PDA

View Full Version : Obama losing his black base?



Sev
08-17-2011, 08:14 PM
This does not bode well for Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4MdaX9Tgwo

hondo
08-17-2011, 08:35 PM
So, who , iyho, is going to beat him?
dearless leader is ready to bet the ranch that he loses.
He could be right.

But who's the magic candidate?
It looks like a sorry bunch of losers running against him.

Not trying to be argumentative, sev. Who do think will be our next POTUS?

Sev
08-17-2011, 08:43 PM
Dont know. I was hoping Herman Cain would make a better showing.
Its to early to tell what is going to happen with Perry.
Cantor may jump in as well was Cristy.

I'd like to vote for Ron Paul but I dont think he stands a chance.

Qtec
08-18-2011, 02:13 AM
The reason people are so pi$$ed off with Obama is because he is letting the GOP dictate policy. Why do you think the country is in the state its in?

He let the GOP water down the HC bill, trash Wall St reform, keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich and reduce the stimulus initiative [ with tax cuts! ] to a level that wasn't going to be enough.

Instead of being a Lion he's been the 'nice guy' who doesn't want to hurt the Conservatives feelings.
For some reason he still thinks the GOP are honourable and they will eventually come around and work with him to help the country!!!!!!!

Q

Qtec
08-18-2011, 02:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was hoping Herman Cain would make a better showing. </div></div>

LOL.

Q

LWW
08-18-2011, 03:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who do think will be our next POTUS? </div></div>

I would say Joe Biden has a good chance.

LWW
08-18-2011, 03:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was hoping Herman Cain would make a better showing. </div></div>

LOL.

Q </div></div>

Why are you being a racist?

LWW
08-18-2011, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dont know. I was hoping Herman Cain would make a better showing.
Its to early to tell what is going to happen with Perry.
Cantor may jump in as well was Cristy.

I'd like to vote for Ron Paul but I dont think he stands a chance. </div></div>

Christie would mop the floor with Obama IMHO ... so would Paul ... so would Cantor ... so would Cain.

Perry probably would as well, but I suspect he is just another dem-lite RINO at heart.

In true republichicken fashion ... they may well nominate either Romney or Bachmann, and they are the only two that Obama might be able to cling to power against.

LWW
08-18-2011, 03:55 AM
Other than cap and tax, what Obama policy didn't he get through congress?

Also ... please don't ever say Obama's health reform plan was watered down, being that he never even had one.

LWW
08-18-2011, 04:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This does not bode well for Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4MdaX9Tgwo </div></div>

If you remember ... I predicted that Obama would be emitting toxic levels of political radioactivity by the 2012 election.

This is where the left explains that just because I predicted it and it has happened doesn't prove that I predicted it and it has happened.

Qtec
08-18-2011, 04:37 AM
Do you know how many amendments were in that HC bill that came from Conservatives?
Lots. 100,s and then they ALL voted against it.

They slashed the stimulus bill as much as they could and insisted on tax cuts being a part of the deal..and then they voted against it.

Mitch admitted it as much when he said their No 1. aim was to make Obama a 1 term POTUS.
ie, they were NEVER going to do anything that would make the POTUS look good, like reviving the economy and reforming HC.

Their aim is to make things worse. Cutting spending when millions are losing their jobs or out of work is insane. This austerity crap is being pushed by the banks and the rich because they don't want to pay back the money they stole.

Q

LWW
08-18-2011, 05:39 AM
I didn't ask how many amendments were in the bill.

My point was that Obama never had "A PLAN" ... he just wanted something, anything, that could pass congress called "HEALTH CARE REFORM" and he would sign it.

LWW
08-18-2011, 05:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitch admitted it as much when he said their No 1. aim was to make Obama a 1 term POTUS.

Q </div></div>

Where was your outrage when John Kerry and Howard the Dean made it their goal to make Bush a one termer?

Qtec
08-18-2011, 06:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where was your outrage when John Kerry and Howard the Dean made it their goal to make Bush a one termer? </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>ONCE AGAIN you make a claim but don't back it up. You seem to be under the delusion that just because you say something its automatically true.</span>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>How deluded is that?</span>

Q

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 08:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reason people are so pi$$ed off with Obama is because he is letting the GOP dictate policy. Why do you think the country is in the state its in?

