I would vote for a _____, over obama...

[billc]

On Bin laden's death, the only right thing obama did was say do the mission. He didn't want waterboarding, or guantanimo, which were Bush policies and which gave him bin laden and Bush invading Afganistan put us in a position to get bin laden. After the event he has endangered the seals and the informant who helped us get bin laden by giving out secret information just so he could get all the credit for getting bin laden...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/obama_exploits_navy_seals.html

However, President Obama and his team have opened the floodgates -- virtually every detail of the bin Laden raid was widely publicized and is now available to anyone with the click of a mouse. The Defense Secretary added to the problems when he disclosed the name of a Pakistani doctor who was key to discovering the whereabouts of bin Laden. That doctor is now is a Pakistani prison and Panetta's disclosure will undoubtedly make his life worse.

Libya was mishandled and is now about to be controlled by radical muslims as is Egypt, and the lack of positive control over the events in Libya led to the loss of 1000's of weapons that may very well be used against us or our allies.

On Iraq, he was against it in the first place, voted against the surge that stabilized it and when his commander in the field asked for 80,000 additional troops, believed he could make due if he had 40,000 troops Obama gave him 30,000, and announced our lack of resolve in keeping Iraq in the win column.

The bail outs, they still owe us a billion dollars and screwed over the bond holders and dealerships by bailing out the car companies instead of having them go into bankruptcy, all to protect his union buddies and his union campaign donations.

If he gets re-elected we'll see exactly how good the economy actually is. Don't expect the truth until the second he is sworn into office, and then his friends in the press will release the actual numbers on the economy, as we head into an even deeper recession, if not depression.

 

[billc]

We'll see what the polls say after Romney is finally the guy, and the reality of four more years of Obama is on the table, with obamacare just waiting to fully kick in.

Oh, and I forgot the possibility of 5 dollar a gallon gas, that's on the verge of happening as well.

On the GM bailout...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...-believe-hype-about-auto-industry-turnaround/

Don't Believe Hype About Auto Industry Turnaround

Bubble Logic
In what sense did the Obama administration rescue this industry? Well, it frog-marched GM through bankruptcy to clear it of old debt and set the table for the big IPO in November 2010. But this did nothing to resolve the fundamental quandaries of the industry, so it appears likely that Detroit has simply been set up for another (fairly rapid) cycle of bubble and burst.
Micheline Maynard, herself now a Forbes blogger on the subject of the auto industry, outlined its underlying troubles back in 2003, in her book, The End of Detroit. Nine years since publication so the book must be out of date? Alas, no.
A story by Ruth Simon in the Wall Street Journal last week discussed how (in the words of the headline), “auto lenders [are] speeding past mortgage troubles.” Does that sound like bubble logic to you? Hold that thought.
One would think that a borrower who is at least 60 days behind on mortgage, or who has experienced a foreclosure, would be more likely to default on a car loan than one who has not, who either has never fallen behind on his home loan or who has never purchased a home, perhaps out of a prudent sense that the payments would be daunting. But auto lenders appear not to think that way. Simon quotes Experian VP Michele Raneri, saying that lenders “know they need to grow … And they know they have to be flexible.”

Also...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/gm_bailout_payback_lie/

Taxpayers are naturally eager for news about bailout repayments. But what neither G.M. nor the Treasury disclosed was that the company simply used other funds held by the Treasury to pay off its original loan.

[...]

 

[elder999]

We'll see what the polls say after Romney is finally the guy, and the reality of four more years of Obama is on the table, with obamacare just waiting to fully kick in.

But, even if he gets the nomination, Romney won't be "finally the guy." There will be no "the guy." There's gonna be a sparkle calvacade of Republican/Libertarian third party also-rans, the Comittee to Reelect Barack Obama

Oh, and I forgot the possibility of 5 dollar a gallon gas, that's on the verge of happening as well.

Maybe, but I'm willing to bet a couple of thousand $$ that gas gets below $2.65/gallon by November.

That's how hard the fix is in: jobless rate will go down (or be manipulated to look that way), slight uptick in housing, the promised "slow recovery," and gas less than $3-20% of Republicans are ready to vote for Obama right now-and that's not from some liberal blog, that's a survey conducted by World Net Daily....:lfao:

We're......all,.,,,,,so......screwed.

