Be a Supporter!

Will Obama win or lose the election

  • 18,648 Views
  • 514 Replies
New Topic
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 22nd, 2012 @ 11:13 AM

At 9/22/12 06:10 AM, BumFodder wrote: It should be obvious to everyone that Romney is going to lose now.

Still over a month away in a very odd election where the incumbent had a first term that appears very underwhelming going against a candidate who just can't seem to stop snacking on his feet.

The dynamic here is quite new, and I wouldn't be surprised if this one took a few wild turns at the last minute.

If the trajectory stays the same as it has been the past couple weeks it will begin to look worse and worse for Romney, but with the odd dynamic, the Tea Party and its covertly overt racism, it's impossible to tell right now.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 22nd, 2012 @ 02:11 PM

At 9/22/12 07:17 AM, Feoric wrote:
At 9/21/12 11:42 PM, Warforger wrote: Although I guess this is intentional because that's what Democrats tend to do; emulate Reagan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfelqZpapZA

Oh if you watched Clinton's speech you'd realize that. In fact he outright quoted Reagan to ridicule the Republicans. I don't think he mentioned any Democratic politician other than himself and Obama.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Xcyper33
Xcyper33
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 23rd, 2012 @ 05:22 PM

At 9/22/12 11:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9/22/12 06:10 AM, BumFodder wrote: It should be obvious to everyone that Romney is going to lose now.
Still over a month away in a very odd election where the incumbent had a first term that appears very underwhelming going against a candidate who just can't seem to stop snacking on his feet.

The dynamic here is quite new, and I wouldn't be surprised if this one took a few wild turns at the last minute.

If the trajectory stays the same as it has been the past couple weeks it will begin to look worse and worse for Romney, but with the odd dynamic, the Tea Party and its covertly overt racism, it's impossible to tell right now.

Honestly doubt this will happen. Republicans/Tea Party have been throwning everything they can at Obama for 4 years now, the public is so use to it by now that a measly month and some change won't be a big thing. Also, they have been waiting what, 4 years for Obama to make a GIANT GAME changing mistake, it is pretty obvious he doesn't do that.


Animator for hire. Check out the stuff I have on the portal and the forums. If you like something, send me a message.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 12:46 AM

At 9/23/12 05:22 PM, Xcyper33 wrote:
At 9/22/12 11:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9/22/12 06:10 AM, BumFodder wrote: It should be obvious to everyone that Romney is going to lose now.
Still over a month away in a very odd election where the incumbent had a first term that appears very underwhelming going against a candidate who just can't seem to stop snacking on his feet.

The dynamic here is quite new, and I wouldn't be surprised if this one took a few wild turns at the last minute.

If the trajectory stays the same as it has been the past couple weeks it will begin to look worse and worse for Romney, but with the odd dynamic, the Tea Party and its covertly overt racism, it's impossible to tell right now.
Honestly doubt this will happen. Republicans/Tea Party have been throwning everything they can at Obama for 4 years now, the public is so use to it by now that a measly month and some change won't be a big thing. Also, they have been waiting what, 4 years for Obama to make a GIANT GAME changing mistake, it is pretty obvious he doesn't do that.

But people are getting tired of Obama's lack of leadership. Hasn't passed a budget. Sits by and goes on Letterman while our soil is raided, and our people killed. He hasn't done anything to fix the economy like he said he would. Foreign policy is still a mess.

The only thing he has going for him, is he's an awesome rhetoric machine.

I'm no Romney fan...at all. But Obama has proven to be a failure. He had 4 years to take proper steps toward fixing the nation...and all he did was either copy Bush, or play toward the center so he didn't piss anyone off. He had his chance, and failed. Will Romney fix it? Who the hell knows. But what has been seen, is Obama has failed. So he should be gone.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 01:06 AM

At 9/24/12 12:46 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
But people are getting tired of Obama's lack of leadership. Hasn't passed a budget. Sits by and goes on Letterman while our soil is raided, and our people killed. He hasn't done anything to fix the economy like he said he would. Foreign policy is still a mess.

While our soil is raided?


The only thing he has going for him, is he's an awesome rhetoric machine.

I'm no Romney fan...at all. But Obama has proven to be a failure. He had 4 years to take proper steps toward fixing the nation...and all he did was either copy Bush, or play toward the center so he didn't piss anyone off. He had his chance, and failed. Will Romney fix it? Who the hell knows. But what has been seen, is Obama has failed. So he should be gone.

