This avid Obama fan knows its 50/50 - if we lose we are fucked for 12 years

[banned from Kos]

the GOP will kill the gains in health care and FinReg until 2020. All our gains (whether you think they are small or large) will go up in flames. We have Medicaid for 14 million new people in 2014. We have required coverage for pre-existing conditions.


It will be a Teabagger Mad Max World.

We will lose the seats Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a wild card SCOTUS dropout hold now.

Get behind Obama for reelection now!

[undeterred]

1. You are a pessimist.

[WhiteTara]

19. I love your optimism. n/t

[DeSwiss]

2. I have the perfect solution to this problem.....

...it's called IGNORE.

Bye-bye......



P.S. - I wondered about the meaning behind your moniker when you first came here. I'm not wondering anymore......

[banned from Kos]

3. thanks! this is my go-to site for Obama hatred!

thus my pleas for rationality!

[sabrina 1]

5. You need to get around the Internet some more then.

DU is mild in expressing their disappointment with this president compared to dozens of other Democratic sites who are not so 'kind' in their criticisms.

No one here hates this president. I don't know why you are making such a false statement. It certainly doesn't add to your credibility.

Poeple are angry at the job he is doing and they have every right to say so.

If the President wants to be reelected, then all he has to do is start acting like Democrat, stop being scared of what Republicans might think, most of us don't care, since they can't think anyhow. Start paying attention to the people who have CORRECT about everything all along, and stop listening to those who have been and still are wrong.

If he doesn't do what he must know he needs to do, then he must not want to be reelected. If that is the case, he should say so and let someone else run in his place.

[banned from Kos]

11. maybe I should try DKos! Seriously - Anger vs Hatred?

those are some BLURRY lines! I see "hatred" where you see "anger"? That is fine.

No dispute on the fringes!

But THEY - the nutty right will move to a consensus. We need a consensus to beat them.

[Tx4obama]

12. Huh? "DU is mild" ??? LOL n/t

[Little Star]

89. What you said sabrina 1! n/t

[Number23]

117. If that ones puts you on ignore, I don't think you're going to be missing much

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. They said the same thing in 2000 about Al Gore

Oh wait...

[WhiteTara]

21. We've been f*cked for 12 years?

Is that what we're waiting for?

[BzaDem]

49. And how did that work out? n/t

[Tx4obama]

6. K&R n/t

:kick:

[NashVegas]

7. I Don't Think You Understand

We are fucked, either way.

[Liberal Veteran]

9. Then why bother? If it is BOHICA either way, what is the point?

[Tx4obama]

10. Oh that is just a bunch of bull.

Apparently you haven't looked very closely at President Obama's record.

Anyone (anywhere in America) that thinks that President Obama hasn't done a ton of good things, doesn't have a full picture of the facts.

Obama is a hell of a lot better than any republican president would be.

[Liberal Veteran]

16. I blame chemtrails.

There is no other way anyone could look back at the midden heap that was the product of the 2000 election "both parties are alike" meme and then come back here in 2012 to repeat that abominable error unless there was psycho-chemical involvement in the collective decision making process.

(Since we don't have a "sardonic" smiley....I'll assume that everyone knows I am highly skeptical of the chemtrail bullshit, but there has to be some reason why this meme is coming back.)

[TheKentuckian]

87. Few think both parties are the exact same. Just similar enough to fuck us.

It also fails to matter as much as one might hope when the nutters are at war and the Democrats are playing chess, and figuring out schemes to assimilate the combative crazies totally failed, stupid, and poisonous ideas.

The obsessed beat the casual 999/1000.

[Joe Fields]

103. He's done a lot of good....if you're rich.

[Liberal Veteran]

8. I'm sure shaking our collective fists in impotent rage as teapublicans sail to victory is satisfying

....but actually having a Democratic president selecting our next SCOTUS candidates is highly preferable to leaving ourselves to the tender mercies of the right wing.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. I'm not entirely sure you belong here. nt

[banned from Kos]

14. yeah! I don't belong here as an avid Obama supporter?

Maybe you are right.

