It's not like he doesn't try to listen to the people he represents, the entire rest of the government is there he can't just be like "Well fuck you guys, we're doing it my way"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's not what has happened though. People argue mostly about the effects of what he has done as opposed to what he has not. We realize that there is opposition in congress but that's a separate problem. My whole thing is; if all he and the liberal media can do to explain his performance is that it's hard to work against congress then we should have a candidate that aligns with congress' views (or the other way around...(which he did have for the first half of his term and still failed).

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why on EARTH is it better to just find a candidate whose views align with congress? Since the president's view doesn't align with congress's, and we picked the president, the majorities of people's views wouldn't align with congress. Yeah, he can't do a lot of things he said he would cuz he has a hard time pushing them through, that doesn't mean we should just find someone who would have an easy time pushing things through just cuz congress agrees with them. That's progress just for the sake of progress. The entire point of our government's set up is to avoid all of everyone's view being aligned because that makes tthe government to powerful and corrupt.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

People pick congress too...it's not progress for the sake of progress because of the state of our country. We kinda need any kind of cooperation or progress that we can get right now. Ideally we should pick executives and representatives who's views align in the first place but by the opposition in congress right now we need to elect either one way or the other so that we can actually make progress...and like I said, Obama already had that chance. Now it's the other side's turn

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You do understand that under a popular sovereignty there will be people in congress with different views to represent what everybody wants? Picking people for congress just because they all have the same view and something needs to get done //is// making progress for progress sake. It's moving things forward just to move them forward rather than taking the time to wait for something that actually works and makes progress. People act like Obama hasn't made the country better at all when he has. It was in a shit hole when the other side was having their turn, he needs to be able to actually finish what he started so that it keeps moving forward. Cooperation in congress would be a great idea, but that doesn't mean fill it with people with the same view. People can cooperate while still having very different opinions, which is good because then everyone from every class and background and need gets represented.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

When the other side had it? Bush was more liberal than most democrat presidents that we've had! In fact, Obama is the only one that has increased the government more than Bush! And we can see how that has worked out by the fact that there are less jobs now that in 2008, unemployment is up, median income (per capita) is down, debt is up, etc. And that's just the economic side of things. I do realize that people have different opinions but if the majority elects congress to be republican and the president to be democrat, then the voting system is flawed (gerrymander), and nothing ever gets done because of the partisan divide. We don't have the ability to sit and wait for the perfect plan--our country is in such terrible shape that any progress is good and necessary.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Just wanted to note, unemployment isn't up. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I can't really tell what time period that graph covers...but two months ago unemployment was at 8.3%--the highest it's ever been

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Again, it's not like that is all Obama's fault. I'm not here to discuss how Obama made the country better or worse, it's unrelated to the post. Gerrymander is when one party divides up an area (like a county, city) into election districts and concentrates on getting that party the majority in that area, no idea what you're talking about. Our country is not in shambles or anything, it doesn't need to be acted on now just for the sake of acting on it now. Even if it was in shambles, it's still better to make the right decision later than any decision now just for the sake of doing SOMETHING. If I had 10 seconds to do something before a car hits me, it's better to waste 3 seconds thinking about jumping out of the way before I do it than to hop up and down on one leg instantly. Hopping up and down on one leg is doing something, but it screws me over in the long run and I may as well have just waited a few more seconds for another idea to pop up. Politics generally move pretty slow, but last I checked there wasn't "nothing being done." And if everyone in the govnt was on the same level and all this progress was being made really fast, do you really think it'd be better for us?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

My reference to the gerrymander was just an example of a broken system. Looking back on what I've said I haven't been very clear so I won't bother pursuing the "progress" debate. What I originally was trying to get across was that Americans need to get their views in alignment before voting. Having the country being conservative in their representatives and liberal in their leader isn't a good way to show what we want or to get anything done

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think you really understand things like that are nigh impossible to avoid without being a dictatorship or monarchy.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

A country that elects all of its representative based on what they want instead of political drivel constitutes a dictatorship?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The country elects all of its reps based off what they want now, so no. All the people in government wanting the same thing, which is impossible to do under a popular sovereignty, would be a dictator ship not only because there is no check and balance system, but because there is no way people voted them into government. If all people get to vote and everyone in government has the same viewpoint, something went wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yet we have completely different ends of the political spectrum representing us in all three branches. The check and balance system wasn't supposed to go so far that nothing ever happened. I didn't say (I don't think) that everyone has to agree. However, when the majority elects a liberal president and the same majority elects a conservative congress, then something is wrong. The same group is asking for polar opposites to represent them. To me that means that they aren't voting for their true opinions

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That nothing ever happens...? What the hell country are you living in that nothing happens? And yes, you said you wanted everyone in the government to have views that align. It's not the same group asking for polar opposites you need to L2 government before you talk about it next time, I'd have to write about a page to explain why that's all wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Please do

by Anonymous 11 years ago