Obama denies 2013 was his worst year - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25473594[/url] [quote]US President Barack Obama has brushed aside a suggestion that 2013 was the worst year of his presidency in a year-end press conference. He voiced frustration with political gridlock on immigration and gun control, but was upbeat on the economy. Asked to name his biggest mistake of the year, he spoke about his troubled healthcare law's rollout, conceding: "Since I'm in charge, we screwed up." Mr Obama and his family depart later in the day for their holiday in Hawaii.[/quote]

Maybe he's banking on next year being worse?

By 2016 he'll leave the White House an exhausted and empty shell of a man who spent 8 years trying to administrate a behemoth. His hairs already turning white and he's aged really badly.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43260624]Maybe he's banking on next year being worse?[/QUOTE] "My fellow Americans, you think this year was bad? Just wait until ObamaCare 2014"

I don't really care about Obama anymore. It's the house that I'm worried about.

No mention of NSA being bad? :v:

The fact that he got second term baffles me.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43260624]Maybe he's banking on next year being worse?[/QUOTE] Nuclear holocaust 2014. "See guys? 2013 wasn't that bad!"

[QUOTE=itisjuly;43261220]The fact that he got second term baffles me.[/QUOTE] Why? He was quite well liked in the first term and was actually a good president iirc.

And who the hell would want a Mormon president.

[QUOTE=Kwigg;43261258]Why? He was quite well liked in the first term and was actually a good president iirc.[/QUOTE] Plus it was him or Mitt Romney

[QUOTE=i-am-teh-sex;43261298]Plus it was him or Mitt Romney[/QUOTE] Mitt Romney wasn't that bad, he just had no choice but to suck the republican parties dick when he really didn't even want to.

[QUOTE=i-am-teh-sex;43261298]Plus it was him or Mitt Romney[/QUOTE] "Eat beans and die" vs "Eat shit and scrape by" isn't really a choice. There were other options.

[QUOTE=Kwigg;43261258]Why? He was quite well liked in the first term and was actually a good president iirc.[/QUOTE] thats typically how it goes. Be nice and do mostly what the majority wants the first term, then second term do everything you want because you don't have to worry about reelections.

[QUOTE=Period;43261491]Mitt Romney wasn't that bad,[/QUOTE] pls pls pls don't ever say this; historical revisionism is not cool. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRN9Y5Nvdqk[/media] romney was a fucking slug

[QUOTE=Period;43261491]Mitt Romney wasn't that bad, he just had no choice but to suck the republican parties dick when he really didn't even want to.[/QUOTE] Mitt Romney gave the impression of a clueless and inept man out of touch with how his country actually worked. You could put a foreigner in charge and he'd do a much better job at least.

[QUOTE=Period;43261491]Mitt Romney wasn't that bad, he just had no choice but to suck the republican parties dick when he really didn't even want to.[/QUOTE] You seem to mistaken 2008 for 2012.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43261636]"Eat beans and die" vs "Eat shit and scrape by" isn't really a choice. There were other options.[/QUOTE] No there weren't. The only other options were third party or not voting at all (which amount to the same thing)

[QUOTE=Period;43261491]Mitt Romney wasn't that bad, he just had no choice but to suck the republican parties dick when he really didn't even want to.[/QUOTE] Then he should've quit right before the election as a protest against the Republican party. [i]"Fuck you guys I'm tired of your bullshit"[/i] Would be the slap in the face the Republican party is in dire need of. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;43261794]Mitt Romney gave the impression of a clueless and inept man out of touch with how his country actually worked. You could put a foreigner in charge and he'd do a much better job at least.[/QUOTE] Arnold Schwarznegger It'll be JUST LIKE The Simpsons movie.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;43261813]No there weren't. The only other options were third party or not voting at all (which amount to the same thing)[/QUOTE] What's wrong with voting for a third party?

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43261856]What's wrong with voting for a third party?[/QUOTE] The less then 1% chance of them actually getting a single digit number on the ballot.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43261856]What's wrong with voting for a third party?[/QUOTE][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect[/url]

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43261856]What's wrong with voting for a third party?[/QUOTE] The way politics works in the US means that a third party vote is the same thing as not voting at all.

[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43261873]The way politics works in the US means that a third party vote is the same thing as not voting at all.[/QUOTE] Oh come on. It's indicative of voter preferences changing. Vote for the party you feel represents your views and nobody else. If more people did this, then the Democrats/Republicans would realize they are losing votes to third parties and then start to change their policies based on this. Do it enough and it'll cause those parties to split and fracture. Look at the Republicans at the moment. They are having a really tough time trying to appear relevant in this era when capital punishment is falling out of use and gay people are increasingly able to marry and marijuana legalization is slowly coming through. Vote for the party you want.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43261994]Oh come on. It's indicative of voter preferences changing. Vote for the party you feel represents your views and nobody else. If more people did this, then the Democrats/Republicans would realize they are losing votes to third parties and then start to change their policies based on this. Do it enough and it'll cause those parties to split and fracture. Look at the Republicans at the moment. They are having a really tough time trying to appear relevant in this era when capital punishment is falling out of use and gay people are increasingly able to marry and marijuana legalization is slowly coming through. Vote for the party you want.[/QUOTE] Except that the few times in recent history when third party candidates received votes (Ross Perot in 1992/1996, and Ralph Nader in 2000), the two major parties did not significantly change, in fact in 2000 George Bush was elected and then *re-elected* in 2004. The fact of the matter is that the current system of voting is unequal and drives the entire political spectrum into two big tent parties. These do not serve the interests of all or even most groups in the country, and the system requires major reform before people can start voting with their conscience. I was able to vote for the Green Party candidate in 2012 without much worry because it was a near-certainty that Romney could not win in California, but a well-educated Democratic-leaning or Republican-leaning person in Ohio or Colorado wouldn't have that same luxury.

American politics are basically vote for who you think will fuck up the least

[QUOTE=i-am-teh-sex;43261298]Plus it was him or Mitt Romney[/QUOTE] Or Ron Paul :v:

[QUOTE=itisjuly;43261220]The fact that he got second term baffles me.[/QUOTE] Look at a picture of Romney for 20 seconds.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;43265807]We need a libertarian in office.[/QUOTE] hope you like having everything veto'd!

well duh 2013 wasn't his worst year 2014 will be when the aca takes full effect. [editline]21st December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;43260880]By 2016 he'll leave the White House an exhausted and empty shell of a man who spent 8 years trying to administrate a behemoth. His hairs already turning white and he's aged really badly.[/QUOTE] he hardly administrates. he appoints administrators to do it for him. he sits around as a pretty face and does some military stuff and puts his signature on crap.