[Tx4obama]

17. Hang in there. We always need more Obama supporters :) n/t

[gateley]

18. Plenty here feel as you do - haven't you noticed the divide? We all

want the same thing, but some of us feel Obama is doing a good job and will continue to do so, others feel he's turned his back on the promises he made. Both sides can get heated, but really, we're all good people. The Obama supporters AND the not-anymore-Obama supporters. :7

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. I'm not certain. What does your DU name mean exactly? nt

[banned from Kos]

30. post removed - by council of a wise person

Which I will. (But not the point of my post)

[Liberal Veteran]

32. Please don't use that term. You have a point, but you will not help your case with that.

You have time to edit the post.

[Solomon]

119. Oh Snap!

[Liberal Veteran]

20. I happen to agree with the OP and I'm not sure "casting aspargus" is called for.

[TheWraith]

96. Yes, this pro-Democrat site is exclusively for those who bash Democrats.

:wtf:

[Joe Fields]

110. This pro democrat site really needs to rethink its identity.

This upcoming election is going to make '08 look downright civilized. There may be nothing left of this site, when all is said and done.

I've been here since almost the beginning, and the administrators have never had to contend with what I see coming down the road. It will look like napalm hit this place.

Just sayin. Unless there's another great purge, which, in that case I wouldn't want to be a part of this site anyway.

[TheWraith]

111. I imagine that we're going to get the purge, once things get closer to the election.

The admins may let people rant and rave now, but they typically get more serious about actually enforcing the rules towards elections, and many people here won't survive actual enforcement of the rule that one is expected to be generally supportive of the Democratic Party.

[Joe Fields]

113. And that is the one rule that needs to be modified, or....

they won't have a website worth administering.

[TheWraith]

115. Right, I'm sure the 85% of Democrats who support Democrats can't do anything without you.

May I suggest you go back to your Perry for President thread?

[BzaDem]

116. Have you considered that it is emminently possible to have a site that is worth administering

and worth using to the vast majority of the party that supports the party, even if it is a site you might not approve of?

Just curious.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

120. Oh boy. nt

[Marr]

15. Huh? I thought the president was powerless if the opposition holds one house of Congress.

Is that not true today?

[Liberal Veteran]

23. As far as I know, SCOTUS nominations don't require a vote by the House.

Only the Senate.

Passing LAWS is a different story.

[xchrom]

22. The corpse of Leo Strauss is over there. Go bother him. Nt

[banned from Kos]

that is really completely uncalled for

comparing me to a NeoCon Religionist Right-Wing Asshole.

[Major Hogwash]

24. It's not even close to 50/50.

It's not even 60/40 anymore.
More like 70/30.

[leftstreet]

25. No kidding! With the GOP we'd get for-profit healthcare, cuts to SS, more war

wait, wut?

[Liberal Veteran]

29. It took over 30 years for the republicans to screw things up...

...might it not take a bit more than 3 to put this country on the right track (even longer considering the GOP doesn't just surrender at the slightest setback, which is possibly the only GOOD thing I can say about them which doesn't pertain to us).

[leftstreet]

31. Took voters 2 election cycles to kill off the GOP. Why'd the Dems bring them back?

please

[Liberal Veteran]

33. What makes you think "the Dems" did any such thing?

I will hardly say we are utopia made incarnate, but the teapublicans had a very large and very persistent political machine to resuscitate itself.

If we start folding like a house of cards because things are moving too slow, we give the opposition a victory by default.

[leftstreet]

37. Obama's healthcare town halls made the 'tea party'

Before they were yanked by the politicians & M$M, the early protesters were going after the Wall Street bailouts and Afpak escalation

[Liberal Veteran]

42. Bullshit. The right wing media, Dick Armey, and the corporatists made that midden heap.

And a few conservative democrats as well as our erstwhile ally LIEberman dragged the process of HCR out so long it gave the those right wingers time to co-opt the teabaggers and water down the legislation in the confusion.

[leftstreet]

44. Why didn't Obama and the Dems have Wall Street Bailout Town Halls?

:shrug:

[Liberal Veteran]

45. When? During inaugural recess? While even people like Krugman were screaming "RED ALERT!"?

[leftstreet]

46. So thousands of anti-bailout protesters picked the wrong time to protest?

wtf?

[Liberal Veteran]

47. I don't understand the fixation on Wall St. bailouts that were started before Obama took office.

At that point, things like saving a fuckload of union jobs at GM (among other things) and a tax cut to the middle class and first time home mortgage credit were the best we could do to mitigate any false starts by the previous administration were.

We were already in a triage situation thanks to Bush and republicans and nearly EVERYONE was screaming that we needed to move now.

