CornSnakes.com Forums  
  Tired of those Google and InfoLinks ads? Register and log in!

Go Back   CornSnakes.com Forums > The CornSnake Forums > General Chit-Chat Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

General Chit-Chat Forum Discussion about general topics that are really off topic concerning corn snakes, or just about any old chit at all.

President May be in Trouble
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-24-2012, 08:29 AM   #51
starsevol
I think the reason Obama gets the heat more than Romney is because....Obama is the President and has been for over 3 years. The public has seen him lead, has watched his policies written into law and they don't like it. We as a nation have watched the man in action and we have seen what he can (and can't do) and yes, what Romney has going for him is that he is the great "someone else", but after watching this current president there are many people who want "someone else".

Most people don't know Romney all that well. Plus they have never seen him lead a nation before, so how can you judge someone for something they have never done before?

I don't like Romney either.
 
Old 05-24-2012, 12:31 PM   #52
tsst
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael823 View Post
Right, but all of that aside (as it didn't answer my questions about Romney in any way). Why is Romney not challenged for his view points? Otherwise you're doing the same blaming as the photo, and the same protecting that you accuse. I'm not saying that sympathetically or emotionally either, I just genuinely want to know why someone could say that voting against Romney is not also warranted for particular reasons.

And if people won't acknowledge the serious flaws in the (likely) republican nominee, than how can you cast stones to the other side for the same thing. It's basically just a one sided show saying "you NEED to vote for Romney, otherwise you're a government leaching drain on society"... And if Paul is the contrast (and hopeful rep nominee), why not target the flawed views of Mitt? Because he's really the only one that Paul (and supporters) should be focusing on right now.

And if Obama is made out to be this horrible figure in everyday, Romney would have to be the antithesis in order for people to have the right to discredit and devalue those who vote against him so harshly. Otherwise, it's just angry bitter people. And no president can fix that type of contempt.
Your deflection aside. I posted in an Obama topic about Obama. If you want to start a Mitt thread I will be more than happy to post opinions on whatever topic you raise. I think you confuse someone disliking Obama with liking Mitt when the two are in fact independent of each other.

A sample: as far as Mitt goes I think he is Obamalite. I don't care for the socialism he practiced as governor any more than I like the socialism Obama has inflicted on the US. I don't care for flip flops by Mitt on issues any more than I like flip flops by Obama on issues. I don't think either one is GOOD for this country. The only thing that gives Mitt an edge over Obama for me is simply that he has not yet failed at the job of POTUS and Obama HAS. I am soooo disappointed in this country that this is what it has come to. IMHO we are faced with an awful choice (Obama) and an almost as awful choice (Mitt).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z View Post
... I personally don't know a single solitary person who says they WANT Romney as president. The ONLY reason they would vote for him is because they want to vote against Obama. ...
EXACTLY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael823 View Post
Thank you for responding. That is the type of answer I was looking for, and I appreciate that response.

And this is really my question mostly, is why Romney is seen as a palatable choice/alternative to ideals like those of Ron Paul (who seems to be a crowd favorite), when Romney is (right now) is the most challenging to those ideals and threatening to the position than any other politician in Paul's way (as of now). Which leads me to asking why is the discussion is always about Obama, and the negative feelings towards him and his supporters?

Why is Romney not of equal attack? Even when it's in the best strategic interest of free thinking republicans to see him as Paul's most direct threat to be nominated. It's like people are playing it safe, just in case Romney wins the ticket. And that silence really only benefits Romney, who clearly has the nomination in his pocket if people in his own party don't clamp down against him, showing the positive contrast to voting for Paul. Negative attack ads against Obama, or the "just vote against Obama" sentiment by some, seems like a complete waste of resources and time.

