FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama and Mitt





codemaster
Okay, recently President Obama slipped up by not pounding the hell out of Mitt on his tax returns and the 47 percent. Basic stuff like that he should've been hitting Mitt with. Instead Obama was staying on topic Mitt wanted to talk about. I was very dissapointed but I think Obama will still beat Mitt.
darthrevan
Not to try and be offtopic, but it is related. I was listen to talk radio show and they said something similar about Ryan and Biden. Though it is oposite, it was said that Ryan was hitting single shots instead of double shots when the chance was available.

I am not voting for Obama, I have seen the terrible times we are having under Obama, so to kinda borrow the quote "are you better off now..." I say no we are not and i am voting for a change that Obama has promissed. I guess we did have a change but not a good one.

I personally wish we had a better canidate than Romney to vote for, but we dont unless you write him or her in.
deanhills
Going to be really awful if Romney gets in on the basis of protest votes, rather than merit. Would be great if there were a category: "none of the above". And a constitution that says if "none of the above" category has a majority, new nominees have to be put forward.
darthrevan
deanhills wrote:
Going to be really awful if Romney gets in on the basis of protest votes, rather than merit. Would be great if there were a category: "none of the above". And a constitution that says if "none of the above" category has a majority, new nominees have to be put forward.


I would defiantly vote none of the above then. So yeah that should be part of the constitution then, though we may have to do that many times in some cases. i think with either you don't win, but i see it as if Obama gets it the we are seriously going to lose our country.
Afaceinthematrix
Just vote for a third party. It essentially is a "none of the above" because they don't have a chance of winning. People love complaining about the Democrats and Republicans yet never give any thought to another party. I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson - the Libertarian - and next election I'll probably vote for the Green Party. I'll vote for third parties for probably every election until I die.
truespeed
I like Obama,I hope he wins.
darthrevan
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Just vote for a third party. It essentially is a "none of the above" because they don't have a chance of winning. People love complaining about the Democrats and Republicans yet never give any thought to another party. I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson - the Libertarian - and next election I'll probably vote for the Green Party. I'll vote for third parties for probably every election until I die.


Hmm, voting for a Libertarian sounds like a person for me. I liked Ron Paul and wish he had a great chance at winning Very Happy

truespeed wrote:
I like Obama,I hope he wins.

Why do you like Obama, like any particular reason?
truespeed
darthrevan wrote:

Why do you like Obama, like any particular reason?


Being from the UK I don't get to see or hear all the local negativity about him,I see him more from an outsiders/world perspective,and from that point of view I would say he is doing a good job,he doesn't give me the jitters,being US president it is important to have someone in charge who isn't trigger happy,you want a safe pair of hands,to me,he is that.
deanhills
I'm also an outsider. I don't think Obama is a bad President, but neither is he a good one and tough times like the current ones call for a better candidate for President. From the very beginning Obama has comes across as a people pleaser. I'd imagine his decisions are usually based on the decision that creates the least damage and wins the most points with his audience. He probably has an enormous marketing team and consultants whom he consults with when he has to make a decision for that very reason. That's probably why it takes him ages to make decisions. I don't think someone who takes as much time to make decisions could ever really be a great President.
darthrevan
truespeed wrote:
darthrevan wrote:

Why do you like Obama, like any particular reason?


Being from the UK I don't get to see or hear all the local negativity about him,I see him more from an outsiders/world perspective,and from that point of view I would say he is doing a good job,he doesn't give me the jitters,being US president it is important to have someone in charge who isn't trigger happy,you want a safe pair of hands,to me,he is that.


We need somebody that would know how to run this economy. We are also having issues with terrorists as we,maybe not so Mich on our soil but they have killed an ambassador and that isn't acceptable either. With you living in the UK i doubt you have to worry about which president we have.
truespeed
darthrevan wrote:

We need somebody that would know how to run this economy. We are also having issues with terrorists as we,maybe not so Mich on our soil but they have killed an ambassador and that isn't acceptable either.


There was little Obama could of done about an American official getting killed on foreign soil.

darthrevan wrote:




With you living in the UK i doubt you have to worry about which president we have.


