algalon: Obama simply because I predict a complete roster change in the House and Senate, which would put a fresh batch of Dems at the majority. We've had a majority before but they were a buncha stale old men too set in their methods to compromise. Put younger people in and Obama can compromise to his heart's content. Or not. Most of the people I've talked to aren't so much fed up with any particular party - they're fed up with all the old money that won't retire their seat until they die in it. So the votes will go to names they do not recognize, as will mine. Also I despise Romney for the same reason I despised Trump - I don't trust rich white trash to know what's good for the rest of us.
A scenario in which Obama wins and the Democrats keep the Senate and retake the House would be a nightmare scenario for the Republicans. Its a possible but unlikely scenario. The Republicans have a huge advantage in the Senate race given that the seats up for a vote this time are those that were up for a vote in the 2006 election and the Republicans lost big in 2006 so as a consequence most of the seats up for grabs are held by Democrats so there are many opportunities for the Republicans to make gains. In fact it would be somewhat of an embarrassment if they could not take advantage of this opportunity and the one they will have in 2014 when the 2008 seats are up for grabs.
Also Romney and Trump are very different from each other in terms of ideology. In fact in some ways Trump's ideology is almost liberal by American standards and in other ways its highly conservative. Trump really isnt a politician, he is a true businessman to the core and much like Buffet he has very little idea what he is talking about when it comes to affairs outside of business, yet like Buffet he doesnt know that.
Trump also was or still is a birther so comparing him to Romney is highly insulting and unfair.
And I agree with you on one thing regarding the House and Senate though I feel the same way about the White House; vote all the bums out and start over from scratch with politicians actually willing to solve problems not just blame the other side for them. I see this from both parties and its annoying as hell.
I'm definitely behind Obama for the next election. When it comes to that office the only grey area in my opinion is the economy and just exactly what will or won't work. I lean left and generally agree with the government taxing the rich more to help the poor themselves is more likely to work then hoping the rich will do it fairly, or even at all themselves through their businesses but it's totally possible to go either way.
But every other thing Obama is completely head and shoulders above anything the republican party could possibly muster for the next election.
Especially foreign relations. Dear god, the only republican that seemed to actually want to actively avoid conflict was Ron Paul and he wanted to do it by pretending it was the 19th century.
Awexsome: I'm definitely behind Obama for the next election. When it comes to that office the only grey area in my opinion is the economy and just exactly what will or won't work. I lean left and generally agree with the government taxing the rich more to help the poor themselves is more likely to work then hoping the rich will do it fairly, or even at all themselves through their businesses but it's totally possible to go either way.
But every other thing Obama is completely head and shoulders above anything the republican party could possibly muster for the next election.
Especially foreign relations. Dear god, the only republican that seemed to actually want to actively avoid conflict was Ron Paul and he wanted to do it by pretending it was the 19th century.
You are not familiar with the tried and true policy of "peace through strength" I take it? Its a more modern adaptation of Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" and that was a man who won a Nobel Peace Prize back when it actually meant something (the Nobel Peace Prize that is).
Seekster: Trump really isnt a politician, he is a true grifter to the core
Fixed that for you.
And lots of people parrot the "throw all the bums out" line, except when it's THEIR bum, then they gleefully pull the lever for him again, which is how we end up with 20 years of Blanche Lincoln.
Seekster: Federal government said we couldnt have funds unless we included Planned Parenthood...so we dropped the federal funds and will have to make cuts to the program.
Apparently healthcare isn't terribly high on the state's priority list. But then again, that can be said for a lot states these days.
Also Texans talking about succession is sort of an ongoing inside joke. Very rarely does anyone mean it, and Rick Perry most certainly doesnt.
I hope so. It's hard to tell when he's kidding and when he's serious. At least with Rick Santorum I know that he genuinely believes everything he says.
Seekster: You are not familiar with the tried and true policy of "peace through strength" I take it? Its a more modern adaptation of Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" and that was a man who won a Nobel Peace Prize back when it actually meant something (the Nobel Peace Prize that is).
