Obama "I deserve another term"

[vols4sure]

How do you know? What do Republicans have to show for their time in the house? I am not aware of any major legislation that they've saved us from.

They have passed a few bills of note but the senate won't pick them up. Balance budget act being one. I liked the Paul Ryan plan (not that it was ever put to a vote). Obama would have been given a black check on the debt ceiling this summer without the tea party members in the house. Taxes would likely be higher on the so called millionaires making more than 250k.

Obamacare would not have been passed if Republicans controlled the house during that time period.

No one has said the Republicans are saviors. I was simply challenging the guy for examples when he implied that Obama is the man with ideas if only he would get bipartisan support.

 

[BeecherVol]

I hate seeing people act as though the Republicans are going to be the saviors of this country. They are just as bad as the Democrats in my eyes. I would even say Democrats and Republicans aren't two separate parties, but two wings of the same party.

Neither are ideal. And the indys are politicians as well.

I wouldn't call many (if any) politicians saviors, and if your waiting for one to do that you'll be disappointed. I vote R (in most cases) not because its a great choice, but because its typically better than the other(s).

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Who is saying this though? Approval rating of Congress (both parties) is at record lows. No one thinks any of them are worth a damn. But to act like we are not somewhat better off with a split house and senate where they can't pass crap like obamacare is out of their minds.

I personally know people who believe it, and I don't doubt that there are more people who alos beleive it.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Neither are ideal. And the indys are politicians as well.

I wouldn't call many (if any) politicians saviors, and if your waiting for one to do that you'll be disappointed. I vote R (in most cases) not because its a great choice, but because its typically better than the other(s).

I'm not looking for a savior. I just want some people who truly believe in limited government.

 

[volinbham]

Since he thinks he deserves one because in his mind he thinks he is doing well, then by definition he is not saying he deserves it because he's "entitled."

Carry on.

Sounds like a bit of both - he thinks he's done enough that he deserves another 4 years. In other words, performance such as his entitles him to another four years.

I see York's point - it's like saying he hit the bar to earn another 4 years as if once you do "x" you get 4 more.

 

[lawgator1]

Sounds like a bit of both - he thinks he's done enough that he deserves another 4 years. In other words, performance such as his entitles him to another four years.

I see York's point - it's like saying he hit the bar to earn another 4 years as if once you do "x" you get 4 more.

Ok, but so what? I just don't think people reelect someone as a reward. Sure, past performance matters for the incumbent. But people will vote on the future more than that and this is shaping up to be a pretty classic contest between competing visions.

Add to that the question of whether anyone will vote FOR Romney, as opposed to just against Obama, it could be a blowout.

 

[BeecherVol]

I'm not looking for a savior. I just want some people who truly believe in limited government.

Me too.

Most of the time you and I have to vote for the person closest aligned to that, which more than likely is not even close to that. Their just closer than the next guy.

Then the next can of worms opened is, if they're not gonna meet that limited standard we desire we then decide if what they are gonna blow money on is better than what the other guy is proposing.

 

[BeecherVol]

Ok, but so what? I just don't think people reelect someone as a reward. Sure, past performance matters for the incumbent. But people will vote on the future more than that and this is shaping up to be a pretty classic contest between competing visions.

Add to that the question of whether anyone will vote FOR Romney, as opposed to just against Obama, it could be a blowout.

Past performance is irrelevant to the future?

Wouldn't Fulmer be coaching against Zook if this is true.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Hey man, how you been?

Work has been hell. Hopefully that changes soon. Need to get for another death match soon.

 

[YorkVol]

Ok, but so what? I just don't think people reelect someone as a reward. Sure, past performance matters for the incumbent. But people will vote on the future more than that and this is shaping up to be a pretty classic contest between competing visions.

Add to that the question of whether anyone will vote FOR Romney, as opposed to just against Obama, it could be a blowout.

I may be too fixated on the entitlement issue as I'm surrounded by it in this small city I live in and I do believe it is a real problem in our society. But, the main point is that I don't think someone should go into public office with the attitude that they deserve the job(unless of course they are being punished). I want someone to step up who doesn't want the job, doesn't need the job and doesn't think they've earned it. A person who thinks he's earned the job has no problem taking on the excesses, allowing himself to be influenced by the money and power etc. I want someone who goes to Washington kicking and screaming, but then buckles down and does some hard work for their time there and actually accomplishes something.

Idealistic, I know.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Me too.

Most of the time you and I have to vote for the person closest aligned to that, which more than likely is not even close to that. Their just closer than the next guy.

Then the next can of worms opened is, if they're not gonna met that limited standard we desire we then decide if what they are gonna blow money is better than what the other guy is proposing.

I don't believe in voting for the "lesser of two evils." Part of the reason we're in this mess is because for years people have voted for what they deem to be the lesser of two evils.

