Who are you voting for in the US election and why?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Seekster:
I'm sorry the REPUBLICANS have a tendency to be more organized? Yeah thats certainly not how I remember it.

You must be remembering a different recent history than me. Remember the healthcare debacle at the beginning of Obama's term? Had the Dems been half as organized as the Reps are, do you honestly think that we would've had any issue passing it at all? Compare that to how uniform a Republican controlled Congress has been within the past couple of years.

I wouldnt call Obama an UTTER failure, but he is a highly ineffective President and that has a lot more to do with him than with Congress. You know he isnt the only President that has had to deal with a non-cooperative or even hostile congress. His lack of leadership skills make him unable to effectively deal with congress.

If by "lack of leadership skills" you mean "fighting a Congress dead set on doing nothing" then I'll agree with you. Remember the debt ceiling "negotiations?" Remember every single time negotiation came up, it never bloody happened? You can't negotiate with someone who doesn't want to negotiate. This isn't a failure in leadership skills. In fact, I'd challenge you to find a leader who could do better in a volatile democratic situation. In the end, if he would've taken the route of signing exec orders to do precisely what he wanted to do with the same frequency as Bush, do you really think that he'd get away with it?

Romney on the other hand is someone who can get things done and he is by far the least divisive man running for President. He can work with pretty much anybody from any point in the political spectrum. He can actually solve problems. If you vote Obama in we are going to have 4 more years of nothing really getting done and the problems the country faces will only get worse.

Ok, I'm calling bullshit on this one. Go through those primaries again, if you don't mind. Go through those arguments on things like the corporate personhood decision, which itself is a highly divisive position to take. Then, again, take his position on nationalized healthcare and compare it to the health system that he put up in his own state. Now, tell me what his stance is on this subject.

He isn't just divisive - and that's the problem. If he were just divisive, then I could just attribute it to him having strong positions that are at least controversial. My main issue comes with the fact that he has this tendency to say one thing and do the other. While I can't say that Obama's much better in that respect, I can say that I can read his preferences through his actions in office as President, which isn't something that I can say about Romney.

Also, on this bit...

If you vote Obama in we are going to have 4 more years of nothing really getting done and the problems the country faces will only get worse.

You realize just how much that sounds like grasping, right? Obama did what he could. Congress has been doing fuck all that's been useful. You may want to blame Obama, but that's just blaming him because you want to blame him for whatever you can.

Yeah, unemployment is down, its still higher than it was at any point during the Bush administration and job growth is proceeding at a snail's pace. Ill give Obama the credit he is due but only what he is due.

Naheal:

Seekster:
I'm sorry the REPUBLICANS have a tendency to be more organized? Yeah thats certainly not how I remember it.

You must be remembering a different recent history than me. Remember the healthcare debacle at the beginning of Obama's term? Had the Dems been half as organized as the Reps are, do you honestly think that we would've had any issue passing it at all? Compare that to how uniform a Republican controlled Congress has been within the past couple of years.

I wouldnt call Obama an UTTER failure, but he is a highly ineffective President and that has a lot more to do with him than with Congress. You know he isnt the only President that has had to deal with a non-cooperative or even hostile congress. His lack of leadership skills make him unable to effectively deal with congress.

If by "lack of leadership skills" you mean "fighting a Congress dead set on doing nothing" then I'll agree with you. Remember the debt ceiling "negotiations?" Remember every single time negotiation came up, it never bloody happened? You can't negotiate with someone who doesn't want to negotiate. This isn't a failure in leadership skills. In fact, I'd challenge you to find a leader who could do better in a volatile democratic situation. In the end, if he would've taken the route of signing exec orders to do precisely what he wanted to do with the same frequency as Bush, do you really think that he'd get away with it?

Romney on the other hand is someone who can get things done and he is by far the least divisive man running for President. He can work with pretty much anybody from any point in the political spectrum. He can actually solve problems. If you vote Obama in we are going to have 4 more years of nothing really getting done and the problems the country faces will only get worse.

Ok, I'm calling bullshit on this one. Go through those primaries again, if you don't mind. Go through those arguments on things like the corporate personhood decision, which itself is a highly divisive position to take. Then, again, take his position on nationalized healthcare and compare it to the health system that he put up in his own state. Now, tell me what his stance is on this subject.

He isn't just divisive - and that's the problem. If he were just divisive, then I could just attribute it to him having strong positions that are at least controversial. My main issue comes with the fact that he has this tendency to say one thing and do the other. While I can't say that Obama's much better in that respect, I can say that I can read his preferences through his actions in office as President, which isn't something that I can say about Romney.

Also, on this bit...

If you vote Obama in we are going to have 4 more years of nothing really getting done and the problems the country faces will only get worse.

You realize just how much that sounds like grasping, right? Obama did what he could. Congress has been doing fuck all that's been useful. You may want to blame Obama, but that's just blaming him because you want to blame him for whatever you can.

Its very easy to get people organized about something that is an ideological non-starter for them like Obamacare was to anyone with a halfway Conservative ideology.

Boehner has had to fight tooth and nail to keep the Tea Party Republicans from doing stupid stuff and its amazing he has been as successful as he has been at that.

Oh blah blah blah blame someone else for all Obama's failings. Again, he is certainly not the only President to have to fight with congress and he wont be the last. A good leader can work with people who may be hostile towards them. Obama seems to blame others for his failings.

"I'd challenge you to find a leader who could do better in a volatile democratic situation. In the end"

Bill Clinton.

I HIGHLY doubt Corporate Person hood is going to come up as a policy issue during a Romney presidency. I don't like Obama's favorite sports teams but in a political context thats not what makes him divisive.

Obama is a pathological liar as far as I am concerned. Joe Wilson was absolutely right.

If this is the best Obama could do then why the hell would you want 4 more years of him? Now you are just being paranoid. Obama is President and the President is justly or unjustly held responsible for whatever goes down during their term. Obama is no different in this regard.

Look I don't think I am going to convince you to vote for Romney but I want to hear a valid reason from you why you will vote for Obama over Romney. Note I said a valid reason, not some bs talking points. Come on Naheal you are better than this, I know you are.

Seekster:
Yeah, unemployment is down, its still higher than it was at any point during the Bush administration and job growth is proceeding at a snail's pace. Ill give Obama the credit he is due but only what he is due.

Unemployment rates were rapidly rising at the end of Bush's tenure in office, capping at about 8 percent when he left. That's about where we're at now.

Seekster:

eyepatchdreams:

Seekster:

Yeah you can balance a budget with nothing but cuts...but there comes a point when people would just rather pay higher taxes.

Out of touch and untrustworthy? Sure...and you are voting for Obama who is out of touch and untrustworthy why?

No, You can't balance the budget on just "cuts" only. It only serves as short term band aid and we could be put in a double dip recession. There needs to be sensible solutions that in the long term won't stress the economy.

I think you have cuts confused with deficit spending there. Of course you can balance a budget with just cuts...you probably do not want to do that after a certain point...but we arent anywhere close to that point yet.

And by the way Tyler Romney HAS lived in poor conditions while in college and shortly after. I suggest you do your research.

Naheal:

Seekster:
Out of touch and untrustworthy? Sure...and you are voting for Obama who is out of touch and untrustworthy why?

Consider party politics for a moment. For one, Republicans have this tendency to organize far more than the Dems do, even to the point of affecting the political standpoint of individuals while they're in office. While this can be a strength, in the case of Republican politics in the past two years, this really is more of a danger than a strength.

