I think that Clasher235 explained it best in saying:
"There are rarely 2 people of the same party elected in a row because everyone thinks the new president will solve all their problems, but when he doesn't do all of the amazing things he/she said he/she would, everyone swaps parties thinking that the other candidate will solve their problems."
That is generally why I figure a republican will win in 2012. That and I think Obama's race had a very strong influence on the ratings. He was not in the senate for a particularly long time either.
But, all that aside I want to know: Do you think Obama will be re-elected? Or will a republican candidate (Such as Michelle Bachmann) be elected instead? Why do you feel this way?
Quote from: Deagonx on September 05, 2011, 09:18:05 PMI think that Clasher235 explained it best in saying:
"There are rarely 2 people of the same party elected in a row because everyone thinks the new president will solve all their problems, but when he doesn't do all of the amazing things he/she said he/she would, everyone swaps parties thinking that the other candidate will solve their problems."
You know the incumbent usually wins. Being the president helps the canidate get publicity. Obama tried to take advantage of this by trying to have his "jobs speech" at the same time as the Republican debate, so his speech in congress would overshadow the Republican presidental candidates.
Everyone says that Obama can't win if unemployment is still high, but I am more skeptical. If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, then I am pretty sure Obama will lose. If Rick Perry wins the Republican nomination, then I think Obama will win. Since Obama is a master at manipulating the press, I think he could spin things as the Tea Party being the cause for the current high unemployment. He will then constantly associate Rick Petty with the Tea Party and George Bush.
""It's the economy, stupid". Republicans best chance at winning is to show that Obama's priority has never been the economy. They need to point out that all he cared about is boosting unions and socializing healthcare. Jobs weren't a priority untill he needed to run for reelection.
I don't see any of the Republican candidates beating Obama head-to-head. As previously stated, the incumbent is at a big advantage.
Quote from: Dean_Lukas on September 08, 2011, 04:49:00 PMI don't see any of the Republican candidates beating Obama head-to-head. As previously stated, the incumbent is at a big advantage.
Obama shares many similarities with Jimmy Carter. They both spent more time blaming others, then improving the economy. Because the president let economy get worst under his watch, he will not get a second term.
I think the economy will get better if Obama leaves office. Obama's class-warfare, anti-business, big government rhetoric makes companies too scared to spend money. Lets take the health care law for example. Companies are now unwilling to hire more workers because they can't afford to pay for health insurance for new employees. His rhetoric about increasing taxes on oil companies and increasing EPA regulation makes companies worried about an increase in the cost of energy. Obama's Pro-Union rhetoric make companies unwilling to expand because they fear that Obama will step in to make labor cost more (Obama wouldn't allow Boeing to build a new, bigger plant in South Carolina, because South Carolina is a right to work state). Obama's rhetoric about increasing the capital gains tax makes companies worried that he will make the value of stock dramatically decrease. Basically, big business doesn't trust Obama, so they are waiting for economic and political conditions to improve before they are willing to spend money again. Like when Ronald Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter, a fiscal conservative will bring confidence to job creators after he replaces an incompetent liberal.
I'm not sure if the economy is bad enough for the Carter factor to come into play. Remember that outside of him and H.W. Bush, every president since 1980 has one re-election when they ran for it.
None of these candidates are the next Reagan for sure. Romney didn't do well in 2008 and he won't win for the same reasons he didn't then. Bachmann might not be as crazy as the media likes to paint her but she's still inexperienced and has some extreme positions. And Perry has to deal with being another Texas governor. While I like him much better than Bush it's an unfortunate association.
Granted, Obama is much less popular than he was a few years ago. Burt will any of these three be able to capture independents? I don't know about that.
Quote from: Dean_Lukas on September 09, 2011, 02:42:04 PMI'm not sure if the economy is bad enough for the Carter factor to come into play. Remember that outside of him and H.W. Bush, every president since 1980 has one re-election when they ran for it.
Both Carter and H. W. Bush lost their reelection because the public didn't think the presidents were doing enough to improve a bad enconomy. Incumbents tend to lose when the economy is getting worst. The economy is alot worst with Obama then both Carter and Bush.
Quote from: Dean_Lukas on September 09, 2011, 02:42:04 PMNone of these candidates are the next Reagan for sure. Romney didn't do well in 2008 and he won't win for the same reasons he didn't then. Bachmann might not be as crazy as the media likes to paint her but she's still inexperienced and has some extreme positions. And Perry has to deal with being another Texas governor. While I like him much better than Bush it's an unfortunate association.
Romney is a candidate who is hard to get excited about, but I think he will get alot of anti-Obama votes like 2008 Obama got alot of anti-Bush votes. Bachmann isn't even worth mentioning, because she is not going to be the nominee. America has a short attention span, so I think most Americans forgot that Bush was a Texas governor. Since all the Republican nominees are pro-business, they will bring more confidence to the economy then Obama.
Quote from: Dean_Lukas on September 09, 2011, 02:42:04 PMGranted, Obama is much less popular than he was a few years ago. But will any of these three be able to capture independents? I don't know about that.
Romney can easliy win independents because he is a moderate. Bachmann isn't worth mentioning, because she isn't going to be the nominee. Perry has a good of chance to get independents as Obama does. While candidate Obama won independents because he pretended to be a moderate, President Obama's record shows that he is far from the center.
Smarty, you seem to be a republican. But my question is what republican candidate would you PREFER to be president.
And, when answering, I don't want you to consider who is more likely to beat out Obama. Just, if you had to pick one that would definitely win. Who would it be?
Mitt Romney seems great. But he is a mormon. :/
Quote from: Deagonx on October 09, 2011, 02:46:29 PMSmarty, you seem to be a republican. But my question is what republican candidate would you PREFER to be president.
That is untrue. I consider myself an independent. I do prefer fiscal conservatives which tend to be Republicans, but there are Democrat fiscal conservatives which I like such as Bill Clinton. I really wish Hillary Clinton won the 2008 primary, because she would have competently run the government after the health care debate was over.
Quote from: Deagonx on October 09, 2011, 02:46:29 PMAnd, when answering, I don't want you to consider who is more likely to beat out Obama. Just, if you had to pick one that would definitely win. Who would it be?
