Presidential Election: 2012

[Danoff]

I think we're seeing a whole new generation of people becoming disenfranchised with politics. Someone who was 12 when bush was first elected, was 20 when Obama was first elected and 4 when Clinton was first elected. The clinton years wouldn't really have registered, and Bush's first campaign would probably be largely ignored by that person. The first time they might have really paid attention to politics could have been the Bush/Kerry election, where they might have decided that they don't like some of the things Bush does and want to see Kerry in.

Well Kerry didn't get elected, and so those people never realized that Kerry would have done all of the things Bush did in his second term. They assumed a democrat would have done something different. Come 2008, they were 20, they could vote, they paid attention and thought - this time it'll be a democrat. We're going to get real change, change we can believe in.

So now it's re-election time, and some of those same people are starting to come to grips that it was never about republican or democrat - it was about maintaining and expanding power for politicians. The people who saw the hypocritical things Bush did are now seeing the hypocritical things Obama has done and are frustrated.

I just get so tired of the hypocrisy. In the Bush/Kerry election, Bush convinced the US (as the central issue in the election) that Kerry was weak on foreign policy and couldn't get the job done overseas. Well... is there any doubt that Kerry would have held the Bush course? He was supposedly going to cut and run... I don't think so.

Then in '08, Obama convinced the US (as the central issue in the election) that he'd get us out of Iraq and that McCain would further entangle us. Well, Obama did exactly what McCain would have done on that issue.

It seems that it's more about selling voters on an idea than anything else.

 

[Dennisch]

Colin Powell endorses Obama again

 

[FoolKiller]

You guys are teaming up here

Really, i respect your opinions, but i stick to mine; which is that Obama really isn't a bad president at all, and deserves a second (heck even a third) term.
I find him an intelligent and well spoken man, who does not need to read everything of an autocue to be able to speak to the public.

I also think he's a man that's good at heart, honest and quite noble and means the best for everybody.

Also he has one of the most difficult jobs on the planet, as the public is watching his every move, ready to spit flames on him for every slip-up he makes (which you gentlemen confirm).

As such yes i endorse him and i hope that he gets re-elected.

Penn Jillette, a famous magician and openly atheist libertarian celebrity in the US, will admit that Obama comes off as one of the greatest presidents in our lifetime as he presents himself very presidentially. He even said that listening to Obama speak makes your mind just settle into what sounds like a very reasonable point and you want to believe. Then your brain comes on and says that is not right, not honest, and not in the best interest of freedom and liberty.

So, all your reasons for liking Obama are legitimate reasons, as that is the image he is selling. That doesn't mean they are true or that he does what he says. Not having a say in this election, I guess it is not in your interest to dig deep into the acts of the US government when the face on it is so pretty. That is understandable and even too common in the US, where it does matter. But please understand that if you toss out an endorsement like this those of us who have the reason and the will to look into what is really going on will point it out, because the last thing we need is more US voters thinking your statements are true.

Kind of like when you asked if we would choose Nixon over Hitler or just wait until we had a Jimmy Carter. I don't know how Carter is viewed in Europe, but in the US he is the measuring stick for bad presidents. It isn't uncommon to hear someone called the worst since Carter. You probably know of his international humanitarian efforts. We remember gas rationing and waiting hours at the gas station and flubbed hostage situations.

I just point it out now to show that your view is not 100%. And while how a president deals with international affairs and how he gets along with our allies is important, his primary role is to US citizens and the US Constitution. Obama used to teach constitutional law and has done things his former students have said shock them because that is not what he taught.

We can keep on going back and forward with the arguments, but the unwritten rule of a forum is that basicly everyone goes into a discussion to try to prove that he/she is right, and no matter how many pages are written, in the end everyone sticks to his initial opinion.
Myself included, i still stand with everything i said so far.

I went down this same road with Bush supporters. I'm used to not changing the minds of people who don't want them changed.

But i like to leave it here with these final words: Obama for president!

Please research Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Tell us if you would prefer one of them. And leave out the stuff about them being unable to win. That's not the question.

If you don't think Obama's a bad president, you must be equally enamoured of Bush... right?

He did use Bush's talking points to defend Obama's actions.

 

[Joey D]

So now it's re-election time, and some of those same people are starting to come to grips that it was never about republican or democrat - it was about maintaining and expanding power for politicians. The people who saw the hypocritical things Bush did are now seeing the hypocritical things Obama has done and are frustrated.

It seems that it's more about selling voters on an idea than anything else.

This sums me up for the most part, except I supported and voted for Barr in the 2008 election. I know pretty much all my friends feel about the same.