Another standpoint to consider would be the "known evil vs unknown evil" conflict here. The fact is that I don't know Romney's policies on a federal executive scale, but I do know Obama's. While his policies haven't been too endearing within the past couple years, I can easily point to Congress and say that they were the main problem within that time-frame rather than just pointing to the presidency and saying that he's an utter failure.

I'm sorry the REPUBLICANS have a tendency to be more organized? Yeah thats certainly not how I remember it.

I wouldnt call Obama an UTTER failure, but he is a highly ineffective President and that has a lot more to do with him than with Congress. You know he isnt the only President that has had to deal with a non-cooperative or even hostile congress. His lack of leadership skills make him unable to effectively deal with congress. Romney on the other hand is someone who can get things done and he is by far the least divisive man running for President. He can work with pretty much anybody from any point in the political spectrum. He can actually solve problems. If you vote Obama in we are going to have 4 more years of nothing really getting done and the problems the country faces will only get worse.

You can't JUST USE CUTS. To balance a budget and you have to other ways to supplement it besides short term cuts to the defense budget. We are at a pivotal point that we need a plan and a call for bipartisanship. We need more to a plan then cut everything in hopes it balances it.

I'm not sure why you brought up Tyler Romney. Talking to the other guy?

eyepatchdreams:

Seekster:

eyepatchdreams:

No, You can't balance the budget on just "cuts" only. It only serves as short term band aid and we could be put in a double dip recession. There needs to be sensible solutions that in the long term won't stress the economy.

I think you have cuts confused with deficit spending there. Of course you can balance a budget with just cuts...you probably do not want to do that after a certain point...but we arent anywhere close to that point yet.

And by the way Tyler Romney HAS lived in poor conditions while in college and shortly after. I suggest you do your research.

Naheal:

Consider party politics for a moment. For one, Republicans have this tendency to organize far more than the Dems do, even to the point of affecting the political standpoint of individuals while they're in office. While this can be a strength, in the case of Republican politics in the past two years, this really is more of a danger than a strength.

Another standpoint to consider would be the "known evil vs unknown evil" conflict here. The fact is that I don't know Romney's policies on a federal executive scale, but I do know Obama's. While his policies haven't been too endearing within the past couple years, I can easily point to Congress and say that they were the main problem within that time-frame rather than just pointing to the presidency and saying that he's an utter failure.

I'm sorry the REPUBLICANS have a tendency to be more organized? Yeah thats certainly not how I remember it.

I wouldnt call Obama an UTTER failure, but he is a highly ineffective President and that has a lot more to do with him than with Congress. You know he isnt the only President that has had to deal with a non-cooperative or even hostile congress. His lack of leadership skills make him unable to effectively deal with congress. Romney on the other hand is someone who can get things done and he is by far the least divisive man running for President. He can work with pretty much anybody from any point in the political spectrum. He can actually solve problems. If you vote Obama in we are going to have 4 more years of nothing really getting done and the problems the country faces will only get worse.

You can't JUST USE CUTS. To balance a budget and you have to other ways to supplement it besides short term cuts to the defense budget. We are at a pivotal point that we need a plan and a call for bipartisanship. We need more to a plan then cut everything in hopes it balances it.

I'm not sure why you brought up Tyler Romney. Talking to the other guy?

Who the crap it Tyler Romney? I was talking to Tyler, I have him on ignore so I can't quote him directly.

And yes you can use just cuts to balance a budget but we can agree its best to not just use cuts to balance it. We need a plan and we need it to be bipartisan, Obama had his shot and failed miserably at addressing the nation's budget woes. Unless we want to turn out like parts of Europe we need to get serious about turning around our financial situation and Mitt Romney has experience turning things around that are over budget. Give the businessman a shot, if it doesnt work out we can vote him out in 4 years too. My point is Obama has shown every indication that he is NOT equipped to answer the nations problems. In fact he can't function at all unless his party controls both houses of Congress. Think about it, the Republicans only control the House, thats it and they have only done so for half Obama's term. Now you can blame the House all you want for Obama's failures but you cant deny thats pretty sad when a President can't hardly do squat unless his party has complete control of the government.

Seekster:

eyepatchdreams:

Seekster:

I think you have cuts confused with deficit spending there. Of course you can balance a budget with just cuts...you probably do not want to do that after a certain point...but we arent anywhere close to that point yet.

And by the way Tyler Romney HAS lived in poor conditions while in college and shortly after. I suggest you do your research.

I'm sorry the REPUBLICANS have a tendency to be more organized? Yeah thats certainly not how I remember it.

I wouldnt call Obama an UTTER failure, but he is a highly ineffective President and that has a lot more to do with him than with Congress. You know he isnt the only President that has had to deal with a non-cooperative or even hostile congress. His lack of leadership skills make him unable to effectively deal with congress. Romney on the other hand is someone who can get things done and he is by far the least divisive man running for President. He can work with pretty much anybody from any point in the political spectrum. He can actually solve problems. If you vote Obama in we are going to have 4 more years of nothing really getting done and the problems the country faces will only get worse.

You can't JUST USE CUTS. To balance a budget and you have to other ways to supplement it besides short term cuts to the defense budget. We are at a pivotal point that we need a plan and a call for bipartisanship. We need more to a plan then cut everything in hopes it balances it.

I'm not sure why you brought up Tyler Romney. Talking to the other guy?

Who the crap it Tyler Romney? I was talking to Tyler, I have him on ignore so I can't quote him directly.

And yes you can use just cuts to balance a budget but we can agree its best to not just use cuts to balance it. We need a plan and we need it to be bipartisan, Obama had his shot and failed miserably at addressing the nation's budget woes. Unless we want to turn out like parts of Europe we need to get serious about turning around our financial situation and Mitt Romney has experience turning things around that are over budget. Give the businessman a shot, if it doesnt work out we can vote him out in 4 years too. My point is Obama has shown every indication that he is NOT equipped to answer the nations problems. In fact he can't function at all unless his party controls both houses of Congress. Think about it, the Republicans only control the House, thats it and they have only done so for half Obama's term. Now you can blame the House all you want for Obama's failures but you cant deny thats pretty sad when a President can't hardly do squat unless his party has complete control of the government.

Until I see a comprehensive layout plan from Romney before November, I have every right to be skeptical of how hes going to handle this. Obama can get bills through but he has no backbone to fight for such things. That's the biggest criticism I have from the guy. If he was tougher on bills like Mr. Bush was then we would be seeing aggressive pushing for new bills.

Witty Name Here:
*Socialist snip*

Yah, I know. McCarthyism/Red Scare really did a number on you guys, even to this day. But I just threw the Socialist party out there as one of many examples of third parties one might want to vote for. Honestly, even if people voted for the Libertarian paty, whom I disagree with on a lot of issues, I'd be glad; if only because it'd mean that the two-party conundrum was falling apart. But I don't see that (or any other third party succeeding) happening any time soon.

Naheal:
*hello snip*

Oi! Welcome back. Good to see an R&P long-timer return.

Tyler Perry:

Still claiming to not be a Republican?

He's not RepubliCAN, he's RepubliMUST.

I'm gonna drop the argument up until this point because we're simply not going to get anywhere with it.

