Obama's performance and global instability

[Falvlun]

His illegal immigration policy is failing.

I don't think we've had a chance to see whether his immigration policy works or not, seeing as Congress has refused to deal with it.

 

[Falvlun]

Oh right, that was 2 of the 4 years that the Democrats controlled both the house and the senate. Nothing to see here...

This is a false talking point that has been shown to be untrue time and again.

Democrats controlled the House from 2009 - 2011. But not the Senate.

Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness. He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory. After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election.

So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks. Did they squander it? I guess you can make that case, but there's a very limited amount you can do in the Senate in 14 weeks. Given the reality of what it takes to move legislation through committee and onto the floor (keeping in mind that the filibuster isn't the minority party's only way to slow things down), I think you might make the case, at most, that a single additional piece of legislation could have been forced through during that period. But probably not much more than that. Democrats basically had a filibuster-proof majority for about three months. That's just not very long.

from HERE

 

[s2a]

Obama Contends With Arc of Instability Unseen Since '70s - WSJ

The article talks about the current global instability being the highest since the 70s. Palestine, Iraq, Ukraine, Iran, Pakistan and China-Japan, etc.

Do you guys think President Obama is doing a good job regarding the circumstances, being cautious about enforcing American intervention?

Or has he failed by showing the world that the US is powerless, weak and afraid?

In short...

Yes...

...and no.

Next?

 

[YmirGF]

This is a false talking point that has been shown to be untrue time and again.

Democrats controlled the House from 2009 - 2011. But not the Senate.

from HERE

I did read through everything in your link and point taken - for what little it is truly worth.

The Democrats controlled the House and had a majority in the Senate.

As an aside though, the thing I don't get about American politics is how the "other guy" is vilified. In Canada, we have the "Loyal Opposition". They are not expected to give the government a free ride. No one is surprised when they vote against the government. It's expected. In contrast, Americans almost make the "nays" sound like traitors and seem to bitterly resent anything or anyone who goes against their will.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I did read through everything in your link and point taken - for what little it is truly worth.

The Democrats controlled the House and had a majority in the Senate.

As an aside though, the thing I don't get about American politics is how the "other guy" is vilified. In Canada, we have the "Loyal Opposition". They are not expected to give the government a free ride. No one is surprised when they vote against the government. It's expected. In contrast, Americans almost make the "nays" sound like traitors and seem to bitterly resent anything or anyone who goes against their will.

But that's just it. It's the will of the people...not the will of our elected officials. These people represent us on our behalf. What we do know is that a majority of Americans want something totally different that how our congress votes. The GOP is our opposition party. It's in their entire name "Government Opposition Party".....but with that opposition it comes at a high cost...many times over their decisions, which are usually contrary to the majority of their constituents not just the fringe base, usually hurts their constituents.

 

[LuisDantas]

As an aside though, the thing I don't get about American politics is how the "other guy" is vilified. In Canada, we have the "Loyal Opposition". They are not expected to give the government a free ride. No one is surprised when they vote against the government. It's expected. In contrast, Americans almost make the "nays" sound like traitors and seem to bitterly resent anything or anyone who goes against their will.

One wonders how mature the Canadian "nays" are. Apparently considerably more than the American ones.

 

[YmirGF]

But that's just it. It's the will of the people...not the will of our elected officials. These people represent us on our behalf. What we do know is that a majority of Americans want something totally different that how our congress votes. The GOP is our opposition party. It's in their entire name "Government Opposition Party".....but with that opposition it comes at a high cost...many times over their decisions, which are usually contrary to the majority of their constituents not just the fringe base, usually hurts their constituents.

This much, I understand, Dirty Penguin. It's not like the Democrats won by a landslide, so they can't take the "will of the people" too far.

 

[YmirGF]

One wonders how mature the Canadian "nays" are. Apparently considerably more than the American ones.

Perhaps, Luis. That said, the "Loyal Oppositon" banded together and tried to oust the Minority Harper government from power. An election was called and the Canadian people were so offended by the actions of the Opposition that they rewarded the Harper troops with a Majority government, obliterated the Liberal and Block and made the NDP party the Official opposition (the first time in history). A textbook case of over-playing the hand they thought they held.

 

[Pegg]

I guess I agree with that wording, if probably not with the meaning.

It is a bit of a puzzler when people talk of the POTUS as if he had history-changing powers. That is not reasonable. Dubya's main mistake was seeing himself as so capable. Obama's main mistakes are variations of same, as in Syria and Lybia. So are the most common mistakes of his critics, who basically want him to blunder more spectacularly for national pride's sake.

I wish people took foreign politics more seriously. We certainly could use some constructive intervention, as opposed to military.

the military steps in where diplomacy fails.

Diplomacy has failed 'a lot' judging by the amount of wars that have been, and continue, to be fought around the world.

I just wonder how long it will take for mankind to realise their inability to self govern. Its impossible.

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps, Luis. That said, the "Loyal Oppositon" banded together and tried to oust the Minority Harper government from power. An election was called and the Canadian people were so offended by the actions of the Opposition that they rewarded the Harper troops with a Majority government, obliterated the Liberal and Block and made the NDP party the Official opposition (the first time in history). A textbook case of over-playing the hand they thought they held.