The American auto industry is running and posting great profits, unemployment dropped from over 11% to just about 8%, our one reason for being in the middle east was given the executive order to be taken out (it's disappointing that our troops havent been pulled out yet I'll be the first to admit), the first step has been taken to provide at least some form of optional healthcare to all American citizens. He has takled the major economic troubles that were putting Americans in panic mode when he first took office, auto industry and credit company bankruptcies and dangerously high unemployment.

If two major companies making a complete turnaround and unemployment falling from 11% to 8% aren't significant accomplishments within a 4-year presidencial term, we might as well keep yelling at each other about fetuses and their rights to life and guns.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 02:23 AM

At 9/24/12 01:06 AM, Saen wrote:
While our soil is raided?

US embassies are being attacked. Ambassadors killed. Kind of a big deal.



The only thing he has going for him, is he's an awesome rhetoric machine.
The American auto industry is running and posting great profits, unemployment dropped from over 11% to just about 8%, our one reason for being in the middle east was given the executive order to be taken out (it's disappointing that our troops havent been pulled out yet I'll be the first to admit), the first step has been taken to provide at least some form of optional healthcare to all American citizens. He has takled the major economic troubles that were putting Americans in panic mode when he first took office, auto industry and credit company bankruptcies and dangerously high unemployment.

One sector doing well (by the way, according to many auto CEO's, the bailouts haven't helped much), is not an "economic improvement". That's one sector doing okay, while smaller business eats shit. Unemployment numbers change depending on who they come from so...and Osama's dead, but I think more credit goes to the Marines/Sailors/Army Rangers who found him and took him out. Obama had to give the order, but eh...Obama gave the go ahead, but he didn't do the footwork. If it makes you feel any better I don't credit Reagan with tearing down the Berlin wall, or FDR/Truman for winning WW2. As I said, unemployment is still really high, and the economy is still shit. Helping our your campaign contributors is no a fix of the economy. Remember when Obama came in and said he was going to reverse the Corporatism of the Bush years. Guess not.

If two major companies making a complete turnaround and unemployment falling from 11% to 8% aren't significant accomplishments within a 4-year presidencial term, we might as well keep yelling at each other about fetuses and their rights to life and guns.

The population is unemployed, gas/food prices are rising, dollar is inflating, Ambassadors are being killed with no retribution, the rest of the world still despises us...but hey, at least those two companies are okay

CaveStoryGrounds
CaveStoryGrounds
  • Member since: Jan. 3, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Writer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 07:42 AM

At 9/24/12 02:23 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/24/12 01:06 AM, Saen wrote:
While our soil is raided?
US embassies are being attacked. Ambassadors killed. Kind of a big deal.

Obama sent two warships and who knows what else. Not to mention the current army and numerous operatives in that area, the various CIA agents that are otherwise busy setting up more coo's. Most people who have died since the initial attacks have been protestors, only the first few were from an embassy.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 10:15 AM

At 9/24/12 12:46 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Hasn't passed a budget.

Kind of hard to pass a budget when Congress can't agree on a budget to send to Obama.

Sits by and goes on Letterman while our soil is raided, and our people killed.

Really? What do you expect him to do? Send the entire US military to Libya? Libya seems to have handled the issue pretty well on their own (much to their credit).

He hasn't done anything to fix the economy like he said he would.

He did quite a bit, but due to numerous factors you can't see it. One of those factors is that the drop off from 2008 to 2010 was nothing short of an abyss. You propose a plan that could have stopped the freefall and grown the economy to 1990s level in 4 years with little support across the aisle and little actual power to effect change economically.

Foreign policy is still a mess.

US foreign policy right now is doing quite well considering. China is being much friendlier than recent times. Europe is much more cooperative. The Middle East was doing well until the recent blow up, but then again, the Middle East is in the very infancy of modern governance. We haven't started any new wars. American soldiers are not dying nearly as fast as before. What exactly is the mess here?

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 02:02 PM

At 9/24/12 02:23 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/24/12 01:06 AM, Saen wrote:
While our soil is raided?
US embassies are being attacked. Ambassadors killed. Kind of a big deal.