Was it the best? Hell no! But remember the economy was sinking fast at the time and that is hardly the perfect moment to sit back and have long-winded debates.

That's why I say that's revisionism. Yes, the opportunistic right wingers took the opportunity they could (along with a good bit of racial and smear tactics) to seize the tea party, but what do you expect from opportunists?

[amborin]

51. candidate Obama, in Fall of 2008, pressured senators to pass TARP

http://www.thekickitspot.com/2009/12/obamas-big-sellout-by-matt-taibbi/

[BzaDem]

53. Yeah. Good for him. As most progressive economists said, it was absolutely necessary

given the circumstances.

[leftstreet]

56. So more Americans are drawing food assistance now because..........?

Did we not give Wall Street enough? Do you think that's it?

[BzaDem]

61. How many people do you think would be drawing food assistance if TARP never passed? n/t

[leftstreet]

65. How many hedge fund managers are there?

I don't know

[BzaDem]

67. What about an answer to my question about food assistance?

To make the math simpler, would there have been 2x people on food assistance if TARP wasn't passed? 3x? 5x?

[amborin]

72. ROFL: how many jobs could have been created w/ $23 trillion squandered on the bailout?

[BzaDem]

74. We didn't spend anywhere close to 23 trillion. Most of that is guarantees that will NEVER be spent.

[amborin]

80. keep telling yourself that....

[BzaDem]

85. Indeed I will, and others. Because it happens to be the truth.

One quick way to see that you are wrong is that we didn't issue 23 trillion in debt to pay for it, nor did the Fed increase the money supply by 23 trillion to pay for it.

[amborin]

90. "truthy" but not the truth; I feel your plight: it's painful to see $23 trill down the drain

[BzaDem]

93. What's painful is to have someone put up a source that doesn't say REMOTELY what they claim it says,

even on its own terms, yet to have that person continuing to parrot the inaccurate claim regardless in service of their flawed argument.

To clarify, it isn't painful to me. These types of claims are trivial to debunk. It's just that repeated false claims in general hurt discussion about the facts.

[amborin]

99. LOLOL; nonsense; you said you searched at "page not found"

[BzaDem]

104. Even you have dropped your claim down to 14 trillion. Still absolute nonsense, but we're making

progress.

:)

One thing you can do to make sure a claim is not absurd is to do a sanity check. You are claming that tens of trillions were spent. But that money has to come from somewhere: either debt, or printing presses. But it has come from neither; the money supply did not increase by tens of trillions, and our debt did not do so either.

[amborin]

105. you're still in denial, despite being presented w/ evidence!

[BzaDem]

108. Someone sure is. n/t

[amborin]

68. $23 trillion = total cost of the bank bailout

[BzaDem]

71. Sure, if you include the full value of guarantees that will never be spent.

That's a pretty meaningless metric.

[amborin]

73. nope; that's the total amount already doled out

Barofsky's report here:

http://www.economicpopulist.org/files/barofskytestimony...


http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/holy-batman-sig...

[BzaDem]

75. Page not found, and page not found. n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

107. Try this link

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/holy-cow-batman-sigtarp-barofsky-says-us-hook-237-trillion-bail-out

[BzaDem]

109. Direct quote: "I will assume this is total exposure, commitments and not actual real costs."

Under that metric, if I buy 10 dollars in stock, I am bailing out whatever company I bought stock in. Even though I could at any time sell my stock.

[Liberal Veteran]

77. That is a very worst case estimate. Not a hard number.

[amborin]

79. LOL!

[Liberal Veteran]

83. Perhaps you would care to reread your sources.

That 23 Trillion number was presented by Barofsky as a worst case scenario.

That's a fact.

[amborin]

94. that's not remotely comforting; $23 trillion

as worst case scenario

Mother Jones ways $14 trillion was total cost of the bailout

is that more comforting to you?

[BzaDem]

100. Under that metric, if I were to buy stock in a company, that would be considered a bailout.

For example, take the biggest non-paid back share (the Commercial Paper Funding Facility). That 1.8 trillion represents the total amount that the Fed paid for assets. But those assets are not worthless. They are highly-rated commercial paper, and the Fed can sell them to get its money back. That is only a bailout if every economic transaction you ever conduct is a bailout.

