply 24):
Voter turnout was on par with 2008 turnout in most states

It actually reinforces my point, which was if the voters had gone for Romney in 2012 in the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, Romney would have soundly defeated President Obama.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4617 posts, RR: 2
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week ago) and read 1563 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 39):

It actually reinforces my point, which was if the voters had gone for Romney in 2012 in the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, Romney would have soundly defeated President Obama.

Not really, the numbers were lost because the electorate is changing. Even if the 9% in those states had shown up, who is to say it would have benefited Romney? Many would say those were the apathetic voters who were consigned to not having a say?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1560 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 23):
Rara understood:

He explained it in the way you agree with.

Quoting Rara (Reply 18):
But in this case, Republican voters didn't switch to the Democrats, they simply stayed at home.

So how the fuck are they republicans then?!? I once worked in a pub, doesn't make me a barmen for the rest of my life. This is maybe where they went wrong, they believed that once a republican always a republican.

Fred


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2086 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 41):
Quoting Rara (Reply 18):
But in this case, Republican voters didn't switch to the Democrats, they simply stayed at home.

So how the fuck are they republicans then?!? I once worked in a pub, doesn't make me a barmen for the rest of my life. This is maybe where they went wrong, they believed that once a republican always a republican.

OK, so if you prefer: people who voted for McCain/Palin in 2008 stayed home in 2012 in sufficient numbers to enable the re-election of Barack Obama. Had the same people who voted Republican in 2008 been voting Republican in 2012, Romney would have won.

Whichever way you slice it, that's a pretty interesting fact in itself. It shows that the election was less about choice than it was about mobilization.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 41):
Quoting Rara (Reply 18):But in this case, Republican voters didn't switch to the Democrats, they simply stayed at home.
So how the fuck are they republicans then?!?

One key responsibility of a candidate is to excite members of his/ her own party enough that they actually go vote.

I don't think Romney did this.

Al Gore was unable to turn out large numbers of 'Democrats', neither was John Kerry. The Obama campaigns did get lots of people out to vote who will almost always vote Democrat, and who likely did not vote in 2000 or 2004.

------------------------------

As to how they are Republicans then?

The passionate Republicans and the passionate Democrats who strongly support their party are probably less than 10% of the voters.

The vast majority of Republicans or Democrats simply identify with the general ideas of the party. If they vote, they are going to vote for that party candidate. But it they are not excited by the candidate and the issues - they are not going to bother to vote, and their party candidate can easily lose.

This was a very 'issue free' election. If the Republicans had focused about jobs, and jobs alone they could have won. That was not how they campaigned. They put too many minor issues on the table. All the talk about Benghazi only confused voters and the biggest impact was to make Republicans feel their candidates had lost touch with the issues.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11336 posts, RR: 52
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1555 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 39):
No, it blows up your statement of yours:

Dude. Did you completely forget the argument you were trying to make? A reminder:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):
Actually, the Republicans shot themselves in the foot; they didn't even turn out in the same numbers that supported McCain/Palin in 2008! Had they turned out the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, we'd be talking about President-elect Romney.

Now, tell me how my chart shows support for your position at all.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 39):
It actually reinforces my point, which was if the voters had gone for Romney in 2012 in the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, Romney would have soundly defeated President Obama.

This is again false, and is evident if you read the chart. It does not matter that turnout was down 30% in Alaska. Romney was going to win that anyway. Turnout was UP or flat in 8 of the 10 states that proved pivotal, meaning it wasn't that your voters stayed home, it's that the people you thought were your voters voted for the other side. There is no support at all for your thesis.

And your party needs to come to grips with that hard fact.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2086 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 44):
This is again false, and is evident if you read the chart. It does not matter that turnout was down 30% in Alaska. Romney was going to win that anyway. Turnout was UP or flat in 8 of the 10 states that proved pivotal, meaning it wasn't that your voters stayed home, it's that the people you thought were your voters voted for the other side. There is no support at all for your thesis.

Yeah, you're correct. I didn't check properly. McCain in 2008 had fewer votes than Obama in 2012. With that, I retract all my previous statements in this thread.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13591 posts, RR: 61
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1548 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Apologies, my first statement was put in an incorrect manner; I had meant to say Romney would have won if voters went for him the same as Bush in 2004 and instead, he didn't even get as many votes as McCain/Palin did in 2008.


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 8
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1546 times:

I don't buy it.

He's a slightly better version of Carter in my book. Romney is more of a republican John Kerry, however.

It's amazing how Obama got re-elected even though the economy is in the crapper. Never before has a president been re-elected with this high of an unemployment rate. I think it's just people in general, "like" him. The masses didn't like Romney so much and that was the attitude that citizens took to the voting booth. Had the repubs had a more likeable candidate with a lot of money, I think Obama could have very well been defeated. I never had a problem with Romney -- and I like him better than Obama but I do think he could have done a few things different to really turn head in this campaign.

I hope that I can come around to like Obama more in the second term. There really isn't much from his first term that I actually think made him presidential. It was just a lot of union posturing, campaigning, and the liberal media praising him off any chance they could get. I certainly didn't give him my sympathy vote like so many others did in my state.