There's a difference between "peace through strength" and "being a wannabe cowboy douchebag."
I'd vote for Ron Paul, but he's not even in the race anymore (well, technically he is, but I doubt he'll get the nomination) so I probably won't be doing it... again. I think it's dumb when people vote for one guy 'because the other is worse'. What's the point, you're stilling putting a shit head in office? If you're voting for the lesser of two evils... you're still voting for evil in the end.
Awexsome: I'm definitely behind Obama for the next election. When it comes to that office the only grey area in my opinion is the economy and just exactly what will or won't work. I lean left and generally agree with the government taxing the rich more to help the poor themselves is more likely to work then hoping the rich will do it fairly, or even at all themselves through their businesses but it's totally possible to go either way.
But every other thing Obama is completely head and shoulders above anything the republican party could possibly muster for the next election.
Especially foreign relations. Dear god, the only republican that seemed to actually want to actively avoid conflict was Ron Paul and he wanted to do it by pretending it was the 19th century.
You are not familiar with the tried and true policy of "peace through strength" I take it? Its a more modern adaptation of Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" and that was a man who won a Nobel Peace Prize back when it actually meant something (the Nobel Peace Prize that is).
His peace prize was actually for when he wasn't president and actually a member of McKinley's cabinet. He had helped broker the peace between Russian and Japan from the Russo-Japanese War but got lots of hatred from both sides because both sides didn't get what they wanted and our relations became strained. But yeah, I agree with you on the Peace Prize. MLK and others like that, yes. Obama when he did nothing, no.
Awexsome: I'm definitely behind Obama for the next election. When it comes to that office the only grey area in my opinion is the economy and just exactly what will or won't work. I lean left and generally agree with the government taxing the rich more to help the poor themselves is more likely to work then hoping the rich will do it fairly, or even at all themselves through their businesses but it's totally possible to go either way.
But every other thing Obama is completely head and shoulders above anything the republican party could possibly muster for the next election.
Especially foreign relations. Dear god, the only republican that seemed to actually want to actively avoid conflict was Ron Paul and he wanted to do it by pretending it was the 19th century.
For once, taking it back to the 19th century wouldn't be bad. When our military is as big as the five below us combined, we are too big. We need to go back to the neutrality era proclaimed by Washington. Too bad Truman and all the other doctrine guys loved bringing America to the world of neoconservatism. As for the foreign aid, considering it actually isn't most of the military spending part that many try to say which I learned from this forum, it can stay. Just get rid of our tons of military. We don't need all these soldiers in Germany and Japan, especially Japan because we are one of their best buddies from after the war. As for Korea, yeah they need to stay. I'm looking at you Kim Jong Un but he is more concerned with his food and taking over south park.
I don't live in a swing state, so it doesn't particularly matter who I vote for, but it'll be Obama. My state will vote for Obama. That's a foregone conclusion.
I think Romney will lose the general by a fair margin, save any major scandal/realization Obama actually is a Muslim terrorist from Kenya. The biggest thing going against Republicans for 2012 were their 2010 gains. They won heavily in a lot of swing states, and proceeded to go buck wild. Several important swing states, Ohio and Florida chief among them, have some of the least popular Republican Governors in the country. Republicans haven't won an election without Ohio in forever.
Howard Stern sent a guy out to ask the same question last election, and it was surprising how uninformed voters were in making their choices (for both candidates). I doubt it's any better this time around: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqAiarOhC2U
I'm going with Ron Paul, the closest thing to an independent candidate we have, although on any given ballot I've typically voted for a mix of GOP, Dem, Independent and Libertarian candidates. Voted for Jesse Jackson twice, Anderson (flat taxer), and others. I'm conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and don't care about some issues one way or the other.
Real information this election is being lost in the rhetoric of two camps calling each other evil. On any discussion board, Dems merely toss labels and provide no substance: all critics, no matter how polite or informed, are dismissed as "racist, bigot, uneducated, TeaBagger" or some other term from a scripted list. GOP candidates haven't provided many details on how to fix what's messed up. The two-party system needs to be opened up to multiple parties, or just don't allow party affiliation to be listed on the ballot at all: make people do their homework on every candidate as I do. Voting any straight-party ticket is lazy at best.