Seekster:
Look I don't think I am going to convince you to vote for Romney but I want to hear a valid reason from you why you will vote for Obama over Romney. Note I said a valid reason, not some bs talking points. Come on Naheal you are better than this, I know you are.

Oi. Reread what I posted, specifically here:

Naheal:
Consider party politics for a moment. For one, Republicans have this tendency to organize far more than the Dems do, even to the point of affecting the political standpoint of individuals while they're in office. While this can be a strength, in the case of Republican politics in the past two years, this really is more of a danger than a strength.

Another standpoint to consider would be the "known evil vs unknown evil" conflict here. The fact is that I don't know Romney's policies on a federal executive scale, but I do know Obama's. While his policies haven't been too endearing within the past couple years, I can easily point to Congress and say that they were the main problem within that time-frame rather than just pointing to the presidency and saying that he's an utter failure.

And here:

Naheal:
Obama may be on my shit list for things like the NDAA, but the Republican Primaries have been little more than a media circus. I've been biting my nails worrying that we'd end up with candidate Santorum or Gingrich only to see Gov. Romney touting the same line that was being echoed throughout the rest of the primaries. Considering that and moving to the climate in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida, I don't think that I'd be able to vote for a Republican candidate and not be terrified that they'd start down the same path that we've been seeing in these states.

If I could get a viable Socialist candidate, I'd vote for them. Hell, stick Bernie Sanders on a presidential ticket and I'd vote for him. Unfortunately, voting for a third party doesn't seem to be viable as of yet, but I'm waiting for the Republican Party to self-destruct within the next few years if they continue down this path. Mostly, I just want a second party that I could vote for without sounding like I'm voting for vengeance's sake alone.

Second one's easy to miss, what with it being relatively buried, but missing the first? Come on, mate. That was in a conversation with you.

I was paying attention during the Republican primaries. Unfortunately, of all the candidates there, Romney was the most sane... in a lineup that included Santorum and Gingrich as valid candidates. If you want to say that he's the best of those, great. Unfortunately, what I heard from Gingrich (mostly ignorable, to be honest. Let's not have a repeat of Clinton's first Congress) and Santorum were not endearing to the Republican party. With the single exception of the "Personhood" bill (making life legally begin at conception, which is another can that I really am not in the mood to open up here), they echoed the exact same bloody lines. Further, there was the statement made earlier by Eric Fehrnstrom, a Republican communication consultant who works with Romney's PAC, where the general election begins with both parties starting with a clean slate. You cannot tell me that this stance is any less than insulting.

Furthermore, you can't say to me that statements made during the primaries have no bearing on what they'll promise during the general election cycle as well as their own trustworthiness. When he starts backtracking on what he's said during the primaries, will you still be able to trust that he'll do as promised?

I mean, sure. Obama's on my shit list right now, but I'm a socialist. Frankly, I'm not going to be happy with either candidate, but I'd rather see the guy who's more likely to lean toward my own values while fumbling around to keep his base than the guy who's own party is starting to sound more and more like they're, for a lack of a better phrase and I hope you don't take direct offense, selfish to the point of negligence or even cruelty.

Skeleon:

Naheal:
*hello snip*

Oi! Welcome back. Good to see an R&P long-timer return.

Just wait until I say something stupid to get myself banned. I came back at the worst time.

Edit: Also, socialism in general has had a hard time working since the Cold War, since we've conflated socialism with outright communism. And, of course, communism = USSR = evil has been the mantra since before WWII, so yeah.

eyepatchdreams:

Until I see a comprehensive layout plan from Romney before November, I have every right to be skeptical of how hes going to handle this. Obama can get bills through but he has no backbone to fight for such things. That's the biggest criticism I have from the guy. If he was tougher on bills like Mr. Bush was then we would be seeing aggressive pushing for new bills.

Well if Obama actually understood opposing viewpoints at least pretended like he believed they have some validity he might actually make for an effective President. Frankly leading off with Obamacare was probably his biggest mistake, followed by Obamacare itself.

Naheal:
-snip-

Oh you are a socialist? Well then yes you should be voting for Obama. Now that wasn't so hard.

Edit: Also I understand that communism and socialism are different. Furthermore I appreciate your politeness. Lord knows this forum could use a heck of a lot more of it.

Seekster:

eyepatchdreams:

Until I see a comprehensive layout plan from Romney before November, I have every right to be skeptical of how hes going to handle this. Obama can get bills through but he has no backbone to fight for such things. That's the biggest criticism I have from the guy. If he was tougher on bills like Mr. Bush was then we would be seeing aggressive pushing for new bills.

Well if Obama actually understood opposing viewpoints at least pretended like he believed they have some validity he might actually make for an effective President. Frankly leading off with Obamacare was probably his biggest mistake, followed by Obamacare itself.

Naheal:
-snip-

Oh you are a socialist? Well then yes you should be voting for Obama. Now that wasn't so hard.

Edit: Also I understand that communism and socialism are different. Furthermore I appreciate your politeness. Lord knows this forum could use a heck of a lot more of it.

The president wants bipartisanship and try to make policies that are effective. There was great legislation in the healthcare bill. You had to cut out all the bullshit to find the great stuff in it. It would have been a huge undertaking on any president to try to pass radical healthcare reform. The question of should he have done it is open for debate.

eyepatchdreams:

No, You can't balance the budget on just "cuts" only. It only serves as short term band aid and we could be put in a double dip recession. There needs to be sensible solutions that in the long term won't stress the economy.

If you want to get really technical, yes you can balance a budget on cuts only - the government will always have forms of revenue (existing tax revenue, road tolls, payments from debtees, etc), and it is possible to cut enough expenditures so that the existing revenue will meet or surpass the existing outset. To do so would have the party in question kicked out of office faster than ice cream through a lactose intolerant bulemic (how's that for insensitive?).

A politically and fiscally SOUND effort to balance the budget has to include both cuts AND revenue increases - but I'm just picking nits, I guess.

Seekster:

And by the way Tyler Romney HAS lived in poor conditions while in college and shortly after. I suggest you do your research.

To what are you referring - his time in France?
"But the Republican presidential hopeful spent a significant portion of his 30-month mission in a Paris mansion described by fellow American missionaries to The Daily Telegraph as "palace". It featured stained glass windows, chandeliers, and an extensive art collection. It was staffed by two servants - a Spanish chef and a houseboy. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8959440/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-life-as-a-poor-Mormon-missionary-in-France-questioned.html

Or his time at BYU?
"By then, the couple had married and moved into a shabby, $62-a-month basement apartment, with cracked tiles in the kitchen floor."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-as-a-student-at-a-chaotic-time-for-byu-focused-on-family-church/2012/02/17/gIQABaWaMR_print.html
I should point out the fact that although this isn't an ideal apartment - today equalling a rent of approximately $375/month, slightly below average rent for the Provo area - I don't know if I'd call it "poor conditions." Especially when you consider the fact that they lived there for less than 2 years, before moving to a "modest three-bedroom place" (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680196334/Romney-determined-to-make-mark-early.html?pg=4) in Belmont so that Mitt could earn his joint Law/Business degree from Harvard - which of course wasn't a cheap venture.
"Harvard has a way to make sure, however, you don't get a discount. You pay the full premium for both or the full charge of both." http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1066
How's that for research?

Should I add to this thread the fact that Romney has 'demonized' Obama for his Harvard roots - which is a little bit of a double standard?