Also nuts that newsweek has him down as one of the top 10 best presidents. Up there with Teddy, Truman, Reagan, Clinton etc. I really don't care what historians claim about him, he really sucks as a president.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
IMHO LBJ was a better politician too. Even though he had lots of skeletons in his closet and one can question his motivations, the fact is he that he was a master at getting Congress to do what he wanted them to do via the carrot and stick technique.

LBJ was good in congress because that was his life before being a VP. He's foolishly credited with the civil rights movement, but little do many know the bricks were laid for civil rights during Eisenhower administration. He's another president I just do not respect very much. Up until Watergate, I feel Nixon was a lot more proactive on a world stage than LBJ.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
Bill Clinton will probably be the Democrats Reagan. Just look at the reception he received on the campaign trail for Obama.

That I can agree with.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 47):
It's amazing how Obama got re-elected even though the economy is in the crapper.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 47):
Had the repubs had a more likeable candidate with a lot of money, I think Obama could have very well been defeated.

Despite the economy, exit polling showed voters felt that Obama and Romney were both equally suited to fix it.

This gives credence to the fact that the public realized it wasn't Obama who broke it in the first place, and that Romney's career at Bain didn't provide skills viewed as being that useful.

In short, the public in general did not trust Romney.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1542 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 47):
LBJ was good in congress because that was his life before being a VP.

He was good with the Congress because he grew up there in an age of statesmen. And he knew where the bodies were buried. Heck, he help bury most of them.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 47):
little do many know the bricks were laid for civil rights during Eisenhower administration

And Democratic Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas was one of the key supporters for Eisenhower's efforts in the Congress. He worked very hard to lay the ground work for a Civil Rights Bill to be passed in 1961, and was greatly disappointed the Kennedy's would not support a bill at that time.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 47):
I feel Nixon was a lot more proactive on a world stage than LBJ.

LBJ's forte was never the world stage. He didn't understand the military and trusted everything a general or admiral told him. He was pretty much clueless about foreign policy. He never tried to understand foreign leaders or the people of their nations. His focus was on his 'Great Society' until it was swallowed by a war he never seemed to grasp.

Nixon knew and understood the world much better. He obviously had a much lower understanding of the American people.

----------------------

My personal opinion is that we are still too close to Reagan to accurately judge his time as president in the context of history. We're probably too close to Kennedy and every president since.

Much less Obama.


User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1540 times:

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 4):


If you mean as a useless mouthpiece yes, Obama & Reagan are the same.

Thanks for the refreshing dose of cynicism.
I do think most of the work of government, even most policy choices, is done by a nameless crew of men behind-the-scenes. I mean Obama and Reagan didn't actually come up with their famous policies (Obamacare, tax cuts), they relied on hidden guys to put it all together for them,

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Tip O'Niell (the Democrat Speaker of the House), met with Reagan every single week, and they hashed out their differences over beers

Partisanship aside, part of this is the difference in media eras. When political reporting was less adversarial, and the New York Times decided for every network the major news stories of the day, each party could be friends outside of election time because no one was looking that closely and making a big deal of every little thing.

Today, politicians are in election mode 24/7.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16):
We had a more intelligent form of government 30+ years ago when a President knew he had to work with the opposition,

Once elections were over the bickering ended. Today it never stops.

Pu


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
Personally I wish Obama was as good a politician as was Reagan, but IMHO Reagan was an exceptional politician,

That was a different era, people were a lot less cynical and caught up in 'gotcha politics'.

For that to match up to have validity, Reagan would have face a Tip O'Neill that behaves like John Boehner.

OR Obama dealing with a John Boehner who acts like Tip O'Neill.

World's apart in both match ups.

We are certainly in a different age.

Obama won Indiana in 2008, Clinton never won it at all. Obama won Virginia twice..Clinton never won it and he's the Bubba from the South.

In last week's Election, Obama won EVERY major city in America, except Salt Lake City (obviously) and Phoenix (where ASU refused him an honorary degree - some history there)

He won every major city in Texas - Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and El Paso.
He won Memphis and Nashville and Nashville in Tennessee
He won Atlanta in Georgia
He won St Louis and Kansas City in Missouri
He won Indianapolis by 2-1 ratio
He won Charleston and Columbia SC
He won Charlotte and Raleigh NC
He won Birmingham, Alabama

..and so on.

While Paul Ryan today blasted Urban Voters for his and Romney's loss. He's failing to realize that most of America resides in in Urban Centers and those centers continue to grow more and more voters.

My guess is the majority of these voters like Obama and did not trust Romney (reasons he provided himself) - were Romney more the guy who spoke from the heart during his unscripted concession speech it might have been a different outcome amid such horrific economic conditions.

But then again, when do Americans take their share of the blame? We have this 'microwave oven' mentality where we want everything NOW! If it takes time ..we are not interested!

I remember how quickly the Congress moved with Ken Starr over the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.. they moved so fast it would have made an Olympic runner dizzy. Congress hasn't moved that quickly since. So we know the capability 'to something is there' but the desire is lacking because one side doesn't want the other to get the credit. But it appears that Congress has played out the 'sitting on the hands' card and will be now compelled to make a move.