Some more than others, though.......

 

[ballen0351]

Here's my question. Of you guys who wouldn't vote for Obama, would your answer be any different in any other election year with any other range of candidates?

I think your asking would I vote for a different dem. if it were not Pres. Obama running. I cant say never but I have not found a Dem yet that had the same beliefs as me. The democratic platform as I read it is just not how I see the country should be run. On paper it all sounds good. Who wouldnt want free health care, more money for the poor, helling the little guy. On paper it sounds great. In reality in my opinion it can never happen. there just isnt enough money to do it all.

This is largely a rhetorical question, because frankly, I believe that most of you would vote for a Republican toaster over any Democratic candidate regardless of who he or she might be. Which also leads me to believe that this is a pointless thread. It presupposes that Obama is an unpopular president, which I'm not confident is the case. Over the last three years, Osama Bin Laden has been killed, Muammar Ghaddafi has been killed, we have pulled out of Iraq, and it looks like the economy is showing signs of life. The bailout of the auto industries have turned out to be a good investment, while the bailouts of the banks by the previous administration were not.

As stated before I wouldnt vote for Obama but I also wont vote republican either if someone like Romney gets the selection. So I would not and do not just go in and hit the button with the R on it. I didnt in 2008 either I voted 3rd party. McCain was just not for me. Hes a great man Ive met him a few times but I wouldnt vote for him.

He's done a lot of things I'm not happy about, particularly the capitulation to the GOP over healthcare in which he failed to insist on a public option, and his wishy washiness when handling the tea party as they held our country hostage and brought us to the brink of default.

I dont understand where people on the left think we supposed to keep getting money from. The debit ceeling should not be raised we should not be borrowing more and more money from China and other countries. We need to CUT spending. Id even agree to a tax increase if they could show they were also going to cut spending. And yes before anyone say it Im ok with military cuts as well. Id like across the board cuts including social programs. But the Govt thinks if I want 100 Billion more then last year but I only get 80 billion more then last year I just cut 20 billion and that just not the way it works. So until they figure out how to stop spending Im against tax hikes because they will just spend it. And that goes for both the R and the D party. I was against the Bank bail outs and the Auto bail outs. Companies come and go and if you cant keep up with the times you dont deserve to stay. If GM went backrupt you can bet your sweet butt some other company would jump in and try to claim its market share. But now they wont get the chance because the Govt picks winners and loosers and thats just not their job.

But, let's step back here, guys. Let's be at least a little objective. Bush Jr. wasn't the devil. Neither is Obama. And let's also face reality, in that the GOP candidates are a lackluster group, at best. That you're even joking about voting for a toaster says more about your array of potential GOP hopefuls than about Obama. Compared to this group, you might be right. A toaster might be your best candidate.

Just sayin'.

I disagree somewhat with that statement. I think There are some good ideas in the republican candiates. But people only want to focus on the silly stuff and not the issues. I could care less who cheated with who 15 years ago. Thats got nothing to do with financial policys today. I could careless what religion someone is it has nothig to do with energy policy. Id like to see the neg adds and campaigns stop and they just put out a solid message on what you believe and give specifics not lofty BS answers that dont really say anything.


Id love to have a serious conversation someday with a liberal about what they really believe but political discussions for some reason cannot stay civil. There is so much I just dont understand about why they see the world the way they do.


I do find it pretty interesting that it seems the US is pretty evenly split 45% left 45% right and 10% that flip flop back and forth. I dont understand how that happened or why but its kinda funny.

 

[elder999]

II do find it pretty interesting that it seems the US is pretty evenly split 45% left 45% right and 10% that flip flop back and forth. I dont understand how that happened or why but its kinda funny.

You are asleep!

As of 2010, The Walt Disney Company is the largest media conglomerate in the US, with News Corporation, Time Warner and Viacom ranking second, third and fourth respectively.[SUP][7][/SUP]

It's the way they want it: a perfectly divided plebiscite that collectively blames all the country's ills on the other half-while they're free to continue their agenda of corporate domination unfettered: they tell you what to do, what to eat, what to listen to and what to think.

You are asleep.

