What about it? 33% of respondents democrats, 23% republicans, 38% independents. His own base of support isn't satisfied with his performance anymore.
Because he's too conservative. Quixotically (rhymes with idiotically), you think this helps conservatives.
I guess he hasn't proposed we all get our food at the government store, when there's food to be had. Yet. So he's too conservative. That's a good one. Maybe he's a little more pragmatic and realizes that when the progressive agenda gets passed, it fails and really hurts people.
No domestic progress will be possible unless Democrats have more than 60 Senate votes. Even then, they won't vote as a militant bloc as Republicans do. So they need 70.
They had 60 votes and Obama had his honeymoon period. We're lucky he didn't get to pass additional harmful legislation beyond ObamaCare.
Really? Strap a 30MT nuke into a bomb bay instead of conventional weapons, and I'm guessing it would look a lot like war when it went off. I'll buy that. What I was asking, then, is would you have been fine with it if Bush had started with just an air campaign? At what point would you insist that the President get the support of Congress? Clearly, not at an air campaign. What if the President was massing war ships and troop carriers off the coast of lraq when he starts the air champaign? Then? Go Blazers
Serious question. I guess if congressional approval wasn't required for the Korean War, it's not required at all. Except by the constitution. He can go bomb whoever he wants whenever he wants, eh?
Define pro? I voted for Clinton his second term and didn't vote for Bush his second term (didn't vote that election because I hated both candidates). Locally, I voted for a liberal mayor because the conservative one was doing a shitty job. So how about you?
I agree. Most of the people I know, who are Democrats/Progressives/Liberals, aren't exactly happy with him (as I am not). What is interesting is how Republicans/Conservatives will say things about him or the Democratic party (or liberals/progressives) that are more true of their own, than it is the Democratic party. Like I said, most of the Democrats I know are actually mad that he backed down on a lot of what we wanted, and has been pretty much doing a lot of the same shit we didn't like with previous presidents. Not as bad (in a lot of our eyes), but it's still horse shit. We still believe he's better than McCain/Clampett or Thurston Howell III/Gilligan. But I think you're right Eastoff.
your stances on things, both politically and religiously, is conservative or Republican. that's what i'm basing this on. I think you're socially liberal and financially a rich sumbitch. In 2000, I voted for McCain (write in) because I thought Gore was a fool for distancing himself from Clinton, and I thought Bush was and is a bad choice for the R's to make. I voted for Gordon Smith in 2002 (or whatever was his last winning election) because even though he was a bit strange religious wise, I respected that he did what he felt was best for the state. I wasn't entirely happy with him as a senator though. I liked Huntsman, and would've voted for him had he run. I liked him. In fact, if he ran in 2016 (and didn't have some neo-con/tea party VP candidate) I'd probably vote for him. I like republicans who aren't socially conservative, the problem is, most of the prominent ones now-a-days are.
really depends on who he ran against. See my above post (re: Hunstman). problem is, the people that control the R party, have made it a party I almost fundamentally now disagree with. Religion shouldn't be such a huge factor (and it is), money shouldn't be a major factor (and it is), nor should businesses be able to have as much of a say as they do (and they do).
For the most part I will agree with you Sweet! I have a much higher respect for you as a concerned citizen
I agree with "religion", but money is what drives this country. I also agree that businesses should be able to 100% dictate what goes on, but honestly even a republican heavy federal government, it's never been the case.
Money vs who HAS the money is what I mean. Its a government for, by and of the people...not for the people who have the money, by the people who have the money and of the people who have the money. I'm assuming you meant that you agree businesses shouldn't have as much say as they do?
