Obama Report Card -- How is he doing as a president? (Key milestone)

[elzoog]

A fun thing about Nader - if he wanted to, he could have chosen the same electorates (or whatever they're called) as the Democrat candidate. This would get him his funding if he got enough votes, while still allowing his votes to go to the Democrat, so the Republicans wouldn't win.

He was suggested to do so, but refused. Why?

Maybe because if he ran as a Democrat he would have to be... hmm this is hard, give me a minute.... a democrat?  Especially if he got funding from them you seriously think he could say, "You know guys, I disagree with your platform.  But I'll accept money from you and run as one of you anyway."

In fact Smokeskin, I disagree with you.  But if you give me money, I am willing to run as Smokeskin's apprentice.

Was he afraid he'd lose votes to the Republicans, more than he'd gain by voters who would now vote for him knowing their votes wouldn't be wasted and swing the election in favor of the Republicans? Or he doesn't support the Democrats over the Republicans at all?

That depends on whether or not you think that whatever Nader does is merely to get votes.  I'm sure some of the things he does is for the purpose of getting votes.   But I thought that the people that vote for Nader, do so because he does not only do things in order to get votes.  That he does things because of things like honesty and integrity.  In other words, things that people like Clinton, Bush Jr., and to a certain extent even Obama, don't do.

Those who say that Nader wins elections for Republicans have no idea how right they are.

A vote for Nader in 2000 was a vote for Nader.   He did not take enough votes away from Gore to cause him to lose if Gore actually made a decent run for president.   The main reason Gore lost was not because Nader ran.  The main reason Gore lost was, to be frank, Gore sucked.

Mostly, people who say that thinks he shouldn't have run for President at all, but the fact is he could have run for President, he could get his funding, and STILL avoid stealing Democrat votes. He just didn't want to.

So if Nader ran as a Democrat in 2000, you don't think that would take Democratic votes away from Gore?

[elzoog]

I don't care about then, I just want him to win.

Well consider what those who are against Nader running are telling you.

They are telling you that voting according to who you really want to win doesn't matter.  Instead what matters is voting for someone who has a "good chance" of winning even if it comes down to choosing between Mr. Suck Ass, and Mr. Ass Suck.

If that's the case, then your vote really doesn't matter does it?

[Zidane]

I don't care about then, I just want him to win.

Well consider what those who are against Nader running are telling you.

They are telling you that voting according to who you really want to win doesn't matter.  Instead what matters is voting for someone who has a "good chance" of winning even if it comes down to choosing between Mr. Suck Ass, and Mr. Ass Suck.

If that's the case, then your vote really doesn't matter does it?

Every vote counts, sir.

[elzoog]

I don't care about then, I just want him to win.

Well consider what those who are against Nader running are telling you.

They are telling you that voting according to who you really want to win doesn't matter.  Instead what matters is voting for someone who has a "good chance" of winning even if it comes down to choosing between Mr. Suck Ass, and Mr. Ass Suck.

If that's the case, then your vote really doesn't matter does it?

Every vote counts, sir.

Re-read what I said.  I said that IF your only real choice is between TWO candidates who have a "good chance" of winning (and a vote for someone else is really a vote for the two candidates you don't like) then what kind of choice is that?  If you don't have a good choice, then how does your vote matter?

[Smokeskin]

A fun thing about Nader - if he wanted to, he could have chosen the same electorates (or whatever they're called) as the Democrat candidate. This would get him his funding if he got enough votes, while still allowing his votes to go to the Democrat, so the Republicans wouldn't win.

He was suggested to do so, but refused. Why?

Maybe because if he ran as a Democrat he would have to be... hmm this is hard, give me a minute.... a democrat?  Especially if he got funding from them you seriously think he could say, "You know guys, I disagree with your platform.  But I'll accept money from you and run as one of you anyway."

That is not how it works. If Ralph Nader gets 5% of the votes, he's eligible for public funding. That's public, not from the Democrats.

The candidate picks which electorals votes for him go to - the electorals who gets enough votes then place their vote for the President, and this determines who wins.

If Ralph Nader had picked the same electorals as the Democrat candidate, he would still be running as himself, but votes for him would actually go towards the Democrat candidate.

Nader has just two direct consequences from this:
1) There's no way he can actually win - which there's no chance he would anyway.
2) There's a higher probability that the Democrats will win.

That's the kicker. When people say he shouldn't have run for President because it hurts the Democrats, they're not aware that not only did he run, he had the option to run AND let votes for him go the Democrat candidate, but he explicitly chose for votes for him to be wasted.

[elzoog]

That is not how it works. If Ralph Nader gets 5% of the votes, he's eligible for public funding. That's public, not from the Democrats.

So how about you run as a Catholic?   If you receive 5% of the vote then you can get public funding.   After all, it doesn't really matter that you don't believe in the Catholic church.   It's just a matter of getting enough votes right?

The candidate picks which electorals votes for him go to - the electorals who gets enough votes then place their vote for the President, and this determines who wins.

If Ralph Nader had picked the same electorals as the Democrat candidate, he would still be running as himself, but votes for him would actually go towards the Democrat candidate.

If Ralph Nader ran as a Democrat in 2000, then a person in the electoral college could vote for either Nader or Gore.

I assume with your knowledge of the electoral college, you are aware of examples where a member of the electoral college votes for someone other than the two major candidates.

Nader has just two direct consequences from this:
1) There's no way he can actually win - which there's no chance he would anyway.
2) There's a higher probability that the Democrats will win.

That's the kicker. When people say he shouldn't have run for President because it hurts the Democrats, they're not aware that not only did he run, he had the option to run AND let votes for him go the Democrat candidate, but he explicitly chose for votes for him to be wasted.

How is voting for someone you really want to vote for, a vote wasted?

I guess it's inconceivable that someone would vote for Nader because, he really wanted to vote for Nader and not because he wanted to vote for a "Democrat" or a "Republican".

[Smokeskin]

How is voting for someone you really want to vote for, a vote wasted?

I guess it's inconceivable that someone would vote for Nader because, he really wanted to vote for Nader and not because he wanted to vote for a "Democrat" or a "Republican".

Even though you're probably trolling and asking something you already know, I'll explain it anyway.

The problem is that the US voting system doesn't have independence of irrelevant alternatives. If voters were just given the choice between Bush and Gore, Gore wins. But if voters get the choice between Bush, Gore, and Nader, then Bush wins. This is because the voters who voted for Nader but preferred Gore over Bush had their votes wasted.

Also, many voters were aware of this and voted for Gore instead of Nader for strategic reasons. Nader could well have seen more voters for him if he had arranged for votes for him to go to Gore.

[Count Iblis]

They are telling you that voting according to who you really want to win doesn't matter.  Instead what matters is voting for someone who has a "good chance" of winning even if it comes down to choosing between Mr. Suck Ass, and Mr. Ass Suck.

What they're saying is that they bought and paid for the votes, so if you vote for Nader (or any other third party candidate) you're "stealing" votes from Republicrats.

[elzoog]

How is voting for someone you really want to vote for, a vote wasted?

I guess it's inconceivable that someone would vote for Nader because, he really wanted to vote for Nader and not because he wanted to vote for a "Democrat" or a "Republican".

Even though you're probably trolling and asking something you already know, I'll explain it anyway.

The problem is that the US voting system doesn't have independence of irrelevant alternatives. If voters were just given the choice between Bush and Gore, Gore wins.

Incorrect.  I guess you weren't aware for example that 12% of the Democrats in Florida actually voted for Bush.  So you can't arbitrarily say that if the Democrats that voted for Nader, didn't have Nader as an alternative, they would have then voted for Gore.  They might have voted for Bush instead.

See for example here:
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

Also see here:
http://www.prorev.com/green2000.htm

But if voters get the choice between Bush, Gore, and Nader, then Bush wins. This is because the voters who voted for Nader but preferred Gore over Bush had their votes wasted.

What about the voters who voted for Nader who preferred Bush over Gore?