(For the record, there used to be something called "Rockefeller Republicans" in this country-I suppose I am one, but I am a dinosaur.....or, at least, a ceolocanth :lfao: )

 

[ballen0351]

Too many other ways to get news now if people want to find it with the internet. I do see what your saying tho most people don't take the time to look they just turn on tv to the local news and that's all. I also may very well be asleep its 330 in morning and im finally leaving work. Should have been off 5 and half hours ago now for my hour and half drive home

 

[elder999]

Too many other ways to get news now if people want to find it with the internet. I do see what your saying tho most people don't take the time to look they just turn on tv to the local news and that's all. I also may very well be asleep its 330 in morning and im finally leaving work. Should have been off 5 and half hours ago now for my hour and half drive home

Be careful!

(Oh, and I didn't mean "you," specifically-I could have easily said, "We are asleep." It's not called the "American Dream" for nothing, after all....:lol: )

 

[Sukerkin]

Ack, rep stack is full! I just wanted to say that I loved Ballen's post#24 above. Well said, good sir.

Ballen is inclined to the American Republican's and I am an English Liberal. So, from my perspective, that means that he is the Far Right and I am in the Middle. Yet, I could've written that post, replacing the political party name with Conservative and/or Labour and/or Liberal. There are certain realities that have to be addressed no matter what the political 'colour' of those nominally in charge. What we need are more practical people in government and fewer ideologues so that we can make the darned system work rather than heading ever faster to hell in a handcart.

Sadly, as Elder has also said before, I think it is too late. The best we can do is try to soften the 'crash' of the West as it founders on economic rocks and trust to luck that the rising East is in a magnanimous mood as it's power grows.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am not entirely certain that the GOP is planning to run for this election. That is, the GOP apparatchiks appear to be less than pleased with Romney, which is understandable given that he's a moderate in an age where the GOP is in no mood to appeal to the center. I read an article the other day (don't recall where) when it was discussed that the GOP doesn't really care for any of the candidates; they wanted Jeb Bush or Bobby Jindal. They don't like Newt because they know him. They don't like Romney because they don't. And so, they may choose to play the game of trying harder to consolidate power in the House and gain seats in the Senate and to hell with the Presidency. Let Obama blow everything out in the next four years, then bring in a fresh face who can play the same game Obama did - blame everything on his predecessor.

However, they can't just flat give up; they have to at least appear to try. So they'll put some money behind Romney when he becomes the nominee (and forget Santorum; his recent wins, do you know how many delegates he got? That's right, zero), but they aren't going to try to energize the base. And let's face it, the base doesn't like Romney.

Until Trump gave his endorsement to Romney, I thought he was going to do a third-party run himself; looks now like he won't. But there will be some third-party candidates, and I would not be surprised to find a lot of rank-and-file GOP voting for them, if just to register their disgust.

Most of the county now describes themselves as independents, not affiliated with either party, as I do myself. The GOP keeps acting like they don't get that, which the dinosaurs at the top probably don't. This is worse that that whole 'Moral Majority' thing in the 1980's that fractured the GOP and finally drove the Goldwater-era GOP members out of power and replaced them with ultra-right evangelical Christian idiots. The GOP doesn't get the fact that most of the country doesn't like them at all, not even a little bit; that includes conservatives who now have no home because they were unceremoniously turfed for not being conservative enough.

However, there is something else afoot in this election, and it's eye-opening to me. I may finally have to reevaluate my stance on campaign finance. I always saw it as a freedom of speech issue; you can't restrict people's ability to donate to campaigns, that's 'speech'.

Now, however, it is becoming clear that the so-called "Super PACS" are the big guns in the election, on both sides, Democrat and Republican. And the Super PACS are largely the work of a couple billionaires. Truly, we have maybe 10 to 20 billionaires on both sides of the political aisle who may decide the election by purchasing all the air time, funding all the commercials. That's a first for me. It may have been going on a long time, but maybe I just didn't want to see it. It's so blatant now, so obvious. I don't know if I can defend it on Freedom of Speech grounds anymore.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

Obama was against the Super PACS, although several existed which claimed to support him. Now as of yesterday, he has turned around and endorsed them and asked his supporters to donate to them. The claim is that he still hates them, but doesn't want to handicap himself in a race where others are using them with wild abandon.