EmptyOptimist:

eyepatchdreams:

No, You can't balance the budget on just "cuts" only. It only serves as short term band aid and we could be put in a double dip recession. There needs to be sensible solutions that in the long term won't stress the economy.

If you want to get really technical, yes you can balance a budget on cuts only - the government will always have forms of revenue (existing tax revenue, road tolls, payments from debtees, etc), and it is possible to cut enough expenditures so that the existing revenue will meet or surpass the existing outset. To do so would have the party in question kicked out of office faster than ice cream through a lactose intolerant bulemic (how's that for insensitive?).

A politically and fiscally SOUND effort to balance the budget has to include both cuts AND revenue increases - but I'm just picking nits, I guess.

Seekster:

And by the way Tyler Romney HAS lived in poor conditions while in college and shortly after. I suggest you do your research.

To what are you referring - his time in France?
"But the Republican presidential hopeful spent a significant portion of his 30-month mission in a Paris mansion described by fellow American missionaries to The Daily Telegraph as "palace". It featured stained glass windows, chandeliers, and an extensive art collection. It was staffed by two servants - a Spanish chef and a houseboy. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8959440/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-life-as-a-poor-Mormon-missionary-in-France-questioned.html

Or his time at BYU?
"By then, the couple had married and moved into a shabby, $62-a-month basement apartment, with cracked tiles in the kitchen floor."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-as-a-student-at-a-chaotic-time-for-byu-focused-on-family-church/2012/02/17/gIQABaWaMR_print.html
I should point out the fact that although this isn't an ideal apartment - today equalling a rent of approximately $375/month, slightly below average rent for the Provo area - I don't know if I'd call it "poor conditions." Especially when you consider the fact that they lived there for less than 2 years, before moving to a "modest three-bedroom place" (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680196334/Romney-determined-to-make-mark-early.html?pg=4) in Belmont so that Mitt could earn his joint Law/Business degree from Harvard - which of course wasn't a cheap venture.
"Harvard has a way to make sure, however, you don't get a discount. You pay the full premium for both or the full charge of both." http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1066
How's that for research?

Should I add to this thread the fact that Romney has 'demonized' Obama for his Harvard roots - which is a little bit of a double standard?

I was speaking in general terms of the definition. I was'int specific enough.

Seekster:

Well if Obama actually understood opposing viewpoints at least pretended like he believed they have some validity he might actually make for an effective President. Frankly leading off with Obamacare was probably his biggest mistake, followed by Obamacare itself.

For curiosity's sake, can you provide an example of Obama's unwillingness to be compromising/inability to be understanding, then contrast it with Romney (or any other Repub, for that matter) being positively divisive. I'm finding that what you are detracting Obama for and what you are praising Romney for is effectively the same thing, just viewed through different coloured glasses.

eyepatchdreams:

Seekster:

eyepatchdreams:

Until I see a comprehensive layout plan from Romney before November, I have every right to be skeptical of how hes going to handle this. Obama can get bills through but he has no backbone to fight for such things. That's the biggest criticism I have from the guy. If he was tougher on bills like Mr. Bush was then we would be seeing aggressive pushing for new bills.

Well if Obama actually understood opposing viewpoints at least pretended like he believed they have some validity he might actually make for an effective President. Frankly leading off with Obamacare was probably his biggest mistake, followed by Obamacare itself.

Naheal:
-snip-

Oh you are a socialist? Well then yes you should be voting for Obama. Now that wasn't so hard.

Edit: Also I understand that communism and socialism are different. Furthermore I appreciate your politeness. Lord knows this forum could use a heck of a lot more of it.

The president wants bipartisanship and try to make policies that are effective. There was great legislation in the healthcare bill. You had to cut out all the bullshit to find the great stuff in it. It would have been a huge undertaking on any president to try to pass radical healthcare reform. The question of should he have done it is open for debate.

The President wants to get re-elected. Oh he talks about bi-partisanship sure but everything he has done pretty much has been partisan politics as usual. There were aspects of the healthcare bill that were sensible, given its bulk there would almost have to be. The trouble is all the crap in it we didnt need or want. The federal individual mandate is just the highest profile bit. We needed healthcare reform not Obamacare.

EmptyOptimist:

eyepatchdreams:

No, You can't balance the budget on just "cuts" only. It only serves as short term band aid and we could be put in a double dip recession. There needs to be sensible solutions that in the long term won't stress the economy.

If you want to get really technical, yes you can balance a budget on cuts only - the government will always have forms of revenue (existing tax revenue, road tolls, payments from debtees, etc), and it is possible to cut enough expenditures so that the existing revenue will meet or surpass the existing outset. To do so would have the party in question kicked out of office faster than ice cream through a lactose intolerant bulemic (how's that for insensitive?).

A politically and fiscally SOUND effort to balance the budget has to include both cuts AND revenue increases - but I'm just picking nits, I guess.

Seekster:

And by the way Tyler Romney HAS lived in poor conditions while in college and shortly after. I suggest you do your research.

To what are you referring - his time in France?
"But the Republican presidential hopeful spent a significant portion of his 30-month mission in a Paris mansion described by fellow American missionaries to The Daily Telegraph as "palace". It featured stained glass windows, chandeliers, and an extensive art collection. It was staffed by two servants - a Spanish chef and a houseboy. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8959440/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-life-as-a-poor-Mormon-missionary-in-France-questioned.html

Or his time at BYU?
"By then, the couple had married and moved into a shabby, $62-a-month basement apartment, with cracked tiles in the kitchen floor."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-as-a-student-at-a-chaotic-time-for-byu-focused-on-family-church/2012/02/17/gIQABaWaMR_print.html
I should point out the fact that although this isn't an ideal apartment - today equalling a rent of approximately $375/month, slightly below average rent for the Provo area - I don't know if I'd call it "poor conditions." Especially when you consider the fact that they lived there for less than 2 years, before moving to a "modest three-bedroom place" (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680196334/Romney-determined-to-make-mark-early.html?pg=4) in Belmont so that Mitt could earn his joint Law/Business degree from Harvard - which of course wasn't a cheap venture.
"Harvard has a way to make sure, however, you don't get a discount. You pay the full premium for both or the full charge of both." http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1066
How's that for research?

Should I add to this thread the fact that Romney has 'demonized' Obama for his Harvard roots - which is a little bit of a double standard?

Yes that is what I was referring to as far as balancing the budget, you CAN balance it with just cuts but reasonably we will probably need to also increase revenue somehow, be it taxes or fees, or or closing tax loopholes. However for the most part we need to cut the budget down to a level that we can live with and then see how much revenue we need to make up the difference.

Did Mitt Romney have advantages in his life due to his family? Of course he did. But he wasnt just handed his success, he had to work for it. Yes he had an easier time of it but he did have to work for it. And yes I was refering to his time at BYU. I think living with your wife in a small apartment while going to school is an experience that people in financial straights in the Middle Class might recognize depending on the individual however I don't see this as relevant. The point is that the image that Mitt Romney has spent his entire life living in luxury is outright false.

Now do I believe Mitt Romney can connect with the Middle or Lower class? No I do not. Do I believe Obama can? No I do not. Do I care? No I do not. This election isnt about who can do the job as President that has to be done in regards to the economy and our financial status. If the best Obama can show is slow and unsteady growth in a shakey economy then I want to give the businessman a shot. Even Obama supporters are praising him like this is the best he can do.

I want a President who can solve this countries problems and who can work together with people from all over the place on the political spectrum to make sure they get solved. Barrack Obama has proven that he cannot effectively do this. In fact the only way he can really govern meaningfully at all is if his party has total control of the government. You can blame the Republicans all you want for not doing what Obama wants them to do (think about that for a moment) but the fact is that to be an effective President you have to be the leader of the country not just the leader of your party.

Personally I think Obama was thrown on stage too soon. He didnt have the experience, he didnt have an understanding of alternative points of view that would allow him to effectively offer compromises. 2008 should have been Hillary Clinton's year. I don't like the woman but she is a competent politician and yes I think she could lead the country. I have every confidence that Obama cannot lead the country and I think had the Democratic party held off and waited until 2016 or even 2012 he would have been a better President had he won then.

I know Obama gets a lot of flak (most of it justified) for coming off as an arrogant over-educated snob who seems to believe that people ought to just shut up and do what he says. I remember Santorum being pretty harsh about that but I don't know about Romney saying anything too harsh in regards to that. There is nothing wrong with being educated but getting a college degree doesnt automatically make you smarter or better than everyone else.

As for double standards though, get used to them, its a US Presidential Election, they are not pretty affairs. Its the toughest job in the world and as such it has the toughest application process.

EmptyOptimist:

Seekster:

Well if Obama actually understood opposing viewpoints at least pretended like he believed they have some validity he might actually make for an effective President. Frankly leading off with Obamacare was probably his biggest mistake, followed by Obamacare itself.

For curiosity's sake, can you provide an example of Obama's unwillingness to be compromising/inability to be understanding, then contrast it with Romney (or any other Repub, for that matter) being positively divisive. I'm finding that what you are detracting Obama for and what you are praising Romney for is effectively the same thing, just viewed through different coloured glasses.

I really need to start keeping a list of specific examples when I see them but off the top of my head I remember during the debt crisis debate (which was a disaster for everyone and in the end accomplished nothing) Obama kept offering plans to raise the debt ceiling and taxes and cut spending. Now to me Obama is asking for the Republicans to agree to raise taxes and the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts (which he may or may not keep, especially recalling how Reagan was essentially lied to when he agreed to a plan to cut spending and raise taxes). Throughout the debate the Republicans kept saying "We have a spending problem not a revenue problem" and Obama kept trying to get them to agree to raise taxes and when that didnt work he and his party tried everything they could to make it look like they were the ones being reasonable and that its all the Republican's fault, in short he turned it into a game of political hot potato rather than getting serious about solving our spending problems. What Obama should have done from the get go is haggle with the Republicans on spending cuts and make sure that the plan cuts programs that Republicans support too. At the end they tried to do that actually but by then the debate had gotten so bitter and partisan that I can't imagine that the supercomittee was able to negotiate in good faith.

"I'm finding that what you are detracting Obama for and what you are praising Romney for is effectively the same thing, just viewed through different coloured glasses."

What exactly do you mean by that?

Seekster:

eyepatchdreams:

Seekster:

Well if Obama actually understood opposing viewpoints at least pretended like he believed they have some validity he might actually make for an effective President. Frankly leading off with Obamacare was probably his biggest mistake, followed by Obamacare itself.

Oh you are a socialist? Well then yes you should be voting for Obama. Now that wasn't so hard.

Edit: Also I understand that communism and socialism are different. Furthermore I appreciate your politeness. Lord knows this forum could use a heck of a lot more of it.

The president wants bipartisanship and try to make policies that are effective. There was great legislation in the healthcare bill. You had to cut out all the bullshit to find the great stuff in it. It would have been a huge undertaking on any president to try to pass radical healthcare reform. The question of should he have done it is open for debate.

The President wants to get re-elected. Oh he talks about bi-partisanship sure but everything he has done pretty much has been partisan politics as usual. There were aspects of the healthcare bill that were sensible, given its bulk there would almost have to be. The trouble is all the crap in it we didnt need or want. The federal individual mandate is just the highest profile bit. We needed healthcare reform not Obamacare.

EmptyOptimist:

eyepatchdreams:

No, You can't balance the budget on just "cuts" only. It only serves as short term band aid and we could be put in a double dip recession. There needs to be sensible solutions that in the long term won't stress the economy.

If you want to get really technical, yes you can balance a budget on cuts only - the government will always have forms of revenue (existing tax revenue, road tolls, payments from debtees, etc), and it is possible to cut enough expenditures so that the existing revenue will meet or surpass the existing outset. To do so would have the party in question kicked out of office faster than ice cream through a lactose intolerant bulemic (how's that for insensitive?).

A politically and fiscally SOUND effort to balance the budget has to include both cuts AND revenue increases - but I'm just picking nits, I guess.

Seekster:

And by the way Tyler Romney HAS lived in poor conditions while in college and shortly after. I suggest you do your research.

To what are you referring - his time in France?
"But the Republican presidential hopeful spent a significant portion of his 30-month mission in a Paris mansion described by fellow American missionaries to The Daily Telegraph as "palace". It featured stained glass windows, chandeliers, and an extensive art collection. It was staffed by two servants - a Spanish chef and a houseboy. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8959440/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-life-as-a-poor-Mormon-missionary-in-France-questioned.html

Or his time at BYU?
"By then, the couple had married and moved into a shabby, $62-a-month basement apartment, with cracked tiles in the kitchen floor."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-as-a-student-at-a-chaotic-time-for-byu-focused-on-family-church/2012/02/17/gIQABaWaMR_print.html
I should point out the fact that although this isn't an ideal apartment - today equalling a rent of approximately $375/month, slightly below average rent for the Provo area - I don't know if I'd call it "poor conditions." Especially when you consider the fact that they lived there for less than 2 years, before moving to a "modest three-bedroom place" (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680196334/Romney-determined-to-make-mark-early.html?pg=4) in Belmont so that Mitt could earn his joint Law/Business degree from Harvard - which of course wasn't a cheap venture.
"Harvard has a way to make sure, however, you don't get a discount. You pay the full premium for both or the full charge of both." http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1066
How's that for research?

Should I add to this thread the fact that Romney has 'demonized' Obama for his Harvard roots - which is a little bit of a double standard?

Yes that is what I was referring to as far as balancing the budget, you CAN balance it with just cuts but reasonably we will probably need to also increase revenue somehow, be it taxes or fees, or or closing tax loopholes. However for the most part we need to cut the budget down to a level that we can live with and then see how much revenue we need to make up the difference.

Did Mitt Romney have advantages in his life due to his family? Of course he did. But he wasnt just handed his success, he had to work for it. Yes he had an easier time of it but he did have to work for it. And yes I was refering to his time at BYU. I think living with your wife in a small apartment while going to school is an experience that people in financial straights in the Middle Class might recognize depending on the individual however I don't see this as relevant. The point is that the image that Mitt Romney has spent his entire life living in luxury is outright false.

Now do I believe Mitt Romney can connect with the Middle or Lower class? No I do not. Do I believe Obama can? No I do not. Do I care? No I do not. This election isnt about who can do the job as President that has to be done in regards to the economy and our financial status. If the best Obama can show is slow and unsteady growth in a shakey economy then I want to give the businessman a shot. Even Obama supporters are praising him like this is the best he can do.

I want a President who can solve this countries problems and who can work together with people from all over the place on the political spectrum to make sure they get solved. Barrack Obama has proven that he cannot effectively do this. In fact the only way he can really govern meaningfully at all is if his party has total control of the government. You can blame the Republicans all you want for not doing what Obama wants them to do (think about that for a moment) but the fact is that to be an effective President you have to be the leader of the country not just the leader of your party.