Paul really does have some good ideas. I think he's a practical thinker in a party that has formed into one made up of "iffy" choices. But I really don't believe that it's in anyone's best interest (especially Paul's) to focus on the anti-ism of Obama so much. If innovative, helpful, progressive ideas are promoted, people will side with that more often. And like Obama or not, that is at least the direction his campaign has been focused on identifying with (more so than being a campaign built on attacking ideas). And Paul would probably have much more success (as he is an idea guy) if those ideas were on the forefront of headlines made by his supporters, and not back seated to attacking the ideas of our current President (because Romney is proof, anyone can take that angle and get some friction... but it's not an approach that endures).
The focus is on Obama because as of now he is in the office. As of now he is the one steering the country off the Greece like cliff. As of now he is the one making the bad decisions. As of now he is the one spending future generations money like there is no tomorrow. As of now he is the one that needs to go.

What campaign have you been following?!?! Obama has been attacking Mitt just as much as Mitt has attacked him! I don’t understand the excusatory approach of Obama fans. The guy has flat out failed at being the POTUS. Is Mitt better, doubtful, but we already KNOW Obama can’t do the job so why would anyone want to keep him in there?!?!

If you hired someone to care for your snakes for four years and it sounded wonderful at first. But then he didn’t clean the vivs, he was very sporadic at feeding, the water was always dirty or empty, the snakes became mite infested, a few died from crypto, and he spent 10 fold what was agreed upon. But he made sure the vivs were secure would you give him another 4 years because he did one thing correct? Would you say I know he was awful but a new guy might be just as awful so I will keep this guy? I wouldn’t!

The only thing I see as an Obama admin success was Osama's demise. Yet he still narcissistically screwed that up, by the use of so many I's in lieu of Seals, during his celebratory pat myself on the back speeches.

Time for some more hope but especially CHANGE!


Off the top of my head my choice would be a composite (a little poke).

Paul Ryan's money sense
Bill Clinton's charisma
Ron Reagan's common sense
Allen West's defense of nation
Bill Gates/Steve Jobs' business sense
JFK's popularity
Lincoln/Washington's patriotism
my daughter's character/honesty
 
Old 05-24-2012, 07:37 PM   #53
Michael823
I think we both are said "Exactly" to the very same thing (in regards to Rich's quote).

Take my political opinion aside from this. What I want to know is why people who may vote for Obama in the upcoming election are being so vilified, when Romney is the most likely alternative to the current president. And while the "it's not Obama" reasoning is good enough to fit the already opposed republican side, it doesn't seem like a strong reason for anyone to be switching their votes over.

So my response to all of that, would be to say that Romney is not a very independently likeable guy (aside from Obama here). He stands with his party, but his message is really one that is only designed to contrast the current president (social issues alike). As opposed to him being respected as an independent human being, that should be elected as president based off of his overwhelming merit.

Now people can argue whether our current president has merit or not. But the fact would still remain, there is not much reason for a voter to switch from Obama to Romney if it were merit that was being weighed, especially where they both seem to be highly disliked by many republican voters (separately of course, not in terms of who's more disliked). And at least Obama stands as more of a leader to all of the people in terms of social issues, unlike Romney who is polarizing to many in the world of freedom and equality of men and women. And for that alone, you can't blame voters for voting Obama. Because You'd have to be realistic in saying that those focused on issues of equal rights (same-sex partnerships, women's rights, etc..) would be quite smart to vote against Mitt Romney, based on his response to social injustice.

And again, I really am not debating Obama. I'm as opened to a new president as anyone. But it would have to be for progressive reasons. I do like Ron Paul (ideologically), but it's probably going to be Romney as the nominee. If that's not the case, I would be open to looking at both parties. But as long as it's Mitt Romney, I will not be voting for him.
 
Old 05-25-2012, 08:26 AM   #54
tsst
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael823 View Post
I think we both are said "Exactly" to the very same thing (in regards to Rich's quote).

