First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Republican hatred of Obama and why it's Dangerous.
132 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 12/21/16
I think that the backlash for Trump breaking his promises will be much harsher on him from his supporters. Every other president with the exception of Ronald Reagan was a politician first and foremost, and ran with the people knowing that full well. With that knowledge came an understanding of the nature of politicians being the way they were. Trump on the other hand ran mostly by the notion that he wasn't a standard politician that he specifically would come through on those promises in the long run. His supporters truly believed that so I think his rate of getting reelected will take a larger hit than past presidents. Time will tell, but as a kind of outside observer to it all that's my best guess with what we can see for now.
35827 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 12/21/16

draugauth wrote:

When you make a weapon more effective it makes it more powerful. Old nuclear weapons had poor accuracy which is why a nuclear hardened facility even states it can survive a NEAR miss. Once you remove variables you greatly increase the effectiveness.

Think of it like this. If you shoot a round that has a variance of .5 meters at 100 meters there's a good chance it will miss a kill shot or even the target. However if you increase said rounds accuracy even while reducing it's mass to .1 meters at 100 meters you have made a more powerful weapon. Power does not always mean the size of the hole or explosion.

So your claims are based on partial fact instead of the whole fact. I hope that little example helps you understand. After all the M16 is considered a far more powerful weapon than the AK47 even though it fires a smaller round. And both weapons are drastically more powerful than say a Glock 9mm even though both weapons fire rounds that are far smaller in diameter than said Glock. (The M16/M4/AR15 fires a 5.56mm round the AK47 fires a 7.62mm round both of which are smaller than the glock's 9mm)

Hoo boy..


pow·er·ful
adjective
1.
having great power or strength.


ef·fec·tive·ness
noun
the degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result; success.


A 340 kiloton yield warhead is less powerful than a 50 megaton yield warhead. Period.

You might design the weapon in such a way that it's more effective at destroying an underground bunker, but that does not make it more powerful than the larger warhead, and the larger warhead is more effective at destroying a large area. Effectiveness is determined by how you define "success". Power is not.

If you had said something like, "Obama won the Nobel Peace Price even though rather than just reducing our nuclear arsenal he's been modernizing it to make our nuclear weapons more effective (at precision strikes)," I wouldn't have disagreed with you, because that's true. What isn't true is saying he has made our nuclear arsenal more powerful.

Anyway, that last beer's kicking in so I'm going to go enjoy my buzz now. Toodles.
200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / America.
Offline
Posted 12/21/16
So it's dangerous to hate one person. Ok sure.

It'd be more dangerous to put a coffee table in your living room.

Hating Obama results in nothing.

Putting a coffee table in your living room can result in a stubbed toe.

132 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 12/21/16
True but well in those times the ideals of the republican and democratic party was much different than what they became ad we headed into the 1900's. The modern version of them is something I'm still having trouble putting words together to describe.
35285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/21/16

draugauth wrote:
I actually linked to the Treasury.gov website which you ignored that shows the truth. I also linked the the correct government website in regards to the actual unemployment rate. Again you ignored the truth.

How does it feel being on the Alt-Left?


...do you think I'm the op or something? Might want to check your notes there. As I am not who you apparently think you are talking too.

As for the "alt-left" good luck with trying to make that a thing.

As for your two links:

1) No, that does not show the "Actual unemployment rate". It doesn't even provide an average.

2) I can't imagine why debt would increase in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. One that really began to kick off in the summer of 2007 when Obama was presi-oh wait.

>.>

lawdog 
44825 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/21/16 , edited 12/21/16

mxdan wrote:




Mark Twain made famous the saying that is most applicable to your post: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Let's see: You don't list the labor participation rates, or the fact that unemployment calculation at present no longer includes the long-term unemployed. Got news for you: The guy and gal who lost their jobs and are still trying to get work don't get counted after a certain period...yet they still remain unemployed. As someone who lived during and well remembers the 1980s, the economic comparison between Reagan and Obama is a laughable farce.