Well there's a way to completely twist an event towards a biased viewpoint. I interpreted "while our soil is being raided" as a statement implies that U.S. domestic territory is under siege.


One sector doing well (by the way, according to many auto CEO's, the bailouts haven't helped much), is not an "economic improvement". That's one sector doing okay, while smaller business eats shit. Unemployment numbers change depending on who they come from so...and Osama's dead, but I think more credit goes to the Marines/Sailors/Army Rangers who found him and took him out. Obama had to give the order, but eh...Obama gave the go ahead, but he didn't do the footwork. If it makes you feel any better I don't credit Reagan with tearing down the Berlin wall, or FDR/Truman for winning WW2. As I said, unemployment is still really high, and the economy is still shit. Helping our your campaign contributors is no a fix of the economy. Remember when Obama came in and said he was going to reverse the Corporatism of the Bush years. Guess not.

Posted data of profit records is really the only source us as consumers can determine whether or not a company is doing well, not the words of current and former Ceos. Obama gave the order, which was not an easy of a decision as we would think, granted not nearly as tough as the mission carried out by our special forces. 8%+ unemployment is still not great (with more desirable levels being below 5% or 6%), but it is a hell of a drop from over 11%.


The population is unemployed, gas/food prices are rising, dollar is inflating, Ambassadors are being killed with no retribution, the rest of the world still despises us...but hey, at least those two companies are okay

Unemployment have dropped 3% from four years ago, gas and food prices have always risen with inflation through our history, the dollar has always been inflating and is an inevitable process of an economy that has long outgrown the gold standard and based on credit. Do you even remember the crisis the country was in four years ago after Bush left office? We nearly fell into another depression! Afterwards Congress feuding over what budget to approve and limits of the debt ceiling while driving our country further to the edge! To think that we've at least gotten through of all of that mess, with the major consequence being a sharp increase to our national debt while retaining all three of our American car companies and unemployment dropping 3% is pretty damn good if you ask me.

Yes, we're still occupying the middle-east and the economy isn't perfect, but it's a long way from waking up in the morning terrified about your bank has going under and worried about what the hell will happen to your mortgage and investments.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 04:33 PM

At 9/22/12 07:15 AM, Feoric wrote:
At 9/20/12 01:08 PM, TheMason wrote:
Make a new thread if you still want to drag this on, I'm not going to clog this thread up with this anymore.

I agree. You've made your closing argument, I'll make mine and leave the issue be.

Point 1 How GM paid off its loan.
[...]
So yes...the loan is paid back. However, the taxpayer was paid with money taken from the taxpayer.
This is really easy to understand and I'm not sure exactly what's going awry here. Let me put this in the simplest terms I can. The escrow account was an extension of TARP via the US Treasury and the Canadian government. GM assessed how much money was given to them and figured they had gotten too much. They said "hey, we don't need this" and they gave it back. It boggles my mind how anyone could think this is some fraudulent scheme. The whole 'taxpayers paid with taxpayer money' thing is a red herring. It's completely besides the point.

Thank you for the victory, even if you do not see it. If the escrow account is an extension of TARP and funds that came from the government...and then these funds were used to pay-off a loan to the federal government.

So then what did GM do? Did they pay-off their debt to the government/taxpayer with government/taxpayer hand-outs or did they simply give back money they did not need? If they simply said: "hey we got too much!" and gave back the money in the escrow account...then they would still owe the debt.

It boggles my mind how so many Obama supporters (I'm not necessarily pointing a finger at you) can point to corporate hand-outs under a Republican as bad...but then celebrate the exact same thing under a Democrat.


I never said the stocks will be immune, I said the exact opposite. They do adjust. DOWNWARDS.Inflation, whether in the form of demand-pull or cost-push, compresses a company's P/E ratio. You said "The government can get stock prices to $53/share through inflation" which is beyond my imagination, really. You think the government hopes to get GM's stock to 53 dollars a share through fucking QE3? You're nuts.

If I'm nuts; you can't read.

QE3 essentially increases the money supply by about $40Billion/month by buying bonds back from investors. It's printing money without having to aligning the printer! Furthermore, I'm not talking about demand-pull or cost-push inflation (which are dependent upon the cost and/or money being spent on goods relative to the intrinsic value of those good)...I'm talking about monetary inflation.

In other words: The value/cost of goods changing is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the value/cost of the dollar changing.

