2012 Presidential Campaign - Obama vs. Romney

[husker_99]

forcing people to buy a certain healthcare is bs. Nowhere in history has the Supreme Court ever said people have to buy certain stuff.

And the United States Constitution didn't exist until 1787. That doesn't mean that it's irrelevant, right?

 

No but the constitution doesn't force you to buy certain products either.

[knapplc]

When you vote for Obama that means you are ok with what he believes at the core which is going to be Democrat values.

 

No. It means he's the least bad of two bad options.

 

So let me get this straight. You vote for the lesser of two evils instead of voting for a 3rd party candidate that might be more in line with your values? Like i said you only have yourself to blame for the lack of 3rd parties in this country.

 

You haven't got it straight. To date there hasn't been a third party option who is more qualified to run this country. When that happens, you can bet your sweet bippy I'll vote for them.

 

Listen, it's cute you have this little agenda you're trying to push. But you're just spinning your wheels here. You can keep trying to paint it that Independents are in some way "bad," but it's just not going to stick.

 

But by all means, keep trying. It's amusing, if not accurate.

[carlfense]

No. It means he's the least bad of two bad options. Same as when I voted for Bush over Gore. In fact, I've voted Republican in four of the last six presidential elections.

Do you regret that vote? With the benefit of hindsight and maturity . . . I certainly do.

 

Things always look better with hindsight and after the fact.

No they don't. They generally look different . . . but not always better.

[carlfense]

No but the constitution doesn't force you to buy certain products either.

Who said that it did?

[knapplc]

No. It means he's the least bad of two bad options. Same as when I voted for Bush over Gore. In fact, I've voted Republican in four of the last six presidential elections.

Do you regret that vote? With the benefit of hindsight and maturity . . . I certainly do.

 

It's difficult to say, but no. I still do not think Algore would have been a better president than Bush. I also don't think Kerry would be better, even though I voted for him out of distaste for Bush (knowing as I voted that Bush had it wrapped up even without Nebraska, which voted overwhelmingly for Bush anyway).

 

Bush from 2001-2003ish was OK. I thought he handled 9/11 and its immediate aftermath reasonably well. It wasn't until he went batsh#t crazy and decided to invade Iraq that he lost me. Then the taxes, and the crony-ism.... it went downhill. But if I had to do it over again knowing what I know now, I would have voted for Bush again. Algore is just a complete tool.

[carlfense]

Bush from 2001-2003ish was OK. I thought he handled 9/11 and its immediate aftermath reasonably well. It wasn't until he went batsh#t crazy and decided to invade Iraq that he lost me. Then the taxes, and the crony-ism.... it went downhill.

No arguments there.

[husker_99]

When you vote for Obama that means you are ok with what he believes at the core which is going to be Democrat values.

 

No. It means he's the least bad of two bad options.

 

So let me get this straight. You vote for the lesser of two evils instead of voting for a 3rd party candidate that might be more in line with your values? Like i said you only have yourself to blame for the lack of 3rd parties in this country.

 

You haven't got it straight. To date there hasn't been a third party option who is more qualified to run this country. When that happens, you can bet your sweet bippy I'll vote for them.

 

Listen, it's cute you have this little agenda you're trying to push. But you're just spinning your wheels here. You can keep trying to paint it that Independents are in some way "bad," but it's just not going to stick.

 

But by all means, keep trying. It's amusing, if not accurate.

 

I don't have an agenda. you keep saying there are no other viable candidates outside D and R. I am not trying to paint Independents as bad but there are other candidates to vote for and hell you can write one in!

[knapplc]

I don't have an agenda. you keep saying there are no other viable candidates outside D and R. I am not trying to paint Independents as bad but there are other candidates to vote for and hell you can write one in!

 

OK, go do some research and tell me the names of the non-Dem, non-Rep candidates in the presidential elections from 1988 (when I could first vote, and did) through 2008. When you compile that list, which won't be long, highlight the ones who could have done a good job running the United States.

 

When you can't do that without compromising your "other viable candidates" mantra, you'll understand what I'm talking about. Simply being a third-party candidate isn't enough to garner a vote. They must be viable.

[husker_99]

I don't have an agenda. you keep saying there are no other viable candidates outside D and R. I am not trying to paint Independents as bad but there are other candidates to vote for and hell you can write one in!

 

OK, go do some research and tell me the names of the non-Dem, non-Rep candidates in the presidential elections from 1988 (when I could first vote, and did) through 2008. When you compile that list, which won't be long, highlight the ones who could have done a good job running the United States.

 

When you can't do that without compromising your "other viable candidates" mantra, you'll understand what I'm talking about. Simply being a third-party candidate isn't enough to garner a vote. They must be viable.

 

The bigger problem is that the two parties are incorporating all the ideas of 3rd parties. When a 3rd party is only left with a few ideas that makes the party voters don't care as long as they incorporate the ones people care the most about. I know Perot and Nader garnered a high number of votes for a 3rd party candidate thus siphoning off Democrat and Republican votes.

[zoogs]

Let's face it, unless something radically changes in the political landscape, no 3rd-party candidate is going to win a race. So it's reasonable for voters to treat the election as a poll with two options, choosing the one they prefer more.

 

Dealing with that reality doesn't mean I should register with one of the parties. I dunno, is that what's being argued here?

 

Let's not pretend that the two parties are really that different, either. The parties aren't representing disparate ideals, they're just two political institutions that vie with another for influence. Europe laughs at how 'liberal' the democrats claim to be, and the classical liberals laugh at how 'conservative' the Republicans are. In the end they're just labels and it seems silly to define yourself using them, as if there are only a couple options to choose from and you may as well pick one of them.

[knapplc]

Gender gap and likeability keep Obama over Romney

 

 

 

(CNN) - President Barack Obama holds a nine-point lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney thanks in part to the perception that the president is more likeable and more in touch with the problems facing women and middle class Americans, according to a new national poll.

 

A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also indicates a large gender gap that benefits Obama, but the public is divided on which candidate can best jump-start the economy.

 

 

 

Obama's gonna easily roll in this election.

 

 

 

Or will he...

 

 

 

Romney, Obama in Tight Race as Gallup Daily Tracking Begins

 

 

 

PRINCETON, NJ -- Mitt Romney is supported by 47% of national registered voters and Barack Obama by 45% in the inaugural Gallup Daily tracking results from April 11-15. Both Obama and Romney are supported by 90% of their respective partisans.

 

These results are the first from Gallup Daily tracking of registered voters' general election preferences, which began on April 11 and will be reported daily on Gallup.com on the basis of continuous five-day rolling averages. This initial report is based on interviews with 2,265 registered voters, and highlights the potential closeness of this year's race, with Romney and Obama essentially in a statistical tie. Gallup's previous general election trial heat, from a national poll conducted March 25-26, showed Obama with a slight 49% to 45% lead over Romney.

 

 

 

Nothing like a good poll to bring clarity to the political landscape.

[JJ Husker]

This may be the first presidential election held since I turned 18 that I may not vote. If I bother with it at all, I will vote for Romney but he so unexcites me that I probably won't go to the polls at all. I can't think of one thing I "like" about either candidate but I have a quite a few more preferences opposing Obama than I do with Romney. So, once again, it is a crappy choice of the lesser of 2 evils. Based on recent presidential and legislative candidates, I would have to say our system is extremely broke and downright dysfunctional. If these are our best and brightest, we're screwed. As a country, we should be ashamed and embarrassed that we allow this to be considered an acceptable election choice. This is usually when someone chimes in with Ron Paul. He is not viable and has many unrealistic positions. I like some of his ideas, unfortunately they either won't work or would never be given the chance.

 

I will say in response to some of the discussion on Paul, I don't see any conflict between his being against abortion and also not supporting a law prohibiting abortion. Actually that sums up my position on it pretty well. Personally I am against it and I don't want to see it be encouraged but I also don't think it is an issue that should be prohibited or supported by our government. I could support making abortion illegal or allowable in certain situations but I am convinced our government and judicial systems are incapable of managing the nuances to any reasonable level of acceptability.

[knapplc]

I will say in response to some of the discussion on Paul, I don't see any conflict between his being against abortion and also not supporting a law prohibiting abortion. Actually that sums up my position on it pretty well. Personally I am against it and I don't want to see it be encouraged but I also don't think it is an issue that should be prohibited or supported by our government. I could support making abortion illegal or allowable in certain situations but I am convinced our government and judicial systems are incapable of managing the nuances to any reasonable level of acceptability.

 

The abortion flip-flop is just one of literally dozens of positions Paul has taken over the years which at times contradict each other, or which are completely untenable. Ron Paul owes his popularity to the fact that the average American simply doesn't dig elbows-deep into the facts surrounding the candidates they support.

[husker_99]

I will say in response to some of the discussion on Paul, I don't see any conflict between his being against abortion and also not supporting a law prohibiting abortion. Actually that sums up my position on it pretty well. Personally I am against it and I don't want to see it be encouraged but I also don't think it is an issue that should be prohibited or supported by our government. I could support making abortion illegal or allowable in certain situations but I am convinced our government and judicial systems are incapable of managing the nuances to any reasonable level of acceptability.

 

The abortion flip-flop is just one of literally dozens of positions Paul has taken over the years which at times contradict each other, or which are completely untenable. Ron Paul owes his popularity to the fact that the average American simply doesn't dig elbows-deep into the facts surrounding the candidates they support.

 

Sometimes you make it seem that Americans did that previously in elections that Americans dig deep on facts about candidates. If anything we know more due to the internet alone and so many people using it.

[knapplc]

I will say in response to some of the discussion on Paul, I don't see any conflict between his being against abortion and also not supporting a law prohibiting abortion. Actually that sums up my position on it pretty well. Personally I am against it and I don't want to see it be encouraged but I also don't think it is an issue that should be prohibited or supported by our government. I could support making abortion illegal or allowable in certain situations but I am convinced our government and judicial systems are incapable of managing the nuances to any reasonable level of acceptability.

 

The abortion flip-flop is just one of literally dozens of positions Paul has taken over the years which at times contradict each other, or which are completely untenable. Ron Paul owes his popularity to the fact that the average American simply doesn't dig elbows-deep into the facts surrounding the candidates they support.

 

Sometimes you make it seem that Americans did that previously in elections that Americans dig deep on facts about candidates. If anything we know more due to the internet alone and so many people using it.

 

I have not made that assertion. Not sure where you're coming up with that.