CS.com Primary!

[tsst]

... I also know that there's nothing positive I could post about Obama that would change anyone's opinion on him, and I also care less to waste my energy with that as well.

Sure there is post something he has accomplished in his 3+ years that has had a positive impact on 'America as a whole'.

... But rather than the typical negative thinking, and the murder of creative thinking, I challenge someone to really say that, matched up against the rest of these candidates running, it's against all better judgment to re-elect our current president... They had Newt Gingrich on CNN the other day, and they were trying to get Newt to discuss what the US should be doing in Syria. All he talked about was how poor of a job that Obama has done, and that he's way late in responding with help. Now I'm sure that's great motivation for the people who also dislike Obama, but what exactly did he provide for ideas, and what will that pan out as in the end?... Nada/Nothing/Zilch!!!

I am not going to defend Newt because I don't care for him either. But that aside we know exactly what we have with Obama and this country will not survive an unleashed Obama with no re-election holding him back. His track record and beliefs are clear. He wants to grow gov, redistribute wealth, expand entitlements, and make producers pay more and more and more for non-producers until it all comes crashing down. Then we will hear if only the gov was allowed to control more. Actually he has already hinted to that by saying the founding fathers are restricting him. He wants these things because the more people dependent on the gov the more power the gov has. Also usually those dependent on the gov vote democrat.

...So if people without ideas are just running on the premise of what Obama is failing at, then what ideas of their own actually makes them worth voting for?

That sounds kind of like the 2008 election!

...And this isn't a democrat/republican thing, because that's really only the marketing equivalent of Pepsi/Coke. The fact is that there just isn't anyone running against Obama that is exempt from equal criticism (and more). As far as republicans that I thought would have made better candidates, I liked Huntsman, and from what little I've seen of Chris Christie, I liked him as well. So if the republican voters decided that these candidates running are the best they have, then I think it's really them putting Obama into re-election.

I like Allen West but he is not running.

 

[tsst]

Personally, I am not "in love" with anyone running against Obama. But Obama has had his shot and things are now worse instead of better. Unemployment was 7.8% when he came in, it is now 8.3%. When he came into office we were fighting 2 wars, now we are fighting 3. Gas was $1.81 a gallon when he came in, it is now $3.69 a gallon. And when he came into office this country was 10 trillion dollars in debt. It is now over 15 trillion dollars in debt and climbing.
As much as I don't like anyone running against him, NONE of these people have ever actually run this country before. None of them have actually been put to that test. As fast as we are falling under Obama, we need to give somebody else the wheel before this ship is sunk. Sure, they can do worse than he has, but they can also do better and considering how things are now I think this country needs to take that chance.

Well said Bethany!

 

[Nova_C]

I think it's interesting that you talk about crashing the world economy when the Republicans showed a completely cavalier attitude towards causing a second worldwide collapse during the debt ceiling debate. It was a routine thing, something that happens many times during each and every presidency, but all of a sudden it was a problem.

And then they went ahead with it anyway and the US didn't explode. I'm more concerned with the Republicans at this point, than Obama, simply because in the Republican party, the inmates are running the asylum. Right wing politics in the US has become very extreme and I would much rather you didn't elect a Republican president until that party gets its house in order.

Besides, a lot of factors affect economies. For example, the credit crisis that cause the current recession was the direct result of a lack of regulation on US banks that allowed them to create subprime mortgages that would eventually have interest rates that homeowners simply couldn't afford. Canada's economy was the least affected by the credit crisis simply because our government didn't allow the banks to participate in subprime mortgages.

Greece's economy has collapses because they have overspent, and quite a lot of it is on social programs, I will agree. However, the existence of those programs isn't the problem, but mismanagement of the economy.

The US has seen a drastic increase in spending ever since 9/11 for many reasons, and it's likely that this is unsustainable, but it's foolish to think that the US economy is in trouble just because there's a bunch of people that want free stuff. The military has seen a significant increase and a lot of debt was accrued by the government engaging in corporate welfare, providing money to the wealthiest Americans while the poor and middle class lost their jobs and their homes.

