Yes. Economists expect employment to be back by the end of 2010. Once people can find jobs, we'll see a lot less of the blind anger we see today. Though Obama's policies (such as the bank bailouts) are unpopular, they were the right thing to do. In the long run, good policy equals good politics. Also, in the coming months, we will pass a good healthcare bill which will be followed by historic financial reform. He has the American people's best interest at heart and I think when 2012 rolls around people will recognize that... not the conservative ideologues of course... but you know, rational people.
14 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Yes. Economists expect employment to be back by the end of 2010. Are these the same economists who failed to forecast the current economic recession? Would they also be numbered in the consensus of economists who have never foreseen a recession? Are they also the same economists who’ve never seen a stimulus bill they didn’t praise? Are they also the same economists who faithfully always promise a future of economic hope, lower un-employment, and greater riches? Are they the same economists who can foresee the beginning of economic good times and yet never do foresee the beginning of economic woes? Are these the same economists who are to be blamed for the mantra “house prices will always appreciate”? Are these the same economists who are paid to forecast good-news? Are these the same economists who refuse to invest their wages despite their prognostications about the economy? Are these the same economists whose powers of divination are measured by consumer confidence? Shall I continue…? BTW, Obama will be awarded the Nobel Prize for economics because of his intention to save not only the US economy but also the economy of the World.
13 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Nobody has a crystal ball. We all understand this. Come back when you have a real argument. (And no, paranoid ad hominem is not a real argument.)
12 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Then post an argument that is worthy of being logically challenged. Paranoid Ad Hominem? Paranoia? Bullshit, you only hope that it is I and not you who is paranoid! Are you unaware that only some ad hominem arguments are invalid? Regardless of your understanding of ad hominem arguments and when and why they are valid or invalid, I will inform you that my series of questions is implied ad hominem but is certainly not fallacious.
11 days ago | Tagged As: No
You're calling me paranoid? I don't think anybody's out to get me. Last I checked that's the opposite of paranoid. I don't really understand your contempt for economists (or rather, economists). Are you saying members of the profession are universally untrustworthy and majorly biased? Let me guess: The only person who really gets it is you. Could you be more of a stereotypical nutjob? Anyway, the implications of your questions are mostly bogus. Economists do at times predict recessions. They don't always call for stimulus. They are not always optimistic. I could address the rest of your questions, but frankly I feel like I'm wasting my time talking to you. With your questions you repeatedly ask why predictions about the future aren't always accurate, as if the answer to that question isn't completely obvious -- no one can predict the future, we can only make educated guesses. Here, since you know everything, how about offering a few projections: What's unemployment going to be at the end of 2010? What's GDP going to be? I personally am no where near arrogant enough to think I can answer those questions. I'd much prefer to leave them to those who have dedicated their lives to studying them.
10 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Before I post a refutation of your latest rebuttal, are you willing to admit before hand that it is logically possible to refute your argument? If you are not willing to admit the possibility of seeing your argument reduced to utter non-sense then there is no necessity on my behalf to demonstrate your failure to refute. When you refuse to recognize your straw-man arguments it suggests to me that you will not recognize a valid refutation of your view. (Why all the emotion?)
9 days ago | Tagged As: No
You could refute my argument by showing either that I am wrong in my assessment of the consensus opinion of economists or showing that accepting this consensus is wrong for some reason. You have thus far attempted (unsuccessfully) to do the latter. But you haven't provided sufficient evidence (or any at all really). Your refusal to accept the opinion of qualified experts reflects a greater anti-intellectual trend we're seeing in American politics (particularly among conservatives). In effect, you are advocating ignorance. And judging by the fact that several people have upvoted you, you're message is appealing. The fact that you are persuading people to do things that would make us all much worse off, pisses me off quite deeply.