I don't know where this will all lead. My gut tells me at the moment that Obama will win. God help us if he does, and God help us if Romney wins. They're both idiots who won't help this nation one bit. I'm not sure what else to say. I certainly won't vote for either of them.

 

[ballen0351]

I agree with you on campaign finance. I felt the same way that it was a 1st amendment issue but now im not so sure. There is no reason a campaign should be spending 15 million in one state for a primary. That's just obscene. And now they say there will be billions spent on this campaign between both parties I just can't understand that. That is the exact reason we will never have a 3rdnice party again you can't compete with the big 2 and its sad. Problem for me is I don't see a solution because I still also feel if its your money you should be allowed to donate to who or whatever you want so im torn here.

I also never thought about the first part of you post about the republicans just packing it in here for president but it also has some valid points to me. There are alot better people in the party that were asked to run and didn't so you may have a point. I know there was talk in 08 that if they let Pres Obama win for 8 years it would give the republicans 16 to 20 years straight of presidential wins and bring on the new Reagan. Politics are a funny game until you remember your playing with peoples live and the future of our kids and grandkids then its not so funny

 

[ballen0351]

Oh and elder I know you were not saying I personally was asleep but at the time it fit perfectly. I wished I was.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree with you on campaign finance. I felt the same way that it was a 1st amendment issue but now im not so sure. There is no reason a campaign should be spending 15 million in one state for a primary. That's just obscene. And now they say there will be billions spent on this campaign between both parties I just can't understand that. That is the exact reason we will never have a 3rdnice party again you can't compete with the big 2 and its sad. Problem for me is I don't see a solution because I still also feel if its your money you should be allowed to donate to who or whatever you want so im torn here.

I'm torn too, buddy. I can't say; my 'freedom of speech' gene is highly-tuned, as you know. But here we are talking about Super PACs that are actually funded by not many but a few billionaires on both sides. It is hard for me to say that billionaires don't deserve freedom of speech as much as anyone else, but the end result is that they have a much larger megaphone than anyone else. In an ideal world, people would look past the ads and do the research and make their own minds up; but of course we all know that isn't the case. I'm turning into a hand-wringer here. What to do, what to do...

I also never thought about the first part of you post about the republicans just packing it in here for president but it also has some valid points to me. There are alot better people in the party that were asked to run and didn't so you may have a point. I know there was talk in 08 that if they let Pres Obama win for 8 years it would give the republicans 16 to 20 years straight of presidential wins and bring on the new Reagan. Politics are a funny game until you remember your playing with peoples live and the future of our kids and grandkids then its not so funny

I had read arguments like that about the last election too, and many pundits chimed in and said that no, neither the GOP nor the DNC would ever throw an election to set themselves up for the next one; they're not that much into the long-term game like the Chinese; we don't do long-term strategy, things change too fast. And perhaps they are right. But I just get the feeling that the GOP's heart isn't into this game this time around. At least, not yet. It's clear they are not delighted with Romney; I wonder if they can warm up to him after he wraps up the nomination.

Bear in mind of course that I would in no way support the people the GOP would consider ideal. Definitely not Jeb Bush, whom apparently they see as the Second Coming and much closer to the first Bush than our last President Bush was.

I'm having a lot of my core beliefs challenged this time around. Maybe that's a good thing; as I get older, I don't want to get so set in my ways that I can never change my mind.

BTW, that's one thing I do not hold against Romney. They say he is a flip-flopper. Apparently, he is. I wonder if that's so bad for a person to actually change their mind when they gain experience, see that they made a mistake, and change their opinion?

 

[WC_lun]

The rich have always had a bigger megaphone than everyone else. Now, with the Super PACS and our modern day mass media, lazy or stupid people will now have thier votes bought by who can make the glitzier ad. I guess for some that is capitalism working as intended.


I think changing your mind is fine, given that you have a change of heart on an issue. What people are having issue with is changing your mind JUST to get elected means either you have no heart or you are lying through your teeth. I'm not so sure that both of those conditions aren't neccesary to get elected in national politics these days though.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The rich have always had a bigger megaphone than everyone else. Now, with the Super PACS and our modern day mass media, lazy or stupid people will now have thier votes bought by who can make the glitzier ad. I guess for some that is capitalism working as intended.


