By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Obama will win re-election

manchild98 said:
tycobb420 said:
No president has won re-election with poll numbers so low, so late. Also, no president, save FDR, has ever won re-election with unemployment so high.
Click to expand...

Normally he would have zero shot to be re-elected but the republicans are doing their best to throw out the biggest shitpile of candidates known to man. Obama actually has a shot to win again.
Click to expand...

To win, he'd have to buck all historical precedent. His chances are very slim. Not impossible, but extremely long. Right now, all the GOP has to do is nominate a candidate and not have the candidate caught in a compromising situation with small boys.
 
Vegas, which is about as nonpartisan as you can get when it comes to taking bets and making money has Obama as a solid favorite to be reelected.

It's likely to be Romney vs Obama and Romney faces an uphill battle according to oddsmakers, he's a 4-1 underdog to become President.
 
tsmith7559 said:
hockeywings said:
Hmmm, I was unaware that the president had complete authority to change tax laws. I thought there was this other branch of government, which made laws and sent them to the president to sign into law. They must be too busy reaffirming national mottos, fighting for tax cuts on the wealthy, preventing job growth, bitching about social security, and fighting to make seniors pay more to worry about the tax laws.
Click to expand...


yes the 2 branches of government the Dems had super majorities in for 2 years...ya, those 2 branches
Click to expand...

I thought just had the Senate, and a challenge to the election results in Minnesota prevented the one from taking effect for the first 6 months.

What do you mean by 2 branches? Does the term "supermajority" mean something with regard to the executive or legislative branches?
 
Red and Guilty said:
tsmith7559 said:
yes the 2 branches of government the Dems had super majorities in for 2 years...ya, those 2 branches
Click to expand...

I thought just had the Senate, and a challenge to the election results in Minnesota prevented the one from taking effect for the first 6 months.

What do you mean by 2 branches? Does the term "supermajority" mean something with regard to the executive or legislative branches?
Click to expand...



they had a filibuster proof senate for 18 months and a 50 vote cushion in the house, with a Dem president. You could have pushed through anything you wanted, including tax hikes......instead a trillion dollar failed stimulus and a healthcare bill that is too costly
 
You mean the supermajority that included 2 independents, one of which was a featured speaker at the Republican national convention, another one who switched parties before the election for fear of a primary challenge, moderate/conservative dems from alaska, new mexico, north carolina, and virginia (not exactly liberal areas).

Sorry if I don't buy your super majority nonsense. And this leads to something that I give republicans credit for. They are very good at voting as a block. Democrats, not so much.
 
hockeywings said:
You mean the supermajority that included 2 independents, one of which was a featured speaker at the Republican national convention, another one who switched parties before the election for fear of a primary challenge, moderate/conservative dems from alaska, new mexico, north carolina, and virginia (not exactly liberal areas).

Sorry if I don't buy your super majority nonsense. And this leads to something that I give republicans credit for. They are very good at voting as a block. Democrats, not so much.
Click to expand...


you had 60 Dems caucusing with ya....sorry for the internal bickering but you blew your chance....or the US was somewhat fortunate
 
johnny2x2x said:
Vegas, which is about as nonpartisan as you can get when it comes to taking bets and making money has Obama as a solid favorite to be reelected.

It's likely to be Romney vs Obama and Romney faces an uphill battle according to oddsmakers, he's a 4-1 underdog to become President.
Click to expand...

Every important indicator in the polls are in the wrong direction. Using historical data, Obama has little to no chance. To use a sports analogy, Obama's numbers are a lot like the Lions defensive statistics in the 0-16 season. Vegas is irrelevant. They aren't political scientists or historians.
 
hockeywings said:
You mean the supermajority that included 2 independents, one of which was a featured speaker at the Republican national convention, another one who switched parties before the election for fear of a primary challenge, moderate/conservative dems from alaska, new mexico, north carolina, and virginia (not exactly liberal areas).

Sorry if I don't buy your super majority nonsense. And this leads to something that I give republicans credit for. They are very good at voting as a block. Democrats, not so much.
Click to expand...

The Dems did have a filibuster proof majority. The independents caucused with the Dems for 60 votes. Anything that did not get done in the first two years is on the Dem majority. The GOP could do nothing but complain. They were irrelevant.
 
Wow, just wow. you say there are independents, yet still want to say they all are democrats. pick one.
 
hockeywings said:
Wow, just wow. you say there are independents, yet still want to say they all are democrats. pick one.
Click to expand...
If they caucus with the dems, they are dems in all but name. Bernie Saunders is a Socialist, so he is going to caucus with the Dems. Joe Lieberman lost the dem primary to an extremist and then came back to win his seat running as an independent. Had he won the primary, he would have been a Dem. It's complicated and confusing to a casual observer.
 
I am gonna vote for Obama....I voted for him last time.....just the way its gonna go for the 2012 election.....I want to see if he can finish some of the good Ideas he has started.
 
stonecold2136 said:
I am gonna vote for Obama....I voted for him last time.....just the way its gonna go for the 2012 election.....I want to see if he can finish some of the good Ideas he has started.
Click to expand...


what, totally change the country to resemble Greece?
 
So you are saying if I caucus with the libertarians, even though I say I am anti guns, pro choice, want to expand social security, think ron paul is a douche, think tsmith is a douche, think msuspartan is a douche, you would still count me as a supporter tycobb?
 
btw, I do not think tsmith and msuspartan are douches, just misguided. I was just trying to bring tycobb's message to an illogical end
 
hockeywings said:
So you are saying if I caucus with the libertarians, even though I say I am anti guns, pro choice, want to expand social security, think ron paul is a douche, think tsmith is a douche, think msuspartan is a douche, you would still count me as a supporter tycobb?
Click to expand...

You would not caucus with the libertarians then. Lieberman was/is a lifelong Dem. He was their VP candidate. Saunders is a socialist. The Dem leadership are socialist. The only reason he's not a registered Dem is his anti-establishmentarian streak. They also voted lock step with the Dem majority which further undercuts the silly argument the Dems did not have a filibuster proof majority. Anyone that paid attention from 2007-2011, would know better.
 
Its not like anyone ever changes there mind. I mean can anyone see rick perry as a dem...o...crat...

Fuck I hate it when things show other things to be completely wrong.
 
hockeywings said:
Its not like anyone ever changes there mind. I mean can anyone see rick perry as a dem...o...crat...

Fuck I hate it when things show other things to be completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Then why do Lieberman and Saunders caucus with the Dems and vote with the Dems?
 
Because the republicans are toxic right now for the past how ever many years....

edit accidentally a word
 
hockeywings said:
Because the republicans are toxic right now for the past how ever many years....

edit accidentally a word
Click to expand...

Wrong answer. They caucus with them because they agree with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
32,912
Messages
1,109,246
Members
942
Latest member
Proud Pheasant

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top