Should Obama resign?

Originally posted by wittywonka
Does anybody else find it ironic that Michele Bachmann--one of the most vocal Congressional critics of raising the debt ceiling, as far as I am aware--has blamed Obama for "destroying" the United States' credit rating? This, from the very same person who insisted that if the United States went past August 3rd without raising the debt ceiling that the Uni ...[text shortened]... p://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/michele-bachmann-on-standard-poors-u-s-credit-downgrade/

Ya gotta admit she's kinda sexy though. 😉

Originally posted by Wajoma
Haha, luv it, when that stats go the way of the poster it's: Correlation implies causation.

When the stats go against the posters POV it's: Correlation does not imply causation.

"How to Lie with Statistics" Darrell Huff.

That's in the nature of debate. You do it to. You reject all data that conflicts with your preconceptions and never provide data to back up your thought game driven assertions. It's in the nature of the debate, Wajoma. We all do it to varying degrees. Do you believe correlation DOES indicates causation, then? I tend not to make that assertion. Do you?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Haha, luv it, when that stats go the way of the poster it's: Correlation implies causation.

When the stats go against the posters POV it's: Correlation does not imply causation.

"How to Lie with Statistics" Darrell Huff.

Stating "correlation does not imply causation" does not imply "correlation cannot suggest causation." There's an "always" or a "necessarily" implied in the original statement.

I'm not convinced that Obama's policies have helped the situation much, if any. At the same time, there has been whatever-number-of months of sustained job creation after the brunt of the Recession during Obama's presidency. Whether voters will know or care whether this is due to Obama's policies or not is probably irrelevant, especially if the trend continues.

Originally posted by FMF
That's in the nature of debate. You do it to. You reject all data that conflicts with your preconceptions and never provide data to back up your thought game driven assertions. It's in the nature of the debate, Wajoma. We all do it to varying degrees. Do you believe correlation DOES indicates causation, then? I tend not to make that assertion. Do you?

I don't do it. I steer clear of stats because polls always have an agenda, it takes a lot of resources to put those things together and if you're getting answers you don't like that has a big effect on the direction subsequent polls take.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I don't do it. I steer clear of stats because polls always have an agenda, it takes a lot of resources to put those things together and if you're getting answers you don't like that has a big effect on the direction subsequent polls take.

Yes, I don't think you've ever convinced anyone of anything about the real world - which is chock full of things that can be looked at empirically - other than the fact that you are 100% earnest. Others might disagree with me.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, I don't think you've ever convinced anyone of anything about the real world - which is chock full of things that can be looked at empirically - other than the fact that you are 100% earnest. Others might disagree with me.

Keep on sifting through the internet looking for stats that back your particular politics, there are whole other legions looking for figures to back their views. And then of course there is the number one generator of stats (the guvamint) looking to pump their agenda i.e. more guvamint.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Keep on sifting through the internet looking for stats that back your particular politics....

Well neither of us really do this, so I don't see why I should start now. What's clear is you never question stats that suit you, at least I can't remember you ever doing so - and you almost always sidestep issues that have stats that don't suit you - so your little homily about stats doesn't really hold much weight. I don't really bandy about stats much, neither do you, but your effort to appear somehow empowered by the fact that your view is unsubstantiated empirically, sets you apart from most people addressing real world issues.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-flashback-my-presidency-will-be-a-one-term-proposition-if-economy-doesnt-turn-in-3-years/

Staying with the theme of predictions like my last thread, Obama predicted that if things do not turn around in 3 years, he would not seek a second term.

So we have 6 months to go. If nothing changes or gets worse, should he s ...[text shortened]... In addition, what criteria can or should be used to assess if things are not "turning around"?

That Obama would consider resignation is simply wishfull thinking. On the other hand, if his poll ratings continue to drop, or the economy get worse or continues to stagnate, he might decide not to run, or get a primary challenge.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Look, we all get that you're giddy about the downgrade and that our recovery has slowed to a standstill, but this is still a democracy.

Benjamin Franklin said we had a republic, but then perhaps as he said we didn't keep it.

Originally posted by FMF
Well neither of us really do this, so I don't see why I should start now. What's clear is you never question stats that suit you, at least I can't remember you ever doing so - and you almost always sidestep issues that have stats that don't suit you - so your little homily about stats doesn't really hold much weight. I don't really bandy about stats much, neithe ...[text shortened]... unsubstantiated empirically, sets you apart from most people addressing real world issues.

I don't recall you being especially vigilant in questioning stats that lean favorably to left either so this little side discussion holds as much interest as the latest dead trophy the cat's just bought in.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I don't recall you being especially vigilant in questioning stats that lean favorably to left either ...

Yes but then again it's not me who is apparently claiming that an across the board rejection of stats somehow validates your thought games and bumper stickers, as you seem to be.

Originally posted by wittywonka
As I read the Facebook blurp that my Republican congressman wrote in response to the news that S&P had downgraded the US credit rating, in which he squarely placed the blame entirely on Obama and Reid's "lack of leadership at the top," I couldn't help but imagine what that blurp would have said had S&P done the same during the 2008 financial crisis when B ...[text shortened]... still in office.

In the world of hyperpartisanship, blame surely transcends all barriers.

Memories are short. Bush got severely criticized for deficits less than a third of what Obama has run.

Bush got raked for financing two wars, so Obama tried to do three.

There has been a lack of leadership on the debt ceiling. The Pubs ended up debating with each other, which showed what twits they are. In any negotiation, you make your pitch, then shut up. You don't bid yourself down or up.

The US credit rating probably should have been downgraded during the Reagan administration. We've been off the track since then, not due to Reagan's tax cuts, but due to the double cross on sending reductions that were supposed to take place.

Congress is always more responsible for overspending than any President. Clinton probably looks best from a financial and economic standpoint, but that's because the Republican Congress shot down almost all of his spending initiatives.

Bush 43 on the other hand had friendly Congresses and spent bigtime, not only on wars, but on social programs. The typical response of the Democrats to Republican overspending is that their new entitlement isn't adequately funded.

By the way, Bush went to Congress for permission for his two wars, but I don't recall Obama or Clinton asking for permission to pursue their military adventures.

The reality is that for a long time our government has lacked fiscal responsibility regardless of the party in the Whitehouse, or in control of Congress.

Anyone ever wonder how it is that we are able to loan money to other nations when we have to borrow to do so, and how China finances our debt when they run their own government on debt. Who is the ultimate lender?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
That's actually hilarious. The Republicans in Congress have the complete and total ability to block and obstruct bills indefinitely. So they do just that and then say it's because of Obama's "lack of leadership."

The separation of powers was put in place on the premise that elected officials would actually want to help this country.

The Republicans passed a budget. They passed a debt ceiling solution out of the House.

They led. Reid and Obama obstructed, and made no written proposals of their own.

Originally posted by wittywonka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

"Correlation_does_not_imply_causation"

Of course, but that hardly changes the fact that Americans generally and wrongly blame or credit the current President for a bad economy.

Except that Democrats try to blame the last republican President.

Originally posted by normbenign
Except that Democrats try to blame the last republican President.

Several "right-wingers" here at RHP also apportion part of the blame the last republican President. Have you not noticed this?