He let the GOP water down the HC bill, trash Wall St reform, keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich and reduce the stimulus initiative [ with tax cuts! ] to a level that wasn't going to be enough.

Instead of being a Lion he's been the 'nice guy' who doesn't want to hurt the Conservatives feelings.
For some reason he still thinks the GOP are honourable and they will eventually come around and work with him to help the country!!!!!!!

Q </div></div>

Considering the smear job already in ample evidence, how do you think he would do if they could more provably say, 'angry black man!! angry black man!!!'

Unfortunately, his BRAND is to be allegedly non-partisan, and to 'change the tone' in Washington. So he cannot call out the Republican Party in traditional Democratic Party fashion.

I wish he would/could.

There's an old saying, that a liberal is someone who will not take his own side in an argument. Sometimes it seems Obama is all of that.

Sev
08-18-2011, 04:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reason people are so pi$$ed off with Obama is because he is letting the GOP dictate policy. Why do you think the country is in the state its in?

He let the GOP water down the HC bill, trash Wall St reform, keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich and reduce the stimulus initiative [ with tax cuts! ] to a level that wasn't going to be enough.

Instead of being a Lion he's been the 'nice guy' who doesn't want to hurt the Conservatives feelings.
For some reason he still thinks the GOP are honourable and they will eventually come around and work with him to help the country!!!!!!!

Q </div></div>

Calling BS.

Obama had 2 super majorities the first 2 years. The democrats did not want to go it alone in case what they proposed failed.

Sev
08-18-2011, 04:36 PM
<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Waters to Obama: Pay attention to us
</span>

TSK TSK TSK!! Ignoring the brothers and sisters!!!!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61628.html

<span style="color: #000000">By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 8/18/11 8:03 AM EDT

President Barack Obama needs to pay more attention to black Americans to keep them “on board,” Rep. Maxine Waters said Thursday.

After voicing criticism earlier this week about the president’s inattention to black Americans, the California Democrat said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that she and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus are “not just frustrated with the president — communities are hurting.”

“It’s not personal. We’re not even pointing fingers,” she said. “We’re saying it’s our responsibility too. We represent areas that expect us to represent. That’s why they sent us to Congress. And so that’s what we’re doing.”

At a town hall in Detroit on Tuesday, Waters said that members of the CBC are “getting tired” of continuing to support the president even as the economy continues to flounder, with the effects of a long-term recession magnified in many African-American communities.

The president visited predominantly white communities in Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois on his bus tour this week, Waters also noted at the town hall, saying: “We don’t know why on this trip that he’s in the United States now, he’s not in any black community…we don’t know that.”

On Thursday, mentioning the tour on MSNBC, Waters picked up a newspaper. “Take a look at this headline in The Wall Street Journal: ‘Obama aims to keep white voters on board.’ Well we want to be on board, too.”

Waters also tried to explain her Tuesday remarks, which had cable news and the blogosphere alight on Wednesday. “The economy, the loss of jobs, the pain is real. We’re talking about indisputable facts,” she said. “We’ve got to be in the discussion. We want to be part of the solution. We cannot continue to go on watching everybody talk about what the solutions are without us being included in it.”

Supporters ask her and other members of the CBC if they’re meeting with Obama to discuss unemployment, but Waters said that they “have not been privy to which way the president is going and why he’s doing it” on jobs and the economy.

“It’s time for us to step up and note that our communities are not being dealt with and to make sure that this administration understands that we cannot continue to go on this way,” she said. “Whatever the plan is that’s going to be unveiled in September, we intend to be a part of that. We have ideas. We want to include those in the plan that the president unveils. Here we are.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61628.html#ixzz1VQG1JDJR
</span>

LWW
10-07-2011, 10:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In news sure to inject shock and awe into the Republican political primary season, a Zogby poll released Thursday showed <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Herman Cain leading the Republican field, topping former front-runner Mitt Romney by an astonishing 20 points. Cain would also narrowly edge out Obama in a general election, the poll found, by a 46-44 margin.</span> </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>OH DEAR! (http://news.yahoo.com/poll-cain-surges-opens-20-point-lead-romney-132015440.html)</span>

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 11:54 AM
Let's see, from recent past history...