There needs to be monumental changes to the way the Federal government works. Unfortunately, the only presidential candidate who seriously want to effect the needed changes isn't given much of a chance. The two-party system is too deeply ingrained within our country for a non-mainstream candidate to have a chance.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I may be too fixated on the entitlement issue as I'm surrounded by it in this small city I live in and I do believe it is a real problem in our society. But, the main point is that I don't think someone should go into public office with the attitude that they deserve the job(unless of course they are being punished). I want someone to step up who doesn't want the job, doesn't need the job and doesn't think they've earned it. A person who thinks he's earned the job has no problem taking on the excesses, allowing himself to be influenced by the money and power etc. I want someone who goes to Washington kicking and screaming, but then buckles down and does some hard work for their time there and actually accomplishes something.

Idealistic, I know.

Idealism is better than blind faith.

 

[utvolpj]

if Obama wins it's because a large portion either sat home or voted for a 3rd party (like I will do). I've said it before, if he gets elected the people of the US deserve what happens next.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

if Obama wins it's because a large portion either sat home or voted for a 3rd party (like I will do). I've said it before, if he gets elected the people of the US deserve what happens next.

This

 

[bamawriter]

if Obama wins it's because a large portion either sat home or voted for a 3rd party (like I will do). I've said it before, if he gets elected the people of the US deserve what happens next.

I'm going to bookmark this. You're basically accepting blame if Obama gets reelected.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I'm going to bookmark this. You're basically accepting blame if Obama gets reelected.

I would place blame on the Republican Party for putting forth yet another ****ty candidate.

(And the naive American populace.)

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm going to bookmark this. You're basically accepting blame if Obama gets reelected.

As if Romney will be any better...

 

[utvolpj]

I'm going to bookmark this. You're basically accepting blame if Obama gets reelected.

not at all since the GOP is forcing people's hand. In all honesty the 3rd party vote will be negligible at best. The same kind of people that voted for Obama the first time will do it again. The hardcore ticket voters will still show up for the GOP

you want to blame me for voting for a candidate that actually matches my beliefs? Many claim to be all about new ideas and getting America back but then cast their vote for the same POS in a different suit. I used to but not anymore.

 

[BeecherVol]

I don't believe in voting for the "lesser of two evils." Part of the reason we're in this mess is because for years people have voted for what they deem to be the lesser of two evils.

There needs to be monumental changes to the way the Federal government works. Unfortunately, the only presidential candidate who seriously want to effect the needed changes isn't given much of a chance. The two-party system is too deeply ingrained within our country for a non-mainstream candidate to have a chance.

I understand what your saying, and agree with most of it.

Im sure there are a small handful if given the chance would return the government to where it should be, but if they are irrelevant it doesn't really matter.

 

[bamawriter]

As if Romney will be any better...

I'm convinced that Obama sucks. Romney might suck worse, he might suck less, he might actually do a decent job. No matter what, I can't justify a vote that will help keep a guy in office who has already made his suckage painfully obvious.

 

[bamawriter]

you want to blame me for voting for a candidate that actually matches my beliefs? Many claim to be all about new ideas and getting America back but then cast their vote for the same POS in a different suit. I used to but not anymore.

I was kidding. Your previous post was worded kinda funny.

 

[utvolpj]

I'm convinced that Obama sucks. Romney might suck worse, he might suck less, he might actually do a decent job. No matter what, I can't justify a vote that will help keep a guy in office who has already made his suckage painfully obvious.

and if you continue to vote for whomever they warm up and serve to you then I'm not sure you deserve any better

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I understand what your saying, and agree with most of it.

Im sure there are a small handful if given the chance would return the government to where it should be, but if they are irrelevant it doesn't really matter.

I agree. Too many people are content with voting for status quo. All I can do is vote for the people who best represent my views and hope more Americans wake up to the realization that America is circling the bowl.

 

[YorkVol]

not at all since the GOP is forcing people's hand. In all honesty the 3rd party vote will be negligible at best. The same kind of people that voted for Obama the first time will do it again. The hardcore ticket voters will still show up for the GOP

you want to blame me for voting for a candidate that actually matches my beliefs? Many claim to be all about new ideas and getting America back but then cast their vote for the same POS in a different suit. I used to but not anymore.

I voted for Obama because I couldn't stomach McCain for a variety of reasons and didn't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate. I know a lot of moderates and independents who did the same. I'm not making that same choice again. In 2008, 3rd party candidates received just over 1.5% of the popular vote and as long as that is the case, then the major parties can continue to ignore anyone who is not either a D or an R. What would happen if that percentage went up to 10%? It wouldn't necessarily change the outcome of the election, but it would get some attention.

 

[utvolpj]

I voted for Obama because I couldn't stomach McCain for a variety of reasons and didn't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate. I know a lot of moderates and independents who did the same. I'm not making that same choice again. In 2008, 3rd party candidates received just over 1.5% of the popular vote and as long as that is the case, then the major parties can continue to ignore anyone who is not either a D or an R. What would happen if that percentage went up to 10%? It wouldn't necessarily change the outcome of the election, but it would get some attention.

like Perot?

only way to change it is to get a winner