I think changing your mind is fine, given that you have a change of heart on an issue. What people are having issue with is changing your mind JUST to get elected means either you have no heart or you are lying through your teeth. I'm not so sure that both of those conditions aren't neccesary to get elected in national politics these days though.

Yes, good points.

There have always been several downsides and weak points to democracy.

The first is that as has been pointed out, when the masses realize they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers, that democracy is doomed.

The second is that the masses are asses. They're individually smart, kind, and decent in general. However, in collective, they are dumb as stumps, bigoted, and greedy in a short-sighted way. Not one person is interested in short-term pain for long-term gain, so no one wants their taxes to go up or their benefits to go down; they're all happy to see it happen to someone else.

The third is that in a democracy, the government you get is the government you deserve; good and hard.

I believe that our founders in the USA were geniuses and pretty selfless at that; a rare combination at a time when such men were in style; it was a time of enlightenment that is sadly long gone. They constructed a framework in our Constitution and later the Bill of Rights that helped protect us against our own worst impulses; it protected freedom from the free, in a sense.

However, I do believe that all democracies must die, all empires fall, and when they do, they are generally replaced by repressive regimes. Often at the demand of the electorate, who have less interest in freedom as a concept than good jobs, secure futures, porn and beer. Freedom is an abstact notion to most, and they're certainly not willing to put it as their first priority; it's just a buzzword they use to object to things they don't like.

I can only hope that our democracy (actually a representative republic) will last as long as my lifetime. After I am gone, I hope our dictators are somewhat benevolent.

 

[billc]

I have no problem with super pacs. People in a free country who have money can spend that money on what they want, as long as it isn't illegal. If they can buy a lot of ads and blanket the market, so can the other sides super pacs, it evens out. The only thing that is really needed is disclosure of where the money is coming from, that way if you don't like the source, you can vote against who they support. It might even make it possible for newbies to actually get somewhere in the political process. The limiting factor in politics is money. The super rich can fund their own initial campaigns, Joe six pack can't. If someone who is wealthy likes what joe six pack represents, or joe six pack can get the backing of a rich person, he can actually make a go of it. Look at Newt this cycle. He recieved 5 million dollars from the rich guy in veagas, and was able to continue his camaign. I am not a fan of Newt, and he didn't spend the money wisely, but he was able to carry on the fight when he might not have been able to before. The same is happening with Santorum. Super pacs can help the little guy and as long as we know who they are, we can judge on wether or not they are bought by the people in the pac. It does give regular people a chance.

As to obama...I don't see a lot of love for obama even from the people who don't like the republicans. My argument would be, vote him out, as a way to have term limits. The only real measure of a presidents success is a second term. If he can't get that it means people didn't like what he was doing. You may not like who replaces him, but it does send a message to the next guy. Third party votes that allow a bad politician keep his seat, defeat the concept of term limits. Vote out the current bad guy, then vote out his replacement and so on. In that way, no one gets to screw up the country for more than 4 years at a pop.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have no problem with super pacs. People in a free country who have money can spend that money on what they want, as long as it isn't illegal. If they can buy a lot of ads and blanket the market, so can the other sides super pacs, it evens out.

The problem is that there are more than two sides. It perpetuates a two-party system even when the majority of the nation are not members of either party. I do agree with your points, though. I am just starting re-examine my logic.

The only thing that is really needed is disclosure of where the money is coming from, that way if you don't like the source, you can vote against who they support. It might even make it possible for newbies to actually get somewhere in the political process. The limiting factor in politics is money. The super rich can fund their own initial campaigns, Joe six pack can't. If someone who is wealthy likes what joe six pack represents, or joe six pack can get the backing of a rich person, he can actually make a go of it. Look at Newt this cycle. He recieved 5 million dollars from the rich guy in veagas, and was able to continue his camaign. I am not a fan of Newt, and he didn't spend the money wisely, but he was able to carry on the fight when he might not have been able to before. The same is happening with Santorum. Super pacs can help the little guy and as long as we know who they are, we can judge on wether or not they are bought by the people in the pac. It does give regular people a chance.

