Dude I have no idea, I just realized that I have no idea what I'm talking about past general ideas. Damn that feels bad.
Gary Johnson if I could. Hes the only one who doesn't make silly promises, and then changes his mind when president.
obama is a lying scumbag. i dont really like mitt either, but he's better than obama. im not registered to vote yet though. not sure if i even will thats called politics
not really. dont feel like debating, it wont convince anyone. i just dont like obama. blames everything on everyone else and doesnt do anything to actually fix it. he failed this term, why should he get another one? most other people who can't do their job get fired.
YEAH Obamas winning in the vote (here at Forge Hub). Obama isn;t too good, but he isn't bad like Romney. Of course, I live in Illinois, soooooooo I gotta vote for Obama.
"Blames everything on everyone else" as opposed to what? Did you think the president has magical powers to fix things? The executive branch relies on the "legislative" branch to actually enact changes. When the democratic party had a majority in both the senate and the house they got health care passed and also enacted a stimulus plan (that Bush started) which saved the auto industry from going bankrupt as well as keeping us out of a depression. When the legislative branch won't agree with anything you propose to do nothing can really be done. As far as "failing this term" goes well I suppose that is heavily loaded to what you deem failure and success to be. Most of the Al-Qaeda top leadership is dead thanks to Obama's military policies, more Americans have health care coverage than ever before, large strides have been made toward total equality with president backing the LBGT movement. Immigration reform is close with the Dream Act and NASA while not sending up astronauts has a rover to mars so we haven't totally abandoned space. It is always easy to blame the president for the state of things but that isn't fair. The "war on terror" started by president Bush was not cheap, we broke two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) and had to pay to fix them. The housing mortgage scandal that caused the recession hit right as Obama took office through no fault of his. So I guess this comes down to, what were you expecting? What things in your mind could Obama have done to make it a "success". Apparently you don't feel like sharing why he actually "failed". The economy isn't stable right now (though currently the stock market is at a high), the unemployed rate is still very high (due to the recession and nothing the president can actually do will magically make companies hire more people without congress' help), education reform hasn't really been touched but 4 years is not a whole lot of time in politics when you need to fix so many things and that is made even harder when you first have to put out fires that the guy before you started.
Yes, the president does have magical powers. He can do this thing called Mahjahalcoloquei which fixes the economy within four months, but did he do it? NO. In all seriousness, the health care act could be viewed as a good thing and a bad thing depending upon who you ask. Thanks to Obama's military policies my ass. What he did was listen to his military advisers and the high-ups in the military. That is like saying that Obama killed Osama, (which I have heard) which is just ridiculous. He signed a paper authorizing it. He failed to respond to the recent attacks on the US Ambassador to Libya. My ass that was a protest. Who protests a movie by attacking an embassy with small to medium arms over a movie made by some guy in the US. LBGT movement, sure whatever, personally I don't really care either way. Dream Act and immigration reform, pretty negative in my opinion. We should probably focus on the people that we already have in our country before we start helping illegals and children of illegals. The "war on terror" was really just a colossal screw up. Both conflicts lasted far too long, and nobody really had a solution to what turned out to be a conventional military fighting a non-conventional guerilla war that is supported by the majority of the civilians. I agree, Obama didn't cause the recessions, but he also didn't fix them, or keep them the same. He made them worse. Part of the job of the President is to get Congress to work together, you know, bi-partisanship, like he said he would during his campaign. Nobody has really touched education reform for a while, in a positive way. Well I would argue that Bush didn't start those fires, they must've originated way back before him and everybody else just failed to put them out. So do tell, what fires did Bush start then? Oh by the way, why are we now getting involved with Syria when we were promised that we would be out of Afghanistan and Iraq by now?
this is what im talking about when i say obama failed. yeah, the republicans are pretty idiotic when it comes to social issues, but i think the economy is more important at the moment.
