Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[westpenncyclist]

Not to skirt the question, but now that he's won re-election, I expect him to double his playing time. And by looks of that swing of his, he needs to.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

Oh bull bplewis. I'm not a bigot just because Im awre of the statistics.

93% of blacks voted for Obama.

I don't think anybody takes issue with that statement, but if I remember correctly, you didn't just say that 93% of black people voted for Obama, you said that they voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black, did you not?

Quote:

Republicans need to ditch the stupid religious angle that they adopt. It offends women, it offends those intelligent enough not to believe in a ghost with a grand plan, it offends gays. WHy should I care what two guys or gals who love each other do in their homes? I dont but the Republican party does. This isn't colonial times and theyre stuck back then with their religious bend to everything.

And this information isn't accurate either.  The entirety of the Republican Party isn't anti-gay.  (And before you try to explain how you didn't mean all Republicans, go back and read Dak's post #766)

When Prop 8 passed here in California a few years ago (eliminating gays right to marry with a Constitutional Amendment) people voted their religion, not their party.  Those same black people who voted 93% for Obama, also voted 70% against gay rights.  Those aren't Republicans.  Source: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Many-Obama-supporters-also-backed-Prop-8-3186289.php

Stop generalizing.

[westpenncyclist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Our electorate is changing - it is about values - and Latinos and Asians don't seem to have a problem with more government, as well as Blacks, whereas old white people have more of an issue with it. The argument for smaller federal gov't worked in the '80's but it does not resonate now, and was not a reality in the 80s. What we're hearing the final roar of a white population yearning for the good old days - but that is not reality. Reality is today.

The conclusion of your final paragraph is what the chattering class wants us to believe. But I'm not sure I do. Obama garnered nearly 10M fewer votes than he did in '08. And there was nearly 13M fewer total voters than in '08. After accounting for some crossover, I'd guesstimate that there are nearly 70M voting conscious Americans who either voted against his Keynesian agenda, or withheld their vote either in opposition, ignorance, or apathy. So I'm not sure the middle class is really on board with him. But we'll eventually find out when they ultimately get the tax bill in the mail.

Furthermore, one day the electorate is going to realize that in order to pursue more aggressive Keynesian solutions, the rule of law will have to be compromised--in may ways it already has. And when the rule of law begins to look like it's being treated like an inconvenient contrivance, it won't just be old white men who are feeling a bit too queasy.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by westpenncyclist

Not to skirt the question, but now that he's won re-election, I expect him to double his playing time. And by looks of that swing of his, he needs to.

Piers Morgan reported that Obama played 160 rounds of golf during his term, but only one round with a Republican. This is obvious Partisam Golfing and I am offended as a Non partisan golfer.    IMO, Obama really needs to play more golf with Republicans.

[westpenncyclist]

Originally Posted by Joakim

Piers Morgan reported that Obama played 160 rounds of golf during his term, but only one round with a Republican. This is obvious Partisam Golfing and I am offended as a Non partisan golfer.    IMO, Obama really needs to play more golf with Republicans.

Country club Republicans? Or actual politician Republicans? :)

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by westpenncyclist

Country club Republicans? Or actual politician Republicans? :)

Any Republican golfing partners would be a good start, but golfing with a Politician Republican (insert name) might be the answer to solving our Fiscal Cliff.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by westpenncyclist

The conclusion of your final paragraph is what the chattering class wants us to believe. But I'm not sure I do. Obama garnered nearly 10M fewer votes than he did in '08. And there was nearly 13M fewer total voters than in '08. After accounting for some crossover, I'd guesstimate that there are nearly 70M voting conscious Americans who either voted against his Keynesian agenda, or withheld their vote either in opposition, ignorance, or apathy. So I'm not sure the middle class is really on board with him. But we'll eventually find out when they ultimately get the tax bill in the mail.

Furthermore, one day the electorate is going to realize that in order to pursue more aggressive Keynesian solutions, the rule of law will have to be compromised--in may ways it already has. And when the rule of law begins to look like it's being treated like an inconvenient contrivance, it won't just be old white men who are feeling a bit too queasy.

I won't assume why fewer people voted this year. Maybe it's because their votes would not make any difference in the Electoral College, or maybe because, unlike 2008, we did not have  transcendent candidates. And I just did not see the enthusiasm this year - less enthusiasm = less votes.

As to any Keynesian Agenda, get real, Obama is not the sole owner. Romney would have a Keynesian Agenda, as would all Presidents since the 80's - if you define Keynesian as deficit spending in a time of economic downturn. Of course, upturn or downturn, Republicans deficit spend like Democrats. The partisan labeling doesn't work for you.

The Tea Party, Romney, and the Pubs this year were about smaller federal government and delegating to the states, or even private business. That dogma was rejected. I think the voters were telling the Parties that there are some things the Feds can do better.