I know one of the reasons people in their mid 20's hate politics is because no matter who gets elected we are going to be shafted. We were told at a young age we had to go to college and if we did we would get a job when we got out...ya that didn't happen. We also see that we are paying into a broken social security system, a really broken Medicare system, and we are starting to pay actual taxes for the first time and we are pissed our money is being squandered on things like a massive conflict in the Middle East.

The way I see it, and many others in their mid-20's, we are getting stuck with the bill for all the baby boomers who feel like they are entitled to everything. I know people get the impression younger people think we should be given hand out, but I really don't think that's the case. The reason we support a healthcare reform and government funded medicine is that we can't afford insurance or medical bills. Many of us are saddled with massive student loan debts with no job to make money to pay them off. I mean I'm 25 with a good bit of experience and I'm making $15.50/hr as a contingent employee. Sure I'm looking but after 30 interviews and over 200 applications you get sort of down about the whole thing.

Obama sold us on a bunch of promises and while we weren't as desperate in 2008, we sure as hell were in 2009. I feel like many of us were looking for anyone that would help us get going in the world. In reality that didn't exactly work and we are worse off then we were were 4-5 years back. We would be in the same spot with McCain too I believe. I also don't fully blame Obama but he didn't help an already bad situation.

I can honestly say I'm disenfranchised with the government and politics as a whole. This has been the hardest election to actually find someone I don't think is a complete dolt to vote for. I don't think I'll actually like politics until we get some people running that are looking out for the nation and not whoever gives them the biggest campaign contribution.

This is all just based on people I've spoken with at university and work, as well as friends and family. It seems like we all want the same thing, it's just our views on getting there differ a bit.

**Just to clarify the above post is an opinion based on observation, not facts.

 

[Zenith]

I'm gunna lower the average post length here.

It doesn't really make anybody's life better to simply state your opinion and refuse to qualify it or participate in discussion. If you want Pedobear to be President, you need to explain why and be open to discussion and disagreement.

You want to throw an opinion out without fear of someone calling it? Go to Facebook.

 

[cphbullet]

Wait, which one was that again?


Yes, since he has an awesome track record in both of those areas in the last four years...

Electing either of them has the same result.

Couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic about the first part or not, it was the report just after the debate Romney apparently won ended (involving some blonde woman with a pretty heavy cockney accent).

Obviously you have a point but i just feel obama would have a greater chance defusing tensions between the muslim world and america than Romney.

 

[Zenith]

Obviously you have a point but i just feel obama would have a greater chance defusing tensions between the muslim world and america than Romney.

Heh, defuse. Like explosives. Like drone strikes. Or even something like a war with Iran...

 

[cphbullet]

Heh, defuse. Like explosives. Like drone strikes. Or even something like a war with Iran...

I fail to see how that wouldn't defuse tensions, the people who were angry in the first place would no longer be around? kidding.

It's just Obama wants the troops out by 2014 (whether thats true or not i don't know) but it's pretty diffent to Romney's straight up 'boost military funding, we need the best military!' policy.

 

[Zenith]

We've discussed Obama's attitude towards campaign promises in this thread.

Picture relevant.

 

[Joel]

It was actually Romney who pledged to take the troops out by 2014

 

[Joey D]

It was actually Romney who pledged to take the troops out by 2014

They actually both have said they want the troops out by 2014...the twist? They'll just move them to Iran.

 

[Joel]

They actually both have said they want the troops out by 2014...the twist? They'll just move them to Iran.

Oh okay, so it's like how Gary Bettman plans to move the Phoenix Coyotes in 2014. Go team!

 

[FoolKiller]

It's just Obama wants the troops out by 2014 (whether thats true or not i don't know) but it's pretty diffent to Romney's straight up 'boost military funding, we need the best military!' policy.

It wouldn't be the first election he made the two year pledge in. Oddly, he is making the same pledge he did in '08 (out in two years) for the exact same troops in the exact same place.

See the problem and trustworthiness of his pledges?

Oh okay, so it's like how Gary Bettman plans to move the Phoenix Coyotes in 2014. Go team!

I'm unfamiliar with this team. I'd Google it but I know already it isn't football or basketball, so meh. (Being that you are Canadian, I'm guessing hockey though. Not that I would stereotype.)

 

[oopssorryy]

I'll just leave this here....

 

[Clytius]

 

[Danoff]

...and I thought I was cynical. That video is pretty idiotic.

 

[Joel]

I'm unfamiliar with this team. I'd Google it but I know already it isn't football or basketball, so meh. (Being that you are Canadian, I'm guessing hockey though. Not that I would stereotype.)

