Thoughts on the President

[Laerod]

You don't get to reverse the burden of proof merely by phrasing a question.

Since when does the burden of proof lie on me?

When you made the claim that less bills was a good thing.

Who said that more bills are better?

Laerod posited that more bills = better Congress.

No I didn't. I pointed out how under Democrats, the Congress actually managed major accomplishments as opposed to when the Republicans have had control of the House where partisan bickering has brought everything down to budgetary voting to a standstill. The original point being countered was that we somehow "forgot" about the times Congress actually solved problems rather than hold pointless votes on Presidential budget proposals.

[Jocabia]

Who said that more bills are better?

Laerod posited that more bills = better Congress.

No, you said that they didn't get anything done while they controlled congress and the white house and Laerod showed that to be outright dishonest. They were as active as any Congress has ever been. It's unlikely they could have accomplished more during that period. So the fact that we have the issues we currently have and that they haven't been solved falls squarely on Congressional Republicans who absolutely refuse to allow anything good to happen under this President, even things they agree with.

[Calisu]

I can't wait for 8 years to pass to hear people complaining about how terrible the current president is and how much they wish obama was still in charge.

[Jocabia]

I can't wait for 8 years to pass to hear people complaining about how terrible the current president is and how much they wish obama was still in charge.

Don't elect a Republican and that shouldn't be a problem.

[The Victorian Empire]

Almost as bad as Bush.

[Calisu]

I can't wait for 8 years to pass to hear people complaining about how terrible the current president is and how much they wish obama was still in charge.

Don't elect a Republican and that shouldn't be a problem.

Maybe if you didn't only have republicans candidates? The republican party has moved so far right and has dragged the democrates with it passed the centre and into the right

[Distruzio]

Please remain respectful, and don't use mean language.

The 2014 midterms are coming up in the United States. Public opinion seems to be cynical regarding President Barack Obama. I wanted to see how NSG felt about him.

My opinion: I have mixed feelings on Obama. On one hand, I like a lot of his domestic agenda. Advocating for LGBT rights both here and abroad, attempting to fix health care (even in a flawed manner), immigration reform, etc. However, I humbly disagree with him on civil liberties and foreign policy. I would like to see a world where the United States is less interventionist in other countries, instead leading by example.

One thing I always keep in mind when it comes to lack of government action on many issues is the Congress. While Obama is by no means perfect, I feel like he has been unfairly gridlocked by our legislature. I do not make this criticism on a partisan basis, for I would say the same thing of Democrats obstructing a GOP President trying to get a basic budget passed. I honestly feel like things would be better for the nation if the House of Representatives cooperated more with the President. For example, they could try to amend the ACA instead of launching massive repeal campaigns that don't work.

Overall, I'd give the President a B, possibly a C. While not the best, there are other things to consider when judging his performance (Congress!) and results. But one thing I always remember is to respect all Presidents, for they have tough jobs. I disagree with most of George W. Bush's actions as President, but I have great respect for the man himself. And the same thing goes for Obama.

Mostly agree with you although I'd give the Prez a B+. I like his tendency to give the Congress the finger. I like most of his political and economic positions. Hell, even when I was a republican I told the former Governor of Louisiana that, between McCain and Obama, Obama was clearly the conservative choice. You can guess how well that went over.

[Ifreann]

Please remain respectful, and don't use mean language.

The 2014 midterms are coming up in the United States. Public opinion seems to be cynical regarding President Barack Obama. I wanted to see how NSG felt about him.

My opinion: I have mixed feelings on Obama. On one hand, I like a lot of his domestic agenda. Advocating for LGBT rights both here and abroad, attempting to fix health care (even in a flawed manner), immigration reform, etc. However, I humbly disagree with him on civil liberties and foreign policy. I would like to see a world where the United States is less interventionist in other countries, instead leading by example.

One thing I always keep in mind when it comes to lack of government action on many issues is the Congress. While Obama is by no means perfect, I feel like he has been unfairly gridlocked by our legislature. I do not make this criticism on a partisan basis, for I would say the same thing of Democrats obstructing a GOP President trying to get a basic budget passed. I honestly feel like things would be better for the nation if the House of Representatives cooperated more with the President. For example, they could try to amend the ACA instead of launching massive repeal campaigns that don't work.

Overall, I'd give the President a B, possibly a C. While not the best, there are other things to consider when judging his performance (Congress!) and results. But one thing I always remember is to respect all Presidents, for they have tough jobs. I disagree with most of George W. Bush's actions as President, but I have great respect for the man himself. And the same thing goes for Obama.

Mostly agree with you although I'd give the Prez a B+. I like his tendency to give the Congress the finger. I like most of his political and economic positions. Hell, even when I was a republican I told the former Governor of Louisiana that, between McCain and Obama, Obama was clearly the conservative choice. You can guess how well that went over.

One assumes you're no longer welcome in Louisiana.

[Kelinfort]

More bills is better than inaction when there are fifty different issues we could at least try to resolve/reduce.

That's your opinion. If you don't believe big government fixes all problems, it's not.

Let's be honest: that whole Reagan schtick of "Government is the problem" hasn't been good. I'd rather we attempt to solve problems rather than cry "Government bad!"

[Murkwood]

That's your opinion. If you don't believe big government fixes all problems, it's not.

Let's be honest: that whole Reagan schtick of "Government is the problem" hasn't been good. I'd rather we attempt to solve problems rather than cry "Government bad!"

Again, that's an opinion.

[Ashmoria]

When they passed a stimulus, the Affordable Care Act, and many other things that can't get done today. If Democrats held both houses of Congress Obama would have been able to see much more of his plan fulfilled.

Murkwood might (possibly) posit the valid argument that they don't consider Obama's plans good ones. The issue really is that almost nothing is being done despite there being pressing concerns in a number of areas, the most common being the budget.

case in point: the house is going to meet for something like 12 more days before the election and need to pass a continuing resolution to keep funding the government by the end of this month.

so what are they working on? another Benghazi investigation and one more vote on defunding obamacare.

so utterly useless.

[Distruzio]

Let's be honest: that whole Reagan schtick of "Government is the problem" hasn't been good. I'd rather we attempt to solve problems rather than cry "Government bad!"

Again, that's an opinion.

It is curious that we have a party who's entire selling point is, "gov't fucks up everything so elect us!" I mean... why bother electing people who insist that the gov't is so shitty we might as well give them a shot?

[Murkwood]

Laerod posited that more bills = better Congress.

No, you said that they didn't get anything done while they controlled congress and the white house and Laerod showed that to be outright dishonest. They were as active as any Congress has ever been. It's unlikely they could have accomplished more during that period. So the fact that we have the issues we currently have and that they haven't been solved falls squarely on Congressional Republicans who absolutely refuse to allow anything good to happen under this President, even things they agree with.

Point to where I said they didn't get anything done.

[Murkwood]

Again, that's an opinion.

It is curious that we have a party who's entire selling point is, "gov't fucks up everything so elect us!" I mean... why bother electing people who insist that the gov't is so shitty we might as well give them a shot?

They aren't Anarchists. Republicans believe government can be good as long as it is small.

[Distruzio]

It is curious that we have a party who's entire selling point is, "gov't fucks up everything so elect us!" I mean... why bother electing people who insist that the gov't is so shitty we might as well give them a shot?

They aren't Anarchists. Republicans believe government can be good as long as it is small.

Oh, you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they're anarchists. I'm suggesting that they tend to insist that government is inept. Therefore, voters should elect them so that government can remain inept? Does that make sense to you?

[Murkwood]

They aren't Anarchists. Republicans believe government can be good as long as it is small.

Oh, you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they're anarchists. I'm suggesting that they tend to insist that government is inept. Therefore, voters should elect them so that government can remain inept? Does that make sense to you?

Big government does more harm than good, according to Republicans. They posit that smaller government would do the opposite.

