May 18, 2012
Blog by John Steigerwald
If Barack Obama wins a second term, he will have done it against what used to be insurmountable odds.\
The economic numbers are in the toilet and his approval number is in the 40′s.
Then there is this: By a 2-1 margin, Americans’ biggest fear is a second term for Obama.
Toast.
Related posts:
Date: January 10, 2012
Categories: Politics
John,
When I clicked on the link above, it took me to the article about the oil spill.
The 2-1 margin thing gives me hope. Not ready to say he’s toast, I mean, not Ike Taylor toast, not yet at least.
How much coverage will this be getting on CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS?
George Stephanoplous is too busy readying his next batch of questions for the Republican candidates. You know questions like, “How long have you been a racist”, or “How many people would like you to lose their health coverage”.
I think the next time the Dems have a primary debate, hopefully 2016, Karl Rove should be the moderator.
I think Mitt will beat him. Anyone else would be 50-50 at best….
Sure wish I had your confidence that Obama’s toast, John. We still have a ;long way to go till November. This election is going to be real nasty and Barack has got millions plus all the major networks behind him 100%. Scary.!!!!!!!
You’ve been hearing nothing but the Republicans beating up on each other and the media talking about what a weak field it is. Once the Republicans have their guy it becomes all about Obama and he can’t overcome the negative numbers that he’s dealing with. If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, then we might have something to talk about but I think he might take as many votes from Obama –maybe more –than he would take from the Republican. He got 26,000 votes tonight and independents and democrats were allowed to vote. Young people love him because they think he’s the only one who can keep them from being drowned in debt. Lots of Obama’s young voters who have seen what a fraud he is would switch to Paul.
Did you see the demographics on Paul’s votes? About 60% of the people who voted for him are in the 18-25 range.
That’s the range that went for Obama, ‘hope’, and ‘change’. I’m not sure but I’m guessing that they may be rethinking that position right about now.
I really hope that the youth see the tsunami of debt and realize that this President has done nothing but made things worse. He has been leaderless and absent when it’s come to doing anything that may affect handouts to his base.
My concern is that whoever goes in next, will they be a tough love president and strongly address entitlements or once in, succumb to business as usual.
Republicans who came in to cut spending have been demonized as obstructionists to bi-partisan legislation that results in more spending. And the polls overwhelmingly show that the majority of American people agree with that. In short, we want the deficit addressed at the expense of someone else and that just isn’t going to cut it.
Unfortunately, it’ll probably be a business-as-usual guy.
I don’t think anyone has the gut to make the tough calls anymore.
Santorum isn’t going to be the next president. He might have been the one willing to make the tough calls. One of the main reasons that he lost his Senate seat was his support of George W. Bush’s very reasonable efforts to reform social security. Bush’s plan was a good start and Santorum was brave and very eloquent in his support of the Bush plan, giving speeches and hosting town halls all over Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, his opponent demagogued the issue (and hasn’t been heard from since. Is Bob Casey still alive?)
What continues to baffle me is how Mitt Romney continues to lead the pack when just about everybody and their mother has made it clear that he’s a flip-flopping, super-rich, out of touch with the common man, career politician weasel who will literally say the exact opposite of what he said 15 seconds prior if it makes him look more “electable”.
Too bad Perry shit the bed in the early debates. He’s not perfect but the more I hear him the more I like him, although the “vulture capitalist” stuff is disturbing. Sounds like something Nancy Pelosi would say. If somebody other than Paul could say what Paul has been saying and not be as flaky on foreign policy, he would win in a landslide.
Ron Paul sounds like a genius when he talks about economic policies that fall in line with the philosophy of F.A. Hayek, specifically the importance of real (not government-manipulated) market prices and the Rule of Law. I also like that he has come out and said what specific cuts he would make to balance the budget within 1 term rather than empty rhetoric and generalities about budget cuts. Gutting the Fed seems like a good idea to stop the callous manipulation of interest rates and out of control inflation, but I do think that gutting the Fed would do more harm than good in the short term. In the long term, I don’t know enough about economics to form an opinion.
Having said all that, Ron Paul’s ambivalence towards a nuclear Iran is downright scary. His foreign policy, among other things, makes him sound like an 18th century Libertine rather than a 21st century Libertarian.
I get that he wants America to stop “policing the world” and I agree with that sentiment on a broad scale. But there’s no denying that there is a real and legitimate threat if Iran becomes a weaponized nuclear power.
Beyond purely political, “I don’t give a damn about the country” reasoning, why would a democrat even want Obama reelected? He is a disaster.
Things aren’t getting better. Even if you see a small downturn in the unemployment rate (primarily because huge numbers of people have simply stopped looking for work), the deficit is a disaster. There are no projections, not even from the CBO or the administration’s own budget office (OMB), that show it getting better. The interest on the debt alone will crush the economy. That’s not fear mongering, that’s just mathematical truth. The government’s own numbers show debt, on it’s current pace, becoming something like 700% (!) of GDP by 2050; the more optimisitic scenario shows that figure to be only (!) 255% of GDP. Those are official government projections.
Everyone knows that it can’t go on forever and at some point it will stop. (Because if something can’t go on forever, it won’t.) You can either let things crash at some point – when no one wants to buy worthless treasuries. Or you can take action that will be painful but survivable. Our political climate will likely mean that the crash is the end scenario.
Ken- Do you or do you not agree that Obama inherited a massive shit sandwich.? How exactly do you believe the alternative would have munched on it.? I’m not saying this to make excuses for the guy because I have been disppointed on many fronts as well…
He inherited an economy in flames and threw gasoline on it. He’s trying policies that have failed the world over for generations. But like all his like-minded predecessors, he thinks that the governement just isnt’ doing enough, just isn’t spending enough.
He took office blasting his predecessor’s excessive spending. Then he proceeded to put into place plans for deficit spending twice as great as the average deficit under eight years of George W. Bush, and for 1 1/2 times as long (his policiies plans call for huge deficits for 12 years, though hopefully he’ll be out of office long before that).
So, blast the high deficits in the past administration. Then immediately triple them.
He has run up more debt in three years than the 43 prior administrations. Even the Washington Post reported this in a link that John posted recently.
The deficits under Bush were gradually declining. The highest was about $450 billion. That numbers seems quaint now and would be a triumph under Obama. Who could have imagined $1.5 trillion dollar ANNUAL deficits before this?
This is insanity.
For all his flaws, one things that was always true about John McCain is that he was fiscally responsible, concerned about deficits. So I think things would have been some what better.
