Malecia, you seem to be a supporter of the President in this thread. I was wondering if you could go through your likes/dislikes on Obama. Remember, it's okay to say what you don't like about them; no candidate is perfect
I think there are many Dems who are unhappy with the incumbent but simply can't vote for the other guy on basic ideological grounds.
I think there are even more that are concerned with the direction the party is taking, particularly in it's stance on economics and foreign policy. While social issues are valid issues, I think they pale in comparison to our current fiscal state and our handling of the middle east.
Still that's just my suspicion as a registered republican. I'm certainly not excited by my own candidate but I have to accept the dude knows how to make a business run efficiently and I think it's time we had someone make the government run efficiently. While the government isn't technically a business, it does provide services for a fee, which makes it somewhat a grey area.
I think there are many Dems who are unhappy with the incumbent but simply can't vote for the other guy on basic ideological grounds.
Or perhaps on the grounds of being a decent human being. Romney is evil incarnate.
Okay, maybe not specifically evil... but at the very least, he's not even remotely a good candidate for president. Sure, he's someone who will get votes, but it seems like that's all the Republicans care about. Not Obama. They don't seem to mind the fact that he routinely ignores or ridicules his own supporters, or are too blinded by red support that they don't realize he's talking about them.
Those 47% of people who don't pay taxes? It includes every conservative on social security or serving in the military. It isn't just people looking for "handouts" or help from the government.
The guy's just a f**king out-of-touch millionaire. He's a flagship for the party, since so many 'Pubs hate Obama they just picked someone that's the opposite of him. Smart move politically, but if by some miracle he actually wins, this country is f**kED.
This country already is F**ked under the incumbent.
The whole 47% thing is rediculous - Romney was talking about people who won't vote for him no matter what. He knows that those who are reliant on benefits aren't going to take kindly to a republican, because they will fear the loss of entitlement. He made a poor choice of words at a private fund raiser, something that any one of us could have done.
Each candidate has moments which he would love to take back, such as Obama's statement to Vladimir Putin "I'll have more flexibility after the election." and his offhand comment about Netanyahu to Sarkozy. Oh and the one about believing in redistribution.
The only evil incarnate in this race is the media.
And yeah, Romney is loaded. Of course Obama is totally in the poor house.
Come on, they are both mega rich, compared with the average Joe. Neither of them can relate to what we have to deal with on a daily basis.
I'll give you the facts as they appear to me: I'm financially worse off than when Obama took office. My medical costs are significantly higher. My house is worth less. Gas is twice as much as it was. My job security is worse than four years ago.
That doesn't sit well with me.
Hell, we have a president who won't even say the word "terrorist" when our ambassador gets assassinated in libya.
And Obama's fix for all things that are going bad in America? Tax the mega rich.
Let's go one step further - totally confiscate the combined wealth of the top 10. That's $346 billion.
What's the deficit again?
If you want someone that seems determined to keep spending money that we don't have, you will rapidly see what f**ked up really means.
I'll give you the facts as they appear to me: I'm financially worse off than when Obama took office. My medical costs are significantly higher. My house is worth less. Gas is twice as much as it was. My job security is worse than four years ago.
Romney's not going to fix any of those. In fact, he has no pity for you on the first three points. The fourth is also the republican party's fault according to a number of analysts-slash-conspiracy theorists, and the last point is fallout from Bush.
Personally, I'll have neither for president. Nor anyone who has ran for president for the past 40 years. That job is supposed to be had by a good man, a smart man, a caring and kind and considerate and thoughtful man. Not a power-hungry political dick-suck who's got more disqualifying soundbites under his name than a porn star.
Pointing back at Bush is a cop out. Perhaps Obama should have spent his first two years making the government lean and efficient instead of trying to get his health care bill pushed through.
Sorry, but i decline to accept the "It's Bush's fault" argument. Obama signed up and said he'd turn everything around.
Frankly, I want a general to run for Office. Someone who knows how to lead and command. I don't want some harvard lawyer who's never had a proper job or a millionaire venture capitalist.
Still I know what i've had and I want someone who is going to worry about jobs and the economy, not whether Fluke get's her damn contraceptives.
Cerb: Would the "It's Bush's fault" argument have worked for you in 2008? If so, are you saying Obama now "owns" this problem? Because I happen to agree with that.
Posts: 2,445
Likes: 42
XKI Generation: The Initiative Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Top Left XKI NS Join Year: 78 - Tuesday, 19 June 2007 Historical XKI Political Party: TIP - The Islands Party Ancient House of: MinnaCaroline
Post by Isles of Nixon on Oct 2, 2012 22:03:44 GMT -5
PAI's cynicism is in full force. I vowed many moons ago that I would help him see the light, clearly I have some more work that needs to be done, but have no fear, I'll have him spouting the usual talking points in no time at all.
What we're seeing with this election is in many ways indicative of the culture in which we're apart of now. During the second half of the 20th Century, referred to by Bob Dole as "the age of Nixon," the race for the presidency actually mattered. People were engaged in the process, candidates were of high quality, the office had plenty of prestige and was taken seriously.
That went out the window once the Cold War ended. No longer did it matter who was president for awhile because we defeated the USSR and had no sworn national enemies. We had to look internally at ourselves, which is why it mattered little that George H.W. Bush was great at foreign policy, he was out of touch with the middle class. From that moment on, Americans stopped caring. Very few people realize how dull the 2000 election was. The big issues was how to spend the surplus, the future of Social Security and the role of the United States abroad. The electorate got dumber and disengaged. 9/11 changed that for the most part, but we're slipping back into that malaise where voting no longer is something people celebrate but rather a battle of mediocrity, when millions of Americans walk into the voting booth and decide between the lesser of who cares?
Absolutely the crap that happened on Bush's watch was entirely his responsibility. The buck stops with the POTUS.
Obama ran on a platform that was supposed to fix things and improve the economy. He now owns every issue because he wanted the job, and still wants it.
I think the people of the US had a right to expect some significant improvement over his first tenure, or at least signs that it would get better in the next term. Instead many analysts now predict a double dip recession.
It is simply irresponsible to point at the republicans and say "it's their fault". The Republicans are representing the 40 to 50% of Americans that lean conservative and they had a right to demand a balanced budget and reduced government spending. That is what their constituents want.
Now, should there have been compromise? Probably. But let's look at the democratic leader in the Senate and the house minority leader. Neither Harry or Nancy can be called moderate or flexible. It seems that both parties are determined to put their hardest headed people as the parties head representatives.
I would almost guarantee that if the dems had approached the republicans and accepted some of the spending cuts they proposed in exchange for some tax reform, we'd have a budget. I think many Republicans could accept that income from investments should be taxed in a similar way to regular income.
The big deal here is compromise is a two way situation. Clinton managed it well. Obama hasn't managed it at all.
That's the issue here. I'd have rather seen Clinton back in the White House than Obama. He worked both sides of the aisle (and in other positions in the Oval Office), and got crap done.
I never thought I'd be asking for Clinton back, but I take him for three more terms rather than one more Obama.
Nixon: Let's be honest: Do you think that BOTH Obama AND Romney are the BEST that *both* sides have to offer? I don't. That's why I'm voting third party (I'm in NY--Democrat will win unless Reagan comes back from the grave ). If I was in a swing state, I'd vote Obama--but the sad thing is: that would only be a "no" vote for Romney