Obama's Chances of Being Elected?

AspenValley wrote: People may have common sense, but it's the guys in Congress with their own "special interests" who are making decisions on our behalf. More than a few of them have made it plain as can be that their number one priority is trying to make Obama fail.

And THAT stance will backfire,because the general populace understands the motive and see thru the B.S......ONCE AGAIN,
I will post.......What IF Hillary changed her mindset and opted to run to keep the D's viable??? "Meet the Press" today stated there is
"buyer remorse" for NOT supporting Hillary and B. Clinton did NOT vehemently deny that possibility when asked a DIRECT question by
Gregory.......

AspenValley wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: [, I would be happy as a clam and so would anyone who's life is directly affected by the economy.

I'm sorry, but history doesn't support that claim. I seem to remember a heck of a lot of Republicans frothing at the mouth trying to impeach Clinton when the economy was humming along just fine. And not just politicians, either.

And there were Republicans talking about impeaching Obama before he even took office.

That is a complete straw man.

neptunechimney wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: [, I would be happy as a clam and so would anyone who's life is directly affected by the economy.

I'm sorry, but history doesn't support that claim. I seem to remember a heck of a lot of Republicans frothing at the mouth trying to impeach Clinton when the economy was humming along just fine. And not just politicians, either.

And there were Republicans talking about impeaching Obama before he even took office.

That is a complete straw man.

Is that what you call an argument you can't refute?

AspenValley wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: [, I would be happy as a clam and so would anyone who's life is directly affected by the economy.

I'm sorry, but history doesn't support that claim. I seem to remember a heck of a lot of Republicans frothing at the mouth trying to impeach Clinton when the economy was humming along just fine. And not just politicians, either.

And there were Republicans talking about impeaching Obama before he even took office.

So you are fine keeping a unethical President around accused of felonies and even losing his license to practice law as long as the economy is doing good?

Maybe you should support Trump this time around!

Someone needs to look up the definition of a straw man argument.

I have no idea what "accused of felonies" refers to, so I can't comment. Anybody can accuse anyone of anything.

That "losing his license to practice law" is also bothersome since it's not factual.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

SS109 wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: [, I would be happy as a clam and so would anyone who's life is directly affected by the economy.

I'm sorry, but history doesn't support that claim. I seem to remember a heck of a lot of Republicans frothing at the mouth trying to impeach Clinton when the economy was humming along just fine. And not just politicians, either.

And there were Republicans talking about impeaching Obama before he even took office.

So you are fine keeping a unethical President around accused of felonies and even losing his license to practice law as long as the economy is doing good?

Maybe you should support Trump this time around!

What I think is that the Republicans couldn't stand how popular Clinton was and decided to try to take him down by any means. I doubt there are many people in the world saintly enough to have stood up to such an organized, intense, and relentless campaign to find something to smear him with without making a mistake or misstep that could be use to tar and feather the target.

At any rate - to try to drag this back on topic - whether you sincerely believe that Clinton was so unethical that he needed to be "removed" or not - and frankly I don't think you're that stupid - the point is, Critical Bill claims he and "anyone else whose lives are affected by the economy" would not be wanting Obama out of office if the economy were going well. And I replied that that statement didn't seem supported by recent Republican history.

Wayne-O wrote: Someone needs to look up the definition of a straw man argument.

I have no idea what "accused of felonies" refers to, so I can't comment. Anybody can accuse anyone of anything.

That "losing his license to practice law" is also bothersome since it's not factual.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

I wasn't talking about Obama, I was talking about Clinton. Obama can't claim he is repsonsible for a good economy, then again Barack won't even take the blame for a bad economy. He just whines that it is Bush's fault.

AspenValley wrote:

SS109 wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: [, I would be happy as a clam and so would anyone who's life is directly affected by the economy.

I'm sorry, but history doesn't support that claim. I seem to remember a heck of a lot of Republicans frothing at the mouth trying to impeach Clinton when the economy was humming along just fine. And not just politicians, either.

And there were Republicans talking about impeaching Obama before he even took office.

So you are fine keeping a unethical President around accused of felonies and even losing his license to practice law as long as the economy is doing good?

Maybe you should support Trump this time around!

What I think is that the Republicans couldn't stand how popular Clinton was and decided to try to take him down by any means. I doubt there are many people in the world saintly enough to have stood up to such an organized, intense, and relentless campaign to find something to smear him with without making a mistake or misstep that could be use to tar and feather the target.

At any rate - to try to drag this back on topic - whether you sincerely believe that Clinton was so unethical that he needed to be "removed" or not - and frankly I don't think you're that stupid - the point is, Critical Bill claims he and "anyone else whose lives are affected by the economy" would not be wanting Obama out of office if the economy were going well. And I replied that that statement didn't seem supported by recent Republican history.

I think you are confusing Republican voters with Republican politicians. I agree that BOTH R and D politicians are likely to put their power and job security above our best interests (do you think only R's do this?).

You can't keep assuming that most republican VOTERS want a bad economy just to lose Obama...it makes no sense and there is no evidence that we are willing to sacrifice our family's futures just so we can get "our guy" a job. If you believe this, I'd just like to see the evidence.

SS109 wrote: Obama can't claim he is repsonsible for a good economy, then again Barack won't even take the blame for a bad economy. He just whines that it is Bush's fault.

It was Bush's fault. The economy was in free fall when Obama took office. Bush had already warned about a second great depression.

Wayne-O wrote:

SS109 wrote: Obama can't claim he is repsonsible for a good economy, then again Barack won't even take the blame for a bad economy. He just whines that it is Bush's fault.

It was Bush's fault. The economy was in free fall when Obama took office. Bush had already warned about a second great depression.

How long will it take Obama to turn things around? Personally I think President Obama has neither the experience or ability to turn things around, but if you want to think "W" out of office is more powerful than Barack in office, you go ahead.