I'm a Texas boy who already voted for Perry for governor, so it obvious who I would support. Rick Perry is a strong supporter of state rights and a smaller federal government which mirrors my beliefs. His economic polices in Texas has brought tons of jobs and money into the state which is quite an accomplishment during a recession. Although I tend to dislike social conservatives, I am okay with Perry because he is all talk and no action when it comes to being a social conservative. I do disagree with a lot of his immigration policies, but no candidate is perfect. He also has some military experience which seems necessary for someone who is going to be commander-in-chief.
Even though I prefer Perry, I think Romney still be a successful president. After Obama polarized congress with his partisan health care bill, it would nice to have a president who is an actual moderate. Romney has both business and executive experience, so he would likely create a climate that businesses will be willing and able to spend money and create jobs in. I do have trouble trusting him, because the views he claims to have are often different then what he actually did as governor of Massachusetts.
Although I find Herman Cain extremely likable and respectable, I don't think he has the qualifications to be president. I don't think we should replace one inexperienced president for another. I think every president needs to have executive experience such as being a governor or a mayor of a large city. Unlike Perry and Romney, Cain lacks the executive experience required to be President. Being a self-made made who's rags to riches story is proof of the American dream is still alive. If he was using his "accomplishment over entitlement" rhetoric alongside his business experience to run as my Congressman or Senator, then I would definitely vote for him.
Michele Bachmann is such a huge social conservative that Obama almost seems more appealing to me.
Quote from: Deagonx on October 09, 2011, 02:46:29 PMMitt Romney seems great. But he is a mormon. :/
Even though I think Mormonism is clearly a made up religion, I don't think Romney's religion is an issue. People had the same issue with JFK's Catholicism, but his religious beliefs didn't cause any major issue.
I respect other people's religons, but because Mormons are a distinct branch off of my religion and have such... other worldly beliefs, I cannot agree with them.
Like, for example, they believe Satan, yes, Satan, was the brother of Jesus who also wanted to be the savior, which is why he rebelled against god.
They also believe Adam, from Adam and Eve is actually God.
And it pains me to know one of my close friends recently converted to mormonism. (Mormon means gates of hell in chinese.)
How will any of that effect his role as the president?
Do you think Romney will cause a nuclear holocaust because he believe Satan was the brother of Jesus?
Quote from: SmartyPants on October 13, 2011, 03:59:40 PM
How will any of that effect his role as the president?
Do you think Romney will cause a nuclear holocaust because he believe Satan was the brother of Jesus?
Well he might push for 'mormon' rights such as polygamy.
The mainstream Mormon church doesn't believe in polygamy anymore.
Do you have any more prejudice assumptions about Romney and his religion?
Look, that's completely inappropriate, Deagonx.
While you may be right, and I'm not ready to say that you are, yet, I can tell you right off that "mormon" does not mean "gates of hell" in Chinese. They don't have a "mor" syllable. Gates of hell, in Traditional Chinese, can be transliterated as follows: "gai tsu da diyu."
And all religions are made up, as far as I'm concerned. They all have holy books that insist that their god is real, and you can only hope to achieve more than epic and eternal despair by joining their religion. It's like chain mail.
Deagonx's comments are similar to the prejudice held towards John F. Kennedy. Even though JFK was Catholic, he didn't allow the Pope to run the country.
Quote from: SmartyPants on October 13, 2011, 04:53:28 PM
The mainstream Mormon church doesn't believe in polygamy anymore.
Do you have any more prejudice assumptions about Romney and his religion?
1. Brigham young would disagree
2. We all have our prejudice's, and while I'm generally tolerant of other religions this one is a completely disgrace of the religion they tried to branch off of.
David thought it was okay to exchange 200 foreskins for a bride, but I don't assume that all Christains and Jews agree with that.
To be unwilling to vote for someone just because they have a different religion makes you no different then those nutbags in Iraq.
Quote from: Deagonx on October 13, 2011, 10:31:48 PM
Quote from: SmartyPants on October 13, 2011, 04:53:28 PM
The mainstream Mormon church doesn't believe in polygamy anymore.
Do you have any more prejudice assumptions about Romney and his religion?
1. Brigham young would disagree
He's also dead. And this topic is getting both pretty off-topic and kinda offensive.
Quote from: SmartyPants on October 14, 2011, 12:19:34 PM
To be unwilling to vote for someone just because they have a different religion makes you no different then those nutbags in Iraq.
I wouldn't vote for a muslim. His decisions might change based on that. JFK was Catholic, which is a sect of christianity. So I wouldn't have any problem with him.
I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't find religion as very important issue for a candidate in a government that separates church and state, while Deagonx's bigotry won't allow him to vote for any non-Christians.
Quote from: SmartyPants on October 14, 2011, 05:28:50 PM
any non-Christians.
Atheists I wouldn't mind too much. Muslims and Mormons are driven by their books. Their books I believe have bad morals and strange teachings. Atheists go by common goodness.
That's a rather biased opinion, to say the least.
I think that there are moderate religious people in every religion. As there are extremists in all religions.
If you want, you can choose who you vote for based mainly on his/her religion but I think that will not make you much different from an extremist of any other religion.
I personally prefer to choose somebody based on their past political actions and presented ideas (even if half of them will be discarded).
I personally prefer for a candidate to not be over religous, because I don't want to hear them preach. I would also prefer a candidate to have some faith because their were disastrous effects of atheism on the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union and China. Even if I think Mormonism is a fanfic of Christianity, I would prefer Romney to be a moderate Mormon then a atheist. If Obama really was a secret muslim, then I would only be upset that he kept it secret. I share very similar political beliefs with my Muslim friends.
I think that there are moderate religious people in every religion. As there are extremists in all religions. Just because one shares the same religious beliefs with someone, doesn't mean they shair the same political beliefs. The Kennedys are known for being very devote Catholics, yet they consider themselves Pro-Choice.
My personal belief is that Religion and Politics should be keep seperate. I have no problem having a leader be religious or atheist, as long as they don't let the confines of they religion shape the policies that they make or enforce it on other people.
However, between the two leaders, I would rather vote for Perry for what he stands for and for the great commercial I saw supporting his campaign on YouTube. In the grand scheme of things however, I think that Obama will win no matter which one wins, so it doesn't really matter.
