Who wins 2016 Presidency?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

For which is a large reason why I gave props to Tip too. It takes two to tango and the Democrats have been just as polarizing during the Bush era as the Repubs have been during the Obama era. We need someone in office that is able to bring them together. Someone who is able to go to the speaker of the house and convince them to work together. The Repubs are pathetic abut Obama has been unable to accomplish that.

You didn't answer the question. Are you able to?

 

 

 

I have said probably 1,298,476,239 on this forum that the Republican party is pathetic. Are you trying to actually claim I am defending those idiots? However, the constant mantra of the Obama administration of "it's all Bush's fault" for most of his first term is just one example of his total inability to bring the country together. Instead, it was constantly complaining and blaming the other side for absolutely ever ill that ever came along. A leader doesn't come into office and constantly blame the administration before him for absolutely everything. That puts up walls instead of knocks them down.

 

No. I'm trying to point out that you don't seem to understand that one side can (and did!) unilaterally deny compromise. It's not accidental. It was a conscious choice that the American public (and much of the media) will see a lack of compromise and will resort to the both sides to blame position.

 

It worked. Despite being fairly candid about the strategy ("Our number one goal is to make Barack Obama a one term president") some people refuse to lay the blame where it belongs.

 

Say what you will about Mitch McConnell, but he is a political genius. He saw what no one else did: that if the GOP worked with Obama to pass major legislation that Obama would be given the credit (like Reagan was). He also saw that if they denied Obama bipartisan compromises that at worst they and Obama would share the blame. Repeat after me: "Obama needs to lead." Hope that no one notices that the GOP would not only never follow him but that they'd walk the opposite direction.

 

It's all Bush's fault....rinse and repeat.

[Junior]

Sooo....you're agreeing with me that right now Amicans are polarized politically. Hmmmmm....that is what I said at first. Then, we had Reagan come into office and was able to reach across the line and shake hands and convince the conservative voters that is OK. Meanwhile, as I have said, we had Tip on the other side who was willing to allow that to happen also.

 

 

Right now, we have neither.

 

 

You seem to think that there was a great political polarization in the Carter era that Reagan waltzed in and fixed. That if Reagan were president now, everything would be hunky dory because he was a "leader".

 

I'm saying there is literally nothing Obama could do that would satisfy the right. He presented them with their own healthcare plan that was developed and implemented in part by the candidate they chose to run for president... and they hated it. He could be Reagan and it wouldn't matter. And I'm also saying that Reagan's legacy as a great president is laughable.

[carlfense]

 

 

 

 

For which is a large reason why I gave props to Tip too. It takes two to tango and the Democrats have been just as polarizing during the Bush era as the Repubs have been during the Obama era. We need someone in office that is able to bring them together. Someone who is able to go to the speaker of the house and convince them to work together. The Repubs are pathetic abut Obama has been unable to accomplish that.

You didn't answer the question. Are you able to?

 

 

 

I have said probably 1,298,476,239 on this forum that the Republican party is pathetic. Are you trying to actually claim I am defending those idiots? However, the constant mantra of the Obama administration of "it's all Bush's fault" for most of his first term is just one example of his total inability to bring the country together. Instead, it was constantly complaining and blaming the other side for absolutely ever ill that ever came along. A leader doesn't come into office and constantly blame the administration before him for absolutely everything. That puts up walls instead of knocks them down.

 

No. I'm trying to point out that you don't seem to understand that one side can (and did!) unilaterally deny compromise. It's not accidental. It was a conscious choice that the American public (and much of the media) will see a lack of compromise and will resort to the both sides to blame position.

 

It worked. Despite being fairly candid about the strategy ("Our number one goal is to make Barack Obama a one term president") some people refuse to lay the blame where it belongs.

