I made a mistake on Obama.

[goddamnit]

This is one of those times when the spirit of truth overpowers ego. Not too long ago, I started a potent thread criticizing Obama. While my view on not conforming has not changed, there was a huge mistake by referring to Obama as the Goldman Sachs candidate and repeatedly bringing up him being bought out by the banks.

My primary basis for calling him the Goldman Sachs candidate and promulgating that he is bought out by the banks was this source. Looking at the table, I am sure you can understand why I might think that. But what I missed (and what nobody objected to me about in the thread) is that the chart is from 2008.

When we look at the 2012 chart, it is significantly different.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contri...=N00009638

On the other hand, Romney's chart is still a total banker chart:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contri...=N00000286

So, what does this mean? One possibility is that the banks donated to Obama in 2008 and he did not give them the cronyism they wanted, so now they withdrew support and shifted it to Romney.

[Minimalist]

Obama tried to re-regulate the banks....the republicunts and a few conservative democrats watered the bill down.

The banks have now decided that they will get more bang for their buck with a rich cocksucker like Romney running the show.

I'm sure they researched the matter thoroughly and know exactly how much Romney will cost.

[Polaris]

The banks turned on him because their stock is a tenth what it used to be.

[Darth]

The banks turned on him because their stock is a tenth what it used to be.

Fuckers, they would have, and should have, fallen, in a free market we'd be long done with those companies. I don't see how your presidents could be any more submissive to the banks without literally prostrating themselves. They got (or rather you got) cronyism up the wahzoo.

The 'deregulation' is a sham. There are different types of regulations:
1. Ones designed to control what a business/industry X can do,
2. Those which give them benefits, protect them, or just plain give em cash,
3. Rules which control what companies/industry Y can do, which of course benefits company/industry X.

The only regulations you ever lost were of the first type. They lose all the restrictions, but kept all the handouts. I'm all for deregulation, but it would mean letting them do pretty much whatever they want, and then letting them suffer the consequences of their actions, rather than paying them to make stupid bets.

[Polaris]

The majority of Americans made a mistake with Obama.

[TaraJo]

The majority of Americans made a mistake with Obama.

Yes and no. If it's a choice between Obama and McCain, McCain would have been a whole fuck of a bunch worse. If it was the choice between Obama and Hillary, yeah, I think we made mistake there.

[Whateverist]

The majority of Americans made a mistake with Obama.

Yes and no. If it's a choice between Obama and McCain, McCain would have been a whole fuck of a bunch worse. If it was the choice between Obama and Hillary, yeah, I think we made mistake there.

You may be right. Hillary's more confrontive style might have been more effective.

[Polaris]

The majority of Americans made a mistake with Obama.

Yes and no. If it's a choice between Obama and McCain, McCain would have been a whole fuck of a bunch worse. If it was the choice between Obama and Hillary, yeah, I think we made mistake there.

McCain would have made a better choice than either of them since he is actually more liberal than both and more responsible certainly than Obama. In 2008, the GOP nominated one of the more liberal politicians in amongst themselves whereas the Democrats gave us the most conservative (guess the GOP learned to be more liberal after Bush and the Democrats just the opposite). We should be mad the Democrats keep giving us conservative candidates instead of pulling from the left of their party.