The thing is, you are unwilling to admit that Gore ran a sucky campaign and instead, want to blame his loss on Nader.

Also, many voters were aware of this and voted for Gore instead of Nader for strategic reasons. Nader could well have seen more voters for him if he had arranged for votes for him to go to Gore.

Gore didn't even carry his home state.  He was part of the then very popular Clinton presidency which enjoyed a very good economy during the last few years of his term.   Yet somehow, some two bit political guy who could only get 97,000 votes as compared to the almost 3 million votes the Democrat and Republican candidates were getting (in Florida) caused Gore to lose?   97,000 compared to the number of votes available was about 1.6% of the vote in Florida.   You are telling me that Gore, who was part of the popular Clinton presidency, couldn't beat an inarticulate Texan by more than 1.6%?

In case you are wondering where i got 1.6%, the numbers of votes each candidate in Florida got are listed here:
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

So you take 2,912,790 + 2,912,253 + 97,488 + ... + 40 = 5,963,110.    97,488/5,963,110 = 0.016348516 or about 1.6%

[Smokeskin]

But if voters get the choice between Bush, Gore, and Nader, then Bush wins. This is because the voters who voted for Nader but preferred Gore over Bush had their votes wasted.

What about the voters who voted for Nader who preferred Bush over Gore?

The thing is, you are unwilling to admit that Gore ran a sucky campaign and instead, want to blame his loss on Nader.

The voters who voted for Nader and preferred Bush over Gore didn't have their vote wasted - their second preference, Bush, won.

I supported Bush, so I don't feel any need to blame Gore's loss on anyone. I'm just pointing out that Nader is far, far less concerned with the Democrats winning than most people think. It even seems that he actually went so far as to hurt his own chances by not supporting the Democrats.

[SlapMonkey]

Bottom line is that our country needs more than two parties. Let's treat them like monopolies that split 'em up!

[Quotidan Torture]

The only saving grace he has at this point is that I still think he would be better than the alternative. And that's rapidly going down the toilet as well. I think four more years of Republican mishandling would be better for the country in the long run than four years of failure from a Democrat that will undoubtedly dissuade people from voting Democrat in the future.

[Count Iblis]

The only saving grace he has at this point is that I still think he would be better than the alternative. And that's rapidly going down the toilet as well. I think four more years of Republican mishandling would be better for the country in the long run than four years of failure from a Democrat that will undoubtedly dissuade people from voting Democrat in the future.

People's memories only last an election cycle. They'll hate Dems for a cycle then hate Repubs for a cycle. Unless the economy is doing well at vote time, then they'll stay the course. Every two years voters think "Things will be so much better if I vote Republicrat this year." Oddly enough, things don't get better.

[elzoog]

The voters who voted for Nader and preferred Bush over Gore didn't have their vote wasted - their second preference, Bush, won.

You still have the silly idea that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush despite me providing evidence for you that Nader did NOT cause Gore to lose.

One web site I gave you even provides charts and statistics.   But don't let evidence get in the way of your beliefs.

I supported Bush, so I don't feel any need to blame Gore's loss on anyone. I'm just pointing out that Nader is far, far less concerned with the Democrats winning than most people think. It even seems that he actually went so far as to hurt his own chances by not supporting the Democrats.

Why should he support the Democrats if he is not a Democrat?   That's like asking you to support the Catholic party or the Right Wing Bible Believing Party.

[elzoog]

Bottom line is that our country needs more than two parties. Let's treat them like monopolies that split 'em up!

Mainly what people need to do is get away from a mentality of voting against someone and start actually voting for someone.

For example, probably most people that voted for Kerry in 2004 didn't really like Kerry.  They just hated Bush.   So a vote for Kerry was really a vote against Bush.

Maybe then we can make better choices.

[SlapMonkey]

^^ well said.

[Smokeskin]

The voters who voted for Nader and preferred Bush over Gore didn't have their vote wasted - their second preference, Bush, won.

You still have the silly idea that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush despite me providing evidence for you that Nader did NOT cause Gore to lose.