Link to Great Commerical:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=safari&sa=X&ei=tvGZToTJG-_J0AHE8uClBA&ved=0CCAQvwUoAQ&q=Armed+Chinese+Troops+in+Texas&spell=1&biw=320&bih=356
To be clear, I prefer someone with faith, but I am not against atheist.
Quote from: Zackirus on October 15, 2011, 03:49:52 PMIn the grand scheme of things however, I think that Obama will win no matter which one wins, so it doesn't really matter.
You honestly believe that Obama will win with 9% unemployment?
Quote from: Zackirus on October 15, 2011, 03:49:52 PMArmed Chinese Troops in Texas (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=safari&sa=X&ei=tvGZToTJG-_J0AHE8uClBA&ved=0CCAQvwUoAQ&q=Armed+Chinese+Troops+in+Texas&spell=1&biw=320&bih=356)
The difference between Rob Paul's theoretical example and the US's current foreign policy is that Ron Paul's example has foreign troops in America involuntarily, while the US troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Columbia, South Korea and Japan are asked to stay there by democratically elected government officials. Afghanistan's elected officials still want us there to defend them, while Iraq only agreed to keep American toops until the end of 2011, so we have to leave at the end of the year (even if we wanted to keep soldiers there).
Plently of U.S. Presidents have been down in their rating halfway through their terms and came back to win the election.
The example aside, I think it is a Good Ad conveying the request of part of the populace that wants the American troops to return home from Iraq, which Obama promised he would do mind you.
Also: Their could a Ontario Provincal Election in 2012 so I hope that the conservatives can bounce back and get the most amount of seats.
Quote from: Zackirus on October 15, 2011, 08:53:20 PMPlently of U.S. Presidents have been down in their rating halfway through their terms and came back to win the election.
Popularity polls aside, no modern president has won their reelection when the economy is bad and not improving.
Quote from: Zackirus on October 15, 2011, 08:53:20 PMThe example aside, I think it is a Good Ad conveying the request of part of the populace that wants the American troops to return home from Iraq, which Obama promised he would do mind you.
A)The agreement to remove troops from Iraq was an agreement between the Iraqi government and Bush.
B)Obama may have removed troops from Iraq, but the soldiers didn't go home. He moved them from Iraq to Afghanistan.
C)Foreign policy successes will not help Obama much when a majority of people don't like the way he is handling the economy. Killing bin Laden didn't even help Obama's poll numbers for more then a week.
Quote from: Duckling on October 16, 2011, 10:27:45 PMOr might his poll numbers have ended up worse had he not made the attempt to bring Osama bin Laden to justice for his crimes?
That is not how things work. His approve rating was in the low 40s before the bin Laden raid. After the raid, Obama's approval rating jumped to 61%. Due to short attention spans, people forgot about his foreign policy success in a week and his approval rating dropped back to the low 40s.
Quote from: Zackirus on October 15, 2011, 03:49:52 PMHowever, between the two leaders, I would rather vote for Perry for what he stands for and for the great commercial I saw supporting his campaign on YouTube. ...
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=safari&sa=X&ei=tvGZToTJG-_J0AHE8uClBA&ved=0CCAQvwUoAQ&q=Armed+Chinese+Troops+in+Texas&spell=1&biw=320&bih=356
To clarify: that's a Ron Paul commercial. Rick Perry is the guy who ran this commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA).
I both agree and disagree with that commercial. I disagree with the statment about gays in the military, because he is forcing his christian beleifs on people. I do agree with most of the other comercials, because he mentions examples of the goverment supressing relgious beliefs. People be free to pray in school if they so choose, because it their first admendment right. Also, the "War on Christmas" is stupid. Most Christmas traditions are secular things based on pagan traditions. There wasn't snow, chirstmans trees, reindeer, or fat men in red suits when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Neither Ron Paul or Rick Perry seem likely win the Republican nominee, so they both seem kinda irrelevant to this topic. Though, the Republicans would definitely lose the election to Obama if Ron Paul goes third party.
A quick point of clarification: students already are free to pray in school; that's protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. However, the school itself cannot endorse prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer#1962_and_after) by featuring it as a part of official school events. When a public school has students pray as part of an official school event, it counts as the school endorsing prayer, even though a student is doing the praying. Some people seem to get confused about this last point, which is why you have the myth of schools preventing students from praying. Students can pray: they just can't be used as stand-ins for school officials at school events in order to let the school endorse religion over non-religion, or vice versa.
Republicans tend to agree on economic policy, so the primary election tends to focus on differences in social issues. The general election is going to be mostly about jobs and the economy. Since Romney is running on his expertise in business and the economy, he will be much more popular in the general election. Based on what I have seen and read, Romney has a much better understanding then Obama on how certain laws and policies effect businesses. The few times it seems Obama knew anything about how an economy works is when he was talking about the stimulus bill. Of course, all of Obama's comments about the economy are debunked by him promising that the unemployment rate will stay bellow 8% if the stimulus bill was passed. If there is a debate on the economy between Romney and Obama, then Romney should have an easy win.
I'd say Obama is going to be the winner, hands down. No really respectable republicans are running. (alliteration...whoo!) I don't think any of those candidates will be able to challenge Obama in the GE. I think the most interesting part about the caucus would be that almost 50% of people under 30 voted for Paul. That could mean a huge change in the Republican party will come soon, as the young are supporting libertarian views. It also seems that the Conservative base has grown more radical over the years, so...I think it's coming.
Quote from: Gath on January 05, 2012, 04:01:23 PMI'd say Obama is going to be the winner, hands down. No really respectable republicans are running. (alliteration...whoo!) I don't think any of those candidates will be able to challenge Obama in the GE.
Polls show that Romeny is better liked then Obama when comes to the general population and when comes to independents. Conservatives don't even have to like Romney to vote for him. The conservatives voters hate Obama enough that they will vote in droves for anyone to replace Obama.
Quote from: Gath on January 05, 2012, 04:01:23 PMI think the most interesting part about the caucus would be that almost 50% of people under 30 voted for Paul. That could mean a huge change in the Republican party will come soon, as the young are supporting libertarian views. It also seems that the Conservative base has grown more radical over the years, so...I think it's coming.
