Obama Vs. Romney

[DJ L Toro]

We gave George Bush 8 years to make this mess, let's give Obama 8 years to try and clean it up. Recovery always takes longer than destruction, and to give him only 4 years is crazy.

the mess happened in the last 2 years of bush's presidency, aka when the dems took congress. if it's true recovery is a long process then we should hope it proceeds in that manner. instead our troops are dying at double the speed they were before (70% of deaths in afghanistan have been in the last 3 1/2 years) and debt has taken off (probably because Obama refuses to pass a budget).
Unfortunately there really isnt anyone who's going to solve that because the dems and repubs are in a race to make it crash

i say fire all of them

 

[AK Vip3r]

Let me guess, you watched 2016: Obama's America

Nope, that's just from personal observations that I have come to that conclusion. I dont rely on far left/right wing agenda to sway my political point of view. Doing so would be foolish and ignorant. I dont understand why people cant agree on a happy medium. Political parties are such a joke in all honesty. Its all a matter of who can be the best, most convincing liar.

 

[Konqrr]

I'd rather vote for a steaming pile of torture than Obama.

 

[Mr. Mileena]

the mess happened in the last 2 years of bush's presidency, aka when the dems took congress. if it's true recovery is a long process then we should hope it proceeds in that manner. instead our troops are dying at double the speed they were before (70% of deaths in afghanistan have been in the last 3 1/2 years) and debt has taken off (probably because Obama refuses to pass a budget).
Unfortunately there really isnt anyone who's going to solve that because the dems and repubs are in a race to make it crash

i say fire all of them

Then if Bush only spent used 2 years doing the mess, what happened to the other 6, because he sure as hell did not fix anything.

You make it sound so easy, just pull them out now, etc, it takes time, trust me , we want our troops out of there but it's not an overnight thing.

 

[STB Sgt Reed]

We gave George Bush 8 years to make this mess, let's give Obama 8 years to try and clean it up. Recovery always takes longer than destruction, and to give him only 4 years is crazy.

Plus, Obama doesn't discriminate against people (gays in particular). Anyone who limits people's freedoms, whether gay or straight, religious or not, black or white, is NOT okay in my books.

Obama has my vote.
Michelle is a great first lady too, I wouldn't stand Mitt's wife lol

The problem isn't Obama like people want to say, it's congress stonewalling him and not letting him TRY to make things better. They do it in hopes of blaming him for nothing getting done and to get people to believe them and vote the people who created this mess right back in to make it even worse.

It sickens me.

All I'm gonna say is... if Romney is elected... look for things to get much worse.

 

[OutworldKeith]

Didnt say he could do it in 8 years but if he continues to have his way, over time this country will be forced into socialism through other presidents like him, because this is obviously what people like.

I highly doubt that for obvious reasons.

 

[RomeoBravoDelta]

Politics aside, Romney is a colossally, hilariously bad politician and campaigner. The fact that he even has a hope of winning is amazing in the strictest definition of the word.

 

[STB Sgt Reed]

And I hate living in Georgia b/c my vote will never make a difference. Republicans will get elected here no matter what.

 

[rev0lver]

Socialist is word I've done much research over my years and highschool and the 4 years I've spent in college so far. Government control on the scale that Obama is pushing for =socialist. Socialism is just shy of what communism is. Would you prefer me to say communism? That would be lying though, because we haven't been driven into the ground that hard yet, thank the Lord.

Government control on the scale that Obama is pushing for = center-left politics. Are you kidding me? I am a socialist, and Obama doesn't even come close to my political ideals. He signed one of the weakest public healthcare laws he could make and it's somehow called socialism. He wants big businesses and top income-earners to pay a fair tax rate that is still LOWER than what we have had in the past. If you want to talk about socialism, then I guess public education is socialism. Please demolish the public school system so we can have a proper conservative society.

 

[AK Vip3r]

I highly doubt that for obvious reasons.

I throw no possible Idea out the door, seeing as how chaotic it is in the office right now. Hypothetically if Obama got re-elected and Congress became heavily democractic after that re-election, Obama could have his way with his policies, just because to get back at the Republicans. The Republican side is just as guilty. Hence the reason I said we need another Ronald Reagan. There havent been many presidents, if any at all who was down to earth as he was about getting the right stuff done.