Personally I think Obama was thrown on stage too soon. He didnt have the experience, he didnt have an understanding of alternative points of view that would allow him to effectively offer compromises. 2008 should have been Hillary Clinton's year. I don't like the woman but she is a competent politician and yes I think she could lead the country. I have every confidence that Obama cannot lead the country and I think had the Democratic party held off and waited until 2016 or even 2012 he would have been a better President had he won then.

I know Obama gets a lot of flak (most of it justified) for coming off as an arrogant over-educated snob who seems to believe that people ought to just shut up and do what he says. I remember Santorum being pretty harsh about that but I don't know about Romney saying anything too harsh in regards to that. There is nothing wrong with being educated but getting a college degree doesnt automatically make you smarter or better than everyone else.

As for double standards though, get used to them, its a US Presidential Election, they are not pretty affairs. Its the toughest job in the world and as such it has the toughest application process.

They need to cut the healthcare bill to size and eliminate the long winded bullshit and pass the parts that work. I think it theory and practice it will work down the line. We have health issues in America with a booming elder population and sickness with preexisting conditions. The bill needs to help the people and help regulate insurance agencies so there not "death panels"

eyepatchdreams:

They need to cut the healthcare bill to size and eliminate the long winded bullshit and pass the parts that work. I think it theory and practice it will work down the line. We have health issues in America with a booming elder population and sickness with preexisting conditions. The bill needs to help the people and help regulate insurance agencies so there not "death panels"

Oh yeah I agree with that in general. I have every confidence that when we have to pass a new healthcare reform bill it will incorporate some of the same proposals.

Seekster:
The President wants to get re-elected. Oh he talks about bi-partisanship sure but everything he has done pretty much has been partisan politics as usual. There were aspects of the healthcare bill that were sensible, given its bulk there would almost have to be. The trouble is all the crap in it we didnt need or want. The federal individual mandate is just the highest profile bit. We needed healthcare reform not Obamacare.

I find that a lot of your criticisms of Obama are for things that are typical of politicians in general.
Bush, 2005:
"AT $286.4 BILLION, the highway bill just passed by Congress is the most expensive public works legislation in US history ... it sets a new record for pork-barrel spending, earmarking $24 billion for a staggering 6,376 pet projects ... The enormous bill [is] 1,752 pages long" (in which Romney requested - and received - a $3MM earmark)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/04/the_republican_pork_barrel/
Clinton, 1993:
"THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION passed off more than a dozen pork barrel deals to members of the House of Representatives in an attempt to gain passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)."
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/12/mm1293_04.html
Even the almighty Reagan, 1985:
"The states of Senators who are members of the Armed Services Committee or of Appropriations' Defense Subcommittee have received on the average $34 million in SDI spending..."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967539,00.html

See more to this argument below.

EmptyOptimist:

Yes that is what I was referring to as far as balancing the budget, you CAN balance it with just cuts but reasonably we will probably need to also increase revenue somehow, be it taxes or fees, or or closing tax loopholes. However for the most part we need to cut the budget down to a level that we can live with and then see how much revenue we need to make up the difference.

I know. Shockingly, I was supporting your argument here.

Did Mitt Romney have advantages in his life due to his family? Of course he did. But he wasnt just handed his success, he had to work for it. Yes he had an easier time of it but he did have to work for it. And yes I was refering to his time at BYU. I think living with your wife in a small apartment while going to school is an experience that people in financial straights in the Middle Class might recognize depending on the individual however I don't see this as relevant. The point is that the image that Mitt Romney has spent his entire life living in luxury is outright false.

Now do I believe Mitt Romney can connect with the Middle or Lower class? No I do not. Do I believe Obama can? No I do not. Do I care? No I do not. This election isnt about who can do the job as President that has to be done in regards to the economy and our financial status. If the best Obama can show is slow and unsteady growth in a shakey economy then I want to give the businessman a shot. Even Obama supporters are praising him like this is the best he can do.

Arguably, connecting with the Middle or Lower classes (the 99%) is the most important part of electioneering, regardless of what the issues or platforms are. If you can't connect with the vast majorities of voters, they likely won't vote for you. I think this thread has been proof of that - most people who aren't willing to vote for Romney are stating so due to their inability to connect with him (i.e. flip flop, $10,000 bet, etc).

He'll get the votes of people that are died in the red, and will vote Republican, no matter what. But he'll lose a lot of the moderates and undecideds - the one's that will ultimately be the deciding factor in this election.

I want a President who can solve this countries problems and who can work together with people from all over the place on the political spectrum to make sure they get solved. Barrack Obama has proven that he cannot effectively do this. In fact the only way he can really govern meaningfully at all is if his party has total control of the government. You can blame the Republicans all you want for not doing what Obama wants them to do (think about that for a moment) but the fact is that to be an effective President you have to be the leader of the country not just the leader of your party.

I don't think this is repeating the discussions we've had in the past, so here goes - can you provide an example in which Obama has proven that he cannot 'do this'?

Presidents from both parties have had to deal with Congresses or Houses that were primarily made up of the opposing party. Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama had at least part of their term(s) leading over a split government. And the way that they have ALL managed to be "bi-partisan" is by offering earmarks in legislation. They ALL did it. The fact that this Republican House publicly stated that their primary goal in this session is to "make Obama a one term President" validates any argument anyone makes claiming that the Republican party is at least partly to blame for Obama's 'inability' to lead effectively.

Personally I think Obama was thrown on stage too soon. He didnt have the experience, he didnt have an understanding of alternative points of view that would allow him to effectively offer compromises. 2008 should have been Hillary Clinton's year. I don't like the woman but she is a competent politician and yes I think she could lead the country. I have every confidence that Obama cannot lead the country and I think had the Democratic party held off and waited until 2016 or even 2012 he would have been a better President had he won then.

I won't disagree that he would have been better with more experience - but I don't think he has been 'bad' up to this point. Room for improvement, definitely, but bad? No - definitely not in comparison to MANY other past Presidents.

I know Obama gets a lot of flak (most of it justified) for coming off as an arrogant over-educated snob who seems to believe that people ought to just shut up and do what he says. I remember Santorum being pretty harsh about that but I don't know about Romney saying anything too harsh in regards to that. There is nothing wrong with being educated but getting a college degree doesnt automatically make you smarter or better than everyone else.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/harvard-grad-romney-knocks-obama-for-harvard-ties/1#.T5mlVNk_eUE
I do see what Romney's point is here, but his use of Harvard as an argument is more of an illustration as to how he fails to connect with the masses - he just keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

Seekster:

Oh yeah I agree with that in general. I have every confidence that when we have to pass a new healthcare reform bill it will incorporate some of the same proposals.

...in another twenty years.

EmptyOptimist:

Presidents from both parties have had to deal with Congresses or Houses that were primarily made up of the opposing party. Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama had at least part of their term(s) leading over a split government.

The difference is, only Obama has had to deal with an opposing party that has publicly stated their top priority is making him a one-termer.

But remember, BOTH SIDES DOOOOO IT!!!

EmptyOptimist:
-snip-

Just ignore Arbane, he is hopelessly partisan, take my word for it.