So far, it hasn't given any third-party or independent candidates a chance. Just GOP and DNC.

As to obama...I don't see a lot of love for obama even from the people who don't like the republicans. My argument would be, vote him out, as a way to have term limits. The only real measure of a presidents success is a second term. If he can't get that it means people didn't like what he was doing. You may not like who replaces him, but it does send a message to the next guy. Third party votes that allow a bad politician keep his seat, defeat the concept of term limits. Vote out the current bad guy, then vote out his replacement and so on. In that way, no one gets to screw up the country for more than 4 years at a pop.

I don't know. That logic basically says that you can never vote for a third-party candidate, you can only vote for one of the two major parties over and over, from one bad president to the next bad president, hoping you might get a good one sometime.

I don't want to 'send a message' to anyone; I seriously doubt anyone is listening as long as they are winning, and if they are losing, they just blame you for voting for a third-party. I voted for Perot; my dad was very angry at me and kept saying "Thanks for voting for Clinton." Ah, bullshirt. If I'm not voting for the person I want to be President, what's the point?

But the effect of voting for Perot did end up to be a spoiler vote, that's true. And that's the problem. With two parties, you either have to vote for one of two bad choices, or you're throwing your vote away. There has to be another way.

 

[billc]

Well, so far one of the reason third party candidates can't get any traction is the money equation. Imagine a third party candidate with some wealth behind them, enough to allow them to actually compete against the two main parties. This is the first year of the super pac freedom to back candidates. Looking at Newt, imagine a real candidate who wasn't tied down by Newt's "newtness" and there is a real possibility for competition out there.

The ability to give as much money as you want to the candidate of your choice is something I really support and I think it will actually lead to more, not less, competition. The big two parties have always been able to starve out the third parties, who wants to give money to someone with no chance, so real money never flowed to them before. Ross Perot made a go because he was able to initially fund himself. Now, if you are really wealthy or know wealthy people and you like a guy who believes in what you believe, you can really help him out and give him a real chance to be heard.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, so far one of the reason third party candidates can't get any traction is the money equation. Imagine a third party candidate with some wealth behind them, enough to allow them to actually compete against the two main parties. This is the first year of the super pac freedom to back candidates. Looking at Newt, imagine a real candidate who wasn't tied down by Newt's "newtness" and there is a real possibility for competition out there.

The ability to give as much money as you want to the candidate of your choice is something I really support and I think it will actually lead to more, not less, competition. The big two parties have always been able to starve out the third parties, who wants to give money to someone with no chance, so real money never flowed to them before. Ross Perot made a go because he was able to initially fund himself. Now, if you are really wealthy or know wealthy people and you like a guy who believes in what you believe, you can really help him out and give him a real chance to be heard.

Not sure, but I think not really.

Imagine if Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros got together and decided to really do it up brown on one candidate. Pick anybody; Joe Schmuckatelli from E. Bumfark, Iowa. I believe if they did nothing else but pour a cool billion dollars into advertising, he'd be elected.

You say a third-party candidate could be just as viable; if only they could find a Super PAC donor to dump a half billion or so into their campaign. And it's true; but of course that third-party candidate is going to match the desires of the donor pretty closely; there are hundreds if not thousands of third-parties out there; but frankly I have no desire to see any but a few of them in any office higher than that of dog catcher.

And as long as we have Hunt Brothers and George Soros type wealth out there who seem fixated on party politics both GOP and DNC, nothing changes.

Super PACS seems to open the door to king-makers even more than we had in the past. Maybe I'm wrong, but as I said, I'm starting to re-examine my opinion on this.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/us/politics/campaign-finance-reports-show-super-pac-donors.html?hp

 

[CanuckMA]

. There is no reason a campaign should be spending 15 million in one state for a primary. That's just obscene. And now they say there will be billions spent on this campaign between both parties

And people up here are pissed when the entire Federal election costs about $300 million.

Methinks you guys are doing it wrong.

 

[Sukerkin]

I said much the same with regard to the limits on campaign expenses over here in the UK :nods:. Restrict the liars-largesse and find a way to effectively constrain lobbyists and we might have a chance yet of keeping the wheels on what should be a decent system. Allow the super-wealthy to get their way and what we will end up with is feudalism with I-Pads.