QE3 (the third round of Quantitative Easing) will increase the money supply by putting electronic dollars in ppl's accounts (we're not even printing it anymore), at the same time the Fed is keeping interest rates low. As you pointed out...the Fed will raise interest rates to keep inflation down and restrict the money supply. They're not doing this anymore. (And guess what: I'm NOT completely blaming Obama...this is more on Bernacke.) This drives the value of the dollar down which means that now it takes more dollars to buy something.

What you described was a situation where the value of goods is in flux and changing. However, this does not negate, challenge or answer my assertion that when the value of money is in flux and changing.

It's a simple concept really. If the cost (remember...we're talking about how many dollars it takes to buy something...not its intrinsic value) of something like a gallon of milk is $12 because we've increased the supply of dollars and now the dollar is weaker relative to the value of goods...that I can still buy Ford for $10.32/share? Hell, what you're arguing is in monetary inflation where increased money supply has caused price inflation (not the supply, demand or value of goods)...it should go down?

Yes...when inflation increases due to the intrinsic value/cost of goods increasing stock prices will go down. But you're batshit-joker insane to think that when prices go up because it's the value of money that is changing relative to goods the same economic principles apply.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 04:40 PM

At 9/21/12 07:45 PM, Feoric wrote: Well....

Feoric...

You win. I was nine when Reagan ran in '84 and either never saw that or don't remember it. So this is precedented. Honestly, thanks for showing it and w/o being a gloating ass...so thanks for the class.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 08:51 PM

At 9/24/12 04:33 PM, TheMason wrote: What you described was a situation where the value of goods is in flux and changing. However, this does not negate, challenge or answer my assertion that when the value of money is in flux and changing.

I was talking specifically about inflation's effects on stock prices, not anything else. Like I said, stock prices are effected differently than comic books and milk. It may go against common sense but yes, stock prices go down when there is high inflation. If you want a more in-depth discussion about QE3 and economics-related topics, make a thread for it, I'll be happy to participate.

At 9/24/12 04:40 PM, TheMason wrote: I was nine when Reagan ran in '84 and either never saw that or don't remember it. So this is precedented. Honestly, thanks for showing it and w/o being a gloating ass...so thanks for the class.

Sure! We all reserve the right to be wrong when it comes to our opinions, and I'd hope you (and others) put me in my place when I say something silly as well.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 11:53 PM

At 9/24/12 08:51 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 9/24/12 04:33 PM, TheMason wrote: What you described was a situation where the value of goods is in flux and changing. However, this does not negate, challenge or answer my assertion that when the value of money is in flux and changing.
I was talking specifically about inflation's effects on stock prices, not anything else. Like I said, stock prices are effected differently than comic books and milk. It may go against common sense but yes, stock prices go down when there is high inflation. If you want a more in-depth discussion about QE3 and economics-related topics, make a thread for it, I'll be happy to participate.

Dude, not going to make another topic when it's black-and-white. You described only certain types of inflation (value/cost changing on the part of goods)...and what's true in those situations But I'm talking about the value/cost of money changing...and changing quickly. If the value of the dollar is down and the cost of literally everything else is going up because now a dollar is only worth $0.50 when last year it was worth a $1...I'm going to take a huge loss if I'm selling Ford at $10.32/share when my wife is buying milk and comic books at $8.00 each.

What you say is irrelevant and I'm not going to spiral through an entire thread with you not acknowledging or deconstructing my point...you're just throwing up strawmen and burning them down.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 12:07 AM

At 9/24/12 02:02 PM, Saen wrote:
Well there's a way to completely twist an event towards a biased viewpoint. I interpreted "while our soil is being raided" as a statement implies that U.S. domestic territory is under siege.

Believe it or not, embassies are US soil. Therefore, US soil was attacked, and an ambassador was killed. And Obama did nothing.

Posted data of profit records is really the only source us as consumers can determine whether or not a company is doing well, not the words of current and former Ceos. Obama gave the order, which was not an easy of a decision as we would think, granted not nearly as tough as the mission carried out by our special forces. 8%+ unemployment is still not great (with more desirable levels being below 5% or 6%), but it is a hell of a drop from over 11%.