Who do I REALLY want? Colin Powell, if he would run.
ruthaford_jive: I'd vote for Ron Paul, but he's not even in the race anymore (well, technically he is, but I doubt he'll get the nomination) so I probably won't be doing it... again. I think it's dumb when people vote for one guy 'because the other is worse'. What's the point, you're stilling putting a shit head in office? If you're voting for the lesser of two evils... you're still voting for evil in the end.
As opposed to what - just not voting? Really helping the system there. I agree that strategic voting is not the best way to go, but one of the "evils" is going to end up in power, you choosing NOT to vote won't change that - it'll just give you less validity when you bitch about the system.
imacdaddy757: Howard Stern sent a guy out to ask the same question last election, and it was surprising how uninformed voters were in making their choices (for both candidates). I doubt it's any better this time around: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqAiarOhC2U
Right, because you can always believe what you hear from comedians. They don't edit those things at all!!
Real information this election is being lost in the rhetoric of two camps calling each other evil. On any discussion board, Dems merely toss labels and provide no substance: all critics, no matter how polite or informed, are dismissed as "racist, bigot, uneducated, TeaBagger" or some other term from a scripted list. GOP candidates haven't provided many details on how to fix what's messed up. The two-party system needs to be opened up to multiple parties, or just don't allow party affiliation to be listed on the ballot at all: make people do their homework on every candidate as I do. Voting any straight-party ticket is lazy at best.
Who do I REALLY want? Colin Powell, if he would run.
Wait - Dems merely toss labels like "racist, bigot, unedulcated, TeaBagger", and the GOP just doesn't provide enough information? I remember something about Obama being muslim? Kenyan? A terrorist in disguise? Typically, Repubs are referred to as racist, BECAUSE THEY MAKE RACIST COMMENTS!
A young lady from Santa Cruz, CA speaks to her city council, offering up many economic and social progress ideas of similar quality to what the Obama administration has provided. I don't have to guess who she voted for. She is the product of a Progressive education (indoctrination?) http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message847551/pg1
Free land and vegetable trees for all.
Me? If Colin Powell were running, he'd have my vote hands-down. With the choices before me, either Ron Paul or Libertarian Gary Johnson.
There is a difference between demonization and negative campaigning. With negative campaigning you say a bunch of bad stuff about the other guy and when its all over they shake hands and move on. Demonization is where you try and marginalize the other side by spouting a bunch of nonsense to discredit them (well thats basically it but there is more to it than just that).
In legitimate negative campaigning, you attack the other person based on their actual issues or record. That's reasonable and valid. Demonization is when you try to attack the other person on a personal and make everyone fear and hate him, usually with lies and distortions. A good example is what's been done to Obama; about 20-30% of the country is absolutely convinced he's a secret Muslim terrorist who wasn't born in the United States and was trained in a Madrasa, and is somehow also a communist who wants to nationalize everything (even though that totally conflicts with the first two conspiracy theories). None of that is at all true, of course, but that was an impression carefully crafted in order to undermine him; if you can't disagree with someone's politics, just destroy him personally.
That's why a moderate like Obama or Clinton ends up being considered "divisive" or "partisan" or "unable to compromise"; it's not because of their politics, it's because the other party has run a consistent and long-running campaign designed to undermine them personally and convince a significant minority of the country to hate them personally based primarily on dishonest propaganda.
You are not familiar with the tried and true policy of "peace through strength" I take it? Its a more modern adaptation of Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" and that was a man who won a Nobel Peace Prize back when it actually meant something (the Nobel Peace Prize that is).
Teddy's policy was "speak softly and carry a big stick". The Republicans seem to have a policy of "wave a big stick around and scream like a lunatic". Every one of them has gone out of their way to imply that they would attack Iran if they were elected. That kind of poinless sabre rattling might play well in the primaries, but it also pushes Iran into building a bomb faster, and creates fear that drives up the price of oil.
I really hate that elections always boil down to voting for "the lesser evil". Personally I'm voting for Obama because I've heard a lot more hypocracy from the Romney camp than the Obama camp...
Dragonclaw: I really hate that elections always boil down to voting for "the lesser evil". Personally I'm voting for Obama because I've heard a lot more hypocracy from the Romney camp than the Obama camp...
Yeah, that lesser evil thing pretty much sums it up. Even if my vote may not mean much if I vote for third party, I at least have my integrity.
You are not familiar with the tried and true policy of "peace through strength" I take it? Its a more modern adaptation of Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" and that was a man who won a Nobel Peace Prize back when it actually meant something (the Nobel Peace Prize that is).
Teddy's policy was "speak softly and carry a big stick". The Republicans seem to have a policy of "wave a big stick around and scream like a lunatic". Every one of them has gone out of their way to imply that they would attack Iran if they were elected. That kind of poinless sabre rattling might play well in the primaries, but it also pushes Iran into building a bomb faster, and creates fear that drives up the price of oil.
Let me just say that the Republican lunatic method for Iran I found ludicrous but these UN sanctions that mean nothing aren't going to solve things either. Attacking Iran=Bad. Sanctions=Stupid. Tough choice.
imacdaddy757: A young lady from Santa Cruz, CA speaks to her city council, offering up many economic and social progress ideas of similar quality to what the Obama administration has provided. I don't have to guess who she voted for. She is the product of a Progressive education (indoctrination?) http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message847551/pg1
Free land and vegetable trees for all.
Me? If Colin Powell were running, he'd have my vote hands-down. With the choices before me, either Ron Paul or Libertarian Gary Johnson.
What does that video have anything to do with this thread? Or with either your earlier post or my response? Also, can you provide any sources illustrating Obama pushing "free land", or "slave and made in China on the East coast"? Or is this just more of the Republican "democratic equals socialist" indoctrination?
Besides, did you even watch the video? She specifically lauds Bush and his economic efforts.
There is a difference between demonization and negative campaigning. With negative campaigning you say a bunch of bad stuff about the other guy and when its all over they shake hands and move on. Demonization is where you try and marginalize the other side by spouting a bunch of nonsense to discredit them (well thats basically it but there is more to it than just that).
In legitimate negative campaigning, you attack the other person based on their actual issues or record. That's reasonable and valid. Demonization is when you try to attack the other person on a personal and make everyone fear and hate him, usually with lies and distortions. A good example is what's been done to Obama; about 20-30% of the country is absolutely convinced he's a secret Muslim terrorist who wasn't born in the United States and was trained in a Madrasa, and is somehow also a communist who wants to nationalize everything (even though that totally conflicts with the first two conspiracy theories). None of that is at all true, of course, but that was an impression carefully crafted in order to undermine him; if you can't disagree with someone's politics, just destroy him personally.
That's why a moderate like Obama or Clinton ends up being considered "divisive" or "partisan" or "unable to compromise"; it's not because of their politics, it's because the other party has run a consistent and long-running campaign designed to undermine them personally and convince a significant minority of the country to hate them personally based primarily on dishonest propaganda.
I will stipulate that Obama has been unfairly demonized if you will agree that George W Bush has been. Both men have also been fairly criticized for things they actually did do but its important to be able to see the difference between valid and invalid criticism.
Also very few people outside of the far-right (and by that I mean people I would consider too Conservative) believe Obama is a Muslim and I never even heard of the Madrasa bit before. Heck there are people out there who believe Bush planned the Iraq War from the beginning to get oil contracts for his buddies so do not talk to me about ludicrous conspiracy theories.
Clinton may count as a Moderate, Obama most certainly is not.
Yes thats all Obama and his supporters have been good for, blaming others for their failings. Thats not leadership.
You are not familiar with the tried and true policy of "peace through strength" I take it? Its a more modern adaptation of Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" and that was a man who won a Nobel Peace Prize back when it actually meant something (the Nobel Peace Prize that is).
Teddy's policy was "speak softly and carry a big stick". The Republicans seem to have a policy of "wave a big stick around and scream like a lunatic". Every one of them has gone out of their way to imply that they would attack Iran if they were elected. That kind of poinless sabre rattling might play well in the primaries, but it also pushes Iran into building a bomb faster, and creates fear that drives up the price of oil.
Um what?
Every Republican candidate including Bachmann would have rather dealt with Iran without needing to use force than to use force from the get go. In fact Obama ostensibly has the same policy, ie he prefers to use non-military options to resolve the situation but will keep military options on the table. Not sure why you are criticizing the Republicans for essentially having the same stated policy towards Iran as Obama does. The only difference there is maybe the Republicans are going to be less hostile towards Israel but everyone would rather Iran cooperate peacefully. Besides Ahmedinajad's term is almost up and I don't think he can run again meaning that chances are we may get someone somewhat less crazy.
Hint: he's neither Republican, Tea Party, nor Caucasian.
Can you please provide your source that provides Mr. King's political affiliation? It is not identified in the video or article you provided. Wait, he's wearing blue - he must be Democratic.
Damn those left-wing wackos, I mean we all know that anyone supporting the right wing would never stoop to underhanded and offensive tactics. Oh wait....who did that Andrew Breitbart guy support again?
Seekster: Federal government said we couldnt have funds unless we included Planned Parenthood...so we dropped the federal funds and will have to make cuts to the program.
Apparently healthcare isn't terribly high on the state's priority list. But then again, that can be said for a lot states these days.
Also Texans talking about succession is sort of an ongoing inside joke. Very rarely does anyone mean it, and Rick Perry most certainly doesnt.
I hope so. It's hard to tell when he's kidding and when he's serious. At least with Rick Santorum I know that he genuinely believes everything he says.
Seekster: You are not familiar with the tried and true policy of "peace through strength" I take it? Its a more modern adaptation of Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" and that was a man who won a Nobel Peace Prize back when it actually meant something (the Nobel Peace Prize that is).
There's a difference between "peace through strength" and "being a wannabe cowboy douchebag."
I live in Texas and Rick Perry is quite stupidly serious. He really believes in the succession of Texas.
Seekster: Federal government said we couldnt have funds unless we included Planned Parenthood...so we dropped the federal funds and will have to make cuts to the program.
Apparently healthcare isn't terribly high on the state's priority list. But then again, that can be said for a lot states these days.
Also Texans talking about succession is sort of an ongoing inside joke. Very rarely does anyone mean it, and Rick Perry most certainly doesnt.
I hope so. It's hard to tell when he's kidding and when he's serious. At least with Rick Santorum I know that he genuinely believes everything he says.
Seekster: You are not familiar with the tried and true policy of "peace through strength" I take it? Its a more modern adaptation of Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" and that was a man who won a Nobel Peace Prize back when it actually meant something (the Nobel Peace Prize that is).
There's a difference between "peace through strength" and "being a wannabe cowboy douchebag."
I live in Texas and Rick Perry is quite stupidly serious. He really believes in the succession of Texas.
I live in Texas too and Rick Perry is quite seriously not serious and I have no idea what makes you think he would honestly want to leave the United States.
Seekster: I will stipulate that Obama has been unfairly demonized if you will agree that George W Bush has been.
No, I think Bush actually deserved about 85% of the shit that was flung his way (along with one Iraq-made shoe.) Bush gets villified for driving up the national debt to a new high, cynically using 9/11 to pass a lot of police-state bullshit and lie his way into an unnecessary war, his hideous mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, his consistent cronyism, trying to normalize TORTURE, managing to piss away worldwide goodwill in record time, and and an*BUFFER ERROR TOO MANY SCANDALS PLEASE REBOOT*
Obama gets villified for being a radical socialist (he's not), a secret Muslim (nope), wanting to destroy America (nope), a Kenyan who got the Presidency under false pretences (nope), wanting to destroy Capitalism (HAHAHAnope) and so on.
There IS a difference, even if you can't won't let yourself see it.