Clearly, Donald Trump or Rick Perry will be the nominees, since they rocketed to the top of the GOP field and were within or above the margin of error vs. Obama in polling.

No, sadly, both those shooting star candidacies peaked far too early, and have declined, earthward. Trump crashed to earth already, and Perry is the flavor of last week, killing his chances even with the TParty because of the idiocy proven when he opens his mouth.

As the restive sentiments of the GOP primary voters slosh like the tides, in and out, we see a serial lifting of one boat, only to see it founder, adrift.

Cain is the beneficiary of this effect, now, I agree.

I also predict he'll drift to grounding on the shoals fairly quick.

Possibly immediately, as he is planning a 4-wk hiatus from the campaign trail to promote his book, and has just lost two key staffers. (Showing why a rookie at this primary game is at a disadvantage.)

LWW
10-08-2011, 02:25 AM
What's the name of the book?

Soflasnapper
10-08-2011, 02:32 PM
"This is Herman Cain"

I think without an exclamation point, but perhaps with one, at the end.

Soflasnapper
10-08-2011, 02:34 PM
Calling BS.

Obama had 2 super majorities the first 2 years. The democrats did not want to go it alone in case what they proposed failed.

For less than 2 months, however.

Franken sworn in around July, EMK dead before the end of August.

LWW
10-08-2011, 02:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"This is Herman Cain"

I think without an exclamation point, but perhaps with one, at the end.

</div></div>

I expected the spoon fed answer ... and you faithfully delivered.

Please try again.

LWW
10-08-2011, 03:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"This is Herman Cain"

I think without an exclamation point, but perhaps with one, at the end.

</div></div>

Being generous ... here's a hint:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/files/2011/09/this_is_herman_cain_cover_9-27-11.jpg

As you can see ... this might possibly be a part of the campaign and not a leaving of the campaign. In fact several presidents have done a book as part of the campaign ... including Jimmuh Cahtuh and dear leader.

This is where a leftist insists that one of dear leader's books was title "DREAMS OF MY FATHER" and not "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance."

LWW
10-08-2011, 03:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Calling BS.

Obama had 2 super majorities the first 2 years. The democrats did not want to go it alone in case what they proposed failed.

For less than 2 months, however.

Franken sworn in around July, EMK dead before the end of August. </div></div>

Bush II had no super majority, ever.

Clinton had no super majority, ever.

Bush I had no super majority, ever.

Reagan had no super majority, ever.

What is your point?

Soflasnapper
10-08-2011, 03:40 PM
What you say here is true. I don't object, as that happens to be true.

However, what I said is also true. What is your objection?

Sev made a commonplace claim that many have made, that Obama enjoyed a long supermajority position in both houses of Congress for his entire first two years in office. That happens to be untrue. I have simply corrected that error in what I posted.

Does it make some difference in the storyline? Maybe. Ask Sev.

Qtec
10-09-2011, 05:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Calling BS.

Obama had 2 super majorities the first 2 years. The democrats did not want to go it alone in case what they proposed failed.

For less than 2 months, however.

Franken sworn in around July, EMK dead before the end of August. </div></div>

Where does Sev get his info from? They kept Franken out of office as long as they could. No respect for the voters who had made their choice.

A real genuine poster who would make a claim like this would then provide a link to facts that support this claim and say, "see. Its true."

Sev doesn't do that because he can't. There are no facts to back up his claim, hence, no links.

LLW does this all the time. Both are intellectually dishonest IMO.


Q

Gayle in MD
10-09-2011, 05:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Calling BS.

Obama had 2 super majorities the first 2 years. The democrats did not want to go it alone in case what they proposed failed.

For less than 2 months, however.

Franken sworn in around July, EMK dead before the end of August. </div></div>

Where does Sev get his info from? They kept Franken out of office as long as they could. No respect for the voters who had made their choice.

