How bad do things have to get, for Obama supporters to admit FAILURE?

I am currently gaining experience in one of my intended fields by working for the local Democratic Party in my area, and will be applying to two inernships over the next few months, one working for Senator Chuck Schumer, the other at the United States Department of State, which is a paid internship. In college, I intend to study abroad and get numerous inernships for various organizations.

Furthermore, unlike Obama, my hope is to be well-versed in all required areas to be a brain trust politician, not be a part of a brain trust. However, this is if I choose to enter politics instead of diplomacy, I am still undecided on a definite career path. I may consider entering diplomacy and then transition to politics, or the other way around.

Ironically, if I enter politics out of graduate school, or even during my undergraduate education, I could acquire a position. My boss at the Democratic Party ran for State Senate when he was 19, and gained 40% of the vote without running a campaign.

Besides my love for politics and diplomacy, I am very creative. In order to support myself in college, I may create my own freelance advertising and graphic design business. I originally was going to major in graphic design in college, and I still have excellent artistic and software skills. I am one of the better graphic designers in my school, despite the fact that I'm not taking any classes related to the field of study this year. To compliment my graphic design skills, I understand the basics of film and digital photography, which aids me when doing graphic design projects.

Other than graphic design, I intend to look for more conventional means of employment during college. I'm no sure what I will find, however, it is my hope that I can gain real world experience through self-employment, corporate America, and Main Street America, in addition to employment in diplomatic and political fields. However, much of my so-called "real-world" experience may be gained during my college experience. I guess you don't consider "real-world" experience public sector jobs.

 

Appearently much worse. I saw this coming in 2007, Barrack bin Husseini O'Bama has yet to prove me wrong about his clueless incompetent ass.

 

Exactly what I want to know. How can a group of people that consider themselves so smart, do such demonstrably stupid things?
It can only mean that their intelligence is negated by their awful ideologically driven judgment. Smart people can make all the wrong decisions (because they aren't necessarily wise).

 

A lot of people forget that. And seriously, a great many people have already forgotten or disregarded how SCREWED-UP the economy was, just as Obama was taking office. In essence (and history will show) he averted absolute economic disaster at that point in time. It will likely also show that subsequently Congress (especially Tea-publicans) systematically sought to make the President's proposals less-effective overall.

Obama isn't perfect; but as you imply above (and many agree)... he is FAR BETTER than George Bush as President.

 

Obama's Left-leaning, is far more 'balanced' than the extreme-Right, which many Republicans have spilled over into.

 

I can remember asking someone who was a democrat supporter... "I get it.... you believe you can trace everything bad happening in the economy to Bush. Ok... fine.... at what point is the economy no longer HIS fault, but the fault of the current administration?" All I got in return was a blank stare. It was then I realized there was nothing left to talk about with this person.

When you love or hatred of someone become so all consuming, that no fact will ever alter your opinion... then there is really no point in talking to them anymore...

 

Having worked in both the public and private sectors, in general I would consider the private sector more "real-world" experience. In my civilian public sector work, productivity was a totally alien concept, having no bearing on whether or department, and therefore our jobs, would survive or not.

Although many aspects of my military public sector work were far more "real world" than anything else I've experienced!

But so far, your career plan of academia to public sector seems like just the type of resume this administration is looking for.

 

Although my persona and policy is not what they are looking for. I will not fall under the trap of party before country if I enter politics. I would be content as a one-term politician if that one term helped as many "factions", or interests of the citizenry for public good as possible. If that occurs, I would be happy moving into diplomacy, working for an NGO, or creating my own NGO. For the most part, I'm an internationally geared citizen, so diplomacy works best for me. I consider diplomacy devoid of many flaws of domestic politics, and a bit more pragmatic. Granted, irrationality is rampant in every field of public leadership, but due to the massive amount of moving parts in diplomacy, you have to be clear, concise, rational, and pragmatic, instead of in domestic politics, where you can be irrational, manipulative, and intransigent, and you're scrutinized for it, and you don't have to care.

For the most part, the administration would be looking for a party before country ideologue, instead of a brain trust politician. There hasn't been a brain trust, or a brain trust politician since the FDR brain trust. There hasn't been a brain trust politician since Woodrow Wilson. If I had more knowledge and experience, and Obama put me into office as one of his advisors, I would most likely be fired or dismissed on the first day of work. I probably would advise the President to drop or revise all of his proposals in his jobs plan.

 

FACT:

Democrats controlled both Houses of CONGRESS from Jan 2007 until Jan 2011. They overspent by $4,500 TRILLION dollars. A few TIMES more than Bush and Republicans spent. Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives ONLY, NOT CONGRESS, since this past Jan. 2011.. The Democrats still control the Senate. The Republicans have controlled the house for 9 months. They were seated long after the spending for FY 2011 [another $1.3 or 4 TRILLION deficit]was decided. Altho decided might be the wrong word since the Democrat control of both houses stopped doing budgets after FY 2009. We have been operating on "Continuing Resolutions" of FY 2009 since then. The Republicans you hate so much DID, as our laws require, pass a budget for FY 2012 back in March. The Democrat controlled Senate has not seen fit to bring the House budget to the Senate floor. Nor have they even started on a budget of their own for FY 2012, STARTING in 12 days.
The Democrat controlled Senate has done only one thing so far this year in regards to fiscal responsibility. They did consider the budget that the president submitted to the 51 Democrats and 2 Independents that vote with the Democrats,,,,,,,and the 47 Republicans. And that Senate did vote on the obama budget proposal. They voted it DOWN 97 to 0.
In case you need help with this, it means that not a single Democrat or Independent agreed with obama.