Phoenix's NHL team. Gary Bettman is the NHL's commissioner. The Coyotes have been bleeding money for a long time, their arena is out in the suburbs (quite far from the downtown core). They're currently owned by the NHL itself (the old owner jumped ship and nobody wants to touch it), and the writing's on the wall that the team will be moved to Seattle, Quebec City, Hamilton, or Markham (Toronto) (Toronto would have 2 teams).

Basically it's the NHL's version of an overseas war. Trying fruitlessly to fund an ideal that's obviously not working. I guess the comparison isn't quite the same because they're moving Phoenix to a new location that will be successful, but I digress. A better analogy would be moving the Coyotes to Atlanta (Atlanta has had two teams, one in the 80's that's now successful in Calgary, and one in the 00's that's now successful in Winnipeg (which is interestingly where the Phoenix Coyotes used to be).

 

[mister dog]

Penn Jillette, a famous magician and openly atheist libertarian celebrity in the US, will admit that Obama comes off as one of the greatest presidents in our lifetime as he presents himself very presidentially. He even said that listening to Obama speak makes your mind just settle into what sounds like a very reasonable point and you want to believe. Then your brain comes on and says that is not right, not honest, and not in the best interest of freedom and liberty.

So, all your reasons for liking Obama are legitimate reasons, as that is the image he is selling. That doesn't mean they are true or that he does what he says. Not having a say in this election, I guess it is not in your interest to dig deep into the acts of the US government when the face on it is so pretty. That is understandable and even too common in the US, where it does matter. But please understand that if you toss out an endorsement like this those of us who have the reason and the will to look into what is really going on will point it out, because the last thing we need is more US voters thinking your statements are true.

Kind of like when you asked if we would choose Nixon over Hitler or just wait until we had a Jimmy Carter. I don't know how Carter is viewed in Europe, but in the US he is the measuring stick for bad presidents. It isn't uncommon to hear someone called the worst since Carter. You probably know of his international humanitarian efforts. We remember gas rationing and waiting hours at the gas station and flubbed hostage situations.

I just point it out now to show that your view is not 100%. And while how a president deals with international affairs and how he gets along with our allies is important, his primary role is to US citizens and the US Constitution. Obama used to teach constitutional law and has done things his former students have said shock them because that is not what he taught.

Well i'm obliged to react, as you gave a respectful reply ; you are right that i'm not very familiar with Obama's national politics and that is indeed the case with most non-americans across the world. After what happened with the republicans before him, the rest of the world is just glad and relieved that; what we percieve as a man with a stable and peaceful mind, is in control of the US and it's foreign politics. That is what makes him so popular, most americans here on the forum try to convince me that he actually is as big a warmonger as his predecessor, but that just doesn't play with me. For me (and most non americans across the world), the difference between Bush and Obama is huge.

Also what is normal on the other hand, is that for the american public the domestic politics and achievements are way more important than what the US do outside of it's borders.

I went down this same road with Bush supporters. I'm used to not changing the minds of people who don't want them changed.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, i think in general very few minds change or even put a bit of water in their wine, because of a good old discussion. It's always a case of trying to show you're right haha.

 

[Famine]

you are right that i'm not very familiar with Obama's national politics and that is indeed the case with most non-americans across the world.

most americans here on the forum try to convince me that he actually is as big a warmonger as his predecessor, but that just doesn't play with me. For me (and most non americans across the world), the difference between Bush and Obama is huge.

Do you not see the problem of those two sections of text?

You admit that you - and other non-Americans - don't know much about Obama's actions (or Bush, for that matter). But when Americans tell you about Obama actions, you don't believe them?

Also what is normal on the other hand, is that for the american public the domestic politics and achievements are way more important than what the US do outside of it's borders.

Odd statement, given Obama's 2008 campaign focussing on what he was going to do with US troops differently to what Bush did.

 

[FoolKiller]

most americans here on the forum try to convince me that he actually is as big a warmonger as his predecessor, but that just doesn't play with me.

I don't know if you get The Daily Show from Comedy Central or know who John Stewart is, but he summed up the last debate as, Mitt Romney has adopted Obsma's foreign policy and Obama is continuing Bush's policy, all of which Romney seems to have forgotten that he was opposed to three months ago.

For me (and most non americans across the world), the difference between Bush and Obama is huge.

Bush came off as a cowboy. But after 9/11 that is what Americans needed. Unfortunately, he never dialed it back again. Obama knew the aggressive approach to diplomacy was now wrong. But he has not changed the military tactics Bush started. It is much easier to diplomatically explain why you will continue occupying a country than justify the invasion.