 

Say what you will about Mitch McConnell, but he is a political genius. He saw what no one else did: that if the GOP worked with Obama to pass major legislation that Obama would be given the credit (like Reagan was). He also saw that if they denied Obama bipartisan compromises that at worst they and Obama would share the blame. Repeat after me: "Obama needs to lead." Hope that no one notices that the GOP would not only never follow him but that they'd walk the opposite direction.

 

It's all Bush's fault....rinse and repeat.

 

Like I said, they weren't wrong. It was cynical and disappointing . . . but there is plenty of evidence in this very thread that they were right.

 

The evidence keeps piling up.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

I see what you are trying to say and it's a fail.

 

Politically, at the time the US was at polar opposites just like today. When Reagan came into office he was willing to hold out his hand to O'neill. Now, I respect O'neill also because he was willing to shake it and work.

 

NOW....where the real leadership of both men came was that they were then able to turn around and convince Americans that it's OK and things will get better if they work together. Really, neither side abandoned their beliefs, they were just able to find middle ground. Right now, neither side will do that. BOTH sides are sitting in Washington believing the other side is the problem because "they" won't agree to what "I" want to do.

 

No. Quite frankly, if that's your understanding of the differences you're poorly informed.

 

bullsh#t! BRB has this deal on lockdown. If you have a different understanding, you are wrong.

 

 

 

So you are saying that the right is open to compromise? They wouldn't irrationally stage a government shutdown in a misguided and asinine attempt to derail a law that was legally passed? (And then try to blame that shutdown on the president somehow?)

 

If only Obama would "lead".

 

No, I'm not saying that and neither did BRB. If you want to place more blame on the repubs for the gridlock in Washington, I'm fine with that. But, the fact remains that Obama has not been open to compromise with the repubs either. I guess the problem is, he is supposed to be a leader and keep trying to find ways to bring the uncooperative repubs to the table. Sure, they may be a royal pain in the ass but he isn't doing much of anything to help resolve it. this climate is simply too politically beneficial for both sides. They are all more concerned with getting elected and holding their seats than they are with the business of effectively running a country.

 

Leading is not giving the option of my way or the highway and then whining that the opposition keeps taking the highway.

[BigRedBuster]

 

It's all Bush's fault....rinse and repeat.

 

 

 

Like I said, they weren't wrong. It was cynical and disappointing . . . but there is plenty of evidence in this very thread that they were right.

 

The evidence keeps piling up.

 

LOL...glad he was able to convince you that that is how you lead.

 

If we and true leaders in Washington on both sides, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Back on topic.

 

I believe the person who will win the Presidency will be someone who we aren't even thinking about right now. Most of the time, the leaders right now aren't in the running when the general election actually comes around two years down the road.

[carlfense]

But, the fact remains that Obama has not been open to compromise with the repubs either.

. . . uh . . . what?

[carlfense]

If we and true leaders in Washington on both sides, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Again, they definitely weren't wrong.

 

It's almost reflexive.

[BigRedBuster]

Just an FYI....I think the real problem in the Republican party are the idiots who pull the strings outside of Washington like the Tea Partiers. So many people like me who got disgusted with it all have left the party so there isn't enough moderates in the party voting anymore. It's a chicken or egg sort of thing but how ever it got to where it is now, it's a dumpster fire and anyone who tries to be a moderate in Washington is gone the next election. I believe there are a number of people who WANT to be moderate but know they are going to be short lived in their jobs if they are because of the idiots back home.

[Junior]

Just an FYI....I think the real problem in the Republican party are the idiots who pull the strings outside of Washington like the Tea Partiers. So many people like me who got disgusted with it all have left the party so there isn't enough moderates in the party voting anymore. It's a chicken or egg sort of thing but how ever it got to where it is now, it's a dumpster fire and anyone who tries to be a moderate in Washington is gone the next election. I believe there are a number of people who WANT to be moderate but know they are going to be short lived in their jobs if they are because of the idiots back home.

 

Honestly, Obama really isn't that liberal. And if the right weren't so far right at this point in time, he would likely be considered a moderate democrat.

[NUinID]

 

Oh Good God.....