[Kelinfort]

Let's be honest: that whole Reagan schtick of "Government is the problem" hasn't been good. I'd rather we attempt to solve problems rather than cry "Government bad!"

Again, that's an opinion.

Better we attempt to solve the problems even if it means shrinking the government, rather than gridlock.

[Murkwood]

Again, that's an opinion.

Better we attempt to solve the problems even if it means shrinking the government, rather than gridlock.

Just passing bills doesn't solve any problems. All you have is that they passed a bunch of bills. That's it.

[Laerod]

Oh, you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting they're anarchists. I'm suggesting that they tend to insist that government is inept. Therefore, voters should elect them so that government can remain inept? Does that make sense to you?

Big government does more harm than good, according to Republicans. They posit that smaller government would do the opposite.

That would be an opinion. Any arguments as to why it has merit?

[Kelinfort]

Better we attempt to solve the problems even if it means shrinking the government, rather than gridlock.

Just passing bills doesn't solve any problems. All you have is that they passed a bunch of bills. That's it.

But it offers a more diverse amount of solutions, more discussion, and acutal action, rather than gridlock and rhetoric.

[Jocabia]

No, you said that they didn't get anything done while they controlled congress and the white house and Laerod showed that to be outright dishonest. They were as active as any Congress has ever been. It's unlikely they could have accomplished more during that period. So the fact that we have the issues we currently have and that they haven't been solved falls squarely on Congressional Republicans who absolutely refuse to allow anything good to happen under this President, even things they agree with.

Point to where I said they didn't get anything done.

What you said was that Obama couldn't point the finger at Republicans because he had two years to get things done without their interference. This implies he didn't do exactly that. However, as was shown to you, those two years were incredibly productive by most standards and he did get what he wanted to get done during that period, even while frequently compromising with more conservative elements, i.e., a much smaller stimulus, no public option, the individual mandate, et al.

So you have the opportunity to demonstrate that the Republican congress has been more effective with ANY agenda. You have the opportunity to demonstrate that the Democrats didn't earn the right to bitch by making hay while they sun shines, in other words by getting their agenda completed while they could, or you can just posting stuff that is completely unsupported by facts or reality.

[Jocabia]

Better we attempt to solve the problems even if it means shrinking the government, rather than gridlock.

Just passing bills doesn't solve any problems. All you have is that they passed a bunch of bills. That's it.

Not passing bills definitely doesn't solve any problems. And when some of those problems can only be solved by the government, like infrastructure, problems with immigration, etc., then not passing bills is pretty shameful.

Explain to me how Congress can solve immigration by not passing bills? Explain to me how the healthcare situation was going to improve by doing nothing? Explain to me how we're going to address our failing infrastructure by screaming about Benghazi? How can we help veterans while sitting on our hands?

[Jocabia]

Let's be honest: that whole Reagan schtick of "Government is the problem" hasn't been good. I'd rather we attempt to solve problems rather than cry "Government bad!"

Again, that's an opinion.

Sometimes it's a fact. It's a fact that government has the potential to make things better and, at times, has. It's also a fact that almost every single politician who has repeated what Reagan said or some variation of it, would be offended if you said our military sucks and has never done anything positive. Why? Because people who say silly things like "Government is the problem" often aren't thoughtful enough to put 2 and 2 together and not end up with 19.

[Demphor]

If he's trying to be a Democrat, there are sure some members of Congress who don't think he's doing a good job.

I had faith in the President, but he's failed to deliver many promises.

[Murkwood]

Just passing bills doesn't solve any problems. All you have is that they passed a bunch of bills. That's it.

Not passing bills definitely doesn't solve any problems. And when some of those problems can only be solved by the government, like infrastructure, problems with immigration, etc., then not passing bills is pretty shameful.

Explain to me how Congress can solve immigration by not passing bills? Explain to me how the healthcare situation was going to improve by doing nothing? Explain to me how we're going to address our failing infrastructure by screaming about Benghazi? How can we help veterans while sitting on our hands?

I'm not saying not passing bills is a good idea. I'm just saying that passing more bills isn't always or usually good.