The whole world has to worry about what president America has,Bush Jnr dragged us into a war in Iraq,and look at the mess that has caused,increasing the terrorist threat in this country,Obama for what ever faults people claim he has,has made the world a safer place.
Afaceinthematrix
darthrevan wrote:
Hmm, voting for a Libertarian sounds like a person for me. I liked Ron Paul and wish he had a great chance at winning :D


I would hardly call Ron Paul a true Libertarian. I certainly am not a true Libertarian myself. I call myself "issue oriented" because I decide my stance on issue despite what any party's stance on it is and I agree with certain parties about certain issues. Also, I don't like Ron Paul at all. Gary Johnson has the Libertarian nomination and he is much better.
darthrevan
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
darthrevan wrote:
Hmm, voting for a Libertarian sounds like a person for me. I liked Ron Paul and wish he had a great chance at winning Very Happy


I would hardly call Ron Paul a true Libertarian. I certainly am not a true Libertarian myself. I call myself "issue oriented" because I decide my stance on issue despite what any party's stance on it is and I agree with certain parties about certain issues. Also, I don't like Ron Paul at all. Gary Johnson has the Libertarian nomination and he is much better.


One of the things i agreed with Ron Paul was the fact he believed in pretty much mind our own business and not try to run other countries like the rest of the presidents have done. I personally say we should stay outvof other countries because how can we run others when we want even take care of our own problems.

One of my friends has his fb status as vote for Gary Johnson as well. So you knowbof another that will be voting for him.
ocalhoun
darthrevan wrote:

I personally wish we had a better canidate than Romney to vote for, but we dont unless you write him or her in.

Then write them in!

Don't fall for the 'you have to choose one or the other' scam they have going on.

...And while Romney may indeed be different, I'm pretty sure he's not better!
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
The whole world has to worry about what president America has,Bush Jnr dragged us into a war in Iraq,and look at the mess that has caused,increasing the terrorist threat in this country,Obama for what ever faults people claim he has,has made the world a safer place.
Bush didn't do that alone however. As far as I know, he was very ably supported by Blair and some of the other European country leaders. I can't imagine that one single individual could have that amount of power on his own to "drag" people into a war. He could have been stopped, but wasn't.
darthrevan
ocalhoun wrote:

Then write them in!

Don't fall for the 'you have to choose one or the other' scam they have going on.

...And while Romney may indeed be different, I'm pretty sure he's not better!


I may just vote for Gary Johnson. Least he is different from both. He seems to ne a good choice. I was for Ron Paul and somebody said he isn't a true libertarian so i guess Gary is the next choice for me.
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
The whole world has to worry about what president America has,Bush Jnr dragged us into a war in Iraq,and look at the mess that has caused,increasing the terrorist threat in this country,Obama for what ever faults people claim he has,has made the world a safer place.
Bush didn't do that alone however. As far as I know, he was very ably supported by Blair and some of the other European country leaders. I can't imagine that one single individual could have that amount of power on his own to "drag" people into a war. He could have been stopped, but wasn't.


America lead the way,we just followed,it wouldn't of happened the other way around,I am not saying Blair didn't have a bloodlust,he was the kind of Prime minister who wanted to make his mark on history,but without American persuasion the war wouldn't of happened,America post 911 was itching for payback,Saddam was just the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
The whole world has to worry about what president America has,Bush Jnr dragged us into a war in Iraq,and look at the mess that has caused,increasing the terrorist threat in this country,Obama for what ever faults people claim he has,has made the world a safer place.
Bush didn't do that alone however. As far as I know, he was very ably supported by Blair and some of the other European country leaders. I can't imagine that one single individual could have that amount of power on his own to "drag" people into a war. He could have been stopped, but wasn't.


America lead the way,we just followed,it wouldn't of happened the other way around,I am not saying Blair didn't have a bloodlust,he was the kind of Prime minister who wanted to make his mark on history,but without American persuasion the war wouldn't of happened,America post 911 was itching for payback,Saddam was just the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.
America didn't go into it alone. Saying it's the US's fault alone is not taking responsibility for their participation in the war. I'm dead certain that when the US persuaded others to join in that there were plenty of incentives in the negotiations that were attractive enough to the participants to make their decision to join in the war. In other words participation in the war was highly negotiable. As is almost anything where politicians are involved.
dressup12
Romney will win because he is leading in many polls, and undecided tend to break to the new guy in American politics.