 

Maybe not much right now in American politics, but I remember every single election every Democrat was constantly bringing up JFK and trying to act like they were the next JFK. Maybe it just stopped after his alcoholic girlfriend abandoning brother died and stopped trying to be like him.

 

Interestingly, what made Reagan a good President was that he came into office in a time very similar to today. Americans had been beat to a pulp and nobody had a good feeling about anything. Politically, Washington was split similar to now.

 

What he brought was the ability to bring the nation together and make people feel good about themselves and the nation. He was then able to actually work with Tip O'neill and accomplish things. He was able to show people that Washington can work again even though the other party controlled congress.

 

THAT is a leader. We can sit and nit pick about this policy or that policy all we want. But, what we need is a leader in the oval office that accomplishes what Reagan did for the nation as far as mood and attitude. THAT is what he did to put in motion the economic boom that started and lasted through the Clinton years.

Amen!

+1 You say it much better than I Buster.

[knapplc]

Interestingly, what made Reagan a good President was that he came into office in a time very similar to today. Americans had been beat to a pulp and nobody had a good feeling about anything. Politically, Washington was split similar to now.

 

What he brought was the ability to bring the nation together and make people feel good about themselves and the nation. He was then able to actually work with Tip O'neill and accomplish things. He was able to show people that Washington can work again even though the other party controlled congress.

Washington was not even remotely as polarized in 1980 as they are today. The affront of a Black president has shaken a significant segment of our population to their very core, so much so that they're willing to abandon reason entirely and be taken off on ridiculous irrelevant tangents (birth certificates, secret Muslim, etc). I have seen this not only in the media, but in personal conversations with friends & (most sadly) family. There were differences in 1980. There are outright schisms today.

 

The good things about Reagan are that he made the nation feel good about themselves again. He was charismatic and a fantastic figurehead. I didn't really know any Democrats back then, but near as I recollect, while he wasn't "their guy" necessarily, they respected him. They even voted for him (although neither Carter nor Mondale were very palatable options, but still).

 

The other main thing about Reagan was the bold in your quote above. Reagan was tough as nails, but he was willing to work with Tip - but the crucial flip side to that is, Tip was willing to work with Reagan. While they had different ideologies, neither was willing to burn the country to the ground rather than compromise with the other. The cooperation was mutual, not forced by Reagan nor by Tip O'Neill.

 

Today, Obama doesn't have that willingness on the flip side. In fact, he's had exactly the opposite, and it's shown in the half-disaster this country has become in the last six years. The complete unwillingness to in any way work with this president has put a huge, unnecessary strain on this country. The economy isn't nearly as healthy as it could be, jobs aren't where they should be, incomes are down, cynicism is sky-high, and we're more divided now than we were when Obama was elected the first time.

 

The Cantor upset is a HUGE red flag that things aren't going the way they should for the Republicans. This is the presumptive Speaker of the House being defeated by a political nobody. If that doesn't slap the Republicans upside the head and make them rethink this obstructionist agenda, nothing will.

[TGHusker]

 

Interestingly, what made Reagan a good President was that he came into office in a time very similar to today. Americans had been beat to a pulp and nobody had a good feeling about anything. Politically, Washington was split similar to now.

 

What he brought was the ability to bring the nation together and make people feel good about themselves and the nation. He was then able to actually work with Tip O'neill and accomplish things. He was able to show people that Washington can work again even though the other party controlled congress.

Washington was not even remotely as polarized in 1980 as they are today. The affront of a Black president has shaken a significant segment of our population to their very core, so much so that they're willing to abandon reason entirely and be taken off on ridiculous irrelevant tangents (birth certificates, secret Muslim, etc). I have seen this not only in the media, but in personal conversations with friends & (most sadly) family. There were differences in 1980. There are outright schisms today.

