Remember What I Told you about Obama 4 Years Ago?

[Martin]

Marty, George Bush Sr. was re-elected a second term. Like I said before, there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost. The closest was Bush Jr. when it came to them having to re-count the Florida ballots. Or was that satire and I'm missing the joke?

...
George Bush Sr. 1989-1993
Bill Clinton 1993-2001
George Bush Jr. 2001-2009
Barack Obama 2009-.

Also not forgetting Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford (although granted, he didn't serve a full first term), John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, William Taft, Benjamin Harrison, Herbert Hoover..

I hope this is an attempt at trolling because this is something you could find by googling.

[Joxsjua]

completely my bad I was thrown off by his Vice presidency from 81-89.
funny thing though, it was because I remember watching the news during the 2004 ballot counting in Florida and the commentators were making a big deal saying if Bush Jr. wasn't re-elected it would be a 1st time ever a president losing a 2nd term vote; maybe it was something pertaining to never serving in the cabinet and being a president?. Looks like our 2nd president didn't even make it to second term(I feel like a jerk) Sorry for the misinformation guys.

[Sasquatch]

I typo'ed. It should read UNemployment as high employment would surely be a good thing, haha.

"Stagflation" is a made-up word that has become mainstream -- a combination of "stagnation" (as the economy becomes stagnant) and "inflation".

So it is literally boiling down to a debate of the lesser of two evils then?

It nearly always does. For the most part, many voters don't go to the polls to support their favorite candidate, they go to vote against their least-favorite candidate. For instance, when I voted for Bush (or, more recently, McCain), it wasn't because I liked him. Hell no. It was because I disliked him much less than I disliked the only other option.

The same situation will occur this election, as it does every election. From the votes that Obama and Romney get from people who actually like them, they will get more from those who dislike their opponent more.

I mean Obama isn't a very liberal Democrat but from what I could grasp he basically ran unopposed through the 2012 primaries.

Obama is an extremely liberal Democrat.

And he ran unopposed because he is the incumbent. He already has the position, and the incumbent is more likely to retain their seat, so the Democrats won't have to worry about choosing a new candidate (Hillary?) until next election.

It's extremely rare that an incumbent wouldn't win the nomination again. They would have to do things that lose the vote of their constituency -- not "horrible" things per se, just things that would make him lose enough votes to offset the votes gained by incumbency (see: Franklin Pierce).

Marty, George Bush Sr. was re-elected a second term.

Let me introduce you to a website.

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

It's amazing, technology nowdays. You can just type something in, and it will bring up web pages with the answer. Like say, "presidents who lost reelection". And then you can take the answer you find there and learn it, instead of being caught saying something extremely stupid like "there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost".

Like I said before, there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost. The closest was Bush Jr. when it came to them having to re-count the Florida ballots. Or was that satire and I'm missing the joke?

It has happened nine times. It wasn't satire or a joke at all, but it still went way over your head.

completely my bad I was thrown off by his Vice presidency from 81-89.

So you thought he served three terms?

funny thing though, it was because I remember watching the news during the 2004 ballot counting in Florida and the commentators were making a big deal saying if Bush Jr. wasn't re-elected it would be a 1st time ever a president losing a 2nd term vote

No, you don't.

See, you don't remember watching during the 2004 Florida recount because there was no 2004 Florida recount. The big deal Kerry tried to pull out of his ass in 2004 was Ohio, not Florida. The Florida recount was Gore's attempt to steal electorates in 2000.

And you don't remember commentators saying anything about Bush being possibly the first ever Presidential incumbent to lose reelection, because it had happened -- say it with me now -- nine times before.

[Martin]

"Stagflation" is a made-up word that has become mainstream -- a combination of "stagnation" (as the economy becomes stagnant) and "inflation".

Not as far as my usage of it is. It was used primarily to describe the Carter years as it's a recognised economic term in academic circles. Aren't most words made up these days?

It nearly always does. For the most part, many voters don't go to the polls to support their favorite candidate, they go to vote against their least-favorite candidate. For instance, when I voted for Bush (or, more recently, McCain), it wasn't because I liked him. Hell no. It was because I disliked him much less than I disliked the only other option.

The same situation will occur this election, as it does every election. From the votes that Obama and Romney get from people who actually like them, they will get more from those who dislike their opponent more.

Obama is an extremely liberal Democrat.

And he ran unopposed because he is the incumbent. He already has the position, and the incumbent is more likely to retain their seat, so the Democrats won't have to worry about choosing a new candidate (Hillary?) until next election.

It's extremely rare that an incumbent wouldn't win the nomination again. They would have to do things that lose the vote of their constituency -- not "horrible" things per se, just things that would make him lose enough votes to offset the votes gained by incumbency (see: Franklin Pierce).

I don't think he's extremely liberal really. There's been more liberal statesmen in my country and France than Obama is - I'd agree he's more than most of your other Presidents though. But he didn't run entirely unopposed - those that did failed miserably though.

[Order]

Sasquach,
Obama is extremely liberal for a US democrat. He's not completely socialist and hasn't fixed or changed anything noteworthy, so, naturally, liberals call him conservative.

Martin,
How the F is Obama not the most borderline socialist president in recent memory?
Universal healthcare? No foreign policy other than to continue what has already been established. Acrueing more debt in six days than most country's GNP (yes, that actually happened. You can ask rush.).
Are these republican things to do?
No.
A republican would have made healthcare more expensive, pissed off our allies and tried to buy up other countrys resources in order to sell them back for a profit.