In a lot of ways though, McCain would have been just a slower slide into socialism. Believe it or not, I’m glad that McCain lost; if he was president, it would have placated a lot of people. There would be no Tea Party, no greater awareness of our problems which I think does exist now. I think sometimes you have to hit bottom, as under Jimmy Carter, before you come back strong.
Ken,
You forgot about the $1T slush fund known as the stimulus. They would have been better of dumping that money out of helicopter. I wish the MSM would report more on this. The number of Obama bundlers who got stimulus funds for solar energy business, who have no background in solar energy is astounding. All while the legit solar companies could not get $$$ that could make solar more viable because they didn’t have political connections.
I was already running kind of long as always, but I as thinking of that Matt.
$1 trillion of stimulus: a year later, 2 million fewer private sector jobs. That sure was money well-spent!
Then they’ll tell us how much worse it would have been. Obama’s wisdom prevented a second great depression. There’s no proof of that. No administration used to claim jobs “created or saved.” There’s no economic measure of saved jobs, so they just claim that they saved us all! And the gullible just lap up these claims, or the government relief that they’re happily collecting.
Yeah, Obama is an “intellectual.” He’s to intellectuals what the Edsel was to cars.
The “gullible” are the ones I worry about. I think there’s more out there than anyone knows. I didn’t vote for Pres. Obama before and won’t again. But, I have real doubts that much will change, even if he does lose in November. There are a lot of problems in politics. Many more than the office of the President. Like most in the House and Senate too. We have real problems that start, and end, in each State Capital and in Washington DC. Self serving politicians that can’t see beyond building their own bank accounts. These are the people that write the laws. They get input from their friends/contributors, then add loopholes to the laws that benefit themselves. Can anyone say “Dodd/Frank”? Or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? The real problem in the housing market. There were warnings going back to the Clinton years that Fannie and Freddie were headed for trouble. It’ll probably never happen, because it’s to complicated now, but the tax code needs a complete overhaul. These same lawmakers write tax code that benefits them and their friends/contributors. I don’t believe we need higher taxes on anyone. I hate to use the word “fair”, simply because everyone has their own definition, and it is impossible to legislate “fairness”. Fairness comes from within, but we need a tax code that is beneficial to the Government, as well as the citizens it is charged with protecting. Notice I said “protecting”, and not “supporting”. I hope things get better and we don’t end up like Greece. But as of now, that’s exactly where we are headed.
I hear some of that Ken, but I would argue much of it is/was circumstantial. I doubt Obamas dream was to gain the Presidency of the United States and be saddled with TARP..a huge stimulus package…the saving of the auto industry etc..etc.. You can argue that none of these were necessary and you may be right…but you may be wrong as well. Recall the panic setting in in October of ’08.? I also don’t understand why you think ANY republican will do better when it comes to deficits and debt reduction. Historically, they are worse than the Dems in these areas…they just don’t admit it.
The point is that he promised to make things better and he made things worse. He can not get re-elected on his record.
That is a matter of opinion. I certainly believe some things have gotten better and I’m sure others do as well. We all count the same in the voting booth.
But Obama has been president for three years now, and the huge, unprecedented annual deficits are still there, post-stimulus (which he proposed more of). This is his economy now, his deficits, and they show no signs of ending. The public sector just grows and grows.
For the record, while I don’t like some of how it was handled (preferential treatment for the UAW), I was not against the bailout of the auto industry. I don’t think that allowing your major industries to collapse into insolvency is a good idea.
Republicans do own a lot of blame in deficits. But when Clinton had a balanced budget, can you honestly say that it wasn’t largely due to the republicans winning congress in 1995? OMB projected deficits over $200 billion (ah, the good old days!) as far as they projected them before the republican takeover. Things changed in 1995, Clinton takes credit, and that’s fine, he did sign the budgets. But it wasn’t happening when the democrats controlled both houses of congress during his first two years in office.
I think it was Clinton who said that we “Would have deficits for as far as the eye can see.”
John…it ins’t surprising that 33% of Americans fear an Obama second term. Bush had 33% approval ratings while leading us into a recession. There is a solid 33% of right wing extremists.
So, rather than the misleading 2-1 number, why didn’t you state 33%? I got that number from going to the article you cited and reading it.
People why mislead with numbers do so when the numbers are not on their side.
I link the article so that you can read it.
Yes, and when I read it, I see the 33% number. Big deal. Given the number of right wing nuts that hate Obama, the 33% number seems low. It’s certainly less than the 2/1 ration you cited as a scare tactic.
I cited the piece.
Whatever fear people have of Obama, their fear of the GOP candidates is even worse. That’s why the polls show Obama leading the GOP candidates: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
The latest Rasmussen poll has the generic republican leading 47-43. Historically, the undecideds go against the incumbent.
Historically, the undecided vote splits evenly between candidates. And, Obama isn’t going to run against a generic Republican. He will have a named opponent. And almost all the polls show him beating a named Republican.
They don’t split evenly. They go in big numbers to the challenger. If you are undecided after 4 years, that means you’re not thrilled with what you’ve seen and most of those people go to the challenger.
John….you need to pay attention to the history of presidential elections. While undecideds break towards the challenger in other races, that’s not so true in presidential races.
34% vote for the challenger, 35% for the incumbent, 7% for third party candidates, and 25% not voting. (Rounding error is why this totals 101%.)
I’m always happy to provide you the facts.
It’s not all elections. It’s what undecideds have done when incumbents have gone into elections with approval ratings under 50%
So, the poll said that 33% of Americans are afraid of Obama winning a second term. 16% of Americans are afraid he won’t win a second term. Yet, we also know that Obama leads the potential GOP candidates in the polls.
What does this say?: Simply that the GOP is more fearful than the Democrats. It’s no surprise that the party of fear, anger, and lies shows their fear once again.
Did you read the piece? The writer seems to think it’s major problem for Obama.
Since the writer is a right wing nut, I’m not surprised at the writer’s conclusion.
But your left wing sources are infallible?
No, but I don’t hold them up as the authority. You’re the one starting off with a right wing bias and then trying to find sources to back up your bias. I start with an open mind and look to a number of sources. I don’t trust the far left media any more than the far right.
You don’t really want the facts. Your want something to back up your preconceived notions.
You can fund a poll to support just about any canidate….i have seen multiple polls that show Obama’s approval ratings rising and showing that he would beat any GOP canidate by at least 5%…..we will all just have to wait and see. I would still vote for any dem over any GOP nomination and i am 30.
Why?
The problem for Obama is that he can’t get over 50% against any candidate and that almost always means the end for an incumbent because the undecideds go heavily for the challenger.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bill Clinton never got over 50% of the vote? Didn’t he beat Bush with 43% or something really low like that?
Ross Perot.