You ignore the disaster Obama has made in the Middle East.

Or that the Iranian nuclear deal is INSANITY!!!!

Or that the whole method of "Climate Change" is a politically driven issue. "Manmade Climate Change" does not meet the scientific definitions to even qualify as a theory.

Our military is in desperate shape, gutted by Obama. Businesses have been harmed by OBAMACARE.

In short, Obama is going to be remembered, despite attempts like this, as someone who F**ked up the Middle East for decades to come, as an utter incompetent on economic matters, as a rigid ideologue who refused to negotiate, and as someone who was given a pass by a star struck sycophantic press corps, as someone who'd never have been elected, as a pathetically weak leader who enabled the rise of an acquisitive Russia, and as someone whose only qualification for being elected and re-elected was that he was a black guy who could read a teleprompter without sounding ghetto, to parphrase/translate VP Joe Biden's description of Obama.

The one thing we can all hope: He won't be remembered as the weak president who gave our enemies the ability to nuke our cities.
19562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 12/21/16

mxdan wrote:

The idea is to show that Far Right hatred of Obama does not fall in line with actual data sets


How much hatred IS justified by the data you provide here?

Because to show it doesn't fall in line, you also have to show the line it doesn't fall into.


extremism within our political structure is now destabilizing our Democracy.


I don't see any evidence here that our democracy has been destabilised, by extremism or otherwise.

You're making very broad and prejudiced claims. Tighten them up. Start with the actual data that you actually examine, and the actual conclusion that you can get from JUST that data. Strip out all your personal political notions about extremism and Obama and Republicans.

I assume this is a school assignment, so I'm not interested in your actual claims. I just want to help you get a better grade.
Ejanss 
16435 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/21/16 , edited 12/21/16
The whole hatred of Obama started for two reasons, which morphed and mushed together into one big pale Grudge-child:

1) The need to "avenge" the loss of the Reagan Years, after Bill Clinton's hit-approval popularity "took them away" from George HW Bush in '92, (Hence the Republicans' gleeful Riverdancing of jigs upon Michael Dukakis's 1988 election grave after GHW won--"Lo-ser, lo-ser! Democrats are lo-sers!")
and
2) The utter mortal terror that Hillary Clinton would run in 2000, immediately after Bill left office, thus being elected in just as unstoppable and populist a landslide as Bill (and Obama) got, and creating the "D-word" we've heard ever since--

These both got tossed and sloshed around in the mental Republican washing-machine until they came out as the pink-stained:
"We must stop Hillary, before she tries to continue a rampant Obama Dynasty!"
(As Xxanthar's and Oats' nonstop insecure "My big-brother's going to make you cry, crybabies!" posts constantly emphasize, the election of '16 was more about the historically validating need to punish the opposition, rather than an existing base of leadership.)

Well, that horror scenario obviously DIDN'T HAPPEN (we tried to tell them it was never going to, but they were too Ahab-obsessed to listen), and now the GOP's fears have become a cause without a cause:
There's no more Hillary to live in mortal terror of, and the idea of depicting every single Obama achievement as "evil" has just become sort of....traditional--They've literally forgotten why they started doing it in the first place.
They've tried to jumpstart it with horror-stories of "Michelle will carry on the Obama Dynasty in '20!" just to keep the old Hillary fears going, but that's not only just silly, it's pretty darned unlikely.

Basically, when Trump decided not to Lock Her Up!(tm), it...sort of spoke volumes about how the Republicans have now lost their one remaining cause, and are going to spend the next four years discovering that they should be more careful what they wish for.
Now, all they've got left are "Yeah, you probably believe in Global Warming, because you voted for Hillary!"
12103 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 12/21/16

iriomote wrote:


draugauth wrote:

When you make a weapon more effective it makes it more powerful. Old nuclear weapons had poor accuracy which is why a nuclear hardened facility even states it can survive a NEAR miss. Once you remove variables you greatly increase the effectiveness.