At this point, the most appropriate solution is across the board spending decreases, but as far as I know, Republican nominees are all advocating an increase in military spending, as though the government spending even more money is the solution.

Why you think that any of the Republican nominees are going to spend less money than Obama is beyond me. Lets examine the history of spending by who was president at the time:

In 1969 the US had an adjusted surplus of 19.28 billion. In 1969 Richard Nixon was elected. The following year there was a deficit of 16 billion. In fact, every single year since has seen a deficit until the Clinton administration. When George Bush sr. left office, the deficit was a massive 390 billion. The Clinton administration immediately arrested the growth of the deficit and by 1998 had turned it to the first surplus in almost 30 years. When Clinton left office in 2001, replaced by George W. Bush, the surplus was 158 billion. The very next year, 2002, the deficit had returned to a massive 194 billion. That's a massive 350 billion change in a single year. The year George W. Bush left office, the deficit was an incredible 1.5 trillion.

In fact, the deficit has been dropping under Obama.

So I wouldn't trust Republicans to lessen your spending. They never have before.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

 

[El Jefe]

At this point, the most appropriate solution is across the board spending decreases, but as far as I know, Republican nominees are all advocating an increase in military spending, as though the government spending even more money is the solution.

Because that is the way to go...if we can't take care of our own country we at least should take over another and try to make them fail as well. :sidestep:

 

[chris68]

Don't like ANY of them. NONE of them have MY best interests at heart. I want to see this country STOP inflicting Democracy on countries where it just doesn't work. I want to see our soldiers OUT of places where they are not welcome or appreciated. I want to see money for education distributed FAIRLY amongst schools, and not based on the local income level. And I will see NONE of that, and everything I wish this country would do, with ANY of the candidates. Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves jmho...

 

[tsst]

I think it's interesting that you talk about crashing the world economy when the Republicans showed a completely cavalier attitude towards causing a second worldwide collapse during the debt ceiling debate. It was a routine thing, something that happens many times during each and every presidency, but all of a sudden it was a problem.

If I remember correctly they were pushing for cuts equal to the debt ceiling raise before passing?

And then they went ahead with it anyway and the US didn't explode. I'm more concerned with the Republicans at this point, than Obama, simply because in the Republican party, the inmates are running the asylum. Right wing politics in the US has become very extreme and I would much rather you didn't elect a Republican president until that party gets its house in order.

My assumption is that you are totally kidding when applying that analogy to only the right!!!

Besides, a lot of factors affect economies. For example, the credit crisis that cause the current recession was the direct result of a lack of regulation on US banks that allowed them to create subprime mortgages that would eventually have interest rates that homeowners simply couldn't afford. Canada's economy was the least affected by the credit crisis simply because our government didn't allow the banks to participate in subprime mortgages.

Policy directly attributable to the left, but in fairness not corrected by the right.

Greece's economy has collapses because they have overspent, and quite a lot of it is on social programs, I will agree. However, the existence of those programs isn't the problem, but mismanagement of the economy.

Don't even know how to comment on that one. Simply put the givers can no longer afford the takers!

The US has seen a drastic increase in spending ever since 9/11 for many reasons, and it's likely that this is unsustainable, but it's foolish to think that the US economy is in trouble just because there's a bunch of people that want free stuff. The military has seen a significant increase and a lot of debt was accrued by the government engaging in corporate welfare, providing money to the wealthiest Americans while the poor and middle class lost their jobs and their homes.

57% of the US budget was spent on entitlements. The Military was 18%. I know the US military is your favorite target but the big numbers are entitlements.

At this point, the most appropriate solution is across the board spending decreases, ...

Exactly!

Why you think that any of the Republican nominees are going to spend less money than Obama is beyond me.

