2016 Presidential Campaign

[Conan71]

Holder is inept.  And if you go after Bush for his criminal activities, then ya got a whole lot of Congress to go after, too.  (Can you spell "Jim Inhofe"...?)


I have certainly never meant to imply that I am a big fan of Obama...but the piles of carp from the other direction still swamp the piles of carp from his direction.  And all those piles of carp from the RWRE have blinded so many of your kind to their reality, that I just feel obligated to try to bring some light into the dark, hidden corners of the RWRE world.  (And if Blowbama starts jacking his jaws about that nonsensical gun control bucket-o-shoot, then I will go back after him again.  It's called fair and balanced - the real world version, not Fox...)

But at least you give lip service to the concept of recovery, so I feel there is tremendous hope for you!!  Will welcome you gladly to the moderate center any time!!

People like you keep glossing over the fact that Obama simply continues some of the worst fiscal policies of the Bush administration.  He campaigned against many Bush policies, but has done nothing in many cases and expanded them in others.  I have no problem pointing out the flaws in Obama because I had greater hope for him that he really would be an honest politician and keep many of his campaign promises.  He hasn't.

Gitmo is still open, no-bid contracts have increased, domestic spying has apparently gotten worse.  We still have the revolving door of lobbies and cherry administrative positions.  People excuse it by saying: "Well Bush did it!".  How does pointing to the gross incompetence of your predecessor somehow make the same level of incompetence better?  Could you get away with that on your job?  I know I couldn't.

I simply refuse to excuse continued waste and cronyism.  Political affiliation or lack thereof has nothing to do with my stance on it.

[AquaMan]

Like many, you seem to confuse presidents, and executives in general, with emperors, kings and popes. But even they are at the mercy of their "princes and cardinals". Simply put, an executive leader sets the stage. Actors do the play. You may criticize the direction the play takes but likely its success or failure has multiple factors on which the director has little control. Simple thinking (politics) always blames the director.

Who would have foreseen the massive anti-Obama movement that from the start was organized, funded and committed to oppose anything the Obama administration proposed even those propositions they formerly supported? Hell, the first two years were spent trying to convince Americans that he wasn't even American! Who would have foreseen the simple thinking and raw power that the Tea Party uses to keep rational, moderate legislators from doing the right things in favor of doing the things that would keep them from being opposed by less legitimate candidates in the next election? In spite of a recovering economy, healthy stock portfolios, no new wars, the end of Bin Laden, the Affordable Care Act (yes, in spite of propaganda, it is a major accomplishment) and OU beating Alabama.......all that is reported is his failure to deliver though that delivery would mean even more dissension. Odd times.

And the hypocrisy that you would invoke the "Bush did it too" routine as not important when you've spent years using Democratic leaders actions as predication for conservative Republican actions is inexcusable. Everyone around here has used that rationalization way too much.

Your recovery is not complete.

[Red Arrow]

the Affordable Care Act (yes, in spite of propaganda, it is a major accomplishment)

The bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 was a major accomplishment too.  We didn't like that one either.

[Conan71]

Like many, you seem to confuse presidents, and executives in general, with emperors, kings and popes. But even they are at the mercy of their "princes and cardinals". Simply put, an executive leader sets the stage. Actors do the play. You may criticize the direction the play takes but likely its success or failure has multiple factors on which the director has little control. Simple thinking (politics) always blames the director.

Who would have foreseen the massive anti-Obama movement that from the start was organized, funded and committed to oppose anything the Obama administration proposed even those propositions they formerly supported? Hell, the first two years were spent trying to convince Americans that he wasn't even American! Who would have foreseen the simple thinking and raw power that the Tea Party uses to keep rational, moderate legislators from doing the right things in favor of doing the things that would keep them from being opposed by less legitimate candidates in the next election? In spite of a recovering economy, healthy stock portfolios, no new wars, the end of Bin Laden, the Affordable Care Act (yes, in spite of propaganda, it is a major accomplishment) and OU beating Alabama.......all that is reported is his failure to deliver though that delivery would mean even more dissension. Odd times.

And the hypocrisy that you would invoke the "Bush did it too" routine as not important when you've spent years using Democratic leaders actions as predication for conservative Republican actions is inexcusable. Everyone around here has used that rationalization way too much.

Your recovery is not complete.

Just like popes, kings, dictators, and little potentates select their courts, the president selects the members of his administration.  Unlike kings and dictators, he is not born into the position and ultimately he should be held accountable for the actions of his closest advisors and appointees.  The President is elected by a public which trusts him to look out for their best interest.  By extension, he should be expected to carry out his campaign promises which were used to influence people to vote for him.  Candidate Obama was elected president based on campaign promises he has not followed up on.  Why don't you want to hold him to those promises?  I can't find anyone who still supports Obama who does.  It simply becomes convenient to blame his short-comings on his predecessor or to claim his critics are somehow hypocritical because they supported someone else or someone else's ideals.