So CEO's who run the companies aren't qualified to say whether or not the bailouts worked or not? And as I said before, unemployment numbers change with every source, so I don't really find any numbers too reliable...taking them with a grain of salt I suppose. Both sides who report numbers are liars and manipulators of facts, so I see no reason to believe OBama's "facts" or Rush Limbaugh's "facts"

Unemployment have dropped 3% from four years ago, gas and food prices have always risen with inflation through our history, the dollar has always been inflating and is an inevitable process of an economy that has long outgrown the gold standard and based on credit. Do you even remember the crisis the country was in four years ago after Bush left office? We nearly fell into another depression! Afterwards Congress feuding over what budget to approve and limits of the debt ceiling while driving our country further to the edge! To think that we've at least gotten through of all of that mess, with the major consequence being a sharp increase to our national debt while retaining all three of our American car companies and unemployment dropping 3% is pretty damn good if you ask me.

Yes, we're still occupying the middle-east and the economy isn't perfect, but it's a long way from waking up in the morning terrified about your bank has going under and worried about what the hell will happen to your mortgage and investments.

And you credit Obama with the *tiny* amount of recovery. That tiny drop in unemployemnt outweighs the skyrocket of debt and spending?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 12:11 AM

At 9/24/12 11:53 PM, TheMason wrote: I'm talking about the value/cost of money changing...and changing quickly. If the value of the dollar is down and the cost of literally everything else is going up because now a dollar is only worth $0.50 when last year it was worth a $1...I'm going to take a huge loss if I'm selling Ford at $10.32/share when my wife is buying milk and comic books at $8.00 each.

...okay? I'm not even arguing that. This is what you said that I'm responding to:

At 9/18/12 01:47 PM, TheMason wrote: C) The government can get stock prices to $53/share through inflation

Which makes no sense. There are zero times in history where stock prices rose solely on inflation.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 12:12 AM

At 9/25/12 12:07 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Believe it or not, embassies are US soil. Therefore, US soil was attacked, and an ambassador was killed. And Obama did nothing.

First of all it was a consulate, and no, that's a myth. The soil an embassy/consulate is on belongs to the host country.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 12:32 AM

At 9/20/12 11:13 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Honest question now for conservatives at this point: do you honestly believe in Mitt Romney as a candidate? Please have your answer not include the words "not" "Obama".

Sorry Brian, but it is NOT an honest question when you put that qualifier in there.

1st, let's say we have a scale. -1 is far left and 1 is far right and 0 is the center. Then you put Obama and Mitt Romney on the scale and then each conservative vote (I'll label them x, y & z.

-1 ....................-0.5......................0.............
.........0.5.....................1
O R X Y Z

Now, if the posting doesn't screw it up...you've got Obama at -0.39 and Romney at 0. (Got these positions from The New York Times' 538 Blog.) Now X, Y and Z, our conservative voters, are going to look at Romney. No he's not a conservative. BUT in terms of ideology...he is significantly closer to their position than Obama. May not be who they wanted or the candidate who came closest to their position in the primary, but he is not the candidate who is furthest from their position. That would be Obama. So in this case they are voting for the lesser of two evils...who happens to be Barack Obama...and therefore they are voting (legitimately) for the 'Not Obama' candidate.

But Mason...hold on a minute...aren't there Libertarian and Constitutional party candidates? Good question Brian, and I'm glad you would've brought it up.

True, the Libertarian Constitutional party candidate may be closer to X, Y & Z's position on the aforementioned graph. However, people vote not only based on proximity of the candidate's ideology...but strategically as well. Those candidates, along with Rosanne Barr on the Left, do not stand a chance of winning. So why cast a vote that will get you the worst (from X, Y & Z's position) case scenario?

====

Secondly, ANY election is about voting for either the incumbent person or party. It doesn't matter if it's Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter....Jefferson, Adams, or Washington. So yeah...every vote is technically because Candidate X is not Candidate Y.

====

Thirdly, while I am a Republican...I'm not really considered a conservative because of my opinions on social issues. Furthermore, Bush was a cold bucket of water poured on me. Bush expanded government spending and reduced tax rates. Obama expanded government spending, kept income tax rates where they are and lowered Social Security tax rates.

And I had such hope for the man. See in 2008 I looked at my absentee ballot for weeks as I tried to decide who to vote for. But it took a CNN special on the candidates that highlighted Obama's lack of experience and naivete that made me go with my gut and vote for McCain.