They way our govt works is this. Bills can be introduced in either the House or the Senate. If a bill passes one of those bodies, it is then submitted to the other half of Congress. They may bring the bill up for debate or table it and let it die. If they elect to bring it up, they may make whatever changes they want to that bill. If they pass it it goes back to the other house with the changes. The changes have to be reconciled until both Houses of Congress agree on, and pass, the final bill. Then it goes to the president to sign into law, veto it, or do nothing where it becomes law after a period of time unsigned.

It takes 3 parts, The House, the Senate, and the president, to make a bill into law. Republicans hold a majority in only one of the 3 parts.

THAT IS NOT CONTROL.

 

You have a real disconnect between one Presidency and another. It's not a night and day change, it flows from one Presidency to another.

You can't ruin things for eight years then expect a lightbulb to go off, the magic button to be pushed and everything is okay all over again.

You really need to grab this concept if you want to evolve-

 

Woodrow Wilson supported some of the most disgusting philosophies you can imagine. A racist with visions of self granduer, a supporter of eugenics, a person who held the constitution in disdain, responsible for teaching the Nazis how to use propaganda, and on and on. One of the most horrible and dangerous people in the history of the world.

 

From an intellectual perspective, he was still one of the most outgoing and intelligent politicians this nation has ever seen. If I go on your premise, then I guess we've never had a modern brain trust politician. Most of our founding fathers, if not all, were highly intelligent, and should be considered the original brain trust.

 

I would consider Woodrow Wilson a brain trust for the progressive movement. I hope modern progressives realize just how bankrupt their brain trust really was.

 

I asked this same question and got "Nothing. Because Bush screwed up the economy so bad he destroyed America and Obama cannot be blamed for the effects of it, ever."

Nothing Obama does is ever going to be "his fault".

 

It is sort of the same thing when you show someone the definition of a word in the dictionary, and they decide to argue with you about the dictionary being wrong. There comes a point in which you discover you are arguing with a crazy person, or at least a person filled with so much zealotry that they appear to be crazy.

And at that point.... you smile.... say thank you.... and walk away as quickly as possible. There is nothing more to be gained or learned, and they have certainly wasted enough of your time already.

 

.....well you certainly cant expect that 3 years into the epitome of FAIL.

When Obama becomes accountable for something for the first time in his adult life.......you let us know.
.
.
.
.

 

It's all about making sure that the first black President in US history is seen by the future as a "good President" and not a failure. The cultural stake in this is so important, that most people are going to turn a blind eye to his shortcomings.

 

I really don't care if he's black or not. That is just your racist opinion.

 

OMG the mere mention of race and it's obvious effect on society and culture is not racist. There is no other way to describe the terribly naked and obvious love affair the media has with Obama unless it was about a cultural need to expunge the racist past in the minds of editors, journalists and column writers around the country. None whatsoever.

There IS such a thing as white guilt, and Obama benefits from it and it's not racist to admit that.

 

You implied that the "people" will make him look good at any cost because he's "black". That is an unsubstantial claim, which only concludes that you are a racist and you think the only reason why anyone would like him is because he's black.

That is racism!! The Grand Wizard would be proud of you!

 

It's not becuase "he's" black.

This goes beyond ANY SINGLE PERSON OR THEIR RACE. He's NOT A NORMAL MAN HE IS THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE USA. There is precedent that has to be set for history.. or didn't you know that?

I never ONCE said the "only reason anyone likes him is he's black" I'm saying THEY ARE PROTECTING HIM because he's The first black president of the USA, not because he's a black man.

Obama is as much symbol as man. You people made him into that when you hyped him in 2008.

..or are you seriously trying to say that there is nothing symbolic in Obama's election???

 

the real question is how bad does it have to get before people figure out that both parties are reaming them with the BIG red white and blue?

truer words about politics and this world have never been said.

I mean to say he nailed and he nailed it tight!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q"]George Carlin ~ The American Dream - YouTube[/ame]

 

He's the first black President... wow, amazing!!! He is still a democrat that pushes democrat ideas. You suggesting Democrats support him because he's black is saying we don't support his policies. It's a logical fallacy and it's racist. You sir are a racist!!!

 

There are many videos of dems being asked what his policies were before he was elected, and many people couldn't name any. There are a lot of videos that even have people agreeing with John McCain's policies, but still said they would vote for Obama. It didn't matter what Obama had done, or what he stood for, a LOT of people only voted for him to say they voted for the first black POTUS.

But then again, the CBC doesn't march on the White House cause there is a black president.

Yeah, they admit to it.

 

For most of them, never. They are true believers. They're the faithful. Consider Evan Thomas. An editor and writer with a national magazine says President Obama is "sort of god" and nobody pays any attention. His magazine, Newsweek, just smiles benignly. If Richard Nixon had owned the media as President Obama does people would be saying, "What's Watergate?" President Nixon was a liberal but not liberal enough for the media.