Obama will lose because in a couple key swing states, suburban white women will say, "no, I am not falling for this slick nonsense again"
codemaster
Now for those of you who tihnk it's under obama's administration that bad things happened... well you are wrong for even thinking of that. Mr.Clinton was the last president and he is truly the reason our country is falling. That Estúpido gilipollas Bill Clinton hizo estas épocas harse y no da una mierda que todo se puso a Obama mató a Bin Ladden.
deanhills
I don't buy the "Blame the President" type arguments. I'd rather blame the political system. How much leeway do Presidents really have to make drastic changes of the kind necessary to change things fundamentally from the roots up?
darthrevan
deanhills wrote:
I don't buy the "Blame the President" type arguments. I'd rather blame the political system. How much leeway do Presidents really have to make drastic changes of the kind necessary to change things fundamentally from the roots up?


Well he has the option to veto a bill/law if he thinks it is bad. Also Obama tends to use executive power if congress doesn't give him what he wants. I think the executive power to write bills himself should be done away with. He tends to submit the bill through congress during the holidays so that they don't see it in enough time frame to stop it.
deanhills
darthrevan wrote:
He tends to submit the bill through congress during the holidays so that they don't see it in enough time frame to stop it.
Good point. I remember him doing that with the first bill he had to see through for bailing the banks out. It was during the holidays I think and he gave every one less than a day to work their way through those pages.
darthrevan
deanhills wrote:
darthrevan wrote:
He tends to submit the bill through congress during the holidays so that they don't see it in enough time frame to stop it.
Good point. I remember him doing that with the first bill he had to see through for bailing the banks out. It was during the holidays I think and he gave every one less than a day to work their way through those pages.


Him doin that reminds me of a baby throwing a tantrum and figuring out how to get his way, and that is by going through the back door.
ocalhoun
Yep, make sure the super rich get what they (think they) deserve!
Vote Robomany 2012!

Choosing which of those people you want for president is like choosing which line you're waiting in at the DMV. Both suck, and give you the same thing when you finally get to the end.
Mr_Howl
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
The whole world has to worry about what president America has,Bush Jnr dragged us into a war in Iraq,and look at the mess that has caused,increasing the terrorist threat in this country,Obama for what ever faults people claim he has,has made the world a safer place.
Bush didn't do that alone however. As far as I know, he was very ably supported by Blair and some of the other European country leaders. I can't imagine that one single individual could have that amount of power on his own to "drag" people into a war. He could have been stopped, but wasn't.


America lead the way,we just followed,it wouldn't of happened the other way around,I am not saying Blair didn't have a bloodlust,he was the kind of Prime minister who wanted to make his mark on history,but without American persuasion the war wouldn't of happened,America post 911 was itching for payback,Saddam was just the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.
America didn't go into it alone. Saying it's the US's fault alone is not taking responsibility for their participation in the war. I'm dead certain that when the US persuaded others to join in that there were plenty of incentives in the negotiations that were attractive enough to the participants to make their decision to join in the war. In other words participation in the war was highly negotiable. As is almost anything where politicians are involved.


Or maybe it was just "stay on the US's good side." We (the US) do spend 10 times as much money on the military as anyone else.

Quote:
Him doin that reminds me of a baby throwing a tantrum and figuring out how to get his way, and that is by going through the back door.


That's how Washington works, unfortunately. Look at how many bills have "riders" attached to them.
ocalhoun
Mr_Howl wrote:

Or maybe it was just "stay on the US's good side." We (the US) do spend 10 times as much money on the military as anyone else.

And we have shown a disturbing tendency lately of invading anyone we don't like...
tingkagol
I'm not an American, and I couldn't care less about who wins in the US elections.

I'm not a fan of politicians serving 2 (or more) consecutive terms though. I'm saying that not as a jab at Obama (I actually like him better than Romney for some reason), but I find a political system that allows politicians to get re-elected questionable for a couple of reasons:
  1. I suspect re-electionists have the slight advantage of winning, as long as the country in question is "doing okay" - OR - if the voters aren't that much knowledgeable about what's been happening. It would be pretty hard for a new contender to sway voters who are "contented" of the incumbent / status quo to change their minds.
  2. I believe a constantly changing roster of politicians is healthy. This way every politician will try to do everything in his power to finish all his projects within his term (3-4 years is ideal). This will rid procrastination from the system, and will also hasten improvements since "the clock is ticking". Hopefully a politician's track record will be enough to have him elected in a future election.
  3. And most importantly, it gets rid of dictatorship.
deanhills
tingkagol wrote:
I'm not an American, and I couldn't care less about who wins in the US elections.