I wish I could say I was wrong.

Obama is the president who came to office with the thinnest resume of any of his predecessors (including W.). He was a state legislator in a state where state politics is firmly controlled by his part...and he did not have a record of leadership or taking bold stands. Then he was a Senator for two years.

So he comes to Washington and becomes president. He didn't know (and still doesn't) what he's doing. Sure Republicans oppossed him. BUT HE CAME TO OFFICE WITH THE MOST FRIENDLY CONGRESS OF JUST ABOUT ANY PRESIDENT!! I mean the Republicans, especially in the House, were completely powerless to stop the Democratic agenda.

What has ground Washington into gridlock is that he did not provide any leadership to his party. He left the major legislation to Reid and Pelosi...with no admin support from 1600. See most presidents will write a law they want passed...especially ones like ACA and his stimulus which would be his historic and signature policies that he would then execute...and a friendly Representative and Senator would introduce the bill into their respective house. This kind of helps keep his party unified.

Obama did not do this...and his own party fell apart under his leadership. (The president is the de facto head of his party...albeit unofficially.) So we have a guy who cannot lead his own party. (Which if I'm ever lost in a wet paper sack with Obama...I'm not giving him the compass or the map!)

Then in 2010 he loses the House to Republicans...badly.

Now I know there are going to be cries of outrage: THE REPUBLICANS ARE OBSTRUCTIONISTS!

I draw your attention to 1994. Clinton lost both houses, and then fought Republicans. Both sides realized this was stupid.

Unfortunately...no one up in DC remembers 1994. Reid is fighting a highly partisan fight...with amateur hour at the Oval Office backing him up. Maybe it's a combination of hard nosed Republicans vs and incompetent president? One of these has to go...and it's highly unlikely to be the House turns blue.

Then there is his foreign policy. He dithered in Afghanistan and people needlessly died. The much vaunted Arab Spring skipped summer and fall and went right into winter.

He ordered the SeALs to kill some pirates and UBL (yay!). But let's face it...after 9/11 that's a call any president would make.

And then there's Iraq...he pulled us out of Iraq!

No he didn't. He just didn't screw with the timetable Bush set-up.

In the end, I voted for Romney (sent in my ballot today...but don't worry I live in Missouri so my vote doesn't really matter.) Why? Because he's not Obama. Not because I think he's going to wave a magic wand or use Republican Pixie Dust (trying not to make a Log Cabin Republican joke) and suddenly the economy is going to great and everyone is going to get a unicorn that farts rainbows. It's because I think he's infinitely more competent than a guy who lied about his mother's insurance woes to pass ACA.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 12:36 AM

Figured out how I should've done this.

-1 ....................-0.5...(O)...................0 (R)...........(X)...........0.5 (Y)....................(Z).1


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 01:05 AM

At 9/25/12 12:32 AM, TheMason wrote: He ordered the SeALs to kill some pirates and UBL (yay!). But let's face it...after 9/11 that's a call any president would make.

Actually that's not entirely true. McCain went on the record saying he would be against an unauthorized mission in Pakistan if it meant getting Osama, which when you think about just how risky that mission was, it isn't hard to see why anyone would be.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 12:21 PM

At 9/25/12 12:12 AM, Feoric wrote:
At 9/25/12 12:07 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Believe it or not, embassies are US soil. Therefore, US soil was attacked, and an ambassador was killed. And Obama did nothing.
First of all it was a consulate, and no, that's a myth. The soil an embassy/consulate is on belongs to the host country.

So, dead ambassador is okay? Religious radicals taking the embassies...that's okay?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 12:47 PM

At 9/25/12 12:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, dead ambassador is okay? Religious radicals taking the embassies...that's okay?

How exactly do you propose that Obama should have stopped this surprise attack?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 01:35 PM

At 9/25/12 12:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9/25/12 12:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, dead ambassador is okay? Religious radicals taking the embassies...that's okay?
How exactly do you propose that Obama should have stopped this surprise attack?

It wasn't a surprise attack. He knew about the 9/11/2012 attacks in advance, just as Bush knew about the 9/11/2001 attacks ahead of time. And that's straight from the President of Libya and the President of Egypt. This was no surprise attack and if you think it was a coincidence it happened on 9/11 and that it was because of a video, despite the attackers shouting "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama", then you're delusional.