Not to mention unemployment, which a diehard american certainly does not believe in and a reasonable republican would cut all aid after 3 months.

I've heard liberals state that Obama is a moderate republican. It's denial.
Anything bad is automatically rep. Especially socialist presidents.

[Martin]

But what did I say? Compared to our PM's and other European states he is not that liberal. For a very conservative America, he probably is extremely - I don't doubt that. What is so wrong with liberalism anyways? Liberté, égalité, fraternité! Wasn't the American Revolution inspired by the French and enlightenment thinkers that proposed brotherhood? And my point is whether Obama the man is liberal or his proposals are - the whole universal healthcare thing is not exactly new.

[Order]

Compared to our PM's and other European states he is not that liberal.

Yeah, that's true. What I mean is, he is in no stretch of the imagination even slightly conservative.
(Funny, there's an ad on my screen bashing Obama and promoting Romney and I reflexivly shook my head and laughed)

And I may be bashing liberalism, but I don't discredit every facet of the philosophy.

What is so wrong with liberalism anyways?

As you stated, in the past it has led this country to better quality of life, especially during the industrial age (is that the right title I'm looking for? I'm thinking railroads, coal mining, textile manufacturing, factories at early stages in America.)
In that time (which I'm not sure if I named correctly and I don't care to look it up right now...), corporations esentially, if not literally, owned workers.
The intervention of the federal government was essential in fighting back the monolithic beast that capitalism had spawned. That intervention came in the form of liberal ideals, namely, worker's unions, child labor laws, equal pay for similar job descriptions, etc...
I make no mistake as to suggest that these things would have been possible without the scrutinizing eye with which the liberal mind views human rights.
But in situations like those, it was not idealism. It was not an attempt at creating a utopia, it was the *morally* correct descision.

That's what these ideas come down to, morality (and I'm not suggesting that anyone doesn't know this, especially not you, Martin. I'm emphasizing my point).

And my point is whether Obama the man is liberal or his proposals are

Obama the individual is an idealistic, fantasy land-living, utopia-wishing, "I know what's best for you" douche. When a man reaches a point where the line between his own personal moral code and that of an organization is erased, he has given up his masculinity. We don't know what is his decision and what is the democratic party's. Likewise, he is accountable for every word he speaks and every action he takes, even if it is out of duress, just as any leader should be.
Does Obama propose ideas and policies which he does not agree with?
He says he doesn't.
He probably does, but that moral compass is really just cosmetic after all this time spent ignoring it. Besides, it would be poor manners to tell your lobbyists and (more importantly) cabinet members and long-time friends that you won't push an ideology that you disagree with.

the whole universal healthcare thing is not exactly new.

Sure, the idea is not new.
The debate is based on the fact that capitalism and free work are contradictory.

First, where is the morality of it?
Some of the best hospitals and doctors are in America. The medical system works really well. I've never gone to a hospital in this country and walked away with a single problem unfixed or question unanswered (I'm excluding military medical facilites, they are mostly garbage). If you are seriously injured, your life will be saved and your condition stabilized before anyone even cares who you are, let alone how much money you have.

I'm pretty positive that a federally funded and managed hospital system is not what America wants.
It is possible that the people who ask for it don't realize what their asking for and mistakenly believe that it really means free oxycodone.
I could easily picture thousands of disappointed Americans pooring into and out of hospitals with little brown paper bags with prescriptions attached which contain 800mg Ibuprophen and a doctors instruction to "hydrate".

So, it's either that, or we just want to fit in with the rest of you crazy countries out there. We're sick of being the last ones chosen for the kickball teams and the first ones dared to jump off the jungle gym.
I could see that being possible.
Many Americans want to be better liked by foriegners.
Drastically changing our political system to fit in might seem like a way to mitigate the endless ridicule some Americans think we endure.
Changing yourself so drastically with little or no benefit to you will not make anyone respect you and it doesn't work for countries, either.


So, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with liberalism. Unlike communism or socialism, it is not inherently designed to make everyone hate life equally.
There are some things that I dislike about liberal ideology (particularly that the federal government should be more involved in my day to day).
The biggest reason I am quick to drop the hammer on it is that I dislike any group of slogan-chanters, phrase recyclers and, most of all, slaves to popular culture.

What isn't apparent to members of this site, is I react pretty simliarly to extreme conservatives here in the southeast of America. You know, the steriotypical hillbillys who say dumb sh*t like, "I wish someone would shoot Obama already."
And yes, those people exist.
They are also slogan-chanters and they complain about the economy and how difficult it is to find a decent job.
Well, your GED means you get to be a janitor or a sandwich maker. Take your f**king pick.
That's the worst of it right there.
The next rung on the ladder are the kids who were smart enough to go to college, but too dumb to pick a degree that actually amounts to a career. To me, that seems to be where the bulk of the extreme liberal shouting comes from.
Welp, Obama's here now. Your philosophy degree may have been fun and made you feel smart, but it's time to stop blaming the republicans and decide: will you be wearing an apron or coveralls to work today?

The extremists of either party aren't any better or worse.
Conservative extremists just tend to know how to operate a dirtbike better than they know how to operate a computer.