Mitt, Newt ,Santorum

[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.