However, you could be right. Let's say it was a surprise attack. Do you think Obama's response (tax dollars spent on Pakistani airwaves denouncing the video and nothing more) was the correct one? Do you think that Obama's response fits the circumstances?

DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 03:12 PM

First off, it was a surprise attack. No one saw it coming. Obama didn't know that this "video", which probably does not exist, and he condemned the attack in the first place. I don't know the history behind the whole incident, nor do I care. He said himself he would bring the criminals to justice.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 04:20 PM

At 9/25/12 03:12 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: First off, it was a surprise attack. No one saw it coming. Obama didn't know that this "video", which probably does not exist, and he condemned the attack in the first place. I don't know the history behind the whole incident, nor do I care. He said himself he would bring the criminals to justice.

No, it wasn't a surprise attack...I don't know why you'd think it wasn't. And yes, Obama was warned. You think presidents are just naive and clueless about plots to attack embassies? Or when there are plots to fly airliners into buildings? Of course they know. We have CIA and spies all over the world. Various governments in the region are saying it was planned out. Obama and his lapdogs are the only people saying otherwise.

Obama is blaming this whole thing on a video...that wasn't the cause no matter how hard his administration wants it to be true, it just wasn't. It was a direct response to his foreign policy, and assassination of Osama Bin Laden.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 04:34 PM

At 9/25/12 04:20 PM, LemonCrush wrote: And yes, Obama was warned.

Got a source?

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 05:08 PM

At 9/25/12 12:07 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/24/12 02:02 PM, Saen wrote:
Well there's a way to completely twist an event towards a biased viewpoint. I interpreted "while our soil is being raided" as a statement implies that U.S. domestic territory is under siege.
Believe it or not, embassies are US soil. Therefore, US soil was attacked, and an ambassador was killed. And Obama did nothing.

You're kidding me right? How can you just pull this shit out from your ass without even thinking?


So CEO's who run the companies aren't qualified to say whether or not the bailouts worked or not? And as I said before, unemployment numbers change with every source, so I don't really find any numbers too reliable...taking them with a grain of salt I suppose. Both sides who report numbers are liars and manipulators of facts, so I see no reason to believe OBama's "facts" or Rush Limbaugh's "facts"

Pretty bold statement to call our entire department of labor a bunch of liars, especially daft to compare to Limbaugh. So economists and civilians shouldn't give any credit to unemployment percentages, demographics, and statistics because they are calculated by the government? I guess the solution is to privatize the department of labor so different companies can compete to produce the most desired unemployment statistics. Obviously their results wouldn't be biased, because they were produced with the sole intention of profit!


And you credit Obama with the *tiny* amount of recovery. That tiny drop in unemployemnt outweighs the skyrocket of debt and spending?

Policies he and most of Congress were in favor of passing contributed to the relatively quick auto industry turnaround and drop in unemployment.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 07:32 PM

At 9/25/12 05:08 PM, Saen wrote:
You're kidding me right? How can you just pull this shit out from your ass without even thinking?

Obama did nothing. An ambassador was killed. Embassies of ours, and our allies were attacked. Obama did NOTHING. Oh, except spend $70k on a video saying the US doesn't stand behind the video. I'm sure religious lunatics give a shit about that considering they hate his guts.

Pretty bold statement to call our entire department of labor a bunch of liars, especially daft to compare to Limbaugh. So economists and civilians shouldn't give any credit to unemployment percentages, demographics, and statistics because they are calculated by the government? I guess the solution is to privatize the department of labor so different companies can compete to produce the most desired unemployment statistics. Obviously their results wouldn't be biased, because they were produced with the sole intention of profit!

Why is that a bold statement? They work for the government, their entire existence and financing is reliant on people thinking things are okay. There's a big conflict of interest there, don't you think?

Policies he and most of Congress were in favor of passing contributed to the relatively quick auto industry turnaround and drop in unemployment.

The auto industry is not the economy. It is ONE industry. But glad to see you're okay with ONE industry doing okay while smaller business and the middle class suffer . Man, I remember in 2008 when Obama said he would do everything he could to SAVE the middle class. How does he do it? By handing all of our tax dollars over to a company who couldn't even stay afloat (still can't), and taking more for a stupid, inefficient healthcare bureaucracy. Way to help the middle class you douche. And just because Congress went along with it, does not make it right. Obama and his entire generation are a bunch of corporatist turds.