9 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Ah, so you want to go to the beginning of our correspondence? Very well! Yes. Economists expect employment to be back by the end of 2010. Firstly you didn’t distribute your subject, economists. And in response I rationally supposed that you meant some economists. For no man in his right mind would make the error of supposing that all economists agree. Furthermore, I even granted you the supposition that you were referring to the consensus opinion of economists concerning employment of 2010. Secondly, no question I asked you remotely hints at suggesting that all economists are nit-wits. I repeatedly asked questions that implicated only some economists, and never could it be rationally asserted that I implicated all economists. If you disagree, then consider the following example. Economists expect employment to be back by the end of 2010. A contrary rebuttal: Not all economists expect employment to be back the end of 2010. Finally, demonstrate to me how any question I posed in my original post implicated all economists; for you certainly responded as though I had. Moving on… You refer to conservative ideologues, and then imply they are not rational people. All US economists are conservative ideologues. Why? Because all US economists want to conserve the free-market capitalism of the US which they believe to be perfect or near perfect. Yet, most economists supported the abandonment of free market principles for the sake of capitalism as a means to conserve capitalism. So, who is rational, the economists who protected their ideological view, or the economists who supported the reign of free-market principles. Finally, the track record of the consensus opinion of economists is so poor I can’t believe any person would use the opinion of the same as a premise of an argument. Albeit, the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though. My evidence: Reality! Why? If the track record of economists was as worthy of policy as you assert then the economy of the US would not be so fucked up as it is now. Economic forecasts are intended to preclude the mess that we are currently struggling with. Shall I drive that point further? And the reason, I suppose, that my post was up-voted multiple times is because, believe it or not, I spoke of that which they too are witness. And like me, they too have lived long enough to know that an economist predicts so far into the future that most men are not likely to remember the previous forecast of a year ago. Yet, if there are some who do remember, I assure you that the same economists will provide an explanation of why their forecast was wrong. Shall I continue with the remainder of our correspondence? (Better to be pissed off than pissed on.) Oops, I almost forgot! Don’t ask me (implicitly) to divine the un-employment rate of the US for 2010 as an evidence of why the consensus opinion of economists is wrong! They were wrong about this year’s rate of un-employment and I have no reason to believe they can foresee next year’s rate.
8 days ago | Tagged As: No
Well in your initial argument it certainly seems as though you are attacking economists in general. Perhaps you could try being more clear in the future. All US economists are conservative ideologues... You misuse the term "conservative" to mean "believer in free markets". This is misleading because liberals also believe in free markets. It's only a question of the degree of government oversight that should exist. You won't find many purists at either end of the spectrum. Finally, the track record of the consensus opinion of economists is so poor...the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus far you have presented none. Yes, it's clear that most economists fucked up in the case of the current recession. How many times do we have to go over this? The future is hard to predict. The best we can do is make educated guesses. We can't predict the weather with 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
8 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Well in your initial agument it certainly seems as though you are attacking economists in general. Perhaps you could try being more clear in the future. Or perhaps you could be a little more discerning about word usage, particularly when it is my argument you are considering. All US economists are conservative ideologues... You misuse the term "conservative" to mean "believer in free markets". This is misleading because liberals also believe in free markets. It's only a question of the degree of government oversight that should exist. You won't find many purists at either end of the spectrum. Conservative: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change. Ideologues: a particularly zealous or doctrinaire supporter of an ideology. All US economists are conservative ideologues; regardless of whether or not they are democrats, republicans, or independents etc. My argument is about economists not politicians. I described attributes of all economists, none of which are political. (If you mean the conservative political party, then communicate what you mean, for I can only understand what you mean by what you state. And if what you state is not what you mean then choose words that communicate the meaning of what you’re thinking.) Finally, the track record of the consensus opinion of economists is so poor...the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus far you have presented none. Finally, we get to the core problem of your viewpoint. You’ve not researched the opinions of other economists whose opinions are not the consensus. Case in point, Nouriel Roubini, one of many economists who predicted the current economic mess, did so in 2006. Nor was he the only economist who predicted today’s crisis. But, it is self-evident to me that you failed to do your own research, and then as a consequence you find that my assertion, ”the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though.”, is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. What is extraordinary is the fact that you are blinded by your own biased viewpoint, so much so that you presumed there is no evidence to contradict your viewpoint and therefore there is no reason to consider a contrary or contradictory viewpoint of the consensus opinion of economists. However, if you do find it within yourself to challenge your viewpoint, you will find that there were many Economists who predicted the crisis. And you will find that the consensus of economists was predicting good times. Moreover, the economists who were predicting good-times were mocking and laughing at economists such as Dr. Doom. . Yes, it's clear that most economists fucked up in the case of the current recession. How many times do we have to go over this? The future is hard to predict. The best we can do is make educated guesses. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp? We can't predict the weather with 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. You must stop with the straw-man arguments with me. I am being as polite as I can be, but you are testing my limits of politeness. We both know that the consensus of economists missed the current ‘great recession’ , but what you fail to recognize is that there are some economists who did predict this recession. Not only did they predict the recession, their opinions were not the consensus. Albeit, your refusal to research the opinions of maverick economists indicates to me that you deny that there are indeed economists who predicted this recession. Furthermore, you take it to the extreme of being extraordinary, both in claim and evidence. If you find the above to be obscure in terminology, consider the following illustration. You can’t call my evidence extraordinary when you fail to even go look for contrary evidence before assuming a valid viewpoint. I could continue with this rebuttal, but I think you realize the error in your argument.