[amborin]

59. not true at all; they said if a bailout, the gov't should have major ownership role; never

happened and the banks still have not paid back trillions

[leftstreet]

52. Obama & Dems blew off the huge anti-war, anti-Wall Street, anti-Neocon/Bush momentum

in favor of a fabricated a public forum for working class people to turn on each other

but then you already know this

[Liberal Veteran]

69. Not precisely an accurate summation of events.

Not to parrot Condi Rice, but I don't think anyone expected what was literally very MODEST changes to our health care system to turn into a year long four way pissing match.

It sapped a lot of good will and momentum and demoralized the base while simultaneously giving the opposition (which has EXTREMELY deep pockets and loud mouthpieces) an opening to work their base into a froth.

One might say it is par for the course with the Democrats (Clinton's attempts at repealing the ban on gays in the military and the aborted attempt at health care reform called "Hillarycare" spring to mind), but one might also say that such nuclear tactics as the right wing uses require a more long ranged approached at defense.

[leftstreet]

76. It was a sideshow DESIGNED to give the opposition that opening

Thanks for acknowledging that at least

[BzaDem]

50. It isn't their timing so much as their message. Most progressive economists not only said the

bailout was necessary. They basically said that anyone who thought otherwise was crazy.

[leftstreet]

54. Voters don't care what 'progressive economists' think n/t

[BzaDem]

55. Voters also don't really care what scientists think. Does that make the scientists wrong? n/t

[leftstreet]

57. You're blowing your own argument. Why do you always do this?

:eyes:

[BzaDem]

60. What exactly do you think my argument was?

It certainly wasn't that voters can never be wrong about emperical economic facts.

[leftstreet]

62. I try not to dwell on your thought processes n/t

[BzaDem]

64. Perhaps that explains it then. n/t

[amborin]

63. wrong, again; they said, if a bailout, then gov't should have ownership stake in the banks

[BzaDem]

66. They said that given the choice between TARP and nothing, it wasn't even a close call. n/t

[amborin]

70. wrong, yet again; they said, " no equity, no bailout"

[BzaDem]

78. We took equity in all of the big banks. n/t

[leftstreet]

81. LOL

[BzaDem]

86. If you didn't realize that we took preferred shares in all the big banks, maybe that's why you are

coming to exactly the wrong conclusion on the broader issue.

[leftstreet]

88. Hey do you think if we gave banks more $$ we could eliminate all food assistance claims?

I see now where you're going

brilliant

[BzaDem]

92. I think you would admit that aiming a fire hose at a burning house saves lives, even if aiming a

fire hose at a non-burning house does not save any lives.

Saying we would have been much worse off without X doesn't mean that 2X is any better than X.

[leftstreet]

95. Did you say fire hose?

[amborin]

82. ROFL....

[griffi94]

35. damn right

not to mention more war, continuation of the patriot act, and tax cuts for the super wealthy.

wait, wut?

[GeorgeGist]

26. If the rich won't help ...

America is doomed regardless of who is President.

[BulletproofLandshark]

28. No.

[FrenchieCat]

34. In otherwords, some folks don't really give a rat's ass about the 2012 election

and the consequences....
because like the Republicans, some folks are more than willing to trade every single one of the causes they hold dear in order to see Obama defeated. Some may care about the Supreme Court, but they
care about making a point more. It is what it is, and that is all. :shrug:

[OHdem10]

36. We could be doomed for much longer. What too many activists

forget is the Conservatives have had their mind set on
a 40 to 50 year run.

If Democrats do not start doing a better job of making
the Democratic Ideology( do we even have one) better
understood and build enthusiasm for the Democratic Party,
the Republicans are continuing to convince people who count
that this is a right wing country. Sad truth people go with
the crowd rather than be different.

Way way back, Rove went on C Rose for an hour and explained
in full how the Republicans plan to gain power and remain
in power for at least 40 to 50 years.

Back then, early 2000s. hours were spent on this and PNAC
Project for a New American Century.

we just stumble election to election. If you notice Rove
is out there running PAC and raisisng 120 million to defeat
Obama and Democrats. This is just one group.

[Liberal Veteran]

40. You would think the party that prides itself on UNIONS might walk the walk...

...instead of rolling over in surrender everytime we face a setback or obstacle, but it appears the spinal fortitude to play the long game has been bred out of many in our party.

(That's an agreement with your statement, btw)

:thumbsup:

[indurancevile]

38. we're already fucked. i already see starving pets, multiple vans, tents, campers parked on people's

property, meet camping homeless people on my walks, neighbors resorting to yard sales to pay bills.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Yep. The Bubble burst in September of 2008......

but I had seen some of those folks before then.

[indurancevile]

41. i saw homeless; the many starving strays that were formerly pets & the multiple people camping on

someone's lawn are completely new in my 60 years in this area. i don't mean people camping on a country residence: i mean people living in campers & tents in someone's back yard, side yard, parking strip, etc -- in the city. many.

[kenny blankenship]

114. Tent city discovered in Ocean Co., New Jersey

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021173/Americas-city-broken-dreams-50-jobless-destitute-people-set-forest-community-New-Yorks-doorstep.html
The Tent City of New Jersey: Desperate victims of the economic slump forced to live in makeshift homes in forest

In scenes reminiscent of the Great Depression these are the ramshackle homes of the desperate and destitute U.S. families who have set up their own 'Tent City' only an hour from Manhattan.

More than 50 homeless people have joined the community within New Jersey's forests as the economic crisis has wrecked their American dream.

And as politicians in Washington trade blows over their country's £8.8 trillion debt, the prospect of more souls joining this rag tag group grows by the day.

Building their own tarpaulin tents, Native American teepees and makeshift balsa wood homes, every one of the Tent City residents has lost their job.

[lonestarnot]

43. K & Fucking R!

[Lucian]

48. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[unkachuck]

58. "Get behind Obama for reelection now!"

JAWOHL, MEIN FUHRER!

[defendandprotect]

84. What you have to offer is FEAR and more FEAR ... let's try Sen. Bernie Sanders ...!!

Sanders caucuses with the Dems and is a better democrat than any of them!

We need two strong anti-war candidates -- Obama and Biden aren't them!

We need two strong candidates supporting universal health care -- Obama/Biden aren't them!

[Liberal Veteran]

91. If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.

I don't give a damn what drives you to polls for a Democrat. Hope? Fear? Terror? Inertia? Optimism?

It really doesn't matter to me at this point in the game. We can't afford to place give the republicans any opportunity to do an end run by packing the courts.

If you call that fear, GOOD! You should be afraid of what they want to do to this country.

[defendandprotect]

121. I'm afraid of what Obama and Third Way are doing to the party and the nation ...!!

Let's be honest, if you want to cite FEAR, then you also have to look

at Democrats and how quickly the masks are falling away!


Neither can we afford to lose Social Security and Medicare -- and Obama put them

"on the table."


Sadly ...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

97. I agree...however, for the first time, recently, I started to think that

he has no idea how to "fix" the economy. Everything is fucked up beyond belief and almost everyone is suffering.

[whatchamacallit]

98. Hey look the guy that was banned from Kos is shouting out orders!

We'd be fools not to take heed... :crazy:

[Joe Fields]

101. There is so much more at stake than you can see.

But then, you are an avid Obama fan. Blinded by the light.

[BzaDem]

112. For something to be "at stake," there has to be a chance that it might ever change. n/t

[Juche]

102. Hopefully the dems keep one house of congress if it happens

There is speculation the GOP could win the senate while the dems win the house. No idea if it'll happen though. Hopefully the dems use the filibuster if need be to stop repeal of the ACA. But all it takes is a little blackmail and hostage taking to get them to fold.

[0rganism]

106. 12 years? Ha! more like 120!

Let's not kid ourselves here, this is likely the single most crucial election of our lifetimes, in terms of being able to repair damage done, and running on our side we have a well-spoken and otherwise intelligent man who appears to believe that the Republicans are interested in compromising with him. It's like watching the lead up to a heavyweight championship bout between Mike Tyson and Gandhi.

[mfcorey1]

118. Those are some scary thoughts. nt

[Jim Lane]

122. I'm voting for Obama but don't worry about Ginsburg's seat.

I'll give you 99 to 1 that she'll resign in time for Obama to nominate her successor. Obama will nominate someone fairly noncontroversial (i.e., not very liberal). It's highly likely (though not certain) that, even if there's a GOP majority in the Senate by then, there'll be enough Republican Senators who are uneasy with completely politicizing Supreme Court seats, and who vote to confirm.

Of course, other seats will come open after January 2013, so this far-from-avid Obama fan will join you in voting for him, for that among other reasons.