There’s never been a collection of such stooge challengers as this, though. These extreme right politicians won’t win national general elections. The left keeps moving to the right and the right has moved into a nuthouse.
By the way, since it’s starting to happen in our backyards, watch the documentary “Gasland” and tell me that Dick Cheney isn’t the most evil politician in recent history. And explain to me how de-regulation (as in, natural gas fracking is not regulated AT ALL under the Clean Water Act due to an exclusion buried in a 2005 bill by Cheney) is doing any good at all.
Go back and look at the stooges running for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Gasland is about as credible as Al Gore’s “documentary.” Frack, baby, frack.
You’d change your tune if it was your water catching on fire with no recourse to have your complaints addressed and your relatives deveoping brain damage and debilitating diseases from inhaling the fumes and drinking the water. Not credible? Based on what evidence?
I doubt you’ve even seen the film. I’m sure the people in that film were making their pets’ hair fall out on purpose and I’m sure the 35 mile fish kill in local Dunkard Creek had nothing to do with fracking.
When did it become acceptable in America for us to assume something isn’t harmful instead of making these giant energy companies PROVE their processes aren’t harmful before they begin? For a company to not disclose what they’re putting into our drinking water and atmosphere? After we went through the exact same thing with unregulated coal emissions right here in Pittsburgh?
Hey, it’s your grandkids who are gonna have to live with cancer in their 30′s, not you, I guess. Just hope they don’t end up like the residents of Donora where we need something like this to happen to get our heads out of our asses – http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10346/1109190-114.stm
“Fox’ documentary Gasland, claims that fracking, a way of drilling for natural gas, has polluted water and endangered lives. One of the most alarming scenes is when he lights water that residents claim has been polluted by fracking. It is dramatic and at first glance seems like a slam dunk. I mean they can light their water – it is polluted and there is gas drilling nearby. It must be responsible.”
But then a little digging reveals a few inconvenient facts. A 1976 study by the Colorado Division of Water found that this area was plagued with gas in the water problems back then. And it was naturally occurring.
As the report stated there was “troublesome amounts of methane” in the water decades before fracking began. It seems that in geographical areas gas has always been in the water.
But Josh Fox knew this and chose not to put it in Gasland.
I asked him about this omission at a recent screening at Northwestern University in Chicago.
He said he had not included these facts that questioned his alarmism because “they were not relevant.” He also dropped the bombshell that I had not been aware of that there were media reports of people lighting their water as far back as 1936. Again this was not included in Gasland because it was not relevant.
Perhaps Josh you should include all the evidence and let people figure out what is relevant and what is not.”
A second charge, based on a Duke University study, claims that fracking has polluted drinking water with methane gas. Methane is naturally occurring and isn’t by itself harmful in drinking water, though it can explode at high concentrations. Duke authors Rob Jackson and Avner Vengosh have written that their research shows “the average methane concentration to be 17 times higher in water wells located within a kilometer of active drilling sites.”
They failed to note that researchers sampled a mere 68 wells across Pennsylvania and New York—where more than 20,000 water wells are drilled annually. They had no baseline data and thus no way of knowing if methane concentrations were high prior to drilling. They also acknowledged that methane was detected in 85% of the wells they tested, regardless of drilling operations, and that they’d found no trace of fracking fluids in any wells.
Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, Correcting Gasland:
Gasland incorrectly attributes several cases of water well contamination in Colorado to oil and gas development when our investigations determined that the wells in question contained biogenic [naturally-occurring] methane that is not attributable to such development.
From John Hanger, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection:
Gasland is “fundamentally dishonest” and “a deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect.”
*****************************************************************************************
I hope my grandkids benefit from all the natural gas that’s under their feet and don’t have to live in a country that depends on people who want to kill us for our energy sources. Frack, baby, frack.
All mumbo jumbo from people who have the gas companies stuffing their pockets. Guess whose interests the Colorado Oil & Gas Commission protect?
I guess all these people started hauling in their own water after drinking out of their wells for 50 years, right as drilling started, because they just wanted to blow money.
Why don’t you pay attention to the evidence you can see and touch and smell for yourself if you really want to, instead of valuing the vague excuse-making ramblings of bureaucrats?
Or at least spend 10 minutes and just watch this video, and tell me why this is all an elaborate staging. I’m sure the normal people in this movie are just trying to put one over on the people who stands to make billions on drilling….right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCibwj396I&feature=related
If you watch that and all you want to do is debunk everything said like some lobbyist, with THIS region’s history of pollution problems, then you are simply disconnected from reality and the corporate lobbyists just plain got to you.
You wet your pants when you saw the water on fire and then find out that it’s been going on since long before anybody heard of fracking and then, when you learn that the producer forgot to mention that, you still want me to watch the “documentary.” Al Gore used staged movie footage to show heart rendering pictures of polar bears (that aren’t endangered). It’s propaganda.
It was “reported” that it had happened once or twice before back in the 30′s. Give me a break. Again you’re trying to dispute physical evidence with drilling-company funded studies and hazy “reports” from the 30′s that may or may not be relevant at all.
You’re no different than a lobbyist with the exception that you aren’t getting paid.
If you owned a business and people were spreading false propaganda about it, would you spend money to defend yourself? Would the fact that you are in the business that is being defamed disqualify you as a credible person? Of course the gas companies are going to defend themselves. You mentioned that scene of the water catching on fire as enough motivation for everybody to just give up on the idea of fracking and you, just as the producer, forgot to mention that methane gas has been causing people’s water to catch on fire since long before anybody heard of fracking. If you want to walk around thinking that your water is going to catch on fire and the sea levels are going to rise and Harrisburg will be under water, be my my guest.
“I hope my grandkids benefit from all the natural gas that’s under their feet and don’t have to live in a country that depends on people who want to kill us for our energy sources. Frack, baby, frack.”
Right, because those are the only two choices.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10347/1109235-114.stm
Why should you care? You won’t be alive to see the consequences.
Frack, baby, frack indeed.
What does that have to do with fracking?
If you can’t make a connection that simple then there’s no hope for you.
Yeah. Thanks for pointing out that lots of people now living in Florida moved there from a northern state. I can’t tell you how shocked I was to learn that.
Obama was the most extreme major party presidential candidate in history. He won an election as a leftist in a center/right country.
What defines “extreme right” to you?
Citing “Gasland” as a source against natural gas fracking is like citing MSNBC as a source regarding conservatives. Not exactly unbiased material.
Yea, those chemicals came from somewhere else after drilling started. Sure.
Do you have a counter-argument that doesn’t involve a lame analogy?
Do you also believe that apes are on the verge of taking over the planet? I saw that in a movie recently as well.