I'm not a fan of politicians serving 2 (or more) consecutive terms though. I'm saying that not as a jab at Obama (I actually like him better than Romney for some reason), but I find a political system that allows politicians to get re-elected questionable for a couple of reasons:
  1. I suspect re-electionists have the slight advantage of winning, as long as the country in question is "doing okay" - OR - if the voters aren't that much knowledgeable about what's been happening. It would be pretty hard for a new contender to sway voters who are "contented" of the incumbent / status quo to change their minds.
  2. I believe a constantly changing roster of politicians is healthy. This way every politician will try to do everything in his power to finish all his projects within his term (3-4 years is ideal). This will rid procrastination from the system, and will also hasten improvements since "the clock is ticking". Hopefully a politician's track record will be enough to have him elected in a future election.
  3. And most importantly, it gets rid of dictatorship.
Great post tingkagol. All of it would be right on if the election system in the US was truly democratic, but sadly in my opinion, the real decisions of who will be elected, or not, are made by the corporations. The whole election thing is really just role playing, If candidates don't have sufficient funding, they can't stand for election. Even nominations by candidates are riding on funding. Decisions by those who have been elected also are influenced by their campaign funding.
tingkagol
The world is run by advertising it seems. I don't think it's only in the US alone. I suppose every politician who has had the privilege of being on "the campaign trail" is benefiting from corporate funding.

It's much worse in third world countries. Information is definitely power. The average citizen may not have access to more sophisticated forms of information, like the internet, and are left with a few media outlets to get it: newspapers, some 3 or 4 TV channels, and a couple of radio stations - all of which are controlled by a few families. So in order to win, you must be any of the following:
  1. In league with the people who control the limited media outlets.
  2. Incredibly rich to fund your own campaign. (and your son's, and you daughter's, and your relative's (nepotism)).
  3. A familiar face / name. (actors, TV commentators, sports icons)

Never mind topping the bar exam.

What I find weird in US politics is given there's a healthy supply of funding from literally everywhere, you'd think Americans could afford to have more than 2 candidates duking it out in the finals. The only advantage to this is at least they'll only have to worry about 1 other party who will potentially cause dissent (instead of a dozen) once the winners assume office.
deanhills
tingkagol wrote:
What I find weird in US politics is given there's a healthy supply of funding from literally everywhere, you'd think Americans could afford to have more than 2 candidates duking it out in the finals. The only advantage to this is at least they'll only have to worry about 1 other party who will potentially cause dissent (instead of a dozen) once the winners assume office.
Agreed. I find it weird too. And sad at the same time. Does look as though US citizens are getting unhappy with it too.
nguyenvulong
the newest news said that Barrack Obama has won the competition, hasn't him ?

How you guys feel about it?

I always think Obama is a great guy anyway, what about Mitt Romney, I got no idea about him but every nation has to take a chance with the new immerse whatsoever .
Exclamation
c'tair
I think the right choice would be to pick the guy with the soundest economic views. After all, those will actually matter and will make a difference, I believe.

However, I have no clue as to how this correlates to the candidates, although I've read that Obama is more entrepreneur-friendly and wants to rework the visa process for people coming to the US to work.
fuzzkaizer
to continue this thread i selected some of the most questionable statements posted above and into the bargain suggest a reason for their selection. fortunately there were also some serious statements, but here my top 5 fails:
1 - Mr.Clinton was the last president and he is truly the reason our country is falling
(Was he?)
suburban white women will say, "no, I am not falling for this slick nonsense again"
(..hmpf..)
I think the right choice would be to pick the guy with the soundest economic views
(what's exactly a sound economic view?)
if Obama gets it the we are seriously going to lose our country
(sounds like a concerned owner of (a large) estate)
With you living in the UK i doubt you have to worry about which president we have.
(who can point out the position of the UK on the globe?)
ocalhoun
fuzzkaizer wrote:

(who can point out the position of the UK on the globe?)

I can.

I would like to think that most others could as well... but...
Related topics
Romney Break Down
Democrat Obama Fundraiser Under Investigation
2012: Barack Obama (D) vs Mitt Romney (R)
US democrats Obama vs Clinton?
Barrack HUSSEIN Obama
Is Barack Obama "The One"?
Should Hillary concede the nomination to Barack Obama?
¿Quién opinas ganará las elecciones presidenciales de USA?
Obama: rumors of anti-patriotism?
What can you say about Obama being the next president?
Obama
Will Obama become the next assasinated President of America
Obama - the truth part 1
Obama - the truth part 2
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.