It would be nice if that happened in the USA as well. Since it hasn't, despite several instances in the last 30 years or so when it should, I must assume that the political maturity of the US voters is not very high at all.

the military steps in where diplomacy fails.

Diplomacy has failed 'a lot' judging by the amount of wars that have been, and continue, to be fought around the world.

It has indeed, all too often because it isn't taken seriously.

I just wonder how long it will take for mankind to realise their inability to self govern. Its impossible.

It is not like there is an alternative, though.

We will just have to try more ambitious ways of doing so.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This much, I understand, Dirty Penguin. It's not like the Democrats won by a landslide, so they can't take the "will of the people" too far.

But it's not about that. It's about the actual will of the majority of the people as expressed daily throughout this country. Pick any economical or social issue concerning the American people and you'll find that Democrats support and have policies in effect or bills addressing the needs of the American people...and in most cases you have the GOP filibustering, voting in high numbers against or drafting their own legislation to counter and repeal existing laws "the people" actually support. And while we didn't win by a land the presidency was won by a wide margin. I think well over 5 million. More people voted for Democrats than they did Republicans in the last election but due to gerrymandering by Republicans they weren't affected. Because of that tactic it will be quite some time before a Republican "loses" a seat regardless of the fact that his/her democratic challenger having more votes.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It would be nice if that happened in the USA as well. Since it hasn't, despite several instances in the last 30 years or so when it should, I must assume that the political maturity of the US voters is not very high at all.

This is the crux of it. Many aren't educated properly in political terms. Both the left and the right get their information from their own media sources. Very few of us go outside the normal sources to get the real story. On the other hand you have some that don't even truly know what's going on, rarely, if at all, vote but complain about how the system is broken. My step son is one of these people......Then you have the person that gets their info spoon fed from the echo chamber without doing their own independent research but goes into the voting booth voting against their own self interest...

 

[The Barbarian]

And while we didn't win by a land the presidency was won by a wide margin. I think well over 5 million.

Your candidate was the first president since Eisenhower to win re-election by more than 51%. Even Reagan didn't do that well.

However, there are many people opposed to much of Obama's program; a large minority, even if a minority.

 

[YmirGF]

Your candidate was the first president since Eisenhower to win re-election by more than 51%. Even Reagan didn't do that well.

However, there are many people opposed to much of Obama's program; a large minority, even if a minority.

On what planet? Reagan was re-elected in 1984 by a landslide. He captured 58.77% of the popular vote, beating Mondale by over 16,875.000 votes. It was in 1980, his first romp as President, that he narrowly defeated Carter, by a mere 8 million plus votes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ah, right. Obama was the first, since Eisenhower to win both elections by more than 51%.

 

[YmirGF]

Ah, right. Obama was the first, since Eisenhower to win both elections by more than 51%.

Though 51% IS a majority, it is a very slim majority and hardly a mandate.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

However, there are many people opposed to much of Obama's program; a large minority, even if a minority.

They oppose them but enjoy the benefits they receive from them. Take them away and people seem to lose their minds over such tactics....

 

[LuisDantas]

Though 51% IS a majority, it is a very slim majority and hardly a mandate.

So it is unusual for the POTUS to earn a mandate?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So it is unusual for the POTUS to earn a mandate?

And pollsters and other analyst really get into these numbers....

Young Voters Supported Obama Less, But May Have Mattered More | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

As you observe the data I linked and compare it to the various state initiatives to disenfranchise voters you quickly get the sense that the Republicans don't want a repeat of 2012 to happen in the 2014 midterms and going forward in the 2016 presidential election. What use to not be a controversy in the past such as (students using their college ID to vote, early registration of 16 year old's to be able to vote immediately after turning 18, extended voting hours and days, early voting, voting polls on campus and/or near by etc.). All of this is changing state to state where there is a Republican controlled legislature. It doesn't stop there..It's happening all over this country. This is why I say people have a tendency to vote against their own best interest. There are some that are scared of another 51% Mandate by a Democrat president

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/us/new-gop-bid-to-limit-voting-in-swing-states.html?_r=0

A group of officials in the Cincinnati area recently participated in a 90-minute journey to a proposed early voting site as a protest over how long the trip took from one inner-city neighborhood.

Pivotal swing states under Republican control are embracing significant new electoral restrictions on registering and voting that go beyond the voter identification requirements that have caused fierce partisan brawls.

Republicans in Ohio and Wisconsin this winter pushed through measures limiting the time polls are open, in particular cutting into weekend voting favored by low-income voters and blacks, who sometimes caravan from churches to polls on the Sunday before election.

In all, nine states have passed measures making it harder to vote since the beginning of 2013. Most have to do with voter ID laws. Other states are considering mandating proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or a passport, after a federal court judge recently upheld such laws passed in Arizona and Kansas.

In February, the Ohio legislature moved to reduce early voting by one week, do away with registering and voting on the same day prior to Election Day, and place new restrictions on absentee ballot application mailings. And a little over a week ago, the Wisconsin Legislature sent a bill to Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, to shorten early voting, including cutting it altogether on weekend days.

So if you can't beat'em then cheat'em.....!

 

[Reverend Rick]

Big difference between staying out of other countries and not securing your own borders.

Much more scary is who is entering illegally. More than just children from South America.