“Gasland” was propaganda.
As I’ve mentioned before, that’s not true. Many incumbents have won with approval ratings less than 50%.
What presidents were reelected with those approval ratings? Or with polling numbers in the 40s vs. potential opponents?
Glad you asked. The most recent president to be reelected, George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 49%. According to you, he’d be toast. He won reelection rather easily.
I’m always happy to provide you the facts.
Why would you still vote for Obama?
I would vote for Obama depending on who his opponent is…..
There’s no one running who would be a worse president.
Why vote for someone who has already proven to be utterly incompetent?
Well Ken, that is your opinion and we all have them. Personally, I like some of things Obama has done and the 8 years of Dubya was a black mark on the history of this country. To me, why would we/I want to go back there again.?
I don’t think that Bush was a great presient, but 2001-2006 were some of the strongest economic years in the country’s history that I think anyone would welcome back. And while the execution was lacking, particulary the handling of Iraq after Saddam was toppled, Bush’s general concept of foreign policy was right.
What Obama policies do you like?
He inherited a recession from Clinton and there were 52 consecutive months of economic growth after the tax cuts.
I like Obamas foreign policy in general and he has obviously been very, very effective on some of those fronts . I like the health care plan in general although there are certain things I do not support and feel it could be better. I like the fact that Obama has put more actual boots(and drones) on the ground on the Mexican border than any prior administration. I supported the auto industry bailout and feel it was effective and necessary. He has actually LOWERED INCOME TAXES..I could go on and on but you get my drift. He is far from the boogeyman and worst President in the history of time that the neo-cons attempt to make him out to be.
You’d have to explain to me how “Bush’s general foreign policy concept was right”…nation building is neither conservative nor effective.
Supporting Islamist takeovers in Egypt and Libya is not my idea of a foreign policy success. Khaddafi was the “devil you know.” We still don’t know what comes next in Libya, but it’s likely Islamists. Mubarak was pro-western and one of the rare Arab leaders that actually recognized Israel; Islamists are taking over there.
Bush’s belief in American exceptionalism and trying to spreading democracy I think was correct. The post-war operations were bungled in Iraq (the “insurgency”), but the surge put things right. Unfortuately, pull our troops out too early may allow that country to slide into chaos.
I posted it above – I agree with you about the auto industry. Bush actually started that and Obama, rightly IMO, continued it.
Unfortunately, the boots on the ground on the Mexian border are largely administrative personnel. Do you really think he’s done squat to stop illegal immigration? It’s getting worse, not better. If anything he’s encouraged it. Unfortunately, no one else, not Bush, not McCain, not Romney, seems to really want to stop it either. I’ll never understand this about any of our presidents or candidates.
“Bush’s belief in American exceptionalism and trying to spreading democracy I think was correct.”
Communists used to do the same thing. Next thing you know we ended up in Vietnam.
Why should it be the business of the American government to spread it’s policies and beliefs across borders???
I think your answer is “American Exceptionalism”..whch is great if you’re American, not so much if you’re not. Americans are not real good at realizing there is an actual world outside of their boundaries.
Obama has done more to stop illegal immigration than Dubya and the crew ever did…that is a fact. Saddam was ‘the devil we knew as well”..but for some reason that was justified and Kahddafi was not.? The difference in the pursuit and execution of both tells the difference in foreign policy. The pursuit of Saddam cost 4,000 American lives ..25,000 plus injured..and billions of dollars. You want to look at the massive deficit in the country and part of it’s origination..?..look there. The pursuit and execution of Khaddafi cost not one American life.
I’m not defending Khaddafi, but he was managable and had been relatively well-behaved for quite a while. Better than a Islamist state will be.
Saddam once invaded Kuwait and likely have move to Saudi Arabia from there, threatening the oil supply of the entire world. He did have WMD programs and did in fact use them on the Kurds. (And WMDs likely did exist and were moved to Syria). I think removing him was a good move for the world.
Ken….according to you, Bush was president for only 6 years. You don’t like to talk about his last two years, when he tanked the economy. When he left office, we were in the worst economy since the great depression.
You mean when the dems took back the house?
So the current even worse deficit is the fault of the Republican-controlled House then too, right?
Does the economy belong to the House or the president? Make up your mind already.
Both. But only congress can spend money. Both parties are guilty.
Can you maybe mention a bill that was passed by that house and signed by Dubya..? How about a policy instituted by that house that was counter to the Dubya-Cheney agenda.?
Like John said, the dems took Congress in ’07.
I was pointing out that Bush’s entire term wasn’t a disaster, far from it.
The Carter economy of 78-80 was much worse. Double-digit unemployment and inflation. Prime rate of 20%.
I agree with Blasot and will also be voting for Obama
If he wins re-election (and he won’t), it will not be by 5%. If he wins, it’s be another win like Clinton’s, where he got less than 50% both times.
When Obama won in 2008, he had more than 50% of the popular vote.
Chris, I second John’s “why?” I ask that question to a lot of my friends who voted for Obama and plan to again. No one can give me an answer. My next question is, name 3 things that Obama has done that have had a positive affect on our country. I just get blank stares at that one. So please, for the 30 year old democrats out there, sum it up for me. Why?
I would vote for Obama more to keep the other guys out than because i like obama….to me, a lot of what this republican field and a lot of the posters on here say scares the shit out of me……i am for more goverment control, i support Obama care and the occupy movement and i am very anti big buisness.
What else would you like government to control? How much control over your health care are you willing to cede to a bureaucrat? What scares you –self reliance?
The fact is that health care will be controlled by someone/something whether you like it or not. the question is do you prefer bttom line pro or the U’S. Governemnt.? I see both sides of the argument but thefgit driven insurance companies exclusively
The fact is that health care will be controlled by something/someone in this country. The question is do you prefer that to be profit driven insurance companies or the U.S. government.? I understand both sides of the argument but I don’t understand the “freedom” argument nonsense. I’m more “free” because the gov is not involved but an insurance company can run me broke and deny me for just about any reason ?? How is that “freedom.??
The goverment needs to get out of the insurance business all toghether and make make it market driven. I can’t understand how people don’t understand the danger of turning control of your health care over to the government. Don’t they see the power over their lives that it gives to the government? If you were interested in becoming a dictator, it would seem to me that disarming the people would be your first job and taking control of their health would be number two. If government is going to be involved it should be in the form of health savings accounts. Instead of taking money from me to pay for your parents’ medicare, I should be allowed to, you know, KEEP MY OWN MONEY, put it in an account and let it grow. Eventually, I would have thousands of dollars to use to pay for medical coverage out of pocket and I could buy a high deductible policy for catastrophic situations. The doctors and hospitals would then start hearing people ask something that they haven’t heard since government got involved: “How much is this going to cost?” Nothing will bring costs down faster than that.