7 days ago | Tagged As: No
Yes, the mainstream was wrong and some on the fringe were right, in the case of the current recession. But you are using this mistake to imply that the mainstream therefore should be trusted less than the fringe or that they should not be trusted at all. This is the extraordinary claim that I am referring to. To support this claim, you would need to show a comprehensive review of predictions by mainstream economists -- to show that they consistently get things wrong, while the same fringe figure consistently gets things right. Like the old saying goes, even a broken clock it right twice a day. And ffs, it was obvious that when I said "conservative ideologues", I was using the term to mean politically opposed to liberals. Any reasonable person would have seen that. Stop being intentionally dense.
7 days ago | Tagged As: yes
And ffs, it was obvious that when I said "conservative ideologues", I was using the term to mean politically opposed to liberals. Any reasonable person would have seen that. Stop being intentionally dense. Explain to me why it is obvious. Because nothing contained within your post would allow me to validly infer that you were referencing a republican or something similar. (Do you not realize the ambiguity inherent in the term conservative ideologues?) Shall I explain? This is the extraordinary claim that I am referring to. To support this claim, you would need to show a comprehensive review of predictions by mainstream economists… Very well! Who do you consider to be mainstream, and how many failed predictions of the same do I need to present? I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years. However, you would then argue that A. they are not mainstream B. that thirty is not enough C. ten years is too long or not long enough D. or whatsoever else may suit your denial. I think you ought to study the history of The Glass Steagall Act and the consensus opinion of economists concerning the Act. You will find a lot of evidence that may just try your trust of mainstream economists. (Many economists assert that today’s economic crisis can be directly traced to the repeal of Glass Steagall which occurred in 1999.) I find it extremely laughable that there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your arguments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists. Now, allow me the license to appeal to your sense of reality. In the last thirty years, and more quickly the last ten years, there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class. The record profits of Wall Street are occurring at the same time that record wealth is being lost from the common man. Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same? Hell, we can go back thirty+ years on this truth of reality. Conclusion: Go ahead and trust the consensus opinion of mainstream economists and likewise observe the continued transfer of your wealth. And perhaps you may learn that maybe, just maybe, the economists are effecting policy for that very purpose. Consistency establishes intent! A man (economist) who consistently advocates policy that transfers your wealth to another is guilty of seeking to transfer your wealth. I thought liberals were for the little guy? Well, I am no liberal, but I certainly am for the little guy. What say you?
6 days ago | Tagged As: No
Explain to me why it is obvious. It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition. I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years. This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick. However, you would then argue that... Again you assume nefarious motives on my part. This reflects your bias toward paranoid thinking. When are you gonna learn that I'm just a humble seeker of truth? there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your auments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists. How about having a basic faith in humanity? It is not unreasonable to assume that people are generally honest enough to be trusted. there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class... You really should offer citations when making claims of fact like this. Also, I think you are being a bit hasty in this assertion. But I will agree with you that this seems to be the trend. Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same? They are not. There are a number of policy suggestions out there. (example) Now admittedly, it's rare to hear a mainstream economist call for some radical shift in the way our economy is run. But radical changes are dangerous, incremental change is generally preferable whenever possible. How would you remake our economy? I myself see no easy answers here. "transfer of your wealth...economists are effecting policy for that very purpose. One glaring problem with this assessment: "Median annual wage and salary earnings of economists were $77,010 in May 2006." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos055.htm Seems to me economists aren't the beneficiaries of this transfer of wealth.