As far as:

And the hypocrisy that you would invoke the "Bush did it too" routine as not important when you've spent years using Democratic leaders actions as predication for conservative Republican actions is inexcusable. Everyone around here has used that rationalization way too much.

I'm not sure where you get I've spent years using Democratic leaders actions as predication... But there is a huge difference in a new leader correcting the failed policies of a previous administration of an opposing party than simply continuing failed policies of the past then essentially blaming the predecessor because the bad policies are still around.

FWIW, I'm a fan of Bill Clinton and I don't recall ever rallying around Bush policy vs. Clinton policy other than some foreign policy issues.  In general, he was a great policy guy who had a wandering penis.  He was fortunate to preside over a great period of growth and he pretty well stayed out of the way to allow the free market to do what it did best.  If he had the moral code of Jiminy Carter, he might be considered the greatest president of modern times.

However, none of that excuses Obama from not following through with campaign promises to end BAU in DC.

[Gaspar]

People like you keep glossing over the fact that Obama simply continues some of the worst fiscal policies of the Bush administration.  He campaigned against many Bush policies, but has done nothing in many cases and expanded them in others.  I have no problem pointing out the flaws in Obama because I had greater hope for him that he really would be an honest politician and keep many of his campaign promises.  He hasn't.

Gitmo is still open, no-bid contracts have increased, domestic spying has apparently gotten worse.  We still have the revolving door of lobbies and cherry administrative positions.  People excuse it by saying: "Well Bush did it!".  How does pointing to the gross incompetence of your predecessor somehow make the same level of incompetence better?  Could you get away with that on your job?  I know I couldn't.

I simply refuse to excuse continued waste and cronyism.  Political affiliation or lack thereof has nothing to do with my stance on it.

Some get it.

[guido911]

Some get it.

I already posted that....

[Townsend]

I already posted that....

So you're both on the "underaged country girl lighting something on fire" distro...

[AquaMan]

The bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 was a major accomplishment too.  We didn't like that one either.

Depends on what side you were on.

Instead of working for the good of the population in making the act work well and quickly, the opposition chose to work against it by defining it as evil, bureaucratic and liberal. Then spending inordinate amounts of time and money to repeal it, convince the public of its lunacy and ignore its positive features. It was of course designed by conservative republicans and was effectively instituted by a Republican at the state level. Mere facts, nothing to see here.

[Conan71]

Depends on what side you were on.

Instead of working for the good of the population in making the act work well and quickly, the opposition chose to work against it by defining it as evil, bureaucratic and liberal. Then spending inordinate amounts of time and money to repeal it, convince the public of its lunacy and ignore its positive features. It was of course designed by conservative republicans and was effectively instituted by a Republican at the state level. Mere facts, nothing to see here.

It all depends on whose lens you look through concerning the ACA.  For many, it was a roof leak that proposed razing the building to fix the roof.

Time has proven many of the fallacies that were sold to the dumb masses with this program.

[AquaMan]

Just like popes, kings, dictators, and little potentates select their courts, the president selects the members of his administration.  Unlike kings and dictators, he is not born into the position and ultimately he should be held accountable for the actions of his closest advisors and appointees.  The President is elected by a public which trusts him to look out for their best interest.  By extension, he should be expected to carry out his campaign promises which were used to influence people to vote for him.  Candidate Obama was elected president based on campaign promises he has not followed up on.  Why don't you want to hold him to those promises?  I can't find anyone who still supports Obama who does.  It simply becomes convenient to blame his short-comings on his predecessor or to claim his critics are somehow hypocritical because they supported someone else or someone else's ideals.

As far as:

I'm not sure where you get I've spent years using Democratic leaders actions as predication... But there is a huge difference in a new leader correcting the failed policies of a previous administration of an opposing party than simply continuing failed policies of the past then essentially blaming the predecessor because the bad policies are still around.

FWIW, I'm a fan of Bill Clinton and I don't recall ever rallying around Bush policy vs. Clinton policy other than some foreign policy issues.  In general, he was a great policy guy who had a wandering penis.  He was fortunate to preside over a great period of growth and he pretty well stayed out of the way to allow the free market to do what it did best.  If he had the moral code of Jiminy Carter, he might be considered the greatest president of modern times.

However, none of that excuses Obama from not following through with campaign promises to end BAU in DC.

I mean no offense, but that's all balderdash. Use my analogy. You are blaming the director of the play for a traffic tie up from a freak snowstorm where the Mayor of the city failed to plan for snow removal and the governor of the state blocked traffic from nearby suburbs. So, the director must have failed because he chose the city and the state.

Your remarks imply that we don't have a balance of powers, that states rights are dead and that politics plays no part in history. I am surprised at that from you.  When the legislative branch is dominated by opponents who fail to even approve of your appointments for judicial positions, argue over your cabinet positions, who spend their time yelling out "job killer!" at proposals past Congress's have bipartisan approved, who set up confrontations to shut down government with little reason other than politics and selfish interest, then you have to be disingenuous to believe that this president, or any president in this time period could set an agenda and simply push it through with a slim majority in a single house. Then throw in backwoods, Harley riding governors (princes) who refuse to co-operate with federal programs even for their own constituents benefit and you have a mighty witches brew to lay on the back of one executive.