Also what is normal on the other hand, is that for the american public the domestic politics and achievements are way more important than what the US do outside of it's borders.

Humans are selfish. You don't want us telling you we will do what we want, where we want and I don't want my healthcare choices taken away, the cheapest source of electricity attacked, and my daughter's lunch from home taken away at school. I also do tv want to be told who I can marry, what Zi can say, or what kind of movies and games Insllow my daughter access to.

 

[cphbullet]

We've discussed Obama's attitude towards campaign promises in this thread.

Picture relevant.

I still believe its one of the things he would keep to, he would have that card to use if he tried for a 3rd season.

It's kinda off topic but has anyone seen the 'Mitt Romney style' parody?

 

[Famine]

I still believe its one of the things he would keep to, he would have that card to use if he tried for a 3rd season.

No US President may serve more than two terms.

 

[Liquid]

No US President may serve more than two terms.

Which amendment cemented this?

I believe they kept it a gentleman's agreement of two terms because Washington refused to run for a third time, and they only made this law after Roosevelt's unprecedented fourth term.

 

[Dennisch]

Which amendment cemented this?

I believe they kept it a gentleman's agreement of two terms because Washington refused to run for a third time, and they only made this law after Roosevelt's unprecedented fourth term.

Amendment XXII


I was just reading about FDR.

Btw. Isn't it strange I have more interest in American politics than the Dutch politics?

 

[mister dog]

Do you not see the problem of those two sections of text?

You admit that you - and other non-Americans - don't know much about Obama's actions (or Bush, for that matter). But when Americans tell you about Obama actions, you don't believe them?

I think you read over the words "national politics" there. We (non-americans) are all too familiar with the foreign politics of the US, and what they caused over the last decade.

Damn... here we go again

 

[d3uc3_dropp3r]

I need help. My friend was blaming Bush for everything from the economy to the patriot act being signed. He is also a very big Obama supporter so I said to him "NDAA?" He replies "What's that?" Am I crazy?

 

[Famine]

I think you read over the words "national politics" there.

Did you mean "domestic"?

The Sixth Amendment is domestic politics, isn't it? How about the Patriot Act?

We (non-americans) are all too familiar with the foreign politics of the US, and what they caused over the last decade.

If you genuinely think that Bush is a warmonger (sending troops into countries he said he'd send them into) and Obama is not (sending more troops into countries he said he'd withdraw them from; putting troops into more countries; drone strikes on allies), you are not as familiar with the USA's foreign policy as you think you are.

You're excusing Obama for acting in exactly the same manner as Bush because he lies about it and can read an autocue more fluidly.

 

[oopssorryy]

I need help. My friend was blaming Bush for everything from the economy to the patriot act being signed. He is also a very big Obama supporter so I said to him "NDAA?" He replies "What's that?" Am I crazy?

I'll have to look it up, but Obama signed a bs bill that's worse than the patriot act. I'll have to look it up a bit later. It lets the US gov imprison it's own citizens without trial indeffinetly without giving reason. It happened a while ago.

 

[d3uc3_dropp3r]

I'll have to look it up, but Obama signed a bs bill that's worse than the patriot act. I'll have to look it up a bit later. It lets the US gov imprison it's own citizens without trial indeffinetly without giving reason. It happened a while ago.

Will be a year in a few months I believe. I just want to know if I am crazy at the fact my friend talks a dookie storm about Bush but doesn't know even know what the NDAA is!! Irony?

 

[mister dog]

Did you mean "domestic"?

The Sixth Amendment is domestic politics, isn't it? How about the Patriot Act?

Domestic;.. makes me think of training the dog to not take a dump in the living room. Yes i mean national politics, as in politics in the homeland aka where one rules within his own borders. Thats the area of lesser expertise with professor Dog regarding the american president. I do remember tough that the patriot act started before Obama came into power.

If you genuinely think that Bush is a warmonger (sending troops into countries he said he'd send them into) and Obama is not (sending more troops into countries he said he'd withdraw them from; putting troops into more countries; drone strikes on allies), you are not as familiar with the USA's foreign policy as you think you are.

You're excusing Obama for acting in exactly the same manner as Bush because he lies about it and can read an autocue more fluidly.

Aside the fact that Obama is not a inbred idiot, he also did not start campaigning the UN with false accusations so he could start a war for the purpose of oil, and lucrative contracts for daddy's friends (haliburton, military contracts...), which ultimately cost the lives of more than 100.000 people.
But at least he said he would send the troops no? How noble...

And Obama lying about putting more troops in countries he said he'd withdraw them from? I have this nice graph for you here: