Republicans lost in 2012 already. Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT | |
You said exactly what I was thinking. There are people that will put the blame on the congress or the senate, where it belongs, but there probably just as many if not more that look at the president and assume he's the one to blame. I wouldn't actually be too upset with a republican president if Ron Paul stepped up to plate. He's one of the only candidates that have made some solid points so far and might have a plan. | |
By that logic the Democrats dont have a chance either, unless of course Hillary runs. | |
Wow, early call. Are you a wizard? Don't underestimate conservative America, it will knock your idealistic ass straight to the ground and leave you confused as to how that even happened. Weren't people just so certain that Kerry had it in the bag? Anybody but Bush, right? Am I forgetting something here? What about that "Gore" dude? If the Democrats want to lose the best way is by relaxing and expecting an easy win in 2012, it's going to be a disgusting slam fest until November. On a related note, I've decided to only vote in state elections and from now on to only write in vote for Esteban for president (Charro as VP). This presidential campaign is getting DVR fast forwarded right the hell by and I'm going to the movies on each debate night. | |
Generally, the incumbent is almost always a viable candidate. | |
Enlighten me as to how this is true. | |
Something I was thinking about and this comment brought up, but how likely is a challenge from within the Democratic Party, either as a challenge for the nomination or a big name Democrat running as a thrid party and splitting the vote? I'm asking as an outsider with a fairly limited knowledge of US politics, but seeing as there doesn't seem to be a Republican at the moment who could win (though this could change, remember Obama's own rise), the only way Obama will lose is through dissent in his own ranks. Is this likely or do the Democrats have a tight enough grip on their own party to not let this happen? | |
Obama's key legislation after taking office: Only 1 bill increased our freedoms. The rest were either nuetral or decreased them. | |
I know, the inference was that even as an incumbent Obama isnt a viable candidate which is pretty sad but he is all the Democrats have to run right now so they are stuck with him. Yes I am exaggerating a bit but as the incumbent Obama has to run on his record and his record makes Bush look fantastic by comparison.
Not likely at all. American politics is based around a two party system and the parties are more concerned about winning than ideology. If Hillary or someone else on the left ran as a third party candidate they would almost certainly be forever shunned by the Democratic party and their political career would likely be over. None of the Republicans could win in the UK but Romney and Perry both have fairly decent chances of winning a general election in the USA. Not sure if you knew this but politically America is pretty well to the right of most of Europe. Our liberals are your centrists. | |
That's an odd thing to say. Getting rid of the obscurantist view on stem cell research, getting rid of don't ask don't tell, the Fair Pay Act and healthcare reform are already 4 freedom increasing measures. I don't see any bill in there reducing personal freedom, unless you want to blame Obama for inheriting Bush's system of trampling all sorts of freedoms under foot under the pretense of 'national security'. | |
Ta for your thoughts about a democratic challenger. My comments re: no realistic Republican contender was based on what news & comment we get here and the polling people posted earlier in the thread, rather then my own thoughts on them. Also, calling your Liberals centrist is being far too kind :P | |
Obscurantist: nice to see that come up - a lovely word, rarely used. However, any fair pay act is freedom reducing from a US right wing perspective. Because anything that tells people what they can pay other people is freedom-reducing. Such as: "How dare gummint remove my business's freedom to pay blacks half what I pay whites for doing the same job!" Business regulation much the same: "How dare gummint remove the freedom of my business to pour toxic waste in the town drinking supply!" Increased stem cell research and the big healthcare program? "How dare gummint remove my freedom to spend my money as I see fit." | |
I think from a business perspective much of those are freedom reducing. I don't really count freedoms given when they are taken from someone else. Increased regulation on the manufacturing sector and the oil moritorium also hurt freedoms on business. Finally, deciding to continue a predecessors freedom striping legislation is the same as taking on oneself. Especially when its expanded to include going around congress to start a war. Stem Cell Research and Don't Ask Don't tell increase freedoms. Thats it. | |
Oh, the freedom to discriminate people legally, notably women, has been lost? An act that allows a person to reasonably file for lawful suit in a court of law (a right that is not in dispute because of this bill)? You realize that workplaces make it extremely difficult for somebody to find out if they're being payed fairly and an arbitrary 180 day statute of limitations made it virtually impossible to file a claim?
Which I suppose reduces your religious freedom to allow people not of your faith to die of easily preventable disease?
Which reduces your freedom to create unsafe work environments and unsafe products, or to perform exploitative behavior?
I'm sorry your god given right to perpetuate hate crimes has been infringed on, or that protections of minorities makes another step towards being equalized with the amount of protection non minorities already receive.
I'm sorry your right to deny people that service they payed for because the service costs your company money was reduce. Or that your right to ensure that people have no option but accept your inflated prices and cut throat business practices was infringed on.
Again, I'm sorry that your right to discriminate on people based on their sexual orientation had been taken away from you. How heavy the crown must feel.
I suppose these didn't count when Bush signed them into law until Obama came into office? Obama inherited these issues.
I didn't realize we were conversing with Muammar Gaddafi himself. Sorry about restricting your freedom to terrorize your country and all with a UN sanctioned war effort that your own citizens supported. As opposed to a non sanctioned war against a country that frankly didn't want our help, so we could loot its oil.
One bill out of what? The ones you put? If so, why'd you list it? If not, you're aware of the amount of work Obama's done is more than the like 8 things you posted? | |
Your just glazing over a bill and don't look into it. First the hate crimes expansion was about adding percieved hate crimes. It makes it a criminal offense to make someone else feel like you are committing a hate crime against them. | |
That was forced into it by the Republican party and is the very part that was found to be unconstitutional. The Democrat version had opt in public plan that anyone that opted in would pay into it based on regional average for private insurance with 3 plans of coverage but it also covered those that cannot afford private insurance but were above the medicare/medicaid limit. | |
Perry will get the nominee and destroy Obama in a landslide victory. It doesn't matter though because anyone can beat Obama. He has no chance to win. | |
This is indeed a factor. One of the most important things in determining if a president is re-elected is how the economy is doing. Good economy means president has a better chance at winning, despite the fact that the president has little to no control over the stock market, etc. It's just the president is the most visible authority figure that people can blame for their problems. At the moment, I'm inclined to agree with the OP. The republicans haven't presented a candidate that can really appeal to the middle enough to win a general election. That said, there is still a metric ton of time between now and the actual election so anything can happen. | |
I hear Perry has some interesting conflict-of-interest skeletons in his closet. I expect some of the stuff about him and Merck will come out before even the primaries are over. As for beating Obama... It's usually a sign that a candidate doesn't have a good chance if he can't win his home state. Currently, Romney is the only Republican candidate who polls favorably against Obama in Texas. What do the Texans know about him that the rest of us don't? | |
Job growth in Texas under Perry, and Texas has the highest minimum wage under Perry. Theres not a whole lot thats good there, wheres all the high paying jobs in Texas? Shouldnt they have a lower Minimum wage % because they have a huge oil industry that needs workers to run? Sorry but I think Perry's best attribute is also his biggest liability and will cost him a nomination. | |
How does he keep getting elected as gov. if no one likes him? If Texans hate him so much why is he their gov.? | |
Because they've been told, in church among other places, that if a man is pretty cool if he's a backstabbing, homophobic bigot, who considers all women inferior and their bodies property of the state. (his anti-choice views, which are also a direct violation of the right of the integrity of the body, one of the most basic human right) It's an excellent example of why Churchill said democracy is the worst type of government, except for all the others.
Then you've misinterpreted it completely. It's meant to reduce the chances of a company getting away with discriminatory or underpaying. In most countries, there are no limitations on that. Which makes sense, because if a worker is entitled to something now, it's just a backward payment. It's not like their worked but unpaid hours are unworked over time and they lose the right to be paid for them. I find it rather strange you consider breaking contracts and laws a form of liberty, and curbing the people who do that, a limitation of liberty. Why would you want to let someone get away with exploiting or discriminating their employees?
....thus enabling people to actually receive medical treatment, adding hugely to the things they can do with their life, freeing thousands of people that are now unable to do all sorts of things because of untreated medical conditions, and thus adding to their freedom. You seem to be forgetting it was the republicans who shot the idea for basic insurance, so all that was left was private insurance companies. They're the ones who introduced the bit that forced people to do things.
Making money over the backs of others and the environment is neither a right nor a freedom. Curbing it can not possibly reduce freedom. Besides, most countries have much tougher laws on both those subjects, and their economies are a succes.
Even when you couldn't change it if you wanted, because the republicans would block it, and would've reinstated it and sabotaged everything if Obama had done this while he had a majority?