[Phil McGleno]

What planet are you living on that you didn't notice that Obama had the biggest deficits in history, not republicans? Since when have the majority (democrats? they don't control the house, they just won the presidency and have a teeny lead in the senate) been calling for a balanced budget? Obviously they have not.[quote name="bplewis24" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/756#post_783823"]The majority spoke, and the minority needs to heed the call for a balanced budget on the current administration's platform as decided by the people.  When they Republicans win back the Presidency and/or the Senate/House, they can explode the deficit with their agenda again.  Until then, they can be butt-hurt and complain their way to the middle. [/quote] You shouldn't be. Well within the normal range. Lots of latinos in Texas helped too. [quote name="Mr. Desmond" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/756#post_783841"]But the Prez did no campaigning here. I'm surprised he got 42%.[/quote] Right. So your point is what again. I didnt talk about the popular vote. Who cares about the popular vote? Obama won it-The winner usually does. [quote name="Mr. Desmond" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/756#post_783841"]You could say the same for Romney in California, for example. My point is - the popular vote is not the objective, and its results may be misleading. Swing states are the objective and that is where Obama spent his money - wisely.[/quote] Why is it denigrating to point out that black people are black and latinos are latino? It is simply what they are. SOME of them voted for him because he's black. Some women voted for Hillary because she was a woman. Some old white guys voted for Romney because he wasnt black But the numbers show the former (latino and blacks voting fore purely racial reasons) was a lot more common than whites voting for racial reasons. Stats show it Look them up. Latinos and blacks are way more likely to need the entitlement programs too so of course they vote for the democrat. But not at 93% levels. If race was not a motivating factor, and you simply allowed for the entitlement issues to shift the black/latino vote, theyd have voted a little more for Obama than the rest of the united states. And thats accounting for the same urban/rural percentages (urbans vote more democrat, rural more republican). So how do you explain the 30% (for blacks) rise in voting for Obama that cant be explained by ANY OTHER METRIC. Skin color. If white people had voted for Romney 93% or even 65% can you imagine? A significant number of blacks (not even MOST of them dak and bp) voted for Obama because he was black. Numbers bear it out. Blacks and latinos comprise more and more of the nation. If you have to win a larger percentage of the white vote than has been done since FDR to overcome the skin color motivated voting of a growing minority you wont win an election. [quote name="Mr. Desmond" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/756#post_783841"]But I am curious. Why seemingly denigrate Obama's electorate? Don't Latino, Black and Asian Votes count as much as White Votes?[/quote] I dont care how much golf he plays. Its a stressful job. He should play as often as he can get away. [quote name="westpenncyclist" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/774#post_783842"]Not to skirt the question, but now that he's won re-election, I expect him to double his playing time. And by looks of that swing of his, he needs to. [/quote] Not all 93%. But almost 30% of that 93% cannot be explained. And give it a rest on the ALL and MOST bull The republicans are anti-gay, by and large. Its a generalization in the truest sense and it does not mean ALL. If you have to resort to picking at something you know what i mean to try to win your point you have failed. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/774#post_783843"]I don't think anybody takes issue with that statement, but if I remember correctly, you didn't just say that 93% of black people voted for Obama, you said that they voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black, did you not?     Quote: And this information isn't accurate either.  The entirety of the Republican Party isn't anti-gay.  (And before you try to explain how you didn't mean all Republicans, go back and read Dak's post #766)[/quote] My golf balls miss right as often as they miss left. I prefer them down the middle though, like my politics. [quote name="Joakim" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/774#post_783852"] Piers Morgan reported that Obama played 160 rounds of golf during his term, but only one round with a Republican. This is obvious Partisam Golfing and I am offended as a Non partisan golfer.    IMO, Obama really needs to play more golf with Republicans. :tumble: [/quote]

[westpenncyclist]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

I won't assume why fewer people voted this year. Maybe it's because their votes would not make any difference in the Electoral College, or maybe because, unlike 2008, we did not have  transcendent candidates. And I just did not see the enthusiasm this year - less enthusiasm = less votes.

As to any Keynesian Agenda, get real, Obama is not the sole owner. Romney would have a Keynesian Agenda, as would all Presidents since the 80's - if you define Keynesian as deficit spending in a time of economic downturn. Of course, upturn or downturn, Republicans deficit spend like Democrats. The partisan labeling doesn't work for you.

The Tea Party, Romney, and the Pubs this year were about smaller federal government and delegating to the states, or even private business. That dogma was rejected. I think the voters were telling the Parties that there are some things the Feds can do better.

I reject that idea that this election was a referendum on the challenger or the ideas of the minority party. In fact, when an incumbent is on the ballot, history rejects that idea.

[x129]

Basic fact check. The last bush year in 2009 (look up when fiscal years starts and who passes that budget)  had a 1.4 trillion deficit. Obama hasn't come close to having a 4 trillion dollar deficit. Since Obama took over the debts have dropped but not by much. Supposedly this year will be down to 1.1 trillion which you can either look as a nice 25% drop confirming we are on the path to recover or you can view it as a heck of a lot of money still to go.

It will be hard for anyone to ever catch Reagan as far as inflating the debt. He pretty much tripled it. Bush about doubled it and Obama is just slightly off that pace. Given our economy isn't growing at 8% a year, that pace can not be maintained.

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

The republican party is seriously screwed up if they couldn't beat THIS president, with the four largest deficits (his best year being three times worse than the previous worst record), winning 63% notwithstanding.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by westpenncyclist

I reject that idea that this election was a referendum on the challenger or the ideas of the minority party. In fact, when an incumbent is on the ballot, history rejects that idea.

Minority Party?

The GOP controls the House.

Sorry - you can reject all you'd like, and we can learn from history, but we don't assume history repeats itself, especially in a changing demographic.

Accept reality.

[iacas]

Okay, have had enough reports now from enough people that this thread's done too.