Do you ever accidentally come across one of your posts from years back and wonder who wrote that? I do. Sometimes I am surprised by my thought process, but generally stay fairly consistent. You will be embarrassed by those above remarks when you emerge from this time period of severe politicization and see how this country survived some very disastrous events that were handled with aplomb and intelligence. We are literally in a state of ignorance where information is carefully channeled and framed. Oklahoma.

[Gaspar]

Depends on what side you were on.

Instead of working for the good of the population in making the act work well and quickly, the opposition chose to work against it by defining it as evil, bureaucratic and liberal. Then spending inordinate amounts of time and money to repeal it, convince the public of its lunacy and ignore its positive features. It was of course designed by conservative republicans and was effectively instituted by a Republican at the state level. Mere facts, nothing to see here.

It was a bad law from the beginning. They rushed it and resisted any public review. From the moment it passed, the impossible work of fixing it began, and has yet to complete. It's not failing because of fabulous GOP marketing.  It's failing because it's a terrible and burdensome law that was implemented by a highly inept group of people who demonstrated little to no understanding of what they were charged with doing.

Yesterday's ACA Bracket site (the one with the animated gifs) that I posted yesterday was hosted on the WhiteHouse.gov server, and every link they had to push people to Healthcare.gov was wrong.  4 months later and they still can't get the simple stuff right.


I would believe that they have OFA interns running everything, if it wasn't for the hundreds of billions of dollars they have wasted on non-functional systems that require billions more to fix.

[guido911]

So you're both on the "underaged country girl lighting something on fire" distro...

waiting for it....

[AquaMan]

It was a bad law from the beginning. They rushed it and resisted any public review. From the moment it passed, the impossible work of fixing it began, and has yet to complete. It's not failing because of fabulous GOP marketing.  It's failing because it's a terrible and burdensome law that was implemented by a highly inept group of people who demonstrated little to no understanding of what they were charged with doing.

Yesterday's ACA Bracket site (the one with the animated gifs) that I posted yesterday was hosted on the WhiteHouse.gov server, and every link they had to push people to Healthcare.gov was wrong.  4 months later and they still can't get the simple stuff right.


I would believe that they have OFA interns running everything, if it wasn't for the hundreds of billions of dollars they have wasted on non-functional systems that require billions more to fix.

You might have more credibility if.......oh never mind.

No, actually it wasn't a bad law from the beginning, but had there been real life input from those originally involved with conceiving and implementing the idea at the state level instead of hindrance and histrionics it would have gone smoother. I find it humorous that techies find such fault with the belching and burping of this software when most of the apps I am introduced to rarely work as described, often fail and always underperform. Go figure.

My wife signed up for the ACA recently. Some difficulty but like others, was able to get through it. Huge undertaking with folks like you on the sidelines catcalling and some actually impeding. America at its best. It will get easier, it will get more support, it will continue to be assaulted by the right and it will survive just like Social Security.

[guido911]

Depends on what side you were on.

Instead of working for the good of the population in making the act work well and quickly, the opposition chose to work against it by defining it as evil, bureaucratic and liberal. Then spending inordinate amounts of time and money to repeal it, convince the public of its lunacy and ignore its positive features. It was of course designed by conservative republicans and was effectively instituted by a Republican at the state level. Mere facts, nothing to see here.

Seriously? You are blaming persons other than the crafters of the ACA for this bullcrap nightmare? It's the GOP's fault the website was/is all f'd up? That enrollments numbers are screwed?  

As for repealing it, by all means focus on the number of times that the House voted to "repeal" the Act vs. the number of waivers given from its enforcement. Here's an article addressing the number of repeal attempts by the House meme. http://washingtonexaminer.com/no-house-republicans-havent-voted-50-times-to-repeal-obamacare/article/2545733

[Gaspar]

Seriously? You are blaming persons other than the crafters of the ACA for this bullcrap nightmare? It's the GOP's fault the website was/is all f'd up? That enrollments numbers are screwed?  

As for repealing it, by all means focus on the number of times that the House voted to "repeal" the Act vs. the number of waivers given from its enforcement. Here's an article addressing the number of repeal attempts by the House meme. http://washingtonexaminer.com/no-house-republicans-havent-voted-50-times-to-repeal-obamacare/article/2545733

Gueed, You have to realize that any attempt by congress to fix Obamacare will always be perceived as a threat to Obamacare, because it would be an admission that the law is deeply flawed, and that it's provisions were simply campaign promises not meant to stand up to reality.

Of course, repeal at this point is not possible, nor is any meaningful repair.  The law will simply have to die slowly as provisions, work-arounds, and new exemptions are passed that chip away at the various mandates and public burdens imposed by the law. Eventually it will just be another ridiculous law on the books, just like the Oklahoma law that makes it illegal to wear boots in bed.

It was an expensive lesson though.