Which war are you talking about? Obama never started any wars, not to this day anyway. Or maybe you're mistaken and you meant the UN based intervention to keep Ghadaffi from causing a massacre? I don't see anyone making a case that Benghazi should've been turned into a giant cemetry just because a few republicans love sabotaging what Obama does.
What? How? That research allows the development of new forms of medicine, for instance against paralysis. Are you seriously going to claim that if someone is paralysed, and then they are cured, their freedom doesn't increase? Not to mention barring people from serving in the armed forces over their sexual orientation was very, very repressive. Getting rid of this form of discrimination adds to freedom in the same way that getting rid of signs saying "Only for whites" adds to freedom. | |
Because they've been told, in church among other places, that if a man is pretty cool if he's a backstabbing, homophobic bigot, who considers all women inferior and their bodies property of the state. (his anti-choice views, which are also a direct violation of the right of the integrity of the body, one of the most basic human right) It's an excellent example of why Churchill said democracy is the worst type of government, except for all the others.
Then you've misinterpreted it completely. It's meant to reduce the chances of a company getting away with discriminatory or underpaying. In most countries, there are no limitations on that. Which makes sense, because if a worker is entitled to something now, it's just a backward payment. It's not like their worked but unpaid hours are unworked over time and they lose the right to be paid for them. I find it rather strange you consider breaking contracts and laws a form of liberty, and curbing the people who do that, a limitation of liberty. Why would you want to let someone get away with exploiting or discriminating their employees?
....thus enabling people to actually receive medical treatment, adding hugely to the things they can do with their life, freeing thousands of people that are now unable to do all sorts of things because of untreated medical conditions, and thus adding to their freedom. You seem to be forgetting it was the republicans who shot the idea for basic insurance, so all that was left was private insurance companies. They're the ones who introduced the bit that forced people to do things.
Making money over the backs of others and the environment is neither a right nor a freedom. Curbing it can not possibly reduce freedom. Besides, most countries have much tougher laws on both those subjects, and their economies are a succes.
Even when you couldn't change it if you wanted, because the republicans would block it, and would've reinstated it and sabotaged everything if Obama had done this while he had a majority?
Which war are you talking about? Obama never started any wars, not to this day anyway. Or maybe you're mistaken and you meant the UN based intervention to keep Ghadaffi from causing a massacre? I don't see anyone making a case that Benghazi should've been turned into a giant cemetry just because a few republicans love sabotaging what Obama does.
What? How? That research allows the development of new forms of medicine, for instance against paralysis. Are you seriously going to claim that if someone is paralysed, and then they are cured, their freedom doesn't increase? Not to mention barring people from serving in the armed forces over their sexual orientation was very, very repressive. Getting rid of this form of discrimination adds to freedom in the same way that getting rid of signs saying "Only for whites" adds to freedom. | |
Woah holy double post there Batman. Perry
Paul
Michele
LOL Wut? *edit More Michele and these remind me of Palin. | |
If Ron Paul wins the nomination, then I see a good chance. | |
You and I have very different opinions on that matter. I think Obama's record is pretty decent, considering what he's had to put up with. Most of the time it seems like he's had to choose between making drastic compromise and screwing over middle and lower class Americans. He's lost a lot of support by looking soft, and it's frustrated me as well that he's given so much ground. But compromise is what I wanted at the beginning of his presidency, so I can't really complain about him. The problem is that the Republicans won't compromise hardly at all. Makes me sad, really. Three years ago I considered myself moderate, but all the drama since then has made me much more intolerant of conservative views. I hate that. But what can I do when all of the big time Republicans would rather spread lies than give an inch on any goddamn issue? All I want is for people to be reasonable. Maybe Obama's been weak, but at least he's closer to reasonable than his opponents. Sorry for ranting. It's just so maddening to watch people go so insane, being a sane person myself. Sane for now, I mean. | |
You wanted compromise, I would prefer solutions. Obama was elected to get the economy back on track, he has failed. Any excuses are irrelevant. When you are leader, EVERYTHING is your fault. Dont worry about sanity too much, a psychology professor once told me that if you know your insane you are probably not insane. I am damn well sure I am insane so... | |