Take my political opinion aside from this. What I want to know is why people who may vote for Obama in the upcoming election are being so vilified, when Romney is the most likely alternative to the current president. And while the "it's not Obama" reasoning is good enough to fit the already opposed republican side, it doesn't seem like a strong reason for anyone to be switching their votes over.
Vilified is a stretch. I would call it questioning the logic of the vote. As pointed out many times the reasoning in not voting for Obama is not that Romney is better(we don't know what kind of job he will do) it's that we DO KNOW Obama is a failure as POTUS. The reasoning for me not to vote for him is that I know he is incapable of doing the job. I hope every election there will emerge a good candidate. I am beginning to lose hope that it will happen in my lifetime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael823 View Post
So my response to all of that, would be to say that Romney is not a very independently likeable guy (aside from Obama here). He stands with his party, but his message is really one that is only designed to contrast the current president (social issues alike). As opposed to him being respected as an independent human being, that should be elected as president based off of his overwhelming merit.
To likeability. I don't need to like the POTUS. I need to feel/know he is doing what’s best for the USA. I already know that not to be the case for Obama.

I liked the overwhelming merit line. I needed a good laugh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael823 View Post
Now people can argue whether our current president has merit or not. But the fact would still remain, there is not much reason for a voter to switch from Obama to Romney if it were merit that was being weighed, especially where they both seem to be highly disliked by many republican voters (separately of course, not in terms of who's more disliked). And at least Obama stands as more of a leader to all of the people in terms of social issues, unlike Romney who is polarizing to many in the world of freedom and equality of men and women. And for that alone, you can't blame voters for voting Obama. Because You'd have to be realistic in saying that those focused on issues of equal rights (same-sex partnerships, women's rights, etc..) would be quite smart to vote against Mitt Romney, based on his response to social injustice.
IMHO there is no merit to argue. Obama is a proven failure as POTUS. He maybe a likable guy and a good community organizer but he is a failure as POTUS. Social issues? If you mean socialism um no I don't want his socialism. I choose liberty and freedom from huge government. And one would have to be blind to buy the "evolving" line from Obama. He could have made the statement about same sex marriage 3+ years ago but he didn't. It "evolved" now as a vote getter, nothing more. If re-elected I bet he doesn't take it a single step further. Kind of like all the great uniter talk in ’08 but he has turned out to be one of the most divisive presidents ever. As far as blame, you bet your bottom I would blame anyone risking this country's future by voting for a known failed commodity for POTUS.

Personally I would prefer the gov to stay completely out of sex and marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael823 View Post
And again, I really am not debating Obama. I'm as opened to a new president as anyone. But it would have to be for progressive reasons. I do like Ron Paul (ideologically), but it's probably going to be Romney as the nominee. If that's not the case, I would be open to looking at both parties. But as long as it's Mitt Romney, I will not be voting for him.
Color me skeptical of your final paragraph. But if you truly like Ron Paul write him in. Don't just vote for a proven failure in Obama because Romney is not likable as a nominee.
 
Old 05-25-2012, 01:01 PM   #55
Nova_C
A lot of people are disappointed in Obama, but you seem to be thinking that everyone agrees he's a failure as a president. His approval rating isn't great, but it's enough to get re-elected. I'm not going to try to convince you that you shouldn't think he's the wrong person for the job, but you're applying an objective assessment to a very subjective judgment.
 
Old 05-25-2012, 02:01 PM   #56
tsst
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova_C View Post
A lot of people are disappointed in Obama, but you seem to be thinking that everyone agrees he's a failure as a president. His approval rating isn't great, but it's enough to get re-elected. I'm not going to try to convince you that you shouldn't think he's the wrong person for the job, but you're applying an objective assessment to a very subjective judgment.
Not at all. LOL I definitely don't think "everyone agrees" that is your leap to assumption. Obviously they don't or this topic and election would be moot. Would you be more comfortable if I stated it as 'IMO after reviewing facts and achievements and needs of the country I consider his first term a failure'.
I may be missing your point. If you want to list out his string of successful accomplishments feel free. Though you should know before you start that while you may consider an unconstitutional, unfundable, socialized medical system a success many here don’t.