 

[Zoidberg747]

the mess happened in the last 2 years of bush's presidency, aka when the dems took congress. if it's true recovery is a long process then we should hope it proceeds in that manner. instead our troops are dying at double the speed they were before (70% of deaths in afghanistan have been in the last 3 1/2 years) and debt has taken off (probably because Obama refuses to pass a budget).
Unfortunately there really isnt anyone who's going to solve that because the dems and repubs are in a race to make it crash

i say fire all of them

Obama did try and pass a budget, the republican congress denied it(like they do everything).

I do agree that saying Obama did this, Bush did that is a very narrow minded way of looking at things. They have a Congress, a Senate, and a Supreme Court that they also have to deal with. It is called checks and balances, and yet most people don't even consider it. The best way to vote is by policies, because that is an accurate representation of what the president is trying to do. If he tries to get things done and the Congress stops him, then whose fault is it?

Oh and foreign policy, that one is all on the president. I am not 100% behind all of Obama's foreign policies but I think he is a lot better than Romney in that department.

 

[rev0lver]

the mess happened in the last 2 years of bush's presidency, aka when the dems took congress.

Please explain to me which bills the democrats passed during those two years that caused the recession. Whoever had congressional power during those two years would have very little, if anything, to do with the recession occurring.

 

[STB Sgt Reed]

I throw no possible Idea out the door, seeing as how chaotic it is in the office right now. Hypothetically if Obama got re-elected and Congress became heavily democractic after that re-election, Obama could have his way with his policies, just because to get back at the Republicans. The Republican side is just as guilty. Hence the reason I said we need another Ronald Reagan. There havent been many presidents, if any at all who was down to earth as he was about getting the right stuff done.

That's something we don't need.

"Trickle Down" ... does not... nor could it ever... work.

 

[AK Vip3r]

Government control on the scale that Obama is pushing for = center-left politics. Are you kidding me? I am a socialist, and Obama doesn't even come close to my political ideals. He signed one of the weakest public healthcare laws he could make and it's somehow called socialism. He wants big businesses and top income-earners to pay a fair tax rate that is still LOWER than what we have had in the past. If you want to talk about socialism, then I guess public education is socialism. Please demolish the public school system so we can have a proper conservative society.

He signed those policies because that was agreed upon by both parties. I am 99% positive, if he had it his way, the policy would have been much stronger. He is also just naive in general. He had little to no time/experience in office to really acclimate to what he would have to deal with. My argument is more of a matter based on experience and Obama truly lacks it.

 

[AK Vip3r]

That's something we don't need.

"Trickle Down" ... does not... nor could it ever... work.

Not sure what you mean, or what part you are referring to.

 

[RomeoBravoDelta]

Hypothetically if Obama got re-elected and Congress became heavily democractic after that re-election, Obama could have his way with his policies, just because to get back at the Republicans.

The Democrats already had control of both the House and Senate with a "filibusterer proof" majority when Obama was elected and they could barely accomplish anything. You are giving the Democrats way too much credit.

 

[STB Sgt Reed]

Not sure what you mean, or what part you are referring to.

It's part of Reagan's policies... "The Trickle Down effect" ... how helping the rich helps everyone else.









Not directed at Viper:

Can I vote for Bill Clinton again? lol

 

[Sage Leviathan]

With no political agenda and a choice between only 2 individuals,

I choose Barack Obama.

 

[rev0lver]

He signed those policies because that was agreed upon by both parties. I am 99% positive, if he had it his way, the policy would have been much stronger. He is also just naive in general. He had little to no time/experience in office to really acclimate to what he would have to deal with. My argument is more of a matter based on experience and Obama truly lacks it.

Yes it would have been stronger, which would be a wonderful thing. You can argue his naivete all you like, but that's a completely subjective idea. I'm talking about calling Obama a socialist, which is absolutely untrue. If Obama is a socialist, he's the most capitalist socialist in America. Please explain to me specific policies Obama plans to implement which transforms us into a socialist society rather than giving vague descriptions.

 

[DJ L Toro]

Then if Bush only spent used 2 years doing the mess, what happened to the other 6, because he sure as hell did not fix anything.

You make it sound so easy, just pull them out now, etc, it takes time, trust me , we want our troops out of there but it's not an overnight thing.

eh, the first 6 years he was popular, things were ok, im not going to say they were good, but they werent bad.
i dont want a pullout, i want to double troops there. one of my good friends is infantry in afghanistan and because of scalebacks on military spending (done to justify lucrative spending in the bailouts (auto and bank) and stimulus) and mass firings he has indicated that all active duty infantry have to do a minimum of 16 hours patrols and one hour there and back because they have to sweep for IEDs. that means that our overworked troops, assuming all they do is work and sleep, might get 4 hours of sleep in a night, but they also have to eat, do hygene, etc. if they get 3 hours of sleep they're lucky. on top of that the weather ranges from texas summer hot to north canada winter cold, so hypothermia and dehydration happen. Expecting human beings to live through that is ludicrous, and we have seen the results.