Yes and the S&P Downgrade.. Which of course regardless of naysayers is on Obamas watch. The first time in history even!. I know the left wants to blame the right. the right wants to blame the left. But here is a fact.. The republicans control only 54% of 1/3 of the government. The other two thirds are controlled by the democrats. Regardless of whom we claim blame. The one fact remains, Americas credit downgrade occurred during Obamas watch. That will not change. In fact it is one thing historians will remember. That he is the first president to have such a event occur in U.S history. I understand your devotion, it is admirable. But, he has very little chance of beating any encumbant. As most Americans dont care who the new president is. Just that Obama is out! Even Sponge Bob can beat this president currently.[/quote] I love it. Conservatives assure that the U.S. gets downgraded, then preach about how Obama let the country get downgraded. Real cute. The more they can trip up Obama, the better they look for re-election in 2012. The worse the economy gets, the more likely Obama is not be re-elected. He was the one standing in front of the avalanche that Bush created in 2008, and any attempts to slow it down (example: Wall Street Reform) are met with screams of 'Socialism!' and 'Unamerican!'. Keep up the good work, I'm not falling for it. | |
Since when are compromise and solutions mutually exclusive? I want solutions which are achieved through compromise. I want politicians who can sit down and have a reasonable discussion and come up with a solution that most people can be happy with. I don't want politicians who only care about making the other side of the aisle look bad. Also, Obama was not elected to get the economy back on track. As I remember it, shit went to hell after he was elected. | |
I agree with wanting compromise between the two parties. without compromise nothing will ever get done. You remember incorrect good sir. the economy was hell in a handbasket before he took office. A leader is only as good as his followers. and Congress and the senate being the followers are not doing any following and Obama is stuck trying to herd cats. On a lighter note... | |
No, I'm pretty sure it was starting to go down the toilet, but people weren't nearly as concerned with it as they are now. But I agree about congress right now. Oh, The Onion. Speaking truth while being extremely hilarious. | |
Obama was elected to get the economy back on track, remember Obama inherited all that and made it worse. Compromise and solutions are not mutually exclusive but a solution is more important than compromising and solving nothing (ie the debt deal). Compromise is great but it should be the means to an end not the end itself.
Um no, the members of the Legislative branch are NOT followers of the President. Now politically some may follow him by virtue of being of the same party but Congress is not under the authority of the President. They are separate branches of government. I have noticed a habit among Obama and his supporters of blaming everyone else for the problems he has. This is one of the reasons why Obama is a very poor leader. He refuses to take responsibility for things and instead does his utmost to avoid blame and cast it on others. His complete lack of executive experience that everyone kept talking about in 2008 is showing true. Obama lacked the experience to be President and his failure at the job has only proven this to be true. | |
Here's my two cents 1- A lot of you seriously underestimate the massive amount of stupid people and the massive amount of racists in this country. Two notes on that those two groups are closely related, and they can be very VERY loud which will affect the election 2- Im an Obama supporter but Obama really screwed up during this debt situation. In fact he screwed up every time he tried to work and reason with Republicans. I understand why, however it has consistently been a bad thing for everyone and liberals are getting tired of waiting for him to figure out that these people dont care what happens to America they will tank it while he sits there begging them to be reasonable. 3- Bottom line is if the economy doesnt improve and Obama doesnt find a way to effectively paint the Republican party for what they are to the masses of idiots in this country then its probably a done deal. But the economy is likely not to recover. | |
He is the leader of the country, Yes he is the leader of Congress and the Senate. He is not in charge of either and cannot give commands or orders to them. Leader with the power to make policy suggestions to them but not an order nor does he control them. I never said he controled that branch. He attempts to lead them with proposals and request just like every single president has done and one side does everything they can to crush his proposals and make him look like he didnt do anything and the whole thing is like trying to herd cats because the whole lot of them are off doing whatever instead of getting shit done. Puting words into someone elses mouth is a nasty habit and rarely ends well. BTW since he has no control over Congress and the senate and they are the ones dealing with budget policy and the economy then Obama is not at fault and Republicans are trying to blame him for there own failures. funny how when the Republicans fuck things up they blame someone else. | |
One thing i forgot to mention is that the GOP candidates are kind of butcheeks which will definitely work in Obama's favor Rick Perry- I keep hearing rumors about MASSIVE skeletons in his closet Bachman- She is a pipebomb of crazy and never will get moderates to vote for her ...Mormon guy whose name escapes me- he #1 is a mormon which wont fly with the conservative christian base, and is too close to the middle to get nominated by his own party, he is probably the most dangerous to Obama but with the crazy T party people involved its unlikely he wont make it to the contest. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT | |
I would only say that the Republicans have no chance because they have no viable candidate. But they could come up with one between now and 2012. All they have to do is find someone who can bridge the vast rift between the reasonable Republicans and the crazy Republicans.