Well yeah pork spending is a matter that is hotly debated. Congress has gotten a lot better at it. However I am not sure why you bring it up exactly.

Arguably, connecting with the Middle or Lower classes (the 99%) is the most important part of electioneering, regardless of what the issues or platforms are. If you can't connect with the vast majorities of voters, they likely won't vote for you. I think this thread has been proof of that - most people who aren't willing to vote for Romney are stating so due to their inability to connect with him (i.e. flip flop, $10,000 bet, etc).

He'll get the votes of people that are died in the red, and will vote Republican, no matter what. But he'll lose a lot of the moderates and undecideds - the one's that will ultimately be the deciding factor in this election.

I think you are wrong but first, please do not try and talk to me about the 99% and the 1% or any of that other class warfare bs. They are nothing but a bunch of political buzz words that dont meaning anything to anyone. The people who think the gap between rich and poor is an important issue are a fairly low percentage of the voting population and Obama has already got that set wrapped up and he can have it (I tried to find a poll show that its a low percentage but its seems they havnt even included on the list since the Occupy movement fell apart, best I could find was this: http://www.gallup.com/poll/151568/Americans-Prioritize-Growing-Economy-Reducing-Wealth-Gap.aspx)

This election wont be any different than most election lately in that Conservatives will mostly vote for the Republican (thats about 40% of voters), Liberals will vote for the Democrat (a little more than 20% of voters) and then the parties will fight over the Moderates (about 35%).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

I think Romney challenges the typical Democratic Party narrative of the Republican party as nothing but a bunch of religious fundamentalists (which is balanced out by mischaracterizations the GOP makes about the Democratic party to be fair). You are right, Moderates tend to decide American elections only because you actually need to work hard for their vote. I think the moderates could go either way really and I don't see what about Romney would repulse most of them or what about Obama would attract most of them.

Also Romney can't be considered a flip-flopper. A flip-flopper changes their mind and then changes it back all for political convenience. Romney has been accused of changing his mind for political convenience (honestly I think he is sincere and I am not just saying that because I like him) however he has not changed his mind back so even if you think his positions are just based on what helps him politically he hasnt changed his mind back so he isnt a flip-flopper, he is just a man whose views are evolving, not unlike how Obama says his are on same-sex marriage.

I think there is some misunderstanding. First off I challenge your assertion that all those past Presidents got things down by essentially bribing the opposition with earmarks. I'm not saying they didnt use earmarks from time to time but there is more to it than that. Also the fact that Congress is deadlocked and so nothing much can get done is something that the President will be held responsible for fairly or unfairly (I think its fairly but it doesnt matter politically). A good leader is able to get people who may not agree with him all the time to work towards common goals. Obama has consistently demonstrated his lack of an ability to do this and as a result most everything major Congress tries to do turns into a circus.

The Republicans do not see doing what is best for American and making Obama a one term President as separate things and I have trouble disagreeing with that view.

In terms of his leadership ability or lack there of...yeah Obama is bad. Fortunately for him he has a few good, albeit unsavory, handlers and advisers. Also Hillary Clinton has done a good job as Secretary of State overall, credit where it is due.

Meh politics as usual. Unlike in 2008 Obama can't trick people into thinking he is something other than a typical politician. He has to find a new song and dance. Romney admittedly isnt the best candidate the Republican party has ever put forward but this is offset by Obama likewise being a weak candidate so I think it will be a very close election.

The media controls the election. It's about ratings. Everyone wanted to tune in and see the messiah Obama overcome the odds. That's why Palin was dragged under the bus through mud for years. It's wrestling in politics, Faces and Heels. Mitt Romney is the sacrificial lamb this year. Someone who has no clue what anybody I know wants to see change in government. I really don't want four more years of Obama but it's always nice to receive handouts. I would be just as scared of my human rights being violated by Romney as extreme Republicans were in the 2008 election.

Ron Paul would be my vote. He's the only candidate I see anybody supporting. People in the military seem to love him, so he's likely doing something right that the big names can't. Whatever slows down the police state would be best.

Haydyn:
The media controls the election. It's about ratings. Everyone wanted to tune in and see the messiah Obama overcome the odds. That's why Palin was dragged under the bus through mud for years. It's wrestling in politics, Faces and Heels. Mitt Romney is the sacrificial lamb this year. Someone who has no clue what anybody I know wants to see change in government. I really don't want four more years of Obama but it's always nice to receive handouts. I would be just as scared of my human rights being violated by Romney as extreme Republicans were in the 2008 election.

Ron Paul would be my vote. He's the only candidate I see anybody supporting. People in the military seem to love him, so he's likely doing something right that the big names can't. Whatever slows down the police state would be best.

Really? More Paulites? *sigh* Not even worth arguing.

Seekster:

eyepatchdreams:

Until I see a comprehensive layout plan from Romney before November, I have every right to be skeptical of how hes going to handle this. Obama can get bills through but he has no backbone to fight for such things. That's the biggest criticism I have from the guy. If he was tougher on bills like Mr. Bush was then we would be seeing aggressive pushing for new bills.

Well if Obama actually understood opposing viewpoints at least pretended like he believed they have some validity he might actually make for an effective President. Frankly leading off with Obamacare was probably his biggest mistake, followed by Obamacare itself.

Naheal:
-snip-

Oh you are a socialist? Well then yes you should be voting for Obama. Now that wasn't so hard.

Edit: Also I understand that communism and socialism are different. Furthermore I appreciate your politeness. Lord knows this forum could use a heck of a lot more of it.

Seekster, normally I will back you up some or at least give you a chance unlike Tyler and Arbane but that socialist comment was just beyond stupid. Obama has shown no signs of being a socialist. It is just far right rhetorical stupidity. I truly believe that you aren't always in favor of republicans and Tyler and arbane are just being partisan but, come on man.

If you come back and say that was meant to be a joke, I will be disappointed.

recruit00:

Seekster, normally I will back you up some or at least give you a chance unlike Tyler and Arbane but that socialist comment was just beyond stupid. Obama has shown no signs of being a socialist. It is just far right rhetorical stupidity. I truly believe that you aren't always in favor of republicans and Tyler and arbane are just being partisan but, come on man.

If you come back and say that was meant to be a joke, I will be disappointed.

Wasn't meant as a joke and I didnt say Obama was a socialist. However is Naheal is a socialist and is choosing who to vote for based on who is closer to his political views then Obama, while not technically a socialist, is certainly closer to one than Romney is so it makes sense that Naheal would then support Obama. Thats all I meant.

Seekster:
I think you are wrong but first, please do not try and talk to me about the 99% and the 1% or any of that other class warfare bs. They are nothing but a bunch of political buzz words that dont meaning anything to anyone.

Not to you apparently, because to call this warfare would be like calling two pigeons fighting over a bagel a conflagration. Seriously, can we all agree to ditch the histrionics?

Seekster:
I think you are wrong but first, please do not try and talk to me about the 99% and the 1% or any of that other class warfare bs. They are nothing but a bunch of political buzz words that dont meaning anything to anyone.

Sorry, Seekster - no matter how fervently you kiss up, you will never be invited to join George Bush's country club.

DrVornoff:
Not to you apparently, because to call this warfare would be like calling two pigeons fighting over a bagel a conflagration. Seriously, can we all agree to ditch the histrionics?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: It only gets called 'class warfare' when the lower classes try to fight back. We HAD class warfare in this country, once, and the Rich WON that war conclusively.

arbane:
I've said it before, I'll say it again: It only gets called 'class warfare' when the lower classes try to fight back. We HAD class warfare in this country, once, and the Rich WON that war conclusively.