6 days ago | Tagged As: No
Explain to me why it is obvious. It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition. If you would have used the term ‘conservative’ I would have supposed you were referencing republicans exclusively. Yet, the term you used is ‘conservative ideologues’. And while you may argue that republicans are conservative ideologues I would also argue that republicans are not the only conservative ideologues. For I personally know many democrats who are conservative ideologues. I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years. This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick. Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! The following is an illustration of the very reason why I asked you to qualify what you call extraordinary evidence: You affirm that there are no stones that are white. I affirm that there are stones that are white. You assert that my assertion is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I in turn request the number of stones that you require as evidence that there are stones that are white. And you reply that my evidence is anecdotal if I present the evidence of white stones. Remember, I am seeking to satisfy your request to provide the necessary evidence that brings into question the prudence of relying upon the consensus opinion of mainstream economists. I am not attempting to prove that the consensus opinion of mainstream economists is true or false in the future. You must realize that I am attempting to demonstrate the fact that when a group of individuals has consistently misled our expectations we must realize that we have been misguided. And unless we want to be misguided in the future I recommend that we consider the track record of those who guide our expectations. Not that they may be right or wrong in the future, its just a matter of whether or not we are willing to follow the same course. I’ll address your other statements after we settle this latest disconnect. (You have assumed that I am attempting to draw an invalid inference.)
5 days ago | Tagged As: No
You affirm that there are no stones that are white. No. When I say economists in general can be trusted I'm obviously not referring to every economist in existence. I'm saying in general -- on average -- for the most part. You already stated that you understood this. You have affirmed that there are at least a few unscrupulous economists on planet Earth. This is a reasonable claim. You then suggest that we should not rely on the consensus opinion of mainstream economists. This is not a reasonable claim. Without a logically sound measurement of the ratio of unscrupulous to scrupulous economists we can draw no conclusions about the trustworthiness of the consensus opinon of the profession as a whole. To continue beating this analogy to death... there are white stones and there are non-white stones. We can make no sound assertions about the ratio of white to non-white stones without some logically sound measurement. Grabbing a bunch of white stones and saying "Just look at 'em!" is called cherry-picking, and it is not a logically sound measurement. Further, since we're talking about human beings and not stones, it is reasonable to assume that they are, for the most part, acting in good faith. To suggest that unscrupulous economists outnumber scrupulous economists, or to suggest that the body of unscrupulous economists is sufficiently powerful so as to render untrustworthy the consensus opinion of the profession as a whole... This is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary evidence... Such as a random sampling of predictions made in a major journal or newspaper. ...a group of individuals has consistently misled our expectations... The keyword there is "consistently". You have not demonstrated they consistently get things wrong and cannot do so with cherry picked anecdotes.
5 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I think what we have here is a failure of communication, both of us. While I am extremely careful with my choice of words I too am very careful with inferences I draw from your words. And without going into the long drawn-out dispute of attempting to determine which of us lacks skill in both comprehension and discourse I think we ought to call this discourse un-settled. Both of us feel as though we are beating our heads against the wall? It’s difficult to advance a position when the dialogue necessary to advance that position is falsely understood. Perhaps more care will be taken in the future to avoid this conclusion. Agreed?
4 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Whatever. ................................................
4 days ago | Tagged As: No
No not the ones Obama was getting his information from I would like to know the names of those economist that told him his Stimulus was passed that unemployment would stop at 8.5%. There where many that where seeing a recession in late Oct 07 and myself included. Being in real estate I had a good feeling that there was going to be a bust and i even made my sellers take some offers then that they thought where low but now that look back and see how far down they would have been they are thankful, they would have lost even more. Peter Schiff was one out of many that saw this coming. I Even was selling stock short before the crash on Oct 08 and made out pretty well. I'm not an economist but I have a degree in it and numbers to me make sense I understand what is happening and I can predict with good accuracy of what will lie ahead. If in the next year unemployment the national average gets below 9.5% or lower that would be huge for Obama. I hope for everyones sake that it does.
11 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Peter missed (by his own admission) the rebound of the dollar. Yet, I do agree that Peter, Dr, Doom, Robert Chapman, Joe Stiglitz and a few other economists accurately predicted the current economic recession. They seem to be the only economists who have the balls to tell the public that all is not rosy in the future while their counterparts offer-up optimistic appraisals of the coming party. Their counterparts, who seem to receive a lot of media attention, universally and unanimously always see the US economy through rose-colored glasses. Coincidently, they are the same economists whose opinions make headline news and whose opinions are sought by politicians. However, the economists I named are extremely wary of the gigantic stimuli of the world’s governments and Central banks ( the stimuli: The race to debase the worlds currencies). But their politically, friendly counterparts have nothing but praise for the same. And it is this latter group of economists from which dull-minded Americans seem to derive hopium.