I see a bunch of bs said about Bush and I see a bunch of bs said about Obama. Arbane your double standard is on full display here. If you can't see it then I hope others can.
I don't see a difference between saying that Bush wanted to establish a police-state and saying Obama wants to destroy capitalism in America. Both have next to no basis in reality.
Seekster: I see a bunch of bs said about Bush and I see a bunch of bs said about Obama. Arbane your double standard is on full display here. If you can't see it then I hope others can.
I don't see a difference between saying that Bush wanted to establish a police-state and saying Obama wants to destroy capitalism in America. Both have next to no basis in reality.
Whether you agree with Seekster most of the time or not, you cannot disagree with the fact that both get wrongly attacked, one way or another. Do I believe Bush was a good president? No, I don't; I think he was a below average to bad president. Do I think that Iraq was all for oil and that the PATRIOT act was for Orwell's nightmare to come true? No, I don't. Do I think that Obama is a Kenyan born communist socialist muslim that wants to kill babies for 72 virgins. No, I don't. These are stupid attacks and you cannot say that one side doesn't demonize. Yes, the Republicans do demonize more and are often times very stupid, but the democrats and liberals also do a fair share of demonization. Look at Palin, Bachmann, and the supposed witch who I can't remember. Yes they are very stupid but they did not deserve all the attacks like Palin writing on her hand being criticized by the White House Press Secretary.
How did Bush get rid of worldwide good will? If anything, his neo conservatism tried to spread it. I don't know where you are getting this cronyism idea either. As for Katrina, the mayor of New Orleans thought it was some white supremacist conspiracy as to why there was no help.
recruit00: How did Bush get rid of worldwide good will? If anything, his neo conservatism tried to spread it.
Really? Let's see ... after 9/11, the world was on our side. Then we decided to go invade Iraq based on questionable evidence, to say the least. The world was no longer on our side.
recruit00: I don't know where you are getting this cronyism idea either.
Apparently healthcare isn't terribly high on the state's priority list. But then again, that can be said for a lot states these days.
I hope so. It's hard to tell when he's kidding and when he's serious. At least with Rick Santorum I know that he genuinely believes everything he says.
There's a difference between "peace through strength" and "being a wannabe cowboy douchebag."
I live in Texas and Rick Perry is quite stupidly serious. He really believes in the succession of Texas.
I live in Texas too and Rick Perry is quite seriously not serious and I have no idea what makes you think he would honestly want to leave the United States.
I have every reason to believe he will. The man doesn't understand the implication of anything he says and hes an embarrassment.
godfist88: I used to think Romney was Okay, but then i found out he's a complete dope. i'll definitely be voting for Obama.
Why do you think Romney is a dope now?
some of the things he says are kinda... well stupid. just few week ago he stated that Russia was our greatest geo political foe. I know he's just trying to make Obama look bad because gets along with Russian officials, but if he's gonna say stuff like that in office, forien policy might take a bad turn.
A scenario in which Obama wins and the Democrats keep the Senate and retake the House would be a nightmare scenario for the Republicans. Its a possible but unlikely scenario. The Republicans have a huge advantage in the Senate race given that the seats up for a vote this time are those that were up for a vote in the 2006 election and the Republicans lost big in 2006 so as a consequence most of the seats up for grabs are held by Democrats so there are many opportunities for the Republicans to make gains. In fact it would be somewhat of an embarrassment if they could not take advantage of this opportunity and the one they will have in 2014 when the 2008 seats are up for grabs.
Also Romney and Trump are very different from each other in terms of ideology. In fact in some ways Trump's ideology is almost liberal by American standards and in other ways its highly conservative. Trump really isnt a politician, he is a true businessman to the core and much like Buffet he has very little idea what he is talking about when it comes to affairs outside of business, yet like Buffet he doesnt know that.
Trump also was or still is a birther so comparing him to Romney is highly insulting and unfair.
And I agree with you on one thing regarding the House and Senate though I feel the same way about the White House; vote all the bums out and start over from scratch with politicians actually willing to solve problems not just blame the other side for them. I see this from both parties and its annoying as hell.