First, many of the people who like Ron Paul don't like actually know what he believes. People vote for him because they believe he represents the libertarian ideology. I find it similar to many of the people who voted for Obama in 2008. Many of the voters didn't know Obama's record or platform, yet they still voted for him because he represents "Hope" and "Change". Fun fact: Ron Paul is the congressional representative of my district.
Second, the Democrats and the left are fear mongers. They are propagating that the Republican party is now "radical", so people will support Democrats inorder to stop the "radical" republicans from destroying the world or whatever b.s. they come up with. It only seems that the conservative base is farther to the right because the far-right has become more vocal then the silent majority. The majority of people are not part of the tea party or occupy wall street, yet the media spend much thier focus on these more vocal demonstrations.
Quote from: Duckling on January 05, 2012, 05:55:29 PMThat's a huge overgeneralization you made right there, calling the entire Democratic Party and the entire left fear-mongers.
Based on the rhetoric of Democratic leaders such Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats are acting like fear mongers by falsely impling that Republicans are "radical".
Quote from: Duckling on January 05, 2012, 05:55:29 PMDemocrats tend towards disliking the Republican candidates because some of them express highly socially conservative viewpoints, like standing against gay marriage, abortion, and contraceptives, arguing against providing basic government services to the poor and unemployed, and quoting from outdated literature during speeches.
I least when I generalize, I do it accurately. There are many Democrats that are socially conservative who are against gay marriage and abortion. These Blue Dog Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition) are the ones who nearly took down Obamacare, because it will use government money to pay for abortions. Democrats and Republicans tend to disagree more on fiscal things then social things. Plus, I don't get your point. Democrats don't like Republicans because they have differing ideology. What does that have to do with anything?
Quote from: Duckling on January 05, 2012, 07:47:16 PMQuote from: SmartyPants on January 05, 2012, 06:32:15 PMPlus, I don't get your point. Democrats don't like Republicans because they have differing ideology. What does that have to do with anything?
I'm saying that Democrats speak out against Republicans not because they are "fear-mongers" as you suggest, but because they have differing opinions on important issues.
Democratic leaders such Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are not speaking about differences in opinion. They have said on multiple occasions that radical republicans are so crazy that they are activly trying to destory the country inorder to get Obama out of office. That sounds more like fear mongering then ideological debate.
There is a reason why Congressional Republicans (not all Republicans, mind you--just the ones representing the party in Congress) are widely looked upon as radicals. Mitch McConnell, head of the Republicans in the Senate, infamously remarked that, in the face of all our national problems, his number one priority was not to solve them, but rather to make Obama a one-term president (http://www.tevitroy.org/8245/mcconnell-under-fire). Congressional Republicans then followed this up by filibustering nearly every single attempt (http://keatingsdesk.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/by-cordray-filibuster-gop-continues-abuse-of-rules-like-no-party-in-american-history/) at fixing the economy, betting that voters would blame Obama when the economy failed to improve. And who could forget the debt ceiling disaster? John Boehner just kept walking away from good faith negotiations over and over again, dragging us to the brink of defaulting on our international obligations.
I know you identify with the Republicans, so maybe it's hard for you to see it, but for someone viewing this from outside the GOP tent, these things really make the current crop of Republicans in Congress look like cynical, power-hungry jackals willing to scuttle the US economy for a shot at reclaiming the White House. "Radical" is just a more succinct way of putting it.
Quote from: SmartyPants on January 05, 2012, 05:34:23 PM
Polls show that Romeny is better liked then Obama when comes to the general population and when comes to independents. Conservatives don't even have to like Romney to vote for him. The conservatives voters hate Obama enough that they will vote in droves for anyone to replace Obama.
I'm expecting a split republican vote between Romney as the candidate and Paul as a third party candidate. The only incumbent who hasn't won in the past twenty-five years was George Bush I, and that was only because Ross Peirot decided to run.
Quote from: SmartyPants on January 05, 2012, 05:34:23 PMFirst, many of the people who like Ron Paul don't like actually know what he believes. People vote for him because they believe he represents the libertarian ideology. I find it similar to many of the people who voted for Obama in 2008. Many of the voters didn't know Obama's record or platform, yet they still voted for him because he represents "Hope" and "Change". Fun fact: Ron Paul is the congressional representative of my district.
Your point being? They voted for him because they believed he was a libertarian. Regardless of what Paul believes, that means the Republican party is shifting to more libertarian views.
Quote from: SmartyPants on January 05, 2012, 05:34:23 PMSecond, the Democrats and the left are fear mongers. They are propagating that the Republican party is now "radical", so people will support Democrats inorder to stop the "radical" republicans from destroying the world or whatever b.s. they come up with. It only seems that the conservative base is farther to the right because the far-right has become more vocal then the silent majority. The majority of people are not part of the tea party or occupy wall street, yet the media spend much thier focus on these more vocal demonstrations.
Sorry, but this post seems a bit biased to me. It's hard to have a debate when someone accuses the entire other side of using b.s. I'm going to say the same thing that I say to everyone who thinks a certain party is 'lying': Get out of the competitive spirit, and consider the possibility that most politicians are genuinely working for the good of the nation. Both the party you support and the other party.
Quote from: CraigStern on January 06, 2012, 08:49:28 AMThere is a reason why Congressional Republicans (not all Republicans, mind you--just the ones representing the party in Congress) are widely looked upon as radicals. Mitch McConnell, head of the Republicans in the Senate, infamously remarked that, in the face of all our national problems, his number one priority was not to solve them, but rather to make Obama a one-term president (http://www.tevitroy.org/8245/mcconnell-under-fire). Congressional Republicans then followed this up by filibustering nearly every single attempt (http://keatingsdesk.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/by-cordray-filibuster-gop-continues-abuse-of-rules-like-no-party-in-american-history/) at fixing the economy, betting that voters would blame Obama when the economy failed to improve. And who could forget the debt ceiling disaster? John Boehner just kept walking away from good faith negotiations over and over again, dragging us to the brink of defaulting on our international obligations.
A) Democrats and the mainstream media
always bring up the comment from Mitch McConnell (a Senator) about how he wants Obama out of office. Even when the Senate approves a bill and House Republicans don't, the mainstream media implies that the Senator is obstructing in the House.