Correct, bad if you ask CEO's of insurance companies who not have to pay out to many more people. Good for pretty much everyone else. Again you're displaying a remarkable lack of knowledge about this. Obama's "military advisors" advised him to not go into Pakistan. They opted for increased use of spy drones. Obama is the one who made the decision to send in troopers. There are now multiple documentaries detailing this and how it is Obama's decision that led to Bin Laden's compound being found and Bin Laden's eventual death. Of course he didn't literally pull the trigger, no one said he did and anyone who does is either making a joke or is a moron. ...he failed to respond? A youtube movie released by a Coptic Christian making fun of the Muslim prophet Muhammed is not something you "respond" too, nor should he. Islamic extremists and terrorist groups who will use anything piece of propaganda they can will attack whomever they want with whatever proof of America's "wrongdoing" they can find. The Egyptian Embassy and the Libyan Embassy both released statements saying they had no part in the video and do not condone of it. The United States goverment cannot be responsible for every single piece of filth that gets put on youtube. If you mean the president should have done something after the fact when the protests happened, again what? Go to war with extremists? That sure is working out in Iraq and Afghanistan where troops die everyday because even the citizens in those countries don't want us there. "Pretty negative"...that's pretty bigoted thing to say man. If you are an immigrant here who has a chance of obtaining legal status you should be able to. "We should focus on the people that we already have in our country", that's a pretty vague statement. Which people? All people? The poor? What should be done about the people here? What should be done that isn't already being discussed or debated on in congress currently? Again, how do you define "fix"? The stock market is trading at an all time high. Also politics is usually pretty removed from the economic state of things. Sure taxes, tariffs, trade politcies, etc influence economics but at a basic level the economy is people buying things and companies selling things. That process has little to do with what the government does. There is no simple fix for a problem that has been long in the making. Expecting such means you know little about what government can do or how the economy works. During The Great Depression FDR needed people to stop panicking (suicide rate was the highest during this time) and trust that the government was doing its best to fix what business had done (they were allowing people to buy on margin which ruined the stock market). FDR and his congress, which he brow-beated into agreeing with him because he would go on the radio every day to tell people his plans were good which meant congress had to agree with him or else they wouldn't be re-elected, enacted numerous government plans (known as the New Deal) which spurred job growth by having people fix roads, clean up parks, build new buildings, etc. FDR's New Deal also happened to make the Depression worse (because spending money during a Depression doesn't fix a Depression). The point was he was doing something and in the act of doing something people stopped panicking to the extend they were and several positive things were created out of the New Deal that are still in effect today. World War II was needed to actually pull us out of the Depression. I find many parallels in this scenario to the recession during Obama. Fair point, but "working together" is a two way street. They have to want to work together with him. In every public address Obama has done he has stated that bi-partisan support is a must and that he has tried to unite them and compromise with them on every occasion. What little was passed had heavy compromise in it. At a certain point even compromise isn't enough with certain Republicans who will vote "no" regardless of its merit or who it ****s in their own constituency. ...seriously? War in Iraq, war in Afghanistan. The aforementioned, "No Child Left Behind Act" which caused all sorts of problems with education, the most noticeable being the college drop out rate in the USA. The Bush Tax cuts, which now no democrat will touch due to it being political suicide to remove them, didn't help the deficit. He appealed regulations during Clinton's presidency which made it harder for businesses to outsource jobs overseas. If I was more in the know for this kind of stuff I would have a longer list of specifics but I don't. These things can all be researched and better explained. No one promised we be out of anywhere by now. There have been gradual troop reductions over time as we have tried to train local troops in each country to fend for themselves. As far as "getting involved with Syria"...we really aren't. We probably should because there is all sorts of problems there with their population getting killed all over the country. I mean, I would rather us not get involved in another country's problems but as I said, in the case of Syria we aren't.
Things could be better, obviously, but I really like what Obama's done. It's so unbelievably silly to be like "OMGAWD OBAMA DIDNT DO ANYTHINGGGGG"... yeah, you're not paying attention to what he's done unless its some magical sudden change. The economy is doing quite well considering, we're getting out of where Bush left us. Obama is a big proponent of alternative energy and science, while Romney is like "lets just mine coal, that'll do it!". Romney's been flip-flopping to get votes and money, and I don't want a president who does that. Let alone all of the wrongness in his campaign. No, we don't have "a few hundred years of coal in the US", and coal is sold on a GLOBAL MARKET. What he did was *manage* a giant company. He didn't make those moves happen, he won't even release his taxes because he barely pays any. So, I would much rather have Obama. He could be better, but for now, I think he's the best serious option.
Mitt Romney. Well If I was old enough 2 vote then I would. My parents are anyways. My dad has a job (he got around half a year ago) in the oil industry and brought us out of a pretty tough spot. Obama prefers offshore drilling and influences stupid ass "clean energy" bullshit that wouldnt really have much of an impact on the environment anyways and could possibly put my family at risk of my dad losing his job. I have nothing against Obama, in fact I think he's a great person.. But I just dont think he lives up to his words. IK he hasnt really had much time to do much of anything to help our country, but the things he's done has only made our debt worse. Romney's a business man, And a succesful one at that. As long as he treats our country as a successful and equal business, and decrease our debt drastically, I think he's the right person for the job.
Watched the debate in an auditorium. All I got out of it is that Romney wants to **** Big Bird (both physically and fiscally)
Honestly I can't think of who to vote for. A lot of stuff in those multi-thousand page bills that have been passed gives the President much more power than ever before as soon as they kick in. For instance the health care bill in 2014, which allows the president to assign one person to ultimately be in charge of the healthcare system, except the President has complete veto power, and the person can't do anything without the President's approval, so yeah, whoever wins is in complete control of health care. So really I don't trust anyone to have as much power as they will have. Also, I wouldn't trust Obama regardless. After hearing about so many "alternative energy companies" started by rich people getting bailout money so they don't fail, still failing, and the rich people somehow "finding" thousands to donate to Obama's campaign, I really want a revamp in the way campaign funds are dealt with. And stricter applications on getting that bailout money, my Dad and I did some math, WE could start something that would be considered legitimate enough to get a little something thrown my way, and so long as we say we tried we'd get off with the money scott free. It's disgusting.
...what? None of that is in the health care act. ...I think you got banks mixed up with energy companies. Energy companies got government grants as part of Obama's focus on alternative energy; wind, solar, etc. Some of them failed in part because they weren't adequately researched into ahead of time and others weren't given enough to do the job they wanted to do. The large banks are where the "too big to fail" expression comes from. Actually, other than the Tech industry (companies like Microsoft, and Google), the wealthiest companies (many of which on the Forbes top 40 list) have donated largely to the Romney campaign. The whole, Obama wanting to tax the top 2% more and Romney wanting to lower their taxes even further then they currently are tends to do that. As far as the campaign finance reform, indeed I think everyone wants that. ...I don't understand any of that. The stimulus happened, unless another emergency happens there will be no more "bailing" out, at least not any planned ones. Also the purpose behind them was to keep companies that employed hundreds upon hundreds of workers and companies deemed to important to let go bankrupt from going under thus preventing a far worse problem. While it is easy to point out where mistakes have been made in complex spending such as that, as it is easy to point out mistakes in literally everything, it is still doesn't change the positive things it did. I don't say these things because I'm blind to the problems that are rampant in current politics or policies that meant well and didn't end up that way, I say these things because to misrepresent what little fact there is in these things causes a larger problem with people forming beliefs around falsehoods which leads to more misinformation being spread and more problems get formed.
...I don't know what that means. I'm a realist. I take in facts of what has happened as well as what has happened in the past to make determinations about what is likely to happen in the future. Since Romney has not been president before all I have to go off of for him is what he says and what he has done in the past. However I do have a metric of what Obama has done and while understanding what the president can actually get done versus what people think the president can do, (believe or not people, congress is where actual law gets passed and if congress can't agree on anything, nothing gets done regardless of how bad or great the president is) I just think keeping the course is the best option. Especially when the alternative is a man who has publicly stated his support for policies that put America in the position it currently is (Bush tax cuts and wars seriously added to the deficit. Very little government regulation on business caused the banks to issue sub-prime mortgages to people who couldn't afford to pay. Companies like Lehman Brothers, AIG, and other investment companies were pulling all sorts of fraud scandals. "Trickle down economics" where taxing the "job creators" less would somehow lead to the employees getting paid more or allowing the "job creators" to hire more people, which never happened at any serious level. Increased war spending in a time when not only is the military budget eating up the largest portion of our GDP it also forms the brunt of our deficit and we just don't need to keep spending more money in areas of the world that don't like us enough as it is.).