10 days ago | Tagged As: No
Doesn't saying "Economists expect" suggest that they are all in agreement? That is not the case. Not all economists agree with that. There are very successful and reputable economists that say that we have not seen the worst of it yet! Its not a matter of people finding jobs so much as it is companies hiring those people. It is my opinion that the current administrations policies are not favorable for that happening. I disagree with your assertion that the bail outs were the correct thing to do but that is another debate. Just my opinion. Looking forward to your "rational" response. :_)
12 days ago | Tagged As: No
You are correct with that they do expect us to see more pain ahead how much more I don't know. But when you are talking about a huge budget, increase with more taxes during a time when people and employer's are struggling to make it, it leaves no incentive to hire. i attend a monthly business group here in Charlotte NC with different companies and they all say the same thing there is a big issue with uncertainty and confidence is low. The biggest concerns lie with new legislation that will require more capital from companies in time when capital is needed.
11 days ago | Tagged As: No
"But when you are talking about a huge budget, increase with more taxes" ...on the rich that is. "The biggest concerns lie with new legislation that will require more capital from companies in time when capital is needed." You can't be concerned about the budget deficit & debt at the same time that you rail against tax increases. The Bush Tax Cuts are directly tied to our nation's recent budget deficits. We have BOTH a revenue AND a spending problem in the USA, and anyone that refuses to acknowledge that has their head firmly in the sand IMHO.
9 days ago | Tagged As: It is too early to tell
Just like they only expected unemployment or at least the ones on Obama's payroll to hit 8.5% today we hit 10.2% and still going higher. If you ask them where are the new jobs they don't know. He has at least 2.5 years to do something and to have hopes of re-election but juding by the recent races in New Jersey and Virgina his base has made a shift that Obama should have concern about. We shall see! I hope for all of us that things get better.
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
"Just like they only expected unemployment or at least the ones on Obama's payroll to hit 8.5% today we hit 10.2% and still going higher." Everyone knows that employment numbers are ALWAYS a lagging economic indicator. The recession is about to be officially declared to be over...wake up... "but juding by the recent races in New Jersey and Virgina his base has made a shift" ...in your wild dreams that is. You are constantly talking about NJ & VA as if they are national trends, when there is ZERO evidence that there are, period.
9 days ago | Tagged As: It is too early to tell
Jesus some people are retarded. @ Itsnotright: Banished? You didnt even spell it right you redneck retard. What are you doing on a computer anyway? As for the question. Because most Americans are as stupid as "itsnotright" I would have to say that the economy has to just start making a come back around the time of the re-election. If it gets better and stays better earlier then all the gun toting gay hating people will come out and vote for the republican. If it doesnt happen at all or only minimally then people will blame him for not doing a good job and will vote the other way. I voted yes on this question because I do think he will bring the economy around but I think it will take about three years which is right around election time.
14 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I'd say it's a little early to tell. We've not even gotten to the one-year mark since his inauguration. And there's no telling what the next two years will hold for our country. It will surely depend on what additional issues we face and how they are dealt with. Although on the basis of his current work, so long as the economy does rebound within the next year, and nothing else happens, he'd win a second term.
12 days ago | Tagged As: yes
He will win the Nobel prize in economics weeks before his re-election that November. (Don't forget Clinton's slogan: "Its the economy, stupid!") It worked for Slick Willie, it too shall work for Obama.
14 days ago | Tagged As: yes
i think obama because obama been a good president so far all the good things he done for us
14 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Yes he will because he has helped alot and he hasn't been in office a full year yet. It's time for change and I think Obama is going to be the one who makes the change. People need to start supporting him more and understand that the world was messed up before he got in office. He has made a lot of things better so yes he will win in 2012.
13 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Obama is a very smart black man who is also the most popular man in the planet!He's the first ever black American president and the people love him!He will be greater than Washington and Linkoln!Yes,he will win in 2012
13 days ago | Tagged As: yes
disregard this message i am tired :)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I even voted myself down!