B) You linked "filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy" to article from a bias source. This wouldn't be so bad if it didn't imply that every filibuster was Republicans trying to keep the economy broken. Many of the filibusters were not related to the economy, while others were Republicans trying to save jobs.
C) Obama is the cause of the polarized political climate. Obama refused to do anything bipartisan when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the White House. While earlier presidents such as Reagan, H. W. Bush, Clinton, and even W. Bush were respectful and willing to work with their rivals, Obama snubbed the rival party. During the health care debate, Obama only had to make the health care bill bipartisan enough to win one Republican senator, but Obama refused to compromise with Republicans. Obama only started talking about the parties working together after Democrats lost the House and the supermajority in the Senate. Since Obama only wants to be bipartisan when he needs Republican votes, Republicans don't take him serious.
D) You failed to mention that the Republican controlled House has passed dozens of bills that would fix the economy. Too bad Senate Democrats shoot the bills every time.
E) Republicans aren't voting for Democratic proposals because it usually involves more deficit spending or raising taxes during a recession. Democrats prefer to spin things as Republicans are trying to prevent Obama from improving the economy
Quote from: CraigStern on January 06, 2012, 08:49:28 AMI know you identify with the Republicans, so maybe it's hard for you to see it, but for someone viewing this from outside the GOP tent, these things really make the current crop of Republicans in Congress look like cynical, power-hungry jackals willing to scuttle the US economy for a shot at reclaiming the White House. "Radical" is just a more succinct way of putting it.
My point exactly. Because of the propaganda from the liberal fear mongers, people mistakenly believe that Republicans are trying to destroy the economy to get out Obama out office, while in reality they are trying to be fiscally conservative by trying to stop tax increases and deficit spending. Like Glenn Beck, the Democratic leaders are taking a speck of truth and turning into a ridiculous conspiracy.
Quote from: Gath on January 06, 2012, 10:35:10 PMI'm expecting a split republican vote between Romney as the candidate and Paul as a third party candidate. The only incumbent who hasn't won in the past twenty-five years was George Bush I, and that was only because Ross Peirot decided to run.
I am assuming/hoping that Ron Paul is smart enough to not hand the election over to Obama by running as a third party canidate.
Quote from: Gath on January 06, 2012, 10:35:10 PMYour point being? They voted for him because they believed he was a libertarian. Regardless of what Paul believes, that means the Republican party is shifting to more libertarian views.
I don't think the Republicans are more libertarian then they were pre-Obama. Libertarians have become more vocal and active in politics recently, because they have become so angry at Obama for trying to move the country towards socialism and by him trying to increase the deficit.
Quote from: Gath on January 06, 2012, 10:35:10 PMSorry, but this post seems a bit biased to me. It's hard to have a debate when someone accuses the entire other side of using b.s. I'm going to say the same thing that I say to everyone who thinks a certain party is 'lying'
I have seen/read that Barack Obama, Debbie Shultz, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid make misleading, false comments with the obvious purpose of scoring political points. It is possible that there are other Democrats who having accused the Republican party of being hijacked by radicals, but they don't tend to be heard as much in the news.
Quote from: Gath on January 06, 2012, 10:35:10 PMGet out of the competitive spirit, and consider the possibility that most politicians are genuinely working for the good of the nation. Both the party you support and the other party.
I have considered that "most politicians are genuinely working for the good of the nation", but I rejected that after years of reading political news. Most politicians will work for the good of the country as long as it doesn't get in the way of their reelection chances. There are a few politicians such as Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul who will risk not being reelected to do what they believe is right, but they are rare. Let's take Obama's American Jobs Act as an example. The president introduced the American Jobs Act in a joint session of Congress. Many Republicans were cautiously optimistic after hearing the speech, because the speech preached partisan ideas such as infrastructure spending and said the plan would be fully paid for. Even though Obama mentioned some exclusively Democratic ideas such as extending unemployment for a third time, Obama's speech said he was willing to compromise. His speech conveniently left out that he wanted to fund the bill by raising taxes on the rich by not allowing them to get tax breaks for charitable contributions. By wanting to permanently raise taxes, Obama clearly didn't expect Republicans to allow the bill to be passed and only wanted to use the bill for his reelection campaign. Obama then left Washington D.C. (where he and Republican can negotiate on a compromise), so he use go to almost exclusively swing states and use bill as an excuse to start his reelection campaign. This is one of many examples of Obama playing politics instead of governing.
Quote from: SmartyPants on January 07, 2012, 01:38:58 AMI don't think the Republicans are more libertarian then they were pre-Obama. Libertarians have become more vocal and active in politics recently, because they have become so angry at Obama for trying to move the country towards socialism and by him trying to increase the deficit.
The votes in the Iowa Caucus determine my view. Yes, libertarians have gotten more vocal, but with a huge number of young republicans voting libertarian, it doesn't seem like a passing thing.
Quote from: SmartyPants on January 07, 2012, 01:38:58 AMI have seen/read that Barack Obama, Debbie Shultz, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid make misleading, false comments with the obvious purpose of scoring political points. It is possible that there are other Democrats who having accused the Republican party of being hijacked by radicals, but they don't tend to be heard as much in the news.
As do some republicans. Failure to acknowledge the good points and flaws of both sides will lead to bias. Some democrats make misleading comments, as do some republicans. Even Mitt Romney does it. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/mitt-romney-ad-misquotes-president-obama/) So yes, your post implied that all democrats lie, which is certainly not true. It's a problem, but a problem that is shared equally by both sides.
Quote from: Gath on January 07, 2012, 10:11:52 AMThe votes in the Iowa Caucus determine my view. Yes, libertarians have gotten more vocal, but with a huge number of young republicans voting libertarian, it doesn't seem like a passing thing.
When Ron Paul drops out of the race, we probably won't see the libertaiians nearly as much.
Quote from: Gath on January 07, 2012, 10:11:52 AMAs do some republicans. Failure to acknowledge the good points and flaws of both sides will lead to bias. Some democrats make misleading comments, as do some republicans. Even Mitt Romney does it. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/mitt-romney-ad-misquotes-president-obama/) So yes, your post implied that all democrats lie, which is certainly not true. It's a problem, but a problem that is shared equally by both sides.