The way I see it, it's not warfare when the people instigating the argument are non-violent. The 99% movement is basically a bunch of people protesting to tell the government that money and social status should not be a way of escaping the rule of law.

Clint Eastwood, because I don't want to vote for a Republican. My state's senate election is a similar scenario, maybe the Libertarian if there is one.

Seekster:

I will stipulate that Obama has been unfairly demonized if you will agree that George W Bush has been.

Yeah, absolutely. That was my point, was that every president in today's hostile climate has been and will be demonized. If you think Romney would be any less divisive a figure or any less hated then the last three presidents, I think you're fooling yourself.

Bush was a very poor president, but I don't think he is a bad guy, really. In fact, in the last part of Bush's second term after he stopped listening to advice from Chaney, I think his performance as President improved somewhat.

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.

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=509

12% of the people in this country still think Obama is a Muslim. That's just crazy.

Even crazier, 1/4 Americans think Obama wasn't born in the US, including a staggering 45% of Republicans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056061-503544.html

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.

Oh, people who think that he started the war just to help Halliburton make money are absurd, I agree.

I do think he did go into office intending to go to war with Iraq, though. He was actually pretty clear about that even during the 2000 election. Getting rid of Saddam Husein was one of the main goals of the neo-conservative movement in the late 1990's, and a lot of the hardliners thought Bush Sr. had made a huge mistake ending the war but leaving Saddam in power; W made pretty clear while running for office that he wasn't going to repeat his father's "mistake" on Iraq.

Clinton may count as a Moderate, Obama most certainly is not.

How so?

His health care reform is quite moderate. It's a free-market approach, the kind that was pushed for by most Republicans in the 1990's and by Governor Romney himself.

Otherwise, he's been silent on gun control. He renewed Bush's tax cuts, even the ones on the rich that he was opposed to, rather then risk the middle class getting a tax hike during a recession. He ended the war in Iraq gradually.

For the most part, his policies can be described as "attempting to achieve liberal goals, such as better environment, lower unemployment, and better access to health care, using free market methods instead of direct government intervention." He saved the banking system without nationalizing the banks the way some people on the left wanted him to. On immigration, he supported the dream act, but also dramatically strengthened border security and really hasn't been in favor of any large-scale path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

What issues do you think he wasn't a moderate on? He hasn't really been on the far left on any issue; perhaps rhetoric has occasionally been, but basically none of the stuff he's actually done has been has been left-of-center to any significant degree.

Yes thats all Obama and his supporters have been good for, blaming others for their failings. Thats not leadership.

What failings, exactly? What do you think he's "failed" at?

Yosarian2:

Seekster:

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.

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=509

12% of the people in this country still think Obama is a Muslim. That's just crazy.

Even crazier, 1/4 Americans think Obama wasn't born in the US, including a staggering 45% of Republicans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056061-503544.html

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.

Oh, people who think that he started the war just to help Halliburton make money are absurd, I agree.

I do think he did go into office intending to go to war with Iraq, though. He was actually pretty clear about that even during the 2000 election. Getting rid of Saddam Husein was one of the main goals of the neo-conservative movement in the late 1990's, and a lot of the hardliners thought Bush Sr. had made a huge mistake ending the war but leaving Saddam in power; W made pretty clear while running for office that he wasn't going to repeat his father's "mistake" on Iraq.

Clinton may count as a Moderate, Obama most certainly is not.

How so?

His health care reform is quite moderate. It's a free-market approach, the kind that was pushed for by most Republicans in the 1990's and by Governor Romney himself.

Otherwise, he's been silent on gun control. He renewed Bush's tax cuts, even the ones on the rich that he was opposed to, rather then risk the middle class getting a tax hike during a recession. He ended the war in Iraq gradually.

For the most part, his policies can be described as "attempting to achieve liberal goals, such as better environment, lower unemployment, and better access to health care, using free market methods instead of direct government intervention." He saved the banking system without nationalizing the banks the way some people on the left wanted him to. On immigration, he supported the dream act, but also dramatically strengthened border security and really hasn't been in favor of any large-scale path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

What issues do you think he wasn't a moderate on? He hasn't really been on the far left on any issue; perhaps rhetoric has occasionally been, but basically none of the stuff he's actually done has been has been left-of-center to any significant degree.

Yes thats all Obama and his supporters have been good for, blaming others for their failings. Thats not leadership.

What failings, exactly? What do you think he's "failed" at?

"12% of the people in this country still think Obama is a Muslim. That's just crazy."

That is a bit more than 1/4 of all Conservatives, like I said.

Now the other stat I'm a bit more skeptical of.

I don't think he came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq but I think he was more willing to take that step than he should have been.

Oddly enough both Bush's made decisions regarding Iraq that seemed like a good idea at the time (leaving Saddam in power and invading Iraq respectively).

Sorry were you talking about Clinton or Romney?

Obama has been a failure as a leader. His specific failures I will list when he leaves office because until then they are potential failures.

Seekster:

Obama has been a failure as a leader.

Bullshit. Pure, raw, unadulterated bullshit.

I have my issues with Obama. One of them is not being a "failure as a leader" is a horseshit right-wing platitude.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:

Obama has been a failure as a leader.

Bullshit. Pure, raw, unadulterated bullshit.

I have my issues with Obama. One of them is not being a "failure as a leader" is a horseshit right-wing platitude.

I'm quite surprised you did not comment on the second part of that bit, the one about "potential failures". Because talking like that kind of makes it a bit obvious that he wasn't even willing to give the guy a chance in the first place, and was downright determined to see every Obama's action as an at least "potential" failure before it even happens.

Vegosiux:

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:

Obama has been a failure as a leader.

Bullshit. Pure, raw, unadulterated bullshit.

I have my issues with Obama. One of them is not being a "failure as a leader" is a horseshit right-wing platitude.

I'm quite surprised you did not comment on the second part of that bit, the one about "potential failures". Because talking like that kind of makes it a bit obvious that he wasn't even willing to give the guy a chance in the first place, and was downright determined to see every Obama's action as an at least "potential" failure before it even happens.

Well yeah, I figured that. I'll let the Republicans distort Obama's future all they want; it's when they distort what's already happened that matters.

Pretty sure Seekster has me on ignore anyway; why, I don't know, but whatever. I ain't losing any sleep over it.

Vegosiux:

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:

Obama has been a failure as a leader.

Bullshit. Pure, raw, unadulterated bullshit.

I have my issues with Obama. One of them is not being a "failure as a leader" is a horseshit right-wing platitude.

I'm quite surprised you did not comment on the second part of that bit, the one about "potential failures". Because talking like that kind of makes it a bit obvious that he wasn't even willing to give the guy a chance in the first place, and was downright determined to see every Obama's action as an at least "potential" failure before it even happens.

Where did I say that ALL Obama's actions are potential failures. Obama has actually been successful at some things, not the least of which having the guts to order the infiltration of Pakistan to kill Bin Laden. However there are many things that Obama is failing at. I call them potential failures instead of failures because for the moment he is still President and thus still has the potential to turn those things around. No I gave Obama many chances, it wasnt until early 2010 that I got tired of giving him chances, it wasnt until Obamacare was forced through that I realized there would be a reckoning for Obama.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked