Obama's a dud, what to do?

And you guys are unbelievable...

So Obama should either:

1. After two years in office have realised that the oil companies run free and needed regulation (Something that no former President have done) and that this was so important that it had to be done now? It's not like he wasn't busy already...
2. Solve the crisis personally as a commander in chief, disregarding that there's plenty of experts working on this already. People who are probably the best in their field. But noooo, Obama should personally step in and lead...

Come on... He didn't create the crisis, instead he might actually have stopped it from getting worse. He didn't create the wars and he is doing the best to end them. He did manage to do what no other President have done before - get real healthcare. And this with tremendous opposition from the Republicans.

You can't expect him to work miracles, but it seems you do.
 
storealex said:
You can't expect him to work miracles, but it seems you do.
Click to expand...

All we wanted was for him to dismantle capitalism. But has he done this? No he hasn't! Why? Because he is clearly a right-wing plant!

Rally to me my fellow liberals - let's get rid of Obama and split the democrat party into myriad socialistic factions.

:mischief:


Seriously though, doesn't take long for liberals to betray their own leaders. Right-wingers are happy with a tax cut and a good war, our loyalty doesn't ask for much. These liberals are blaming him for an engineering accident that has nothing to do with him

:shake:

there wasn't a smilie for ingratitude
 
Perfection said:
Well really, what more can Obama say about BP? Noone knows what the hell is going on, so how can you be specific?
Click to expand...

Wasn't really referring to the speech, just Obama in general.
 
Kozmos said:
I'm not sure what are the people expecting of him to do to disapprove so greatly. To fly at the great speeds into the depths of ocean and lodge a huge rock over the well like Superman?
Click to expand...

storealex said:
You can't expect him to work miracles, but it seems you do.
Click to expand...
It seems to be a common myth. That presidents are some sort of omniscient superheroes who are capable of doing anything despite direct evidence to the contrary.

If it were actually the responsiblity of the US government to deal directly with gross incompetence on the part of the oil companies by immediately intervening and cleaning up their messes, it would be a different story. But if Obama had decided to take a more proactive role before now, many would likely be complaining that he was some sort of evil anti-capitalist fascist for interfering before they had the opportunity to rectify the problem themselves.

So this is at least the second incident of essentially the same thing happening. What makes me think that nothing substantial will be done to actually address the problem, instead of engaging in the all-too-typical political bickering of how the president must have been directly responsible for the inevitable consequences of a clearly broken system?
 
CivGeneral said:
People somehow have a need to place blame on a specific individual.
Click to expand...
You're only saying that to deflect people from realizing it's your fault. :rolleyes:

Note to readers : pay attention & realize this thread isn't about the oil spill specifically but the ineffectualness of govt. in general.
 
civver_764 said:
I'm honestly considering voting her:

1) It would be like Bush x2. There would be so much negativity associated with the Republican party they would never get elected again. Then the democrats can become the new conservative party in this country and we get a better leftist one.

2) It would be hilarious.
Click to expand...

It's funny people think this. I think this about Obama now. I think he's so bad no one will ever elect a democrat again. Unfortunately, it will eventually happen again. When we get another republican as bad as Bush again, the americans will revolt and elect a democrat.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Vote for a third party. Stop empowering these fools.
Click to expand...

This.

storealex said:
It's called Social Democracy and look, the countries that embraced it the most (Scandinavia) is doing fine, in many areas better than America.
Click to expand...

This.

Don't you just love it when other people save you time by stating your views for you? :)


I think many want some form retribution from BP. Like putting the leadership of BP in some boxing ring and have them fight for their lives.

Seriously, I am angered by this as well. But there doesn't seem to be much to be done, other than what is already happening.
 
Yared said:
Seriously, I am angered by this as well. But there doesn't seem to be much to be done, other than what is already happening.
Click to expand...

this. I hate Obama as much as the next guy, but I don't blame him for this. There really isn't anything he can do. He can talk tough all he wants, but if something isn't physically possible from an engineering standpoint, there really is nothing we can do except watch the oil leak.

And a note for the anti capitalists. BP didn't want the leak to happen. And it's not like they want the oil to keep leaking. So Obama's response is irrelevant. Now you can argue tougher regulation, but that's all in hindsight now, and doesn't deal with the current problem.
 
American "liberals" should vote for Ron Paul. He is probably the most consistent liberal in USA.
 
This is what happens when you vote for a president because he's black, and can give "good speeches" and uses buzzwords like hope and change. I'd be embarrassed to have voted for him. None of his speeches had any real content to them nor did he have any clear plan for healthcare reform, he just says what people want to hear.