One web site I gave you even provides charts and statistics.   But don't let evidence get in the way of your beliefs.

I supported Bush, so I don't feel any need to blame Gore's loss on anyone. I'm just pointing out that Nader is far, far less concerned with the Democrats winning than most people think. It even seems that he actually went so far as to hurt his own chances by not supporting the Democrats.

Why should he support the Democrats if he is not a Democrat?   That's like asking you to support the Catholic party or the Right Wing Bible Believing Party.

I'll try again, this time in caps: LOTS OF PEOPLE THINK HE SHOULD BE DOING MORE TO SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS, BUT THEY DON'T REALIZE HE COULD SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS AT NO COST TO HIMSELF, ON THE CONTRARY - THIS MEANS HE IS MUCH LESS OF A DEMOCRAT THAN PEOPLE THINK.

Do you get it? I'm saying that people mistakenly thinks he favors Democrats over Republicans.

[elzoog]

I'll try again, this time in caps: LOTS OF PEOPLE THINK HE SHOULD BE DOING MORE TO SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS,

Why should he be doing more to support the Democrats?  They are for the most part, a group of losers.

They couldn't beat Bush in 2004 despite having millions of dollars and millions of people at their disposal.  The only president I can think of in the late 20th century who is comparable to Bush as far as suckiness is Jimmy Carter.

The only people who think that he should support the Democrats are people who have been fairly disenfranchised from the democratic process.

Also, I question your claim that if Nader didn't run in 2000 Gore would have won.   You need to prove that.

Do you get it? I'm saying that people mistakenly thinks he favors Democrats over Republicans.

Why should I care what such people think?

[Azdgari]

Smokeskin isn't saying that he should be doing more to support the dems.  Smokeskin is making a claim about what Nader is doing, and what his choice of actions means - not about what he should be doing.

[SlapMonkey]

The only president I can think of in the late 20th century who is comparable to Bush as far as suckiness is Jimmy Carter.

Don't forget about the current pres...Obama is quickly approaching said suckiness (I'm even of the opinion that he's there already and will be surpassing it soon--that all depends on how he handles losing Kennedy's seat to a Repub). But absolutely...Bush is up there.

[elzoog]

Smokeskin isn't saying that he should be doing more to support the dems.  Smokeskin is making a claim about what Nader is doing, and what his choice of actions means - not about what he should be doing.

The trouble is, there isn't much evidence that Nader's choice of actions hurt the Democrats that much.  It's pretty hard to compete with the Democrats themselves for the position of someone who hurts the Democrats.

[Quotidan Torture]

This Just In:

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama will announce in Wednesday's State of the Union address that he's proposing to save $250 billion by freezing all nonsecurity federal discretionary spending for three years, according to two senior administration officials.

The proposed freeze, which could help position Obama in the political center by sharpening his credentials on fiscal discipline, would exempt the budgets of the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, along with some international programs.

"We are at war, and we're going to make sure our troops are funded adequately," one of the senior officials said.

The officials would not reveal the details of which domestic programs would be cut, as they prepare to face major pushback from liberals in the president's own party because popular education and health spending could be on the chopping block. The details will be officially unveiled February 1, when the president publicly releases his next budget blueprint for fiscal year 2011 -- which starts October 1 -- and beyond.

"We've got to make some tough decisions," the second senior official said. "Everybody is not going to get what they want."

Under the proposal, which would need to be approved by both houses of Congress, all federal discretionary spending would be frozen at its current level of $447 billion per year. Within that parameter, however, individual federal agencies would have the power to give some programs increases, while cutting money elsewhere.

Besides burnishing his fiscal discipline credentials, the move could also help the president force Republicans' hand on whether they're serious about meeting Obama halfway on some of his policy proposals.

Immediate Republican reaction was split, with some senior GOP aides saying the freeze is something they could support, while others said it did not go nearly far enough.

"Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Will the budget still double the debt over five years and triple it over 10? That's the bottom line."

The senior administration officials acknowledged that discretionary spending is only about one-sixth of the entire federal budget, and that much larger savings would come from cutting entitlement programs like Medicare, but the White House believes that cuts need to start somewhere.

"We're not here to tell you we've solved the deficit," said one of the senior officials, adding that the federal government has to go through the "very same process that families" across America have had to go through in their personal budgets.

The move will also spark a major debate within the president's own party, with senior Democrats already saying the cuts would be tough to swallow. A senior Senate Democratic aide said it will prompt a major fight after the Bush administration "underfunded domestic programs for so long."

"Why would we want to play into the Republicans' hands like this?" the senior Senate Democratic aide asked.

But it could also help Obama break ranks with an unpopular Democratic Congress. "Do I expect this to win us a lot of kudos on Capitol Hill? No," one of the senior administration officials said.

Wait a second... doesn't this seem familiar? Oh wait:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyr2noZ57Ww&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[Count Iblis]

This is a pretty smart move on Obama's part. If Republicans oppose this then they look like the big spenders while Democrats look fiscally responsible. If Republicans support it then Obama gets political momentum and the Democrats look good in the next election cycle. Republicans are already putting their spin on it by saying it doesn't go far enough, but what did they do to reduce the size of government over the past 8 years?

[elzoog]

This is a pretty smart move on Obama's part. If Republicans oppose this then they look like the big spenders while Democrats look fiscally responsible.

Is there anything short of fondling young boys that would convince you that Obama is not a great president?   Come to think of it, if he did fondle young boys you would be saying it's a good idea to give boys a sex education early in life.

Fiscally responsible you say?   I guess you aren't aware that a few months ago, Obama raised the deficit to what some would estimate to be 12 trillion dollars.   To give you an idea of how much money that is, let's assume that Jesus was born 0 AD (which also assumes Jesus existed).  Let's next assume that we were to spend 1 million dollars every single day since the day Jesus was born.   If this were to happen, we would still not have spent the same amount of money that the US deficit is currently.

Basically, Obama is just Bush with black skin.   Obama bailed out the banks and financial institutions.   Would Bush have done that?   Yes he would.   Obama continues to have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Would Bush have done that?   Yes he would.   Obama continues to keep Guantanimo open.    Would Bush have done that?   Yes he would.

If Republicans support it then Obama gets political momentum and the Democrats look good in the next election cycle. Republicans are already putting their spin on it by saying it doesn't go far enough, but what did they do to reduce the size of government over the past 8 years?

What has Obama done to reduce the size of government in the year he has been president?   Would Bush have increased the size of government?   Yes he would have.

[SlapMonkey]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyr2noZ57Ww&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Obama needs to 'use a scalpel' and dissect the house and the senate and remove that 95% of the parts of that body that are cancerous to our nation, from both sides of the aisle.

I need to research this, but I'd like to know when being a senator or congressman became a full-time job. It didn't always used to be that way, and I sometimes feel like it's unnecessary now--seems like most of the time these people are so bored that they're just looking for something to "fix" because they have nothing else to focus on.

I'd be for this budget freeze--I think it'd be a good step in the right direction. The problem is that much of what he's proposing to still spend money on will cost more than his projected saving from doing this freeze. He's still taking us in the wrong direction on some things, and I can't help but think this may just be a diversion tactic to make those who really aren't paying attention think he's become some fiscally-responsible leader. I do hope I'm wrong in that train of thought, though.

On a side note...I think they should intermingle the two parties during the state of the union address tonight...I'd be interested to see what happens, simply for my own amusement. I'm pretty sure I'll already be chuckling enough at the content of the speech, but some added entertainment wouldn't hurt.

[Red McWilliams]

I think Obama's problem is he's used neither a scalpel nor a hatchet.  Of course, that puts him in line with every other president, but whatever.

[Count Iblis]

Is there anything short of fondling young boys that would convince you that Obama is not a great president?   

I think he sucks at being president (I've said as much earlier in this thread). I think his latest gambit is a smart political move. It's a small step in the right direction, but I'm under no delusion that either the Democrats or the Republicans are going to shrink the government.