• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Elizabeth Warren asks why is Obama appointing so many people from Citigroup

They do vote though SnD which by proxy determines the opinion of the populace.

That demographic is never going to vote differently, but if the IRS and Benghazi are rep./con. platform planks, they will lose, again.
 
The Buchanan reference is actually a pretty good one. However Id say that Buchanan had a lot more to deal with than Obama.

At the end of the day they'll both be remembered as weak and cowardly. Too afraid of losing their own power to go after the real evil that divided their constituency .

Obama having a second term, which it appears he'll do nothing of substance with, should be a tie breaker in my opinion.
 
What "real evil" are you talking about?
 
Attacking the extremists on both sides who took advantage of their weak leadership, and created their own political vacuums. Allowing those people to pull the masses in their direction, instead of uniting the country under the leadership of a strong unifying executive.

Basically everything Obama promised he would be in the run-up to 2008.
 
Last edited:
Attacking the extremists would be the best way to isolate them and make people in the middle who simply disagree with Obama's agenda more sympathetic to those on the extremes.
 
PhDeac said:
Attacking the extremists would be the best way to isolate them and make people in the middle who simply disagree with Obama's agenda more sympathetic to those on the extremes.
Click to expand...

Not if you attack both sides PH. You call them both out for their idiocy. You don't lean slightly in one direction, and then just decide to continue the policies of your predecessor bc accomplishing change is too hard or too dangerous to your personal political goals. Especially when your entire campaign was to be the exact opposite of the guy you replaced.
 
Last edited:
Frankly put, he's a coward. He's in over his head and history will not reflect kindly on him.

But back to Warren. If her entire campaign is simply to break Wall Street and the dangerous economic trajectory it has placed us on, then she has my vote tomorrow. I'm all for a few more bankers jumping to their deaths from their government financed skyscrapers.
 
Last edited:
BillBrasky said:
Not if you attack both sides PH. You call them both out for their idiocy. You don't lean slightly in one direction, and then just decide to continue the policies of your predecessor bc accomplishing change is too hard or too dangerous to your personal political goals. Especially when your entire campaign was to be the exact opposite of the guy you replaced.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
BillBrasky said:
Attacking the extremists on both sides who took advantage of their weak leadership, and created their own political vacuums. Allowing those people to pull the masses in their direction, instead of uniting the country under the leadership of a strong unifying executive.

Basically everything Obama promised he would be in the run-up to 2008.
Click to expand...

How do you unite a country under the leadership of a strong unifying executive when the other party's leader says their top priority is to make you a one-term President and promises to vote against anything you attempt to enact?
 
I do agree with you BB regarding Warren. She comes off as the least full of shit politician which ensures she will not progress in politics.
 
Deacon923 said:
it's a great question. An even better question is, why are there more political appointees from Citigroup than federal inmates from Citigroup? The ratio is all wrong.
Click to expand...

You could not be more right.
 
ONW said:
How do you unite a country under the leadership of a strong unifying executive when the other party's leader says their top priority is to make you a one-term President and promises to vote against anything you attempt to enact?
Click to expand...

Yep. The extremists on the right are the right. They run from the term "moderate."
 
BillBrasky said:
Worst POTUS of all time, excuse me. He's already got Most Disappointing locked up.
Click to expand...

He's pretty bad. I got caught up in the "transformational" talk in 2008 and voted for him. Today I can't even bring myself to listen to him speak. The thrill is way,way gone.
 
ONW said:
How do you unite a country under the leadership of a strong unifying executive when the other party's leader says their top priority is to make you a one-term President and promises to vote against anything you attempt to enact?
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is Barack,despite his good looks,telegenic smile and public persona,is aloof. He does not unite. He is a divider.
 
Lectro said:
The fact of the matter is Barack,despite his good looks,telegenic smile and public persona,is aloof. He does not unite. He is a divider.
Click to expand...

Translation: if I read it on the internets and I agree with it, or must be true
 
ONW said:
How do you unite a country under the leadership of a strong unifying executive when the other party's leader says their top priority is to make you a one-term President and promises to vote against anything you attempt to enact?
Click to expand...

You directly appeal to the American people as their newly elected leader, and you most certainly don't entrust your landmark legislation to the most polarizing members of your party, who's only objective is to ram it through regardless of what the damn thing actually says or does. All the momentum from the 2008 election was immediately sucked out of the room the moment that America realized that there was nobody NEW dictating policy in Washington. There was no CHANGE, and therefore no HOPE.

When Obama turned over control of the direction of the ACA to Pelosi and Reid, we should of figured out that he didn't have the chops to lead.
 
Last edited:
BillBrasky said:
You directly appeal to the American people as their newly elected leader, and you most certainly don't entrust your landmark legislation to the most polarizing members of your party, who's only objective is to ram it through regardless of what the damn thing actually says or does. All the momentum from the 2008 election was immediately sucked out of the room the moment that America realized that there was nobody NEW dictating policy in Washington. There was no CHANGE, and therefore no HOPE.

When Obama turned over control of the direction of the ACA to Pelosi and Reid, we should of figured out that he didn't have the chops to lead.
Click to expand...

The die was cast on the right side of the aisle long before that happened.
 
BillBrasky said:
You directly appeal to the American people as their newly elected leader, and you most certainly don't entrust your landmark legislation to the most polarizing members of your party, who's only objective is to ram it through regardless of what the damn thing actually says or does. All the momentum from the 2008 election was immediately sucked out of the room the moment that America realized that there was nobody NEW dictating policy in Washington. There was no CHANGE, and therefore no HOPE.

When Obama turned over control of the direction of the ACA to Pelosi and Reid, we should of figured out that he didn't have the chops to lead.
Click to expand...

BINGO. Pres Obama whining about how he can't get anything done when he took office with so much momentum is laughable. He had more political capital going into his first term than any President since Reagan. He could have railroaded the "obstructionist" but he instead played right into their hands by becoming just as polarizing as they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top