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

So from what im getting, despite you not liking Obama, you dislike Romney more, so you're voting for the lesser of two evils. With all due respect, that is a huge cop out.

While people still struggle to decide what's better, Pepsi or Coca Cola, they wont DARE try anything else because no one else will dare try anything else.

Vote for who you want in, regardless of how slim their chances are. It's all very well the peasants complaining about politicians like we all do, but not even attempting to make a change gives no one the right to complain in my opinion.

I just dont think people should complain about a politician they are just about to vote back into power. That's like saying "this brick wall is hard" and then head butting it again. I keep hearing Republicans saying how they are "begrudgingly voting Romney". If they know he's a nut job, what the Hell are they voting him in for?

If you dont like him, or his policies, vote for someone you do like.

Are you blind? I just listed a litany of things I support about the progress of the obama administration. My admission that I have disagreements with SOME of his policies in NO WAY says that I'm "copping out" and picking the lesser of two evils. Guess what? In a perfect world I would have a gay atheist black biology professor as president, but I'm not gonna get that. But I'm entirely grateful to have a president now that has pushed forward on so many positive issues (some of which I listed in my original post that you blacked out during), and I'm very excited to see the further progress we'll be making in the coming years as long as we keep the right wing out of power.

 

[AK Vip3r]

The Democrats already had control of both the House and Senate with a "filibusterer proof" majority when Obama was elected and they could barely accomplish anything. You are giving the Democrats way too much credit.

Thats because even the democrats realized how outlandish his ideologies and policies were. I was speaking in the sense that Obama manged to have the people in house who we wanted in.

It's part of Reagan's policies... "The Trickle Down effect" ... how helping the rich helps everyone else.


Not directed at Viper:

Can I vote for Bill Clinton again? lol

Maybe we have a misunderstanding here. I dont think it was necessarily helping the rich, but taxing them more will not help anything. If I was a business owner and I made good money and had to pay out the ass in taxes like they do now, I would keep my staffing as minimal as possible, not just because of the fact that I have to pay to my workers but because owners pay taxes of their own plus having to match my staff's taxes as well. Then again, I believe in conservative policies here and the less taxing the better. Its been a proven fact that less taxes work better than a country where taxes are heavy. Idk what you pay out in taxes but early in Obama's presidency I was paying 10% of my check and claiming zero. As of today, still claiming zero I pay nearly 20%. I think the actual % is like 18.7%. That is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. That hits right where it hurts as a college student working part time.

 

[OutworldKeith]

I throw no possible Idea out the door, seeing as how chaotic it is in the office right now. Hypothetically if Obama got re-elected and Congress became heavily democractic after that re-election, Obama could have his way with his policies, just because to get back at the Republicans. The Republican side is just as guilty. Hence the reason I said we need another Ronald Reagan. There havent been many presidents, if any at all who was down to earth as he was about getting the right stuff done.

Still bro 8 years is not a very long enough time to take over a country of this magnitude in that manner. There are too many factors and variables involved. Sounds like you've been watching too much Alex Jones and Jessie Ventura conspiracy theories.

 

[rev0lver]

As of today, still claiming zero I pay nearly 20%. I think the actual % is like 18.7%. That is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. That hits right where it hurts as a college student working part time.

How does it feel to be paying a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney?

 

[AK Vip3r]

Yes it would have been stronger, which would be a wonderful thing. You can argue his naivete all you like, but that's a completely subjective idea. I'm talking about calling Obama a socialist, which is absolutely untrue. If Obama is a socialist, he's the most capitalist socialist in America. Please explain to me specific policies Obama plans to implement which transforms us into a socialist society rather than giving vague descriptions.

The public health policy is the most notable one. Have you every researched Britain's health policy? That is essentially what Obama tried to push through. You become just a number, and they will get to you when they "get the chance". Want to know why? This health bill makes it to such a way that Doctors only make so much money and can not advance. If I was doctor and was told no matter how hard I worked I would only make a certain amount of money no matter what medical advances I brought forth, why would I even bother to work harder than necessary? Lbsh, everyone likes the idea of more money, that can not be denied.