A real genuine poster who would make a claim like this would then provide a link to facts that support this claim and say, "see. Its true."

Sev doesn't do that because he can't. There are no facts to back up his claim, hence, no links.

LLW does this all the time. Both are intellectually dishonest IMO.


Q </div></div>

All of Ed's posts amount to lies presented as facts, all about how he wishes things were, then when proven wrong, he refuses to admit it.

G.

eg8r
10-09-2011, 02:40 PM
OK troll let's see if you can follow the "players"...Qtip mentions Sev and then he mentions LLW. Granny gaylio then says...All of Ed's posts. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Meds, someone get her meds and do it quick because she is dropping off the deep end faster and faster.

eg8r &lt;~~~~pleased to see that gayle is no longer reading anyone's posts including qtip. She just posts whatever travels through her brain, related to the subject or not.

Sev
10-09-2011, 08:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you say here is true. I don't object, as that happens to be true.

However, what I said is also true. What is your objection?

Sev made a commonplace claim that many have made, that Obama enjoyed a long supermajority position in both houses of Congress for his entire first two years in office. That happens to be untrue. I have simply corrected that error in what I posted.

Does it make some difference in the storyline? Maybe. Ask Sev. </div></div>

Hmmmmmm.
Perhaps super majority was the wrong term to use. They did have a majority.

Gayle in MD
10-09-2011, 10:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you say here is true. I don't object, as that happens to be true.

However, what I said is also true. What is your objection?

Sev made a commonplace claim that many have made, that Obama enjoyed a long supermajority position in both houses of Congress for his entire first two years in office. That happens to be untrue. I have simply corrected that error in what I posted.

Does it make some difference in the storyline? Maybe. Ask Sev. </div></div>

Hmmmmmm.
Perhaps super majority was the wrong term to use. They did have a majority.
</div></div>

Only a simple majority, which under the rules, of 60 votes, was cutting things very slim. IOW, bi-partisanship was essential in getting things done.

Instead, Republicans committed to obstructionism.

G.

Sev
10-10-2011, 06:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you say here is true. I don't object, as that happens to be true.

However, what I said is also true. What is your objection?

Sev made a commonplace claim that many have made, that Obama enjoyed a long supermajority position in both houses of Congress for his entire first two years in office. That happens to be untrue. I have simply corrected that error in what I posted.

Does it make some difference in the storyline? Maybe. Ask Sev. </div></div>

Hmmmmmm.
Perhaps super majority was the wrong term to use. They did have a majority.
</div></div>

Only a simple majority, which under the rules, of 60 votes, was cutting things very slim. IOW, bi-partisanship was essential in getting things done.

Instead, Republicans committed to obstructionism.

G. </div></div>

I believe Reid just engaged the nuclear option and changed the senate rules.
Something the republicans did not do when the gang of 14 entered the scene.

Qtec
10-10-2011, 06:16 AM
Fess up. You don't have a clue.

Q

Gayle in MD
10-10-2011, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you say here is true. I don't object, as that happens to be true.

However, what I said is also true. What is your objection?

Sev made a commonplace claim that many have made, that Obama enjoyed a long supermajority position in both houses of Congress for his entire first two years in office. That happens to be untrue. I have simply corrected that error in what I posted.

Does it make some difference in the storyline? Maybe. Ask Sev. </div></div>

Hmmmmmm.
Perhaps super majority was the wrong term to use. They did have a majority.
</div></div>

Only a simple majority, which under the rules, of 60 votes, was cutting things very slim. IOW, bi-partisanship was essential in getting things done.

Instead, Republicans committed to obstructionism.

G. </div></div>

I believe Reid just engaged the nuclear option and changed the senate rules.
Something the republicans did not do when the gang of 14 entered the scene. </div></div>

The Republicans have tried to do the same thing, in the past, Frist...remember?

G.

Sev
10-10-2011, 06:55 PM
Not quite the same.
There is a difference between threatening to take action vs actually engaging in the action.

ugotda7
10-10-2011, 09:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fess up. You don't have a clue.

Q </div></div>

This coming from one of the most ignorant posters here (and that's quite a feat) is about as comical as it gets.

You should take your act on the road.