Mitt, Newt ,Santorum

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Better" is one of those subjective words that often, as is the case here, can describe parts of a whole, but rarely the entire. In the worst scenarios you can usually find something that is better than before, especially when "better" is a point of view and one that is invested in finding that "better" for political points. You, apparently, have found the "country" to be better off, in some way, than before. Without specifics, I can't fathom what that means. Has there even been a noticeable general "improvement" of the "country?" I don't notice it. Perhaps that's because I have a different point of view. Being a relativist, you would understand that.

The entire voting process is highly subjective. People don't establish rigid benchmarks then evaluate performance in relation to them. They vote on emotion.

Oh . . . so the so-called "financial crisis" was averted, according to "experts." Well, we don't really know that, do we? We don't know that, as others contend, we might be better off at this point if some biggies had been allowed to fail and creative destruction was allowed to evolve better ones.

A similar mindset gave Bush credit in 2004 for no domestic terror attacks. Perhaps they just didn't try very hard? We'll never know.

Although in the same context, we've lost more Americans fighting terrorism than have been killed from terrorism. It's very subjective.

Unemployent is higher, gas prices are higher, food prices are higher, insurance is more expensive, the cost of medicine and health care has not been lowered, the cost of government and the cost of education has risen, the recovery that always follows recessions is anemic, and government is more intrusive and at a more accelerating pace, and the national debt has ballooned at a record rate. For starters. And you're parting thought "that even with our serious issues isn't all that bad" can be applied to just about any Presidential term.

I believe gas prices hit a higher spike under Bush just before the crash. Many price increases are also a function of inflation or directly related to increasing energy costs. The trajectory of health care was so steep nothing would slow it significantly in just a few years.

I think the average person understands this.

What I find revealing is your comment that ultimately the chief executive is responsible for leaving the country better off than when he took office. Really? The POTUS has the responsibilty of making the "country better?" That is precisely the difference in mindset between constitutionalists and progressives. Progressives insist that it is government administration that improves our lot. Constititionalists believe that We the People are responsible for, and are guaranteed the freedom, to improve our lot.

Now you're reaching. CEO's who weather storms are usually given some leeway in how they are judged. The idea it to keep the ship upright even if the passengers are being thrown about. You may arrive at port with a few bruises, but you're alive.

Remember in 2008 many thought the world was about to end.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The entire voting process is highly subjective. People don't establish rigid benchmarks then evaluate performance in relation to them. They vote on emotion.

Not sure how this is a response to what I said. In any case, it doesn't sound like disagreement.

A similar mindset gave Bush credit in 2004 for no domestic terror attacks. Perhaps they just didn't try very hard? We'll never know.

I'm not sure how this relates to the country being "better," or what Bush has to do with it, nor does it sound like disagreement with what I said. So far, you agree with me that "better" is subjective.

Although in the same context, we've lost more Americans fighting terrorism than have been killed from terrorism. It's very subjective.

Ditto.

I believe gas prices hit a higher spike under Bush just before the crash. Many price increases are also a function of inflation or directly related to increasing energy costs. The trajectory of health care was so steep nothing would slow it significantly in just a few years.

I think the average person understands this.

I could agree with what you say here, but how does that demonstrate, from your subjective view, that the country is better than when Obama took office?

Now you're reaching. CEO's who weather storms are usually given some leeway in how they are judged. The idea it to keep the ship upright even if the passengers are being thrown about. You may arrive at port with a few bruises, but you're alive.

CEO's, ship captains, and POTUS's operate under different rules. CEO'S are not chief executives of republics such as our's where their power is limited by the voting consent of everyone in their corporation, and We the People are more sovereign with more constitutionally vested rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES than the President. CEO's can often act as dictators or oligarchs. The health of the corporation is much more related to their decisions than is the health of our nation is related to a President--as what you've said above, to a small degree, demonstrates. And ship captains have a supreme power which our POTUS is not supposed to have. But, again, you're exhibiting that adaministrative government mindset, not a constitutionalist one. So seeing the President as being responsible for the condition of the nation, rather than We the People, is understandable.

Remember in 2008 many thought the world was about to end.

-spence

And I'M the one who is reaching? Nobody thought the world was about to end. Most of us believed it would continue, with a bump in the road, and that the big, bad corporate types who were blamed deserved to go under instead of being bailed out.