And although I don't place the BP oil disaster fault entirely on Obama, I find it hard to not criticize anyone that publicly announces their support for offshore drilling. Yeah, this is a rare occurrence, but how stupid do you have to be to not see the potential for disaster coming?
 
Atlas14 said:
This is what happens when you vote for a president because he's black, and can give "good speeches" and uses buzzwords like hope and change. I'd be embarrassed to have voted for him. None of his speeches had any real content to them nor did he have any clear plan for healthcare reform, he just says what people want to hear.

And although I don't place the BP oil disaster fault entirely on Obama, I find it hard to not criticize anyone that publicly announces their support for offshore drilling. Yeah, this is a rare occurrence, but how stupid do you have to be to not see the potential for disaster coming?
Click to expand...

Oh, and you think the other candidates' speeches were honest and free from buzzwords like "redistributor-in-chief" and "fiscal responsibility?"
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Oh, and you think the other candidates' speeches were honest and free from buzzwords like "redistributor-in-chief" and "fiscal responsibility?"
Click to expand...

The only candidate I saw as competent in that entire election was Ron Paul, and if he did use those words, it was because he actually knew how to use them and had something worthwhile to say. Not saying I agree with everything he says though, but he was at least sincere, intelligent, and not just full of fluff.

If you're entangled in the Republicans vs. Democrats thing, then you're fighting the wrong battle. The two party system is set up so that some of the least qualified candidates get the spotlight. I mean one conversation with Palin would be evidence enough.
 
Atlas14 said:
And although I don't place the BP oil disaster fault entirely on Obama, I find it hard to not criticize anyone that publicly announces their support for offshore drilling. Yeah, this is a rare occurrence, but how stupid do you have to be to not see the potential for disaster coming?
Click to expand...

It's easy to shift blame to the president, the politicians, and to the oil companies, but the bottom line is, the reason both of them supported drilling is because at the time they did they felt it would answer the needs of the average American.

And they were right, because America has one hell of an oil addiction, and is entirely unwilling to work toward breaking it off.
 
If oil prices in the US were anything like they were in the UK, people might stop buying it so much.

With regard to the two-party system, I don't see how it can continue. More choice means more chance that there will be a candidate you really want to vote for. Looking at the last US election, McCain/Palin on the Republican side really weren't strong candidates, but if you didn't like Obama's stance, who could you vote for?
 
The problem is that it's very, very, very hard to compete to the Republicans and the Democrats. They have vast financial resources.
 
True that, doesn't mean someone shouldn't try though. Plenty of rich people in the US. And I still see room for a few smaller parties to try and gain a share of the seats, even if they didn't stand a hope in hell of actually getting the Presidency.
But I don't see it happening, not just in the US, but elsewhere. In the UK elections we came out with no party having an overall majority and ended up with a coalition, which is not a strong option.
Maybe we just need to hope for some better politicians next time.
 
In Sweden, we have 7 parties that passed the 4%-limit (if a party has less than 4% of the voters support, they don't get into the Parliament and, therefore, not into the Government itself). The Moderates and the Social Democrats are the giants, but they still need the support of other parties.

This has in turn created two big blocks: the Alliance and the Red-Greens. If you vote for a party in the Alliance, you're technically also strengthening the other parties in it. Though I wouldn't compare it to the two-party stuff in the US.
 
storealex said:
You can't expect him to work miracles, but it seems you do.
Click to expand...

Obama disappoints, but not because he didn't stop an oil leak. Leave that to the petroleum engineers. What I would "expect" (not in the sense that I'm going to bet on it, mind you :lol: :( ) is for him to keep his campaign promises. What I would expect is for someone who wrote about the Audacity of Hope to show some, you know, Audacity.

Now what I would like is for him to have made different campaign promises - for example, not trying to "win" other countries' civil wars - and keep those. But enough dreaming.

As for what to do, I'm afraid there isn't likely to be a better alternative in 2012, either Democrat, Republican, or independent, that has a serious chance. Unless something happens to Obama and we get Biden. Speaking of things that Obama has messed up...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NinjaCow64
Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party
21 22 23
Replies
443
Views
12K
Lexicus
Lexicus
Narz
How to end govt corruption?
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
2K
Marla_Singer
Marla_Singer
Gori the Grey
Jon Stewart and the Ruination of American Comedy
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
Joij21
Joij21
dusters
What drives you? What are your subjects of interest as an adult?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
Valka D'Ur
Valka D'Ur
C
DeSantis Cuts and Runs, Backs Trump.
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Hygro
Hygro
Top Bottom