I don't know that they will or won't. What I do know is Obama is a known entity. Spend, tax, spread wealth, anti-gun, big gov, more control/less liberty, etc

Lets examine the history of spending by who was president at the time:

In 1969 the US had an adjusted surplus of 19.28 billion. In 1969 Richard Nixon was elected. The following year there was a deficit of 16 billion. In fact, every single year since has seen a deficit until the Clinton administration. When George Bush sr. left office, the deficit was a massive 390 billion. The Clinton administration immediately arrested the growth of the deficit and by 1998 had turned it to the first surplus in almost 30 years. When Clinton left office in 2001, replaced by George W. Bush, the surplus was 158 billion. The very next year, 2002, the deficit had returned to a massive 194 billion. That's a massive 350 billion change in a single year. The year George W. Bush left office, the deficit was an incredible 1.5 trillion.

Let's do. Both houses controlled by dems during Nixon era! Both houses controlled by reps during Clinton era (including the balanced budget under Newt as speaker). I won't defend Bush as he spent like a dem but the war (right or wrong another topic) accounted for much of his added spending.

..
So I wouldn't trust Republicans to lessen your spending. They never have before.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

Using your link it appears the only time since the 60s that there was a budget surplus the reps controlled the purse strings. :shrugs:



A look at what unsustainable entitlements do for a country when they can no longer be given out freely.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stun...ster-zone-in-greece-2012-2?op=1#ixzz1mIU5b0Ec

But hey as long as everyone gets their freebees now it's a small price to pay. :shrugs: (sarcasm)

 

[Nova_C]

My assumption is that you are totally kidding when applying that analogy to only the right!!!

Not really, but this is a perspective thing. Our right wing party, the Conservative party of Canada is more left wing than the Democratic party, so I'm not sure there's much of a 'left' in the US in terms of actual political power.

So yeah, I'd apply that analogy only to the right in the US.

Policy directly attributable to the left, but in fairness not corrected by the right.

Reaaaaaaally.

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1), two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).

Introduced by Republicans, voted for disproportionately by Republicans.

Don't even know how to comment on that one. Simply put the givers can no longer afford the takers!

This is how I feel about how banks, particularly American banks, prey on the poor and middle class.

I don't know that they will or won't. What I do know is Obama is a known entity. Spend, tax, spread wealth, anti-gun, big gov, more control/less liberty, etc

Let's do. Both houses controlled by dems during Nixon era! Both houses controlled by reps during Clinton era (including the balanced budget under Newt as speaker). I won't defend Bush as he spent like a dem but the war (right or wrong another topic) accounted for much of his added spending.

Using your link it appears the only time since the 60s that there was a budget surplus the reps controlled the purse strings. :shrugs:

I put the above together because you seem to hold Obama responsible for the budget, then say that the purse strings were controlled by a Democrat house during Republican presidencies. So it's the president's fault if it's a Democrat (Or specifically Obama?), but it's the house's fault if the president is Republican?

 

[Ricky87]

Obama will win IMO...People can say they want Obama out, but it's not going to be that simple on election day. Regardless of how people feel about him, they still have to have a candidate to replace him and I don't see a majority of citizens flooding the voting booths to elect anyone other than Obama. There's no one to love on the Republican side whereas people who support Obama do so with loyalty. He'll get the votes to win and probably by quite a decent amount. If I were Republican though, I wouldn't blame people who vote for Obama...I would blame the Republican candidates (or lack there of) which have given voters no choice except to vote Obama.

 

[Forcedexile]

not to mention the Republican party is doing a good job of mudslinging against themselves and Obama has yet to be hit...seems like everyone is going to be dirty except for Obama on election day.

 

[tsst]

Not really, but this is a perspective thing.

I consider them all corrupt. I definitely would not consider the left anything less than batcrap crazy. How can anyone look at countries like Greece and think that's the road to take.

Reaaaaaaally.



Introduced by Republicans, voted for disproportionately by Republicans.