People don't seem to learn from history. Artificial propping up of failing businesses have NEVER saved an economy. All it does is stave of the inevitable for a couple years. GM wasn't saved. They were given a cup of water in a forest fire. All the bailout did was put a band-aid on cancer. They will go back to making shitty cars, and breaking their backs to make union shills happy, and golden parachutes for their CEO's, and the whole cycle will be repeated again. That's how it always works and there's no reason to believe it will work this time. Corporatism ALWAYS fails. ALWAYS. The proof is scattered all throughout the 20th century. How many times will it have to crash and burn before they realize rewarding conglomerates for nothing, and protecting them when they fuck up, never works?

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 08:29 PM

At 9/25/12 01:35 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/25/12 12:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9/25/12 12:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, dead ambassador is okay? Religious radicals taking the embassies...that's okay?
How exactly do you propose that Obama should have stopped this surprise attack?
It wasn't a surprise attack. He knew about the 9/11/2012 attacks in advance, just as Bush knew about the 9/11/2001 attacks ahead of time. And that's straight from the President of Libya and the President of Egypt.

Wow. They're threats, on 9/11/2001 intelligence agencies had only been given a warning that there was going to be some sort of attack. They weren't told "We are going to be hijacking aircraft and crashing them into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and the White House", since up to that the point the only terrorism that was ever done against the US by Muslim militants was by just bombing buildings. It would have been pretty out of the blue to think that would've been the case. This was the same case on the recent 9/11 attacks according to your own links.

At 9/25/12 07:32 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Obama did nothing. An ambassador was killed. Embassies of ours, and our allies were attacked. Obama did NOTHING. Oh, except spend $70k on a video saying the US doesn't stand behind the video. I'm sure religious lunatics give a shit about that considering they hate his guts.

It's easy to think Obama did nothing when you don't even try to research what he did. "I don't know, therefore it doesn't exist".

Why is that a bold statement? They work for the government, their entire existence and financing is reliant on people thinking things are okay. There's a big conflict of interest there, don't you think?

No it's not, their only task is to give out reliable data, if they hand out data that isn't welcoming then nothing is going to happen to them because that's what they're supposed to do.

The auto industry is not the economy. It is ONE industry. But glad to see you're okay with ONE industry doing okay while smaller business and the middle class suffer

The economy is connected. Workers of one company go out and buy products of another. When those workers are fired then they're not buying as many products, this means that business which was taking in that money from those laid off workers now has to close thereby laying off more workers. It's why in the late 20's after the auto and construction industries had to lay off many workers because they had reached peak production the rest of the economy tanked.

Man, I remember in 2008 when Obama said he would do everything he could to SAVE the middle class. How does he do it?

By giving them some of the lowest tax rates ever?

By handing all of our tax dollars over to a company who couldn't even stay afloat (still can't),

Your opinion, part of the auto bailout was forcing the company to adopt new management.

and taking more for a stupid, inefficient healthcare bureaucracy.

We don't know if Obamacare is inefficient because it hasn't been implemented yet.

People don't seem to learn from history. Artificial propping up of failing businesses have NEVER saved an economy. All it does is stave of the inevitable for a couple years. GM wasn't saved. They were given a cup of water in a forest fire. All the bailout did was put a band-aid on cancer. They will go back to making shitty cars, and breaking their backs to make union shills happy, and golden parachutes for their CEO's, and the whole cycle will be repeated again. That's how it always works and there's no reason to believe it will work this time. Corporatism ALWAYS fails. ALWAYS. The proof is scattered all throughout the 20th century. How many times will it have to crash and burn before they realize rewarding conglomerates for nothing, and protecting them when they fuck up, never works?

Do you have any actual example? Because if you look at the causes of the two worst depressions in our history, the Great Depression and the panic of 1893, the government did nothing and the economy tumbled. Had the government saved those first few corporations from completely capsizing then the depression probably wouldn't have happened or it wouldn't have been as bad as it was.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Melancholy
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 1st, 2012 @ 06:32 PM

At 9/25/12 08:29 PM, Warforger wrote: We don't know if Obamacare is inefficient because it hasn't been implemented yet.

Well thats not really true, I think the best thing for america would be to make their health system like ours.