The Economy can go south, limp along or improve over the next four years.. I know some Republican politicians publicly do not wish for a rapid recovery as that results in points for Obama. But the public must make them selves be heard or settle for more congressional gridlock and go back to moaning and groaning. If it does recover, the Reagan iconography may be rivaled. To this date, Obama has had no Reagan size scandals ( HUD, Iran-Contra, Savings & Loan scandal)...there's no way the Republican Congress would allow such incidents without impeachment threats.

But we shall see how it turns out.

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1653 posts, RR: 4
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 47):
It's amazing how Obama got re-elected even though the economy is in the crapper. Never before has a president been re-elected with this high of an unemployment rate. I think it's just people in general, "like" him.

Yep that about sums it up. I came out of hiding and voted for the first time since 1984 and I didn't vote for Obama. I voted for Romney even though it was tough for me to do it. Romney just flat out does not inspire anyone really he just doesn't seem genuine to me. None of the GOP candidates were all that good and I knew the GOP would lose if they didn't put someone up who had a message and could inspire the base. When Romney was the nominee I knew they would lose. He reminds me of the out of touch executives I have dealt with my entire working career in the airline industry. But I did vote for him. I have real concerns with our debt and I despise the appointments Obama has made in his administration even though he is a likable guy. I also question now how Obama will govern in his second term. Personally my feeling is we need a third party BAD! I like things from both parties but neither of them does it for me and most other independent voters like myself. But I do agree we need a balance the GOP have dug their heels in on the tax on people over 250k they need to let that go. We are at the point we need BOTH revenue and spending cuts to get us out of this. BOTH parties need to concede something to get us there.



NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11336 posts, RR: 52
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1538 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 50):
Partisanship aside, part of this is the difference in media eras. When political reporting was less adversarial, and the New York Times decided for every network the major news stories of the day, each party could be friends outside of election time because no one was looking that closely and making a big deal of every little thing.

Yup, and add to that certain factors (the conservative entertainment complex, for instance) that excoriate certain people for being seen with the other side.

Anyone remember Charlie Crist? Even Chris Christie got heavily criticized for working with the president during an out and out disaster.


And I'm singling out conservatives for a reason. Polls strongly suggest that the majority of people that vote for Democrats prefer compromise, while the majority of people that vote for Republicans prefer sticking to your guns. Until that is fixed, the days of congressmen hashing things out while sharing a ride home regardless of political affiliation are dead as the dodo.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1538 times:

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 52):
Romney just flat out does not inspire anyone really he just doesn't seem genuine to me. None of the GOP candidates were all that good and I knew the GOP would lose if they didn't put someone up who had a message and could inspire the base. When Romney was the nominee I knew they would lose.

Seems Romney used his large war chest to beat everyone else into submission, but we now know that left him broke when he needed to respond to issues like his role in Bain Capital. Interestingly enough, Sheldon Adelson's funding of Newt Gingrich's "King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came To Town" seemed to set off the feeding frenzy on Mitt Romney.

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 52):
He reminds me of the out of touch executives I have dealt with my entire working career in the airline industry.

Interesting observation.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7906 posts, RR: 51
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1536 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 53):

And I'm singling out conservatives for a reason. Polls strongly suggest that the majority of people that vote for Democrats prefer compromise, while the majority of people that vote for Republicans prefer sticking to your guns.

And you know, on this site, I'm the annoying voice for "reason and understanding," but really, I think I'm being perfectly center on this issue and think the GOP is out of whack... I think the GOP even realizes it... there is talk of Boehmer making concessions to the president... while compromising is not 100% "loyal" to one side, I think it'll get the country running again (I hope)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days ago) and read 1533 times:

Quoting bmacleod (Thread starter):

Now all we need is for Michelle to re-decorate the White House and buy fancy chi chi China patterns on our dime. Have Michelle consult an astrologer. Meanwhile President Obama can go "weellll," dotter around making hoakie speaches and forget things and act like he has Down's Syndrome to complete this picture.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Obama Poised To Win 303 Electoral Votes posted Tue Nov 6 2012 03:34:33 by Revelation
Obama - Less Merciful Than Other Presidents? posted Fri Nov 2 2012 14:52:20 by AeroWesty
Hurricane Sandy To Help Obama? posted Wed Oct 31 2012 09:49:44 by bmacleod
Obama's Birth Filmed posted Fri Oct 26 2012 10:56:03 by einsteinboricua
Obama: Romney Is A BSer posted Thu Oct 25 2012 12:04:08 by Revelation
Obama Bribing For Votes? Free Obamaphones? posted Fri Oct 5 2012 00:12:26 by Superfly
Bombshell Video Of Obama In 2007 posted Tue Oct 2 2012 19:12:25 by ltbewr
Sam Jackson's "Wake The **** Up" Obama Ad posted Fri Sep 28 2012 18:52:57 by Aaron747
Obama's UN Speech posted Wed Sep 26 2012 08:23:32 by Dreadnought
David Axelrod - Obama's Karl Rove? posted Wed Sep 19 2012 07:21:03 by bmacleod