No more dangerous than handing over your health care to the insurance companies. In fact, I think it’s less dangerous for me and my family.
You can’t be serious. Do the insurance companies have the power to throw you in prison?
How….exactly….would the government throw me in prison? I am a fine upstanding member of society. I have 2 little kids. In my situation I trust the u.s. government a helluva lot more than I trust u.s. healthcare inc…
Hillary Clinton’s plan had prison sentences for doctors who didn’t comply. ONLY the government has the power to throw you in prison. So you can’t say that an insurance company is the same as the government. As an American, you should be hard wired with a healthy DISTRUST of government. The guys who founded your country considered it a necessary evil.
The problem isn’t really insurance companies or the government. Insurance premiums are continuing to rise regardless of whether the government or the insurance companies are in control. The reason is claims, they are at record highs. And they cost more than ever because of the ridiculous prices charged by the pharmacutical companies and the manufacturers or medical equipment. There was plenty of competition in the private sector 5 or 6 years ago. The problem was they all wanted hundreds of dollars a month for crappy coverage.
Look at the cost of a typical cancer patient’s medications and you’ll see why it doesn’t matter who is in control, when claims are this high premiums are going to be through the roof, competition be damned.
If you allowed health care providers to compete across state lines, you would have many more options. That’s the cure to our health care problems.
Competition lowers cost and increases quality – every time. The profit motive drive providers of any service to provide better quality and lower cost. But there is no real competition.
Costs are high because of government. There’s no real competition. Why can’t I just go out and buy a plan that covers major medical and other normal health things? The government requires insurers to cover more and more things, like sexual dysfunction and even some cosmetic surgeries. Why should an insurance company have to cover elective things – meaning that we hall have to pay for them?
When I was a kid, most people paid for their doctor bills out of pocket and they had something called HOSPITALIZATION. Everybody had Blue Cross or Blue Shield. If your kid fell oof a bike and needed stitches, you went to the emergency room and you wrote a check. If a doctor did a house call, you paid him with a check on his way out the door. The doctor’s office consisted of the doctor and one nurse/receptionist. You were covered if your condition required HOSPITALIZATION. Family doctors couldn’t charge ridiculous prices because they were in competition with other family doctors and they knew people were paying with their own money and would be comparing prices. What do you think would happen to food prices if we all had food insurance? Nobody would be asking “how much” anymore and a gallon of milk would cost twelve dollars. Until the federal government stepped in with price controls, which would create a shortage of food and make it even more expensive.
Simple, unlike you, i trust the goverment way more than i trust big buisness
Then you should try Venezuela or Cuba.
Wow. You trust the government more than big business?
The government is the biggest business of all and is $16 trillion in the hole. That hole is getting deeper all the time. Fast.
You trust that?
love when people say they are anti big business but are favor of more govt control…cause govt is a business, just one losing money not making money. You should also stop driving your car, assuming you own one, stop using all GE, Johnson & Johnson, (insert all other big companies that produce all of your goods), stop using your cell phone, stop smoking cigarettes, stop using the internet, google etc. I could go on all day. Pretty much everything you own/use you get from some form of big business.
There aren’t enough words to express my love for corporations.
Chris would vote for Ovbama because he’s a lazy person who hates things like personal responsibility. you are without question everything that is wrong with this country.
I can understand why a lifelong democrat will not support a republican, but I don’t get how anyone can still support Obama.
People that still support Obama remind me of a child that is losing an argument and decides to cover his ears and say lalalalalalala, I can’t hear you.
The primary reason Obama will lose is because so many people that voted for Obama last time, will stay home this time.
Exact same thing was said about Dubya in 08.
I know. How can even democrats think he’s good for the country? How much more proof that he’s a disaster do they need?
I’d vote for him because the quality of my life and my close friends (late 20′s males) is much better today than it was in 2008.
Actually, I can’t think of one person (regardless of age) who is worse off than they were 3 years ago.
How is your life better? And it’s not about today as much as it is about the future. Call someone in Greece and ask how that European entitlement state is working out. That’s where Obama is headed.
I say keep up the Robin Hood Politics.Steel from the Rich and give to the poor.
Chris, do you have a job with good opportunity in the future?
I would also like to ask you a question that none of the liberals on a previous thread would answer. If someone makes $500,000 per year, how much of that should be paid in taxes? Please give me a dollar figure, not a percentage.
At least Chris gets it right. (I’m sure that “steel” was just a typo.) The government does steal from the rich.
Why someone would support theft as a policy is rather baffling.
Only a pathetic loser would be in favor of stealing from the “rich.”
$200,000
Why should a rich person have to pay a higher percentage of their income to the government than anyone else?
I’m not rich, probably never will be. But from the time I wzs a kid on, I’ve never understood how one person’s fair share can be greater than anothers.
That’s why there should be NO income tax.
I’m sure since you say that you also believe a person making $20,000/year should have to give $8,000 to the federal government or someone making $50,000 should have to give $20,000 or $100,000 should have to give $40,000, right?
How in the hell can anyone believe that shit?
Taxing people exact dollar figures is a ridiculous notion. Why are you asking for a dollar figure when we are taxed based on percentages?
Percentages don’t seem as painless. At what point is a person earning his keep. If an athlete is making $10 million a year, and he has $500,000 confiscated from him by the government, shouldn’t that be more than enough? There should be NO income tax.
I’m sure those $1.5 trillion dollar annual deficits, tripling the worst prior deficit, won’t impact you and your late ’20s male friends at all. And, the deficit projections continue to stay north of $1 trillion annually in his own administration’s projections. But any impact from them will skip you I’m sure, someone else will pay for it. Don’t worry, be happy.
Does anyone remember when Obama said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term?
Why don’t we elect Haley Barbour? Long time head of your party and latest Republican nutcase. Wheres your post on him ? Gonna bring up Ted Kennedy to justify him too.?
All your faves have fallen JS., Palin, Cain, Kathy Bates in Misery., Gingerich, Sanitarium.
Your post here speaks volumes. It tells me you’re starting to sweat. It’s you who fears an Obama reelection.
I don’t have a party. The more I hear from Ron Paul the more I like him. If were just a little less whacky on foreign policy, I’d vote for him in a minute. Just heard that 52% of the people in Florida don’t believe that Obama deserves to be re-elected.
Toast.
There’s only one person in there comes close to being a favorite and that’s Palin, who would be a better president than Obama, Gingrich and Santorum.
Ron Paul makes the most sense and is clearly the best can candidate. He has my vote hopefully he runs as a third party. Too bad republicans and democrats are too stupid to realize how much sense his positions make for America.
Why would you vote Paul if he ran third party? He would have zero chance. Why would you not chose from the best of the possible winners. Voting for Paul third party – while sometimes enticing – is a cop out.
Don’t you think that Paul’s age will work against him? I think Obama has proven that the general population might prefer someone that is younger. Also, if he runs as a third party he might invoke the Perot effect . . . that is to take votes away from the Republican candidate.
He would take just as many votes away from Obama.
How can you get past the fact that he believes it’s not a big deal and none of our business that Iran is trying to build a nuke? A religious country with a leader that believes it’s his job to help bring about the end of the world?
Paul has some good ideas, but we wouldn’t be alive to benefit from them if his idiocy on foreign policy is adopted.
Instead of being afraid of Obama, we should be afraid of REAL dangerous politicians like this guy: http://www.wfmz.com/news/Outgoing-MS-gov-issues-nearly-200-pardons/-/121458/7724498/-/v26halz/-/index.html
8 killers pardoned! And now he’s going back to being a slimy lobbyist. No surprise coming out of one of the most backwards red states in the nation.
By the way this Barbour guy was considering a run at the GOP presidential nomination last year. There’s a reason why none of these guys can get over 25% in their own party – THEY’RE BAD PEOPLE.
The fact that Gingrich is a serious candidate to win his party’s nomination is a farce of the highest order. Nobody defines the term “scumbag politician” better.
The first related link above shows Obama’s approval rating in the 30′s back in John’s Sept 15th Gallup poll.
The same poll today has him at 46%.
“Toast” would have him in the 20′s, not trending upward.
The current GOP crop is making such fools of themselves they’re sending voters running and screaming in the other direction. It’s no surprise Romney, the most liberal of the bunch, is on the fast track to the nomination. Americans don’t buy what this sad sack of candidates are selling.
The Tea Party is dying alive. Where’s Christine O’Donnell when you need her??? At a seance?
The country is conservative. Every number is against Obama if you look at history. He’s toast.
I’ll give you that considering a big part of that is the deep south which always votes Red. They’re also last in education rankings. And the states that fought the Civil Rights movement the hardest. Not exactly the representation “conservatives” should want to be associated with.
GOP voters are showing that their definition of “conservative” doesn’t include radicals like Bachmann, Cain, Palin, and Santorum. It’s way closer to the middle than those names, case in point Mitt Romney. Which is the way it should be.
Florida is in the south geographically but it’s not a deep south state demographically. Obama won it in 2008 and I think it played a pretty large role in 2000.
Florida is a transplant state. Much of it’s population is from elsewhere around the country. I thought you knew that.
Gee. That’s the first I’ve ever heard that. You mean a lot of people living in Florida moved there from the north? Stunning. Thanks. I think that’s what I meant when I said it was not a deep south state demographically.
What did you bring up Florida for? I was referring to deep south red states, and Florida isn’t one as we both seem to agree.
What connection were you accusing me of not being able to make?
Wrong comment thread. I posed the link describing western PA’s sky-high health problems that have followed years or unregulated and underregulated emissions from energy production. The next few generations have the same future if this fracking stuff is so underregulated as well. You accused me of calling for a fracking ban. I never said any such thing. I asked why we are supposed to assume it’s a safe process until thousands of people end up with cancer and rare diseases before we say oops and begin tighter regulations. And I asked why are we assuming that complaints about black water in their washing machine the day after fracking starts, benzyne in the air and water, flammable tap water and pets with hair falling out in clumps have no connection to fracking until 100% proven otherwise. They should have to prove it’s safety FIRST, not the other way around. It’s not even close to a safe process right now and it needs to be put on hold until it is. I can’t believe you are disagreeing with this. But like I said you won’t live to see a lot of the widespread health consequences. That’s why I posted the P-G link above, so you can say the consequences that are impacting current generations from energy production in years past. The only difference is one generation burned coke and zinc and coal and the new one is releasing natural gas along with 596 chemicals into our water and air.
You cited a movie that is riddled with holes. We know a lot more now about the effects of pollution. We also know that smoking causes lung cancer. If enough people start getting black water that’s on fire when they turn on their faucet, changes will be made. The vast majority of people who have leased their property to the gas companies are thrilled with the extra income and not catching fire in the shower.
Dan, you have a thorough misunderstanding of conservatives and most independents. You are obviously a very liberal person. Please show me a mainstream poll that showed Obama in the 20′s. The only one would have been Rasmussen and that would be the ‘approve’ classification. He then adds in slightly approve to get his total approval. Obama’s approve has been in the 20′s and total approval in low/mid 40′s for at least a year. Virtually all the polls have had no more than 3-5 point swings in the past year or more.
I cited the same exact Gallup poll John cited in September that had Obama’s approval rating in the 30′s. On Jan. 5th it was 46%. You need to read my post again.
If I have a misunderstanding of conservatives then perhaps you can tell me why we’re not looking at a Palin/Santorum ticket being the favorite, we’re looking at the most liberal Republican of the group running away with the nomination.
In the caucus 75% of the voters were conservative. In the NH primary 65% voted for someone other than Romney. McCain won the same way in 2008. He let the conservatives split their vote.
A day later, according to Drudge, Gallup went from 46 to 42%.
I really think he has a chance to run away with this in spite of the evidence. When he gets into campaign mode, I think there will be a lot of people voting projecting him to be what they want him to be again. I will freely admit that I was one of those people in 2008. It was also the first time I voted for a Democrat. I fell for the marketing too. I have a sense that and have heard many people talk about him being all about the second term as early as 2009. Pundits, friends, etc…the hope he ran on may be revitalized in the fall. His cabinet shake ups will help him. There are things on his record that he could run with. He has the best shot against Romney. Romney has likability concerns and a poor record of his own. Even his “positives” are false. I have agreed for a while that there will be a 3rd party nominee. I hadn’t thought of it being Paul, but would agree that it could pose more trouble for Obama than Republican X. Paul has the youth vote. Although I think it has more to do with the stance on the wars and marijuana than any notion of the national debt.
Most of the “youth” couldn’t name the Speaker of the House.
As the economy continues to recover, his poll numbers will continue to climb. Just a couple of months ago, you were touting that his approval ratings were in the 30s. Now there in the mid-40s.
You’re not being driven by facts. You’re being driven by wishful thinking.
History says he can’t win with his disapproval ratings and the economic numbers. 52% of the people in Fla. say he doesn’t deserve to be re-elected. Remember, it’s all about the states.