Signed into law by left and eased by left and pressured use by the left.

I put the above together because you seem to hold Obama responsible for the budget, then say that the purse strings were controlled by a Democrat house during Republican presidencies. So it's the president's fault if it's a Democrat (Or specifically Obama?), but it's the house's fault if the president is Republican?

Because during Obama's first two years he had both houses controlled by the left. Not only controlled but they also had a super majority meaning the right couldn't even stop something if they wanted to. That's how we ended up with Obamacare that will cost $trillions that we also can't pay for. :headbang:

 

[tsst]

Obama will win IMO...People can say they want Obama out, but it's not going to be that simple on election day. Regardless of how people feel about him, they still have to have a candidate to replace him and I don't see a majority of citizens flooding the voting booths to elect anyone other than Obama. There's no one to love on the Republican side whereas people who support Obama do so with loyalty. He'll get the votes to win and probably by quite a decent amount. If I were Republican though, I wouldn't blame people who vote for Obama...I would blame the Republican candidates (or lack there of) which have given voters no choice except to vote Obama.

You are correct about passion for Obama, though some of it is blind! :shrugs:

 

[Michael823]

Alright, I have seriously tried to stay un-accusatory in recent political threads, and I'll continue with that decision. That said, I can't help but notice one thing about all of the videos that you have posted... that's all I'm going to say! And if you know what I mean, you also have to know that I'm right.

 

[starsevol]

Alright, I have seriously tried to stay un-accusatory in recent political threads, and I'll continue with that decision. That said, I can't help but notice one thing about all of the videos that you have posted... that's all I'm going to say! And if you know what I mean, you also have to know that I'm right.

What? That the people in the videos are woefully ignorant about the way that the government works and need to take some courses in civics and economics? That even though they have the right to vote, they really should not be allowed within 100 yards of a voting booth?

 

[WingedSweetheart]

To be honest I don't like any of the choices. I'm kind of thinking to just not vote. I'm kind of on the fence at the moment.

 

[Rich Z]

Alright, I have seriously tried to stay un-accusatory in recent political threads, and I'll continue with that decision. That said, I can't help but notice one thing about all of the videos that you have posted... that's all I'm going to say! And if you know what I mean, you also have to know that I'm right.

Well, the one thing that stands out to me is that there are a LOT of people voting who don't know WHY they are voting, and those that do know why are voting apparently using very shallow and superficial criteria for their choices.

But this puzzles me, and maybe someone can straighten me out. Why is voting FOR Obama because he is black, not racist, and people voting AGAINST him because he is black, IS racist? Sorry, but that confuses me....

 

[fyrefocks]

Why isn't Bill Clinton an option? I'm voting for him.

 

[Michael823]

"That even though they have the right to vote, they really should not be allowed within 100 yards of a voting booth?"...

Are you implying that voting is now a privilege? Just asking. I personally believe that an equal right to vote is the strongest factor in having real democracy and freedom. I'm assuming you also do, but I'm really not sure who you think shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"But this puzzles me, and maybe someone can straighten me out. Why is voting FOR Obama because he is black, not racist, and people voting AGAINST him because he is black, IS racist? Sorry, but that confuses me...."...

Is it the actual word "racism" that confuses you? Again, just asking. Not voting for Obama on the premise of his skin color is a form of racism. Racism comes in many forms, so perhaps this also should help your confusion.

I also want to reiterate that I was very obscure with my asking if the videos seemed to connect in any specific or recurring way (I thought my science people might appreciate), and I gave it no direction. I have yet to, nor do I need to even say anything by name anymore, because the clear tension is right under the surface (as shown by the direction of the responses)... hence the "And if you know what I mean, you also have to know that I'm right." in my initial post.

I'm not going to spend my energy on judging and bickering, and I don't care to try to show anyone up or prove anyone wrong. I'm posing a very simple statement, which I gave no direction to, and I just wanted to see if other people could also see connections in the video, and what they might be. I'm also seeing a connection to the responses, in which I also don't need to specify.