12 days ago | Tagged As: No
No matter what happens with Obama's policies, the Republicans have moved too far to the right to produce a candidate with moderate appeal. While the Republican nominee used to be decided with a lot of input from party elites, the far right talk shows have taken over the party since Obama's election. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh will not allow moderates like Giuliani or Huckabee, or even traditional Republicans like Gingrich to become the Republican nominee. Instead, far right "heroes" such as Palin will dominate the nomination process. These candidates will inevitably run poor campaigns that focus on false and trite attacks that the electorate is no longer as vulnerable to due to the widespread internet and decline of a single, easily influenced mass media. However, the Republicans will give a strong convention that will make people wonder if Obama is vulnerable, until a disastrous performance in the debates eliminates whatever hope they had. Thereafter, the Republican campaign will devolve into infighting and will run out of money due to the poor management skills of its leadership, which will cause all but approximately 40% of electorate, representing essentially tea-baggers, loyal republicans, and mistake voters, to turn against them. Obama will then win by a clear margin.
6 days ago | Tagged As: yes
yes obama will win because he is one of the best presidents weve ever had
11 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Of course Obama is going to win that guys a boss he will boss his way till all his trems are complete, theres no taling him down! Barack Obama is unbeatable!!
8 days ago | Tagged As: yes
yes he will because alot of people want change and have an african american president!
2 days ago | Tagged As: yes
yes well he won the Nobel prize which is not given to anyone
8 days ago | Tagged As: yes
|
I'm not saying this is definite or anything and I don't want to jinx it, but if New Jersey can elect a Republican governor, then there is still hope. New Jersey is one of the most liberal/democratic states due to its population density and urban background, but on Tuesday, we elected Chris Christie as the next governor of the state, a Republican. :D Also, I feel like Obama had so much hype that a lot of Americans are sort of disillusioned. Of course, many still think he's the Messiah, but more and more people who voted for him and supported him are realizing that he's not doing nearly as much as he said he would.
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
The vast majority of people who voted for Obama did so because they recognized him as a capable leader. The only people who ever call him a messiah are Republicans making strawman attacks. He would be able to accomplish a lot more if the Republicans in Congress would cooperate. Right now they are purposely doing everything they can to hold him back, just so they can watch his approval rating go down. Fortunately he seems to be slowly moving forward despite their obstructionism.
14 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Hey nice job electing Chris Christie! Anyways, most conservatives hate the north east, but I like it. Minus the liberals. (=
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
"but if New Jersey can elect a Republican governor, then there is still hope." Well, the outgoing Governor of NJ did an absolutely horrible job, and if this new GOPer doesn't turn things around, he'll be out on his ear soon enuff. NJ will NEVER go for a GOPer in a Presidential election. "Of course, many still think he's the Messiah" No, that's another strawman argument from the Right-wing, period.
9 days ago | Tagged As: It is too early to tell
I don't think so. He won becuase a large independant base and even Republican base voted for him I am one of those. His ideals and policies are too radical and he may have a tough time getting re-elected. His best hope is that the GOP does a bonehead move and put another McCain Palin like ticket. IF someone like Bob McDonell runs I think Obama will lose.
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
I agree. Most of his support was based off of Bush's failures. The American public failed to realize that Bush does not equal McCain. Instead, they assumed McCain would do the same things as Bush. Also, they saw Obama as sort of a messiah, a savior for America.
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
"The American public failed to realize that Bush does not equal McCain." Really?? Then why, praytell, did McSame run away from his own positions on issue after issue to take on GWB's positions?? "Also, they saw Obama as sort of a messiah, a savior for America." Nobody on the Left ever said this, period.
9 days ago | Tagged As: It is too early to tell
"IF someone like Bob McDonell runs I think Obama will lose." People barely even know who that guys is!
9 days ago | Tagged As: It is too early to tell
Well, i m not saying that he is not going to, but i dont want him to....he is messing up our country!!!
13 days ago | Tagged As: No
So, In your opinion, taking our country out of a recession is messing up our country. What about Bush? Would you consider sending us into a trillion dollar war that would send our country into huge debt that we don'. really need to be fighting messing up our country?
11 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Nice lack of an argument there...ugh...try again wing-nut...
9 days ago | Tagged As: It is too early to tell
I dont think he should get voted in again...we have people over here starving to death,people who cant afford to go to the doctor,no jobs anywhere....but yet lets send 7.3 billion dollars to another country to help them out...it dont make sence. you have to take care of your own first
10 days ago | Tagged As: No
"but yet lets send 7.3 billion dollars to another country to help them out" What are you even talking about??
9 days ago | Tagged As: It is too early to tell
um..no. i hope to god he don't. he is trying to make schools go year round....screw him. i mean i'm a junior and he doesn't need to go running everyone lives. he needs to get a hobby and stand down as president. in the end someone will take a stand and tell that man how they truly feel about him. 85% of Tennesseans voted for him out of pity. McCain should have won....i would have voted for him if i was old enough.
9 days ago | Tagged As: No
I don't think he'll make it that far. And NO, I'm not talking about that. I think he'll be bannished before then.
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
"I think he'll be bannished before then." And what are you even talking about?? Do even YOU know?? My goodness...
9 days ago | Tagged As: It is too early to tell
Obama won't win because he's a horrible president and people will regret voting for him and they will vote against him.
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
No because obama sucks. He said hes not going to send any more troops to Iraq but i heard he did so he is a liar i don't like him. So no i don't think he going to win in 2012.
14 days ago | Tagged As: No
"He said hes not going to send any more troops to Iraq but i heard he did so he is a liar" Ummm, Obama has sent in ZERO new troops to Iraq. The USA will be massively reducing its troop numbers in Iraq in 2010. Watch & learn...
9 days ago | Tagged As: It is too early to tell
No! At least I hope he doesn't. The thing I don't get is that every thing that went wrong during the Bush Administration is Bush's fault. Everything that has gone wrong in the Obama administration is the people's fault because we voted for him (even though I didn't vote for him)
13 days ago | Tagged As: No
I am trying to remember when the last liberal president won re-election with out being a centrist? Help anyone? No he will not win.
12 days ago | Tagged As: No
"I am trying to remember when the last liberal president won re-election with out being a centrist?" FDR, Truman...need I go on??
9 days ago | Tagged As: It is too early to tell
OK lets stop rite now and lets look at Obamas accomplishments. No he will not win in 2012 unless he does some mighty big things until then.
7 days ago | Tagged As: No
"OK lets stop rite now and lets look at Obamas accomplishments." Well, this is what he's done so far (or what will be done very shortly): -the Gitmo torture prison will have been closed & the truly guilty from there will have been held to a real standard of justice -the vast majority of our troops will be out of Iraq (as the American people have wanted for over 3 years now) -over 4 million more children will be insured through SCHIP -new research will have been done using new lines of embryonic stem cells -the economy will be roaring back after one of the worst recessions in almost 100 years -the American auto industry will be on the mend after being re-focused on making products that Americans truly need in the long-term -credit card companies & financial institutions will be under new regulations to prevent Americans from being ripped off in the future -better relations will have been established with Iran & Russia -a massive reform of our health care system in the USA will have been passed that will not allow health insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, to cut off coverage for people that get sick, and to monopolize health insurance costs by denying Americans access to real competition for their health care dollars -more Americans will have health insurance coverage -more Americans will be paying less in payroll taxes -more investment will have occurred in truly renewable, clean, and infinite sources of energy And who knows what else will be done by 2012...
6 days ago | Tagged As: yes
HEY guess what!?!?!?!? Thats my point even you can't say what he has done RIGHT NOW. There's a lot of "will's" instead of "is" in your argument. And I guarantee you over half of those goals you listed won't get accomplished while he's in office. And the American people could see that unlike you.
6 days ago | Tagged As: No
"Thats my point even you can't say what he has done RIGHT NOW." Yes I can, and I already have tyvm. "And I guarantee you over half of those goals you listed won't get accomplished while he's in office." Watch & learn my friend...
5 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I think that obama wont win year 2012 because there are a lot of people that were really angry with the outcome and with more teens become the age to vote then I feel that if he does apply again for president he won't win. . . Unless the candidates are even stupider then him..
2 days ago | Tagged As: No
obama has done such a horrible job as president so far and more and more people are staring to realize it every day so i dont even think he should be nominated for the democratic party for the 2012 election.
17hrs 4mins ago | Tagged As: No
No, he isn't a very good presidant!!! He is with abortion and yet he has children!!!!
13 days ago | Tagged As: No
That is a really bad argument. He is with abortion and yet he has children!!!! So what?! Is his wife pregnant? For all you know maybe she had an abortion at one point in your life. Saying something is ok for people to do doesn't necessarily mean you are going to do it yourself. You make it seem like all pro-choice activists hate kids, which certainly is NOT true!
10 days ago | Tagged As: No
|
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