There are 49 states other than Florida. Obama’s approval ratings are in the mid-40s. Bush was at 49% when he won reelection easily. Obama is far from toast.
He’s at 45. In some polls as low as 43. Toast.
Now that they do daily tracking, the numbers change a lot. He hasn’t hit 50 in ages. Gallup went from 46 to 42 in a day. Even with what are perceived as “ups” for Obama, like unemployment going to “only” 8.5%, his numbers stay consistently low. His problem is that his peaks are still below half, often well below.
You’re whistling past the graveyard Paul if you think he doesn’t face a huge obstacle to reelection. If it follow historys, he’s doomed. It would be unprecedented to win with this numbers he has now, which have been persistent, not just a blip under 50.
The approval polls are one thing. Dick Morris is a pretty knowledgable observer of this stuff, and he always uses polls of likely voters. Obama can’t get out of the low 40s in those. Historically, it’s death for a candidate when they can’t hit 50% for extended periods.
Are you kidding? I would guess at least half the country at this point isn’t even paying any attention to what the Republicans running for President are doing or saying.
You’re right. Most people don’t start paying attention until after Labor Day, but historuy shows that a president that has disapproval numbers like Obama’s at this stage of the race, combined with the economic numbers, is toast.
I was saying that to Dan who’s claiming the Republican candidates have voters running the other way. They don’t have voters doing anything because the only people paying attention are the hardcore party folks on both sides. I would bet at least half of the voters at this point couldn’t even tell you what Republican are running.
I’m hoping and praying history repeats itself.
That is my greatest fear, actually the party that I was raised to believe in scares the hell out of me, not just Obama, but all of them.
The entire party has moved so far left, my Grandpa would not recognize them. They have totally moved what left is off the map. Kennedy wouldn’t even feel welcome in this Democratic party.
He’d be considered a religious “nut.”
I think my biggest thing even besides taxes and spending is some of us have a way of life. My way of life bothers nobody, but Democrats and some Republicans want to take my way of life away. I’m not a huge farmer, but I was raised in farming. Now I’m more just a hobby farmer that raises my own beef and pork. Guns and dogs are a way I protect my investment from 4 legged creatures. Democrats want to take away my right to protect my family and property. They want to pass laws that not only say I can’t own a gun, they want to pass laws that say if a wolf, coyote, fox, etc. is killing them I can’t do anything about it, because they more than Republicans have climbed in bed with the Animal Rights and Environmental activists.
I have friends and neighbors that not only is farming and ranching their way of life it’s how they make a living and they are under attack and state by state they’re picking them off, putting such extreme regulations on them that they’re putting them out of business.
Just look at how many businesses over-regulating has ran off in this country and now they’re doing it with our farmers/ranchers.
That is why I went back into small time farming, because I see in the not so far future food prices being astronomical and if this country isn’t careful, all of our food will be imported. My problem with that though is sadly many Republicans are buying into it as well.
But at this point they’re still the best choice if you want to save the farmers/ranchers.
But taxes, welfare, overspending, giving handouts is up there as well.
Although rural people and farmers are becoming a dying breed most that have been lifelong democrats are leaving the Democratic party.
My Mother who now lives in town but was raised on a farm and raised us on a farm, has never in her life voted for a Republican, she switched her party this year to Republican.
I know now there are going to be people who have never been within 100 feet of a cow unless it was at a petting zoo are going to start commenting about how bad the commercial farmers are, the same ones that are going to be crying and whining when they’re paying $10/lb for ground beef. The same as they’re screaming now I want clean water and air for my kids that will be screaming when their electric bills go through the roof when they cost electric plants billions of dollars to come up to standards that the EPA decides is a good standard.
OK…Which Democrat wants to pass a law that says you can’t own a gun..?
Oh they’ve gotten smart and know it was losing them races on the federal level so they try to hide from the gun issue, but anyone who thinks they don’t want rid of guns are kidding themselves. Right now gun rights are hanging on by a slim margin in the SC, if I’m not mistaken the last two gun cases were a 5-4 vote.
Not to mention they’ve decided to take it on the city and state level as far as legislation, just like the AR activists that have so much influence with the party.
Besides the fact you are talking to someone who was raised Democrat, someone whose Mother for years and years has been active in the Democratic party. My Mother has attended conferences since before I was born, one of her lifelong friends has been involved in Democratic politics for years and was in government for years.
That is their plan, if it’s going to cost votes, you do it through the SC and/or through legislation at the lower level.
For years she has seen how the tides are changing that’s why she has left the party.
But you don’t have to take my word for it, do your own research. It’s not hard to find the plan if you do it with your eyes open and not through your party glasses.
Oh and btw there was a time when I was blind and used the same arguments, but eventually you have to open your eyes and quit ignoring the facts in front of you.
It was simple question Oke- which Democrat is that again that wants to pass a law that says you can’t own a gun.? I don’t need a book…just a name. GOP-paranoia is thy name..
Did you google cities who have tried to ban guns? It sure as hell aren’t republicans doing that shit.
Did you read Obama’s opinion on Congress saying money could not be used in the spending bill and him telling them he’d do what he wanted?
Anytime some new gun law is introduced, who introduces it? Democrat or Republican?
Do you remember how stupid Kerry looked carrying his rifle to try to prove to people he didn’t want their guns? Any democrat especially democrat who runs for President says openly I want to take your gun knows he doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected.
So no you are not going to find one who publicly says I want to ban guns, but they’re going to try every slimy, sneaky way they can to go about doing it.
I’d bet though although you won’t admit it that you don’t own a gun and don’t see the need for me, John or Joe Blow to own one either.
Ok….I’ll ask one more time nicely. Please tell me the name of the Democrat that wants to pass a law that says you can’t own a gun. Pretty please…..
It’s obvious that the number one democrat has little patience with tha pesky 2nd amendment.
**************************************************************************************
On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.”
“Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
Minor noted that this under-the-radar anecdote matches up with other reporting:
The statement reinforces an article in the Huffington Post describing how the administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action.
The Department of Justice reportedly is holding meetings discussing the White House’s options for enacting regulations on its own or through adjoining agencies and departments. “Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “
That also matches up with Obama’s approach on … nearly everything, it seems. Regulatory adventurism has been a hallmark of every other Obama priority, whether it be health care, financial-services reform, labor policy, and now on gun control. When his agenda is too radical for Congress, Obama simply plans to bypass Congress and rule by decree.
Glenn Reynolds headlined this under the banner “TRANSPARENCY.” That’s fitting, but “RADICAL” and “DISHONEST” work well, too. Here’s the problem for Democrats: Ever since the Clinton years, they have avoided gun control like the plague, and the courts have taken a libertarian view of the Second Amendment. How many of the incumbent Democrats in the Senate want to defend Obama on his power play to impose gun control by executive fiat in the dark?
How will that fly in places like Missouri, Nebraska, and West Virginia? How about in open seats like Virginia’s, which Democrats hope to hold?
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-on-gun-control-under-the-radar/
Did you google anything?
John has now made it easy for you to read one little tidbit on Obama and there are many others out there.
Democrats know passing laws at least on the federal level is suicide for them. So they’re plan is to do it through sneaky, back door methods.
There should be no discussion. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right. The Pa. constitution says the right to bear arms shall not be QUESTIONED.
And the US Constitution says there is a right to privacy that should not be questioned. Yet, you want government to step in and take away a woman’s right to privacy.
The word privacy doesn’t exist in the constitution.It does guarantee equal protection under the law and if you believe the unborn child is a person it’s a no brainer. If you think it’s a glob of cells, you’re right. Speaking of privacy, what about the right to protect our “papers” from government searches? How does the IRS get the power to audit my bank account?
I think you should actually read the constitution. There is no such thing and the right to abortion is also not covered.
Yep. Tough to question that which is why you will never hear a Dem doing it regardless of how much hyperbole the GOP stirs up. What they will question is someones right to be more well armed than the Canadian Army…God, Gays and Guns- been winning elections for years.
Why the hell should it be any business of the government if I own one gun or 10,000 guns? I am a law abiding citizen, have never even received a ticket in my lifetime. The government should have no say on how many guns or anything else I can own.
So if I want to be armed to the teeth it should be no concern of theirs how armed I am in my own home. The constitution does not say I can bear two arms or twenty arms, it says I have the right to bear arms period.
Right ok…it should be nobody’s business if you have a tank in your backyard.
yep.
Nobody’s business but my own. Now if that tank leaves my backyard and drive it into town blowing people away then it’s somebody’s business.
You and I both know though this isn’t about tanks this isn’t even about assault rifles or armor piercing bullets. Otherwise why does the federal government want a .22 rifle registered.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with background checks, they sounded good in theory, but they’ve done absolutely zero. Criminals are not buying guns through legal means, the only people having background checks and registering guns are law abiding citizens.
You probably never want to come to Oklahoma though since you seem to think the government needs to know everything about guns. We don’t have to register our guns.
Oh and let me help you out a little in your research. Google $1 trillion dollar spending bill and what the Republicans got put in and Obama’s comment to them. He’s actually more open about it than most Democrats but people who blindly support anyone with a D after their name ignore it.
Google e-mails between BATFE employees and see more of Obama being a little more open on guns.
Google city and state gun legislation.
Oke- you have that backwards. The left has moved to the right and the right has moved off the map. St. Ronnie would not have a prayer at his parties nomination these days…
If you believe that then you must be belong to the Green party or whatever the hell they call it.
I don’t fall in line with either party and don’t really trust either party but what has finally forced me to register as a Republican is that even considering voting for a Democrat these days is a waste, there’s not much left I can agree with them on and there’s at least a chance with the Republicans. With the democrats unless I want to believe an animal has rights, I have no right to own a gun, I believe the government should be able to force me to have insurance or put me in jail, I could go on all day, then I’d be a fool to vote for a democrat. It will never happen again until the party truly does move to the right. I also will quit voting for the independent as I have in the past or not voting for anyone, something else I’ve done, but will vote Republican and try to vote for those who don’t move to the left.
Romney is the sanest Republican. And he’s a Mormon that believes in magical underwear.
JFK believed that bread and wine can be changed into a human being — one who died and three days later ascended into heaven.
Who cares what religion the president is as long as they don’t try to force their beliefs and religious laws into public policy?
I agree. I don’t support Romney, because I disagree with him on so many issues. Although, at times I agree with him, because he changes his views so much. I’m pro-choice…and he was at one time. I like government-mandated healthcare, and so did he, at one time.
Anyway, his religion shouldn’t be an issue. The funny thing is, were he a Muslim, a lot of people who say his being a Mormon shouldn’t matter, would refuse to vote for him.
Yup.
A poll in 2008 when Romney was running actually showed that 1/3 of Americans doubted they could vote for a Mormon. I found that incredible in this day and age. But it isn’t just Muslims.
I am 100% certain I will be voting for Obama. I won’t move to Canada if Romney wins, but I think Obama has done a lot of good. I own guns and I am not afraid of the gov’t coming to take them. I am concerned about the deficit, but believe its all a scam. None of them on either side are concerned with reducing it. I am unaffected by Obamacare and believe that it’s a bill that is going to do a lot of good (no bill or no person is 100% perfect). I feel safer living in the US knowing Obama is our commander (Bin laden, Qaddafi). When you oppose Obama and your argument includes Greece, Pelosi, socialist, and any poll ever created (Same goes for GOP polls), sorry your argument is wafer thin.
If I give you $10 to wager on the November winner and you choose anyone except Obama, The Rivers Casino thanks you for your support.
Unless you plan on dying before it takes effect, you will be impacted by Obamacare.
I hope Obama campaigns on what you think was his accomplishment, killing Bin Laden. What do you think he did there, exactly? He was on record opposing the intelligence efforts that led to the killing of Bin Laden. Were it up to him, Bin Laden would still be alive. They had been tracking him for years, long before Obama became president, and the leads came from waterboarded inmates. I’d love to see Obama claim credit for this in a debate, because it could so easily be thrown back in his face.
When you support Obama and part of your argument is “Qaddafi,” you reasoning is pretty baseless. Obama did what exactly there? Supported an overthrow of someone who was a bad man, no doubt. But at least he was a known quantity. Now we’ll likely have an Islamist state that’s even worse.
Why the hell would i vote for Obama or Romney if i can’t stand either? Its not a cop out its exercising my right as an American to vote for whomever i want.
Using Rupert’s argument above – if you go to a casino and pick a game of chance with three options, you bet $100 and are told you can pick option 1, 2 or 3 – but that the game is configured in a way that option 3 cannot win under any circumstances, would you still bet your $100 on option three?
It’s not a cop out, but in reality, politics often comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils.
You can choose the lesser evil, or you can vote for your third party candidate and end up with the greater evil.
There is one thing it’s too bad Bush didn’t do that he said he wanted to do and that was eliminate frivolous lawsuits.
Then maybe businesses wouldn’t have to waste money defending them, the latest, which is now the most insane I’ve yet to hear is PETA suing Sea World for violating the 13th amendment. Why in the heck should they have to spend a dime defending this stupidity?
IMHO a lawyer that takes on these stupid suits should lose their license and then they might stop.