Another observation... they seem to hate you a lot more when you're passive!

 

[starsevol]

What I am saying is that the people in those videos, while having the LEGAL right to vote have absoultely no clue what the candadate they choose stands for, they have never read the constitution, have no idea how government works, and can't recoginize a picture of the speaker of the house....so even though they legally can vote, it is the votes of people like them who really hurt this country.

The future of the nation depends on who wins elections, and when uneducated people vote for silly and selfish reasons, bad things tend to happen.

You have heard the expression that when people discover they can vote themselves money or goods from the government, that is the beginning of the end. Well, welcome to the beginning of the end....everyday I am glad I never had kids who would have had to deal with what is going to happen....

 

[Michael823]

What I am saying is that the people in those videos, while having the LEGAL right to vote have absoultely no clue what the candadate they choose stands for, they have never read the constitution, have no idea how government works, and can't recoginize a picture of the speaker of the house....so even though they legally can vote, it is the votes of people like them who really hurt this country.

The future of the nation depends on who wins elections, and when uneducated people vote for silly and selfish reasons, bad things tend to happen.

You have heard the expression that when people discover they can vote themselves money or goods from the government, that is the beginning of the end.

Again, just making observations, not judging. But I'm still not sure who these "uneducated" group of people are, and I don't want to go off of assumption. And seeing I doubt you literally mean the few people in these videos actually swayed the entire election and undermined democracy and freedom, I'm curious who this group was... that's question #1.

Secondly... about these "uneducated" people... why is it that you seem to accuse them of not understanding how the constitution and how the government works?

If I were to make an observation, I would say that having had every previous president be white, would it not have been the failing of the government on behalf of previous (just so happened to be white) presidents, to give them a reason to not vote white, and to elect a (just so happened to be black) man as president (for one time in the history of the USA).

There also seems to be a relation between this unprecedented presidency and the sudden boost of "uneducated" people who seem to be accused of being the problem to the voting process. And of these "uneducated" people, I'm curious how many times you criticized them during the George Bush election... again, just asking. And to add further, I'm also curious how much you've had to say on the basis of a white person voting for a president under the same basis. Or has that not ever been a factor in the history of our country?

 

[starsevol]

Again, just making observations, not judging. But I'm still not sure who these "uneducated" group of people are, and I don't want to go off of assumption. And seeing I doubt you literally mean the few people in these videos actually swayed the entire election and undermined democracy and freedom, I'm curious who this group was... that's question #1.

Secondly... about these "uneducated" people... why is it that you seem to accuse them of not understanding how the constitution and how the government works?

If I were to make an observation, I would say that having had every previous president be white, would it not have been the failing of the government on behalf of previous (just so happened to be white) presidents, to give them a reason to not vote white, and to elect a (just so happened to be black) man as president (for one time in the history of the USA).

There also seems to be a relation between this unprecedented presidency and the sudden boost of "uneducated" people who seem to be accused of being the problem to the voting process. And of these "uneducated" people, I'm curious how many times you criticized them during the George Bush election... again, just asking. And to add further, I'm also curious how much you've had to say on the basis of a white person voting for a president under the same basis. Or has that not ever been a factor in the history of our country?

People on the street who vote, show them a set of pictures of famous faces. They can identify pop stars, rappers, reality tv stars, then show them a picture of the vice president, the minority whip, the speaker of the house, the chairman of the federal reserve.....and see how well they do.

Yes, the people in the video are a classic example of the uneducated voter, and they happen to be black. But uneducated white people have been messing things up for decades, this is not a new thing. And it is not just Presidential elections, it is local politics as well.

Why isn't the Constitution taught in schools? Anybody? Bueller??

But, having watched those videos, are YOU comfortable with the future of the free world being in their hands? No the election was not swayed by these few, but these are just a small percentage of what is out there voting....scary!!