IMO approval ratings are a popularity contest and have very little to do with actual ability or performance.
 
Old 05-25-2012, 02:23 PM   #57
Nova_C
The supreme court still needs to rule if the penalty provision in the ACA is unconstitutional, so that's not decided.

The CBO ruled that the ACA would be more efficient and better funded than the current system, if I remember correctly, but people have ignored that report pretty effectively.

The ACA still has a long way to go, so it's neither a success nor a failure and is kind of moot right now anyway, since no one is talking about it in the campaigns. Women's rights has become the defining issue of this election and the Republicans have totally shot themselves in their own face.

As far as Obama's flip-flop to supporting gay marriage, it's such an important issue of equal rights that I'm not sure it matters why he supports it since there has been a significant change in poll responses since his address. More and more people are supporting gay marriage in the US than ever before. I'd call that a win for gay and lesbian couples all over the US.

Or at least a significant victory in the march to equality.
 
Old 05-25-2012, 06:58 PM   #58
tsst
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova_C View Post
The supreme court still needs to rule if the penalty provision in the ACA is unconstitutional, so that's not decided.
Hopefully they rule correctly. Yes I meant correctly! There is no way it is constitutional to force individual citizens to purchase and service or be punished, period!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova_C View Post
The CBO ruled that the ACA would be more efficient and better funded than the current system, if I remember correctly, but people have ignored that report pretty effectively.
lol Yes I suppose the forced slavery of the citizenry and ever raising of taxes would be a short term boon. Medicare, Medicaid, SS, etc take your pick for examples of things our gov said would be funded and better if they run it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova_C View Post
The ACA still has a long way to go, so it's neither a success nor a failure and is kind of moot right now anyway, since no one is talking about it in the campaigns. Women's rights has become the defining issue of this election and the Republicans have totally shot themselves in their own face.
it is a failure. If the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional it goes away. If they don't and rather choose to ignore our constitution the failure reaches epic stature. Either way it's a failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova_C View Post
As far as Obama's flip-flop to supporting gay marriage, it's such an important issue of equal rights that I'm not sure it matters why he supports it since there has been a significant change in poll responses since his address. More and more people are supporting gay marriage in the US than ever before. I'd call that a win for gay and lesbian couples all over the US.

Or at least a significant victory in the march to equality.
That's just it, I don't believe he ever intends to push it or he would have when he had a super majority that was unblockable. I believe he is playing the lives of the GLBT community as a poker chip for votes. That in my opinion is utter BS. The gov should not be involved at all in marriage!
 
Old 05-25-2012, 07:03 PM   #59
Nova_C
Quote:
The gov should not be involved at all in marriage!
I don't get this. Marriage is a legal contract that has associated tax benefits and rules. So should the government drop marriage as a recognized status?

Or do you mean the government should just leave it as is? I'm not sure I get what you're saying.
 
Old 05-25-2012, 07:12 PM   #60
Outcast
My take on marriage is that it should be a legal issue first and foremost. Legally people should be able to marry who they want. Religion should not be able to dictate who is legally wed, and who is not.

Unfortunately I see our presidents change of heart on the subject to be false, nothing will change if he gets elected. He has not proven to me that he is worthy of another term, In fact none of the candidates have proven that they deserve to be the leaders of our country. But, that won't matter, it is all about who gets the most money for the biggest campaign anyways, anymore.

I have all but lost faith in the government of our country, and the people. We keep electing crooks, cheats, liars, and thieves, all in the name of our Party. That is what needs to stop. But I doubt it ever will.
 

Join now to reply to this thread or open new ones for your questions & comments! Cornsnakes.com is the largest online community dedicated to cornsnakes . Registration is open to everyone and FREE. Click Here to Register!

Google
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 AM.





Fauna Top Sites
 

Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.06455302 seconds with 10 queries
Copyright Rich Zuchowski/SerpenCo