Think of it like this. If you shoot a round that has a variance of .5 meters at 100 meters there's a good chance it will miss a kill shot or even the target. However if you increase said rounds accuracy even while reducing it's mass to .1 meters at 100 meters you have made a more powerful weapon. Power does not always mean the size of the hole or explosion.

So your claims are based on partial fact instead of the whole fact. I hope that little example helps you understand. After all the M16 is considered a far more powerful weapon than the AK47 even though it fires a smaller round. And both weapons are drastically more powerful than say a Glock 9mm even though both weapons fire rounds that are far smaller in diameter than said Glock. (The M16/M4/AR15 fires a 5.56mm round the AK47 fires a 7.62mm round both of which are smaller than the glock's 9mm)

Hoo boy..


pow·er·ful
adjective
1.
having great power or strength.


ef·fec·tive·ness
noun
the degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result; success.


A 340 kiloton yield warhead is less powerful than a 50 megaton yield warhead. Period.

You might design the weapon in such a way that it's more effective at destroying an underground bunker, but that does not make it more powerful than the larger warhead, and the larger warhead is more effective at destroying a large area. Effectiveness is determined by how you define "success". Power is not.

If you had said something like, "Obama won the Nobel Peace Price even though rather than just reducing our nuclear arsenal he's been modernizing it to make our nuclear weapons more effective (at precision strikes)," I wouldn't have disagreed with you, because that's true. What isn't true is saying he has made our nuclear arsenal more powerful.

Anyway, that last beer's kicking in so I'm going to go enjoy my buzz now. Toodles.


Ok a larger yield that can destroy a larger area that might take out government and/or military command is more effective and powerful than a smaller yield that can take out government and/or military command?

Yeah you need to continue that buzz. Because in the real world, take out the military command and the government will bring an end to a war. While polluting large areas with radiation will reduce the chance to gain resources. I'll take the strike that makes a nation defenseless over one that takes out say most if not all of a state. And I think any reasonable person would agree.
19562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 12/21/16

Ejanss wrote:

The whole hatred of Obama started for two reasons


You forgot "he's black." I mean, compare a map of blue and red states to a map of Union and Confederate states.

12103 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 12/21/16

runec wrote:


draugauth wrote:
I actually linked to the Treasury.gov website which you ignored that shows the truth. I also linked the the correct government website in regards to the actual unemployment rate. Again you ignored the truth.

How does it feel being on the Alt-Left?


...do you think I'm the op or something? Might want to check your notes there. As I am not who you apparently think you are talking too.

As for the "alt-left" good luck with trying to make that a thing.

As for your two links:

1) No, that does not show the "Actual unemployment rate". It doesn't even provide an average.

2) I can't imagine why debt would increase in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. One that really began to kick off in the summer of 2007 when Obama was presi-oh wait.

>.>



As you remove the rest of the quote it makes it hard to track back doesn't it. I can only reply to your cherry picked statements which is the primary tactic of the Alt-Left in trying to diminish anyone that thinks differently than them.

1> It does show the actual unemployment rate and even breaks it down into age groups and ethnic groups.

2> If you want to talk about the worst financial crisis then how about what OBama has done in the past 8 years? Taking us into trade agreements that make it easier and easier to move jobs out of the US into places like China, Mexico, and so on. What you seem to fail to understand is the fact that the last of the bail outs was issued was in 2009 to Bank of America and it was done by Bush, not Obama. I've never blamed the bail outs on Obama. However look at how much the National Debt has increased and we still are facing a depression which is based on the continue decline of tourism and holiday spending compared to previous presidents. However the Bail Out wasn't really the fault of any president but of the government as a whole. It was the fault of the faithless loans being given out like candy which is what caused the depression. It created an artificially inflated property value that was not sustainable.

Now could Obama, who came in on the tail end of the bail outs, done something to create a sustainable framework to get us out of the depression? Yes, he had a democrat controlled House and Senate so he could have done a great deal towards creating that sustainable framework. Something he has failed to do. That is a failure not just on him but the government as a whole. We need jobs to come to the US to create a sustainable framework to build a strong economy. Instead Obama has done trade deal after trade deal, including the TPP which Hillary did state set the gold standard in a speech in Australia, that makes it easier to ship jobs over seas where the cost of living is significantly lower which means labor costs are significantly lower.

In the future, don't cherry pick what you quote if you want to have a leg to stand on in a meaningful discussion.

12103 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 12/21/16

cdarklock wrote:


Ejanss wrote:

The whole hatred of Obama started for two reasons


You forgot "he's black." I mean, compare a map of blue and red states to a map of Union and Confederate states.



Since you want to bring up Civil war stuff..... During the Civil war the Democrats were the Confederate States. After the Civil war they also voted against civil rights, women's rights, blacks right to vote, and so on.

So try again.
12103 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 12/21/16

draugauth wrote:


cdarklock wrote:


Ejanss wrote:

The whole hatred of Obama started for two reasons


You forgot "he's black." I mean, compare a map of blue and red states to a map of Union and Confederate states.



Since you want to bring up Civil war stuff..... During the Civil war the Democrats were the Confederate States. After the Civil war they also voted against civil rights, women's rights, blacks right to vote, and so on.

So try again.


Oh and to follow up. Far more of the Union States voted for Trump than for Hillary. Trump won 2/3rds of the states after all.
Ejanss 
16435 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/21/16 , edited 12/21/16

draugauth wrote:


cdarklock wrote:
You forgot "he's black." I mean, compare a map of blue and red states to a map of Union and Confederate states.

Since you want to bring up Civil war stuff..... During the Civil war the Democrats were the Confederate States. After the Civil war they also voted against civil rights, women's rights, blacks right to vote, and so on.

So try again.


Uh, yeah. Try again.
All that came out of "He's black" was the whole "Kenyan birth certificate" thing (since the Republicans' new strategy, after the Bill Clinton impeachment hearings, was to try and find a hands-clean way that they could "disqualify" the current sitting president on a technicality, which would mean the SC would have to go back and negate all his legislation, wheeee! )
And....don't think Trump wants to go through THAT embarrassment again. Even if "Hillary started it in the first place", unquote.

That, and the goofy "He's really a Muslim!" thing, after some illiterate folk got the name Obama confused with Osama.

Neither one has to do with the "Obamacare is socialism!" obsession, since the idea was to defeat any possible Democrat victory, depict any initiative by a Democratic president as a "tyrannical assault on the Constitution!" and make sure no Dem. president since GHW left office ever achieved anything in office that the public would remember.
12103 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 12/21/16

Ejanss wrote:


draugauth wrote:


cdarklock wrote:
You forgot "he's black." I mean, compare a map of blue and red states to a map of Union and Confederate states.

Since you want to bring up Civil war stuff..... During the Civil war the Democrats were the Confederate States. After the Civil war they also voted against civil rights, women's rights, blacks right to vote, and so on.

So try again.


Uh, yeah. Try again.
All that came out of "He's black" was the whole "Kenyan birth certificate" thing (since the Republicans' new strategy, after the Bill Clinton impeachment hearings, was to try and find a hands-clean way that they could "disqualify" the current sitting president on a technicality, which would mean the SC would have to go back and negate all his legislation, wheeee! )
And....don't think Trump wants to go through THAT embarrassment again. Even if "Hillary started it in the first place", unquote.

That, and the goofy "He's really a Muslim!" thing, after some illiterate folk got the name Obama confused with Osama.

Neither one has to do with the "Obamacare is socialism!" obsession, since the idea was to defeat any possible Democrat victory, depict any initiative by a Democratic president as a "tyrannical assault on the Constitution!" and make sure no Dem. president since GHW left office ever achieved anything in office that the public would remember.


Thank you for backing me up.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.