 

The good things about Reagan are that he made the nation feel good about themselves again. He was charismatic and a fantastic figurehead. I didn't really know any Democrats back then, but near as I recollect, while he wasn't "their guy" necessarily, they respected him. They even voted for him (although neither Carter nor Mondale were very palatable options, but still).

 

The other main thing about Reagan was the bold in your quote above. Reagan was tough as nails, but he was willing to work with Tip - but the crucial flip side to that is, Tip was willing to work with Reagan. While they had different ideologies, neither was willing to burn the country to the ground rather than compromise with the other. The cooperation was mutual, not forced by Reagan nor by Tip O'Neill.

 

Today, Obama doesn't have that willingness on the flip side. In fact, he's had exactly the opposite, and it's shown in the half-disaster this country has become in the last six years. The complete unwillingness to in any way work with this president has put a huge, unnecessary strain on this country. The economy isn't nearly as healthy as it could be, jobs aren't where they should be, incomes are down, cynicism is sky-high, and we're more divided now than we were when Obama was elected the first time.

 

The Cantor upset is a HUGE red flag that things aren't going the way they should for the Republicans. This is the presumptive Speaker of the House being defeated by a political nobody. If that doesn't slap the Republicans upside the head and make them rethink this obstructionist agenda, nothing will.

 

Reasonable post Knapp - there are many today who say there isn't much diff from Dem and Rep today and that may be true at the center of each party - but the extreme left and extreme right are further apart than ever - it is the extremes of those parties that are battling. I believe the Dems have moved more to the left as a whole and the repubs more to the right and it is tearing us apart. Think back to Reagan years - the extremes were much closer and the center much bigger. The repubs were known as the loyal opposition (as they were typically the minority party before Reagan). Even though I voted for Reagan, there were many Dems that I really respected in the 70s to the early 90s- (My 1st vote was for George McGovern's Senate reelection and I did a large history project on HHH ) There isn't much respect anymore in politics. Reagan and Tip were on opposite sides but they made it work. Newt and Bill were on opposite sides - they end up making it work also - there was more pragmatism, compromise that allowed the country to move forward. And yes, to ward off criticism, I can show more respect towards Obama - I acknowledge my disrespect -I need to do a better job of taking issue with the policy and not the person trying to do a job on behalf of the country.

[Junior]

Reasonable post Knapp - there are many today who say there isn't much diff from Dem and Rep today and that may be true at the center of each party - but the extreme left and extreme right are further apart than ever - it is the extremes of those parties that are battling. I believe the Dems have moved more to the left as a whole and the repubs more to the right and it is tearing us apart. Think back to Reagan years - the extremes were much closer and the center much bigger. The repubs were known as the loyal opposition (as they were typically the minority party before Reagan). Even though I voted for Reagan, there were many Dems that I really respected in the 70s to the early 90s- (My 1st vote was for George McGovern's Senate reelection and I did a large history project on HHH ) There isn't much respect anymore in politics. Reagan and Tip were on opposite sides but they made it work. Newt and Bill were on opposite sides - they end up making it work also - there was more pragmatism, compromise that allowed the country to move forward. And yes, to ward off criticism, I can show more respect towards Obama - I acknowledge my disrespect -I need to do a better job of taking issue with the policy and not the person trying to do a job on behalf of the country.

 

 

 

You may believe that, but there's really not evidence to support the claim.

[NUinID]

 

Interestingly, what made Reagan a good President was that he came into office in a time very similar to today. Americans had been beat to a pulp and nobody had a good feeling about anything. Politically, Washington was split similar to now.

 

What he brought was the ability to bring the nation together and make people feel good about themselves and the nation. He was then able to actually work with Tip O'neill and accomplish things. He was able to show people that Washington can work again even though the other party controlled congress.

Washington was not even remotely as polarized in 1980 as they are today. The affront of a Black president has shaken a significant segment of our population to their very core, so much so that they're willing to abandon reason entirely and be taken off on ridiculous irrelevant tangents (birth certificates, secret Muslim, etc). I have seen this not only in the media, but in personal conversations with friends & (most sadly) family. There were differences in 1980. There are outright schisms today.

 

The good things about Reagan are that he made the nation feel good about themselves again. He was charismatic and a fantastic figurehead. I didn't really know any Democrats back then, but near as I recollect, while he wasn't "their guy" necessarily, they respected him. They even voted for him (although neither Carter nor Mondale were very palatable options, but still).

 

The other main thing about Reagan was the bold in your quote above. Reagan was tough as nails, but he was willing to work with Tip - but the crucial flip side to that is, Tip was willing to work with Reagan. While they had different ideologies, neither was willing to burn the country to the ground rather than compromise with the other. The cooperation was mutual, not forced by Reagan nor by Tip O'Neill.

 

Today, Obama doesn't have that willingness on the flip side. In fact, he's had exactly the opposite, and it's shown in the half-disaster this country has become in the last six years. The complete unwillingness to in any way work with this president has put a huge, unnecessary strain on this country. The economy isn't nearly as healthy as it could be, jobs aren't where they should be, incomes are down, cynicism is sky-high, and we're more divided now than we were when Obama was elected the first time.

 

The Cantor upset is a HUGE red flag that things aren't going the way they should for the Republicans. This is the presumptive Speaker of the House being defeated by a political nobody. If that doesn't slap the Republicans upside the head and make them rethink this obstructionist agenda, nothing will.

 

I disagree, you put all the unwillingness to work together on the GOP. It is a two way street. Obama is as unbending as any in the GOP.

 

The Dems were the same way when GWB was president.

 

It not working because both parties are unwilling to work and compromise together.

[knapplc]

 

 

Interestingly, what made Reagan a good President was that he came into office in a time very similar to today. Americans had been beat to a pulp and nobody had a good feeling about anything. Politically, Washington was split similar to now.

 

What he brought was the ability to bring the nation together and make people feel good about themselves and the nation. He was then able to actually work with Tip O'neill and accomplish things. He was able to show people that Washington can work again even though the other party controlled congress.

Washington was not even remotely as polarized in 1980 as they are today. The affront of a Black president has shaken a significant segment of our population to their very core, so much so that they're willing to abandon reason entirely and be taken off on ridiculous irrelevant tangents (birth certificates, secret Muslim, etc). I have seen this not only in the media, but in personal conversations with friends & (most sadly) family. There were differences in 1980. There are outright schisms today.

 

The good things about Reagan are that he made the nation feel good about themselves again. He was charismatic and a fantastic figurehead. I didn't really know any Democrats back then, but near as I recollect, while he wasn't "their guy" necessarily, they respected him. They even voted for him (although neither Carter nor Mondale were very palatable options, but still).

 

The other main thing about Reagan was the bold in your quote above. Reagan was tough as nails, but he was willing to work with Tip - but the crucial flip side to that is, Tip was willing to work with Reagan. While they had different ideologies, neither was willing to burn the country to the ground rather than compromise with the other. The cooperation was mutual, not forced by Reagan nor by Tip O'Neill.

 

Today, Obama doesn't have that willingness on the flip side. In fact, he's had exactly the opposite, and it's shown in the half-disaster this country has become in the last six years. The complete unwillingness to in any way work with this president has put a huge, unnecessary strain on this country. The economy isn't nearly as healthy as it could be, jobs aren't where they should be, incomes are down, cynicism is sky-high, and we're more divided now than we were when Obama was elected the first time.

 

The Cantor upset is a HUGE red flag that things aren't going the way they should for the Republicans. This is the presumptive Speaker of the House being defeated by a political nobody. If that doesn't slap the Republicans upside the head and make them rethink this obstructionist agenda, nothing will.

 

I disagree, you put all the unwillingness to work together on the GOP. It is a two way street. Obama is as unbending as any in the GOP.

 

The Dems were the same way when GWB was president.

 

It not working because both parties are unwilling to work and compromise together.

 

Did you even read the article I linked?