Your article claims that the Romney add has Obama saying "“If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose,” while Obama really said “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” I find it ironic, because I remember that the 2008 McCain campaign accused Obama of lying for putting those exact words in thier mouths.
I am a little more understanding of Romney because his job right now isn't to run the country. When Romney is playing politics, it doesn't get in the way of running the government. When Obama and Boehner play politics, they aren't doing thier jobs. When Obama refuses to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline until after the election in order to help reelection campaign, he is acting more like a politician then a president. When Boehner has a bill that removes Obamacare passed in House while knowing it will either be shot down by the Senate or vetoed by the white house, he is acting more like a politician then a lawmaker.
I was okay with Campaign Obama of going on The View and SNL, but I find it tacky for a President to go on Letterman or The View. As a President, Obama should be focusing on fixing the economy and winning the war on terror instead of campaigning on talk shows.
Quote from: SmartyPants on January 07, 2012, 04:47:09 PMYour article claims that the Romney add has Obama saying ""If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose," while Obama really said "Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." I find it ironic, because I remember that the 2008 McCain campaign accused Obama of lying for putting those exact words in thier mouths.
I am a little more understanding of Romney because his job right now isn't to run the country. When Romney is playing politics, it doesn't get in the way of running the government. When Obama and Boehner play politics, they aren't doing thier jobs. When Obama refuses to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline until after the election in order to help reelection campaign, he is acting more like a politician then a president. When Boehner has a bill that removes Obamacare passed in House while knowing it will either be shot down by the Senate or vetoed by the white house, he is acting more like a politician then a lawmaker.
I was okay with Campaign Obama of going on The View and SNL, but I find it tacky for a President to go on Letterman or The View. As a President, Obama should be focusing on fixing the economy and winning the war on terror instead of campaigning on talk shows.
So it's fine to lie if you had nothing better to do? Are you mad because you think the left is full of 'fear mongers' or are you mad because said fear mongering is taking place when they have better things to do?
Instead of debating on a compromise, the Democrat leaders are lying and naming calling. Of course, Republicans don't want to work with the same people who are calling them "crazy" and "radical". It shows that they find winning elections to be more important then running the government.
Quote from: SmartyPants on January 07, 2012, 11:01:56 PM
Instead of debating on a compromise, the Democrat leaders are lying and naming calling. Of course, Republicans don't want to work with the same people who are calling them "crazy" and "radical". It shows that they find winning elections to be more important then running the government.
So you saying the left is full of 'fear mongers' isn't name calling?
Both sides are doing it. Debate the issues, not your opponent.
Quote from: SmartyPants on January 07, 2012, 01:38:58 AM
B) You linked "filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy" to article from a bias source.
That table is a visualization of data from the Senate. See for yourself (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm). Unless you think the Senate is doctoring its own numbers on procedural vote counts, I think you have to concede that filibustering is much more prevalent these past three years than it has been at any other time for which such numbers are available in our history.
Quote from: SmartyPants on January 07, 2012, 01:38:58 AMObama is the cause of the polarized political climate. Obama refused to do anything bipartisan when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the White House. While earlier presidents such as Reagan, H. W. Bush, Clinton, and even W. Bush were respectful and willing to work with their rivals, Obama snubbed the rival party. During the health care debate, Obama only had to make the health care bill bipartisan enough to win one Republican senator, but Obama refused to compromise with Republicans.
This is fantastically bizarre of you to say. Let's take a trip down memory lane! You may recall that, at the point that health care was on the table, Democrats controlled the White House as well as both houses of Congress. Even with that, Obama still decided to try to compromise (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-22/politics/obama.health.care_1_health-insurance-medicare-advantage-program-white-house?_s=PM:POLITICS) with Republicans. And who could forget when Obama scuttled the public option (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/health/policy/14talkshows.html) over the vehement protests of his own base? The Republicans in Congress stuck to a strategy of non-negotiation, however. Republican strategists were quite vocal (http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo) about this fact, with Senator Jim DeMint stating (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Health_reform_foes_plan_Obamas_Waterloo.html) that he wanted health care to be Obama's "Waterloo." If you have some sort of source that suggests that Obama made no compromises and the Republicans were willing to negotiate, now would be a good time for you to cite one.
And let's not forget the debt ceiling fiasco, and Boehner threatening to shut down the government, and so on and so on. Simply, Republicans in Congress have set a new historical bar for obstructionism during Obama's presidency. That is not a matter of debate: the numbers are right here (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm). I suppose you could argue that they did so with good intentions, but we're talking about whether it's okay for Democrats to call them radical. My point is simply this: if you're a Democrat trying to fix the economy and your Republican colleagues filibuster nearly every attempt you make to do so, engaging in a consistent strategy of non-negotiation, it is going to look to you like they're playing a cynical political game rather than trying to work with you. Because they are, objectively,
not trying to work with you. That is all I'm saying.
Quote from: Duckling on January 08, 2012, 09:58:43 PMSo I could see where both sides were coming from, right up until the part where SmartyPants was saying that presidents shouldn't behave like politicians. That's silly, from my point of view.
The president is suppose to act like a leader and be above the partisan bickering. Unlike his predecessors, Obama participates in the partisan bickering instead of trying to bring the parties together.
Quote from: CraigStern on January 09, 2012, 05:27:43 PMLet's take a trip down memory lane! You may recall that, at the point that health care was on the table, Democrats controlled the White House as well as both houses of Congress. Even with that, Obama still decided to try to compromise (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-22/politics/obama.health.care_1_health-insurance-medicare-advantage-program-white-house?_s=PM:POLITICS) with Republicans. And who could forget when Obama scuttled the public option (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/health/policy/14talkshows.html) over the vehement protests of his own base?
Obama didn't compromise with Republicans. Obama original health care plan was so far to the left that he couldn't get many members of his own party to vote for it. Obama had to compromise with other Democrats (not with any Republicans) to get Democrats to vote for it.
Quote from: CraigStern on January 09, 2012, 05:27:43 PMQuote from: SmartyPants on January 07, 2012, 01:38:58 AMB) You linked "filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy" to article from a bias source.
That table is a visualization of data from the Senate. See for yourself (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm). Unless you think the Senate is doctoring its own numbers on procedural vote counts, I think you have to concede that filibustering is much more prevalent these past three years than it has been at any other time for which such numbers are available in our history.
Maybe next time you should have pick the non-bais source first. Also, the increase in fillibusters is because of the increase in partisan bills. Previous presidents usually bring bipartisan bills to the floor, but times have changed. Bill Clinton was willing to work with Newt Gingrich because they are both moderates. On the other hand, Obama isn't willing to work with Republicans because his beliefs are too far to the left to compromise with the right.
Quote from: CraigStern on January 09, 2012, 05:27:43 PMRepublican strategists were quite vocal (http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo) about this fact, with Senator Jim DeMint stating (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Health_reform_foes_plan_Obamas_Waterloo.html) that he wanted health care to be Obama's "Waterloo." If you have some sort of source that suggests that Obama made no compromises and the Republicans were willing to negotiate, now would be a good time for you to cite one.
I never even heard of Jim Demint before. How does he represent all of the congressional Republicans? I once read that a congresswomen (I can't remember her name) who once said that she wants to make drunk driving legal after 4am because she believes everyone is drunk at that time already. Even though she is a Democrat, I don't believe her stance is shared by the colleagues in her party.
Quote from: CraigStern on January 09, 2012, 05:27:43 PMAnd let's not forget the debt ceiling fiasco, and Boehner threatening to shut down the government, and so on and so on.
I know some Republicans threatened to shut down the government, but I don't remember Boehner saying that himself. I do remember Obama threatening to veto anything that didn't increase taxes. Republicans were willing to increase the debt ceiling if there were spending cuts. How big the spending cut would be and where they would take place was up for negotiations. The brinkmanship problem came when Obama said he would shut down the government if there weren't tax increases, while many congressional Republicans refused to increases taxes. In the end Obama backed down on increasing taxes, while Republicans agreed to cut only a small amount (the cuts weren't even big enough to cover the interest we pay on the national debt).
Quote from: CraigStern on January 09, 2012, 05:27:43 PMSimply, Republicans in Congress have set a new historical bar for obstructionism during Obama's presidency. That is not a matter of debate: the numbers are right here (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm). I suppose you could argue that they did so with good intentions, but we're talking about whether it's okay for Democrats to call them radical.
That is more politcal b.s. While Republicans disagree on a bill because they don't think it is best for the country, the Democrats spin that as them being "obstuctionist". Before even trying to offer a concession to Republicans, Obama starts making speaches on how Republicans are obstuctionist. The one time that I remember that Obama did things correctly was with extending the bush tax cuts. At first, Obama told Republicans that he was willing to extend tax cuts for the middle class, if Republicans would allow him to extend unemployment benefits. Republicans told him "no" because Obama couldn't even get moderate Democrats to agee to letting the tax cuts expire. Then, Obama finally gave Republicans an offer that can be taken seriously. Republicans agreed that they would extend unemployment benifts for the third time in exchange for Democrats agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Of course, extending tax cuts for everyone alienated Obama's strong support from the far left. To appease his far left supporters, Obama has refused to conceded anything ever since.
Quote from: SmartyPants on January 09, 2012, 09:44:54 PM
While Republicans disagree on a bill because they don't think it is best for the country, the Democrats spin that as them being "obstuctionist".
Disagreeing with a bill is not obstructionist; that is merely disagreeing, and has to do with beliefs. I don't think any reasonable person could have a problem with that. The issue is tactical: Congressional Republicans have chosen to filibuster nearly every bill they disagree with rather than negotiating in good faith. That is pretty much the definition of obstructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstructionism#In_politics).
Romney's ads focus on Obama's bad economic numbers. Obama will have a poor time defending his record with unemployment being so high.
Obama's ads focus on Romney for being an evil capitalist by shipping jobs oversea. Even though Obama's claims have been proven to be lies (http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/), Obama's unsubstantiated attacks are helping Obama in the polls.
Unless the mainstream media decides to report on Obama's lies, people will continue to believe Obama's false narrative of Romney. Like in 2008, the media bais may hand Obama another election.
Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 03:17:20 PMSome of Obama's ads focused on Romney's bad economic numbers, but then they got tired of that, and moved on to a different topic to lambaste him on.
The Obama Campaign moved away from attacking Romney's economic numbers, because it would force Obama to talk about his terrible job numbers.
Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 03:17:20 PMAlso, maybe Romney's advertisements would be more convincing if they didn't take the one quotation from Obama they could use out of context for their purposes, "The private sector is doing fine," and repeat it every time they make a commercial.
I don't understand how "The private sector is doing fine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvUMvknc228)" is out of context. Obama believes that the slow economic growth is at an acceptable level. He further explains that he wants to create more government jobs, since he belives the private sector is doing fine.
Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 03:17:20 PMIf Romney wanted the "media bias" on his side in this election, he would hire a better adverisement production committee.
How is a better adverisement production committee supposed to get rid of the media's liberal bias?
Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 09:40:22 PMYou don't have to talk about your own numbers on your own attack ads.
The ads set the tone of his debate. Talking about Romney's economic numbers opens up questions about the economy that Obama doesn't want to answer.
Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 09:40:22 PMHe clearly doesn't think the private sector is doing fine -- it's doing fine in the process of its recovery for now, meaning that he can put more of a focus on government jobs.
That is not what he said. Based on his statements, Obama wants to prioritize creating government jobs over private sector jobs, because he believes the growth of "the private sector is doing fine".
Quote from: Duckling on July 09, 2012, 09:40:22 PMThe media has a liberal bias?
*In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
*A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
*Even liberal-leaning Saterday Night Live noticed a media bias against moderate Hillary Clinton (http://www.hulu.com/watch/11208). (To put in context: 2008 Obama criticized Clinton for wanting to mandate everyone to buy health insurance.)
You are full of it. The GOP is not limiting free press any more than any Democratic president. In fact, the only modern presidents that have made strives in limiting free press is Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt (both Democrats).
If this is just a shot at Bush for having secrecy when it came to national security, then you should realize that Obama continued all the same policies. The biggest difference in Bush's and Obama's national security policies is that Bush wanted terrorist captured and interrogated for information that will stop terrorist plots, while Obama prefers to kill everyone (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-kill-list-is-unchecked-presidential-power/2012/06/11/gJQAHw05WV_story.html) because he finds putting terrorist in Guantanamo Bay to be inhuman.
I am not familiar with press censorship in a time before I was born. I do remember that during the last GOP presidency that the press was allowed to relentlessly and harshly criticise the war and the president without reprisal. Do you really believe the conspiracy theory that the press's bias is the result of grudge from half a century ago? More liberals get jobs as reporters and academics, while more conservatives get jobs as farmers and car salesmen. Isn't it more likely that the media has a liberal bias because the media is made up of mostly liberals?
I can't make an opinion on the effectiveness of waterboarding, because there are few concrete facts and tons of contradictory opinions. I do want to clear up the myth that everyone interrogated in Guantanamo was waterboarded. Only three individuals including mass murder Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed) were waterboarded. Obama could have easily chose to capture terrorist and use non-waterboard interrogation techniques instead of killing everyone. It is hard for Obama to pretend he has the moral highground when Obama believes that Americans are not entitled to judicial process (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/stephen-colbert-on-eric-holders-assassination-explanation-20120307).
Quote from: Duckling on July 11, 2012, 10:36:44 PMAs for Obama's extensive use of drones, I'm sure he would be trying to capture the terrorists alive if they had given us good information when it was our policy to interrogate.
How do you think the US gets the intelligence for Obama's kill list (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all)? During the Bush adminstration, terrorist were captured and then interrogated. Using the intelligence from captured terrorist, the US forces captured more terrorist and then interrogated them. Obama is using Bush era intelligence to find and kill terrorist. The issue is that dead terrorist don't provide any intelligence. If Bush had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed killed in a drone attack instead of having him captured, then Obama would never had the intelligence that lead to finding
and killing Osama. Obama is killing off all the leads to stop terrorist plots and find more terrorist. Whoever wins the 2012 will have hard time fighting terrorism due to Obama's four year killing spree.
Quote from: Duckling on July 12, 2012, 02:24:28 PMFirst off, it's not a conspiracy theory; conspiracies are organised acts done in concert by large numbers of people all to cover up a certain piece of information. My guess just happens to be that an industry is holding an understandable grudge.
So you think media bais is okay because they aren't highly organized?
Quote from: Duckling on July 12, 2012, 02:24:28 PMYours works, too, but my argument changes little. If the Republican Party was truly unsatisfied with and believed they could not overcome the liberal media bias, they would do something about it, like getting jobs in journalism.
What do you think Fox News is? Conservatives were tired of the liberal spin in the media, so they created their own news network to cover news that the mainstream media was ignoring. The issue here is that the media shouldn't be partisan with one conservative network and many liberal networks. The media is suppose to inform the public in a nonbais way. Conservatives shouldn't have to get jobs in the media to stop bais reporting. It should be the liberal journalist who should have the integrity to report without being bais.
Quote from: Duckling on July 12, 2012, 02:24:28 PMThirdly, to my knowledge, the cases in which American citizens are assassinated are similar to police authorization to use deadly force, being that these are people who are acting violently against the country's interests during wartime.
The police's use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Obama's "kill list" doesn't even consider alternatives to killing such as capturing the terrorist alive.
Quote from: Duckling on July 12, 2012, 02:24:28 PMIf you would have me believe, as you will have an opportunity to clarify in your response, that the American federal government assassinates terrorism suspects on their way to the grocery store, I quit this debate, as one of the two of us has a crucial gap in his knowledge.
Has Obama had terroism supspects assassinated on the way to the store? Doubtful. Does Obama believe he has the executive power to assassinate Americans on their way to the store? Yes (http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/under-holders-due-process-u-s-citizens-subject-to-whim-of-couple-of-guys-sitting-around-the-cia).
In 2008, Obama ran on being the candidate who is humane and moral. After his four years of ruthlessness, Obama can no longer pretend to have the moral highground.
Quote from: Duckling on July 18, 2012, 01:21:01 AMMedia bias is fine. Of course, it's not professional, so you can make lots of arguments about loss of professional attitude in journalism, but that's not the issue.
My whole point to media bias is that they give an unfair advantage to Obama. In 2008, journalist refused to criticize Obama, and showered him with praise during ever interview. In 2008, the media coverage of McCain was mostly negative (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/10/study-coverage-of-mccain-much.html), while most news outlets refused to question Obama's credentials.
Quote from: Duckling on July 18, 2012, 01:21:01 AMAnd yet, according to your video, no Americans are being killed intentionally, so these aren't assassinations of Americans.
You need to rewatch the video. One American was intentionally targetted, while the other two Americans were considered aceptiable casualties.
You keep ignoring my point. Obama believes that "due process" means that if members of the executive branch think you are guilty, then they can be your judge, jury, and executioner. Obama has lost the moral highground that he ran on in 2008.
I actually did spell "bias" correctly last time, yet I decided to change it to "bais" before I posted, since I thought it was funny how much it was bothering you earlier. I now regret doing so, because it seems to have caused you to have a nervous breakdown.
I really don't want to address who you prefer to win because that is not the subject of this topic.
Also, I believe that Obama is more likely to win. Obama knows how to manipulate the public into believing his lies. The biggest reason that he is able to due this is because of the bias media won't call him out on it. For example, Obama claims that Romney ships jobs overseas because Romney's company shipped jobs overseas when Romney stopped working there. Romney doesn't have time to point out Obama's terrible jobs record, because Romney is busy defending himself from all of the slander coming from Obama.
I have removed all but three of my posts from this topic, because I had critically misunderstood the purpose of this thread -- to discuss who will win the 2012 presidential election, and not to discuss the policies of the incumbents except with respect to their election prospects.
I generally do not partake in speculation in long-term affairs, as I have found on more than one occasion that there is a good chance that one is wrong -- moreover, that one never had a good reason for one's original presumptive conclusion to begin with. This is not the topic for me.
That, and I've heard enough of your socially liberal, fiscally conservative diatribes to know what you stand for politically, and that we will never agree on many issues, and that I shall never have the last word. In that, at least, we are the same. [No criticism was conferred by design through this post. If any was recieved, there has been a fault in communication.]