• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

So let's see if I have this right, progressives and liberals have no problem with the stock market going up and companies making record profits? What exactly did Obama do to create that rising stock market and record profits?

Keep playing that act you are playing

Probably about as much as he did to help/hurt unemployment, according to who you believe.
 
The majority of the public don't seem to believe that Obama has done a good job nor do the 24 million plus unemployed/under employed Americans. You can continue to play your act but it won't change the lack of support Obama has today.
Not true ... when averaging all polls, only 49% disaprove of the job he is doing. That's not a majority, Con.
 
Probably about as much as he did to help/hurt unemployment, according to who you believe.

Isn't it amazing how Bush was totally responsible for everything bad that happened during his term and now Obama's but obama saved the economy with its less than 2% GDP growth, high unemployment, record deficits, and higher misery index? Clinton was called the Teflon President but now that title goes to Obama
 
Not true ... when averaging all polls, only 49% disaprove of the job he is doing. That's not a majority, Con.
come on now sheik...you know numbers are not his strong suit...
 
Well according to that poll, there are plenty of rightwingers who won't vote for a Mormon either so I'm not sure why you think they're any different than those on the left.

And if that poll holds true, it can cost Romney as much as 25 to 30% of his votes between Republicans and roughly half of Independents.

Another potential problem for the right is Ron Paul, who is leaving the door open to run as an Independent should he not win the GOP nomination.

As you can see by the poll you posted most of those who hold a persons religion against them are leftists.
 
Isn't it amazing how Bush was totally responsible for everything bad that happened during his term and now Obama's but obama saved the economy with its less than 2% GDP growth, high unemployment, record deficits, and higher misery index? Clinton was called the Teflon President but now that title goes to Obama

Bush was no more responsible for all of the bad things that happened during his tenure than Obama is. The office of president has only just so much power.

Now, the decision to invade Iraq, and put the cost on the national MasterCard, that was up to the commander in chief, which really is one of the powers of the presidency.

but, the deep recession was not the fault of the presidency.
 
Bush was no more responsible for all of the bad things that happened during his tenure than Obama is. The office of president has only just so much power.

Now, the decision to invade Iraq, and put the cost on the national MasterCard, that was up to the commander in chief, which really is one of the powers of the presidency.

but, the deep recession was not the fault of the presidency.

Refusing Keystone would be directly related to this Presidency, as well as buying companies and investing in whimsical companies with public money.

Rather then Obama being compared with Bush and debating which one is worse, shouldn't people look for something better than either of them? It seems time to speak to the future.
 
Refusing Keystone would be directly related to this Presidency, as well as buying companies and investing in whimsical companies with public money.

Rather then Obama being compared with Bush and debating which one is worse, shouldn't people look for something better than either of them? It seems time to speak to the future.

Good point.

Who, among those running currently, do you predict might be better than either of the last two presidents? Who can really win the future?
 
Id say Paul if his foreign policy views weren't so...naive, for lack of a better, less polite term.
 
I honestly don't want a libertarian in the WH yet. I know it sounds weird. The libertarian goals are pretty dramatic and having 4 years to move them forward with no party support in congress could be tragic and dangerous to the party. I'd rather see them win quite a few more congress bids. Get them in there where they can be heard and make a difference.
 
Good point.

Who, among those running currently, do you predict might be better than either of the last two presidents? Who can really win the future?

I'd go by resume and Mitt Romney appears to be head and shoulders above the others, with not a bit of scandal attached to his name.

In a contest between Romney and Obama I cant see why any non ideological person would vote for Obama.
 
I honestly don't want a libertarian in the WH yet. I know it sounds weird. The libertarian goals are pretty dramatic and having 4 years to move them forward with no party support in congress could be tragic and dangerous to the party. I'd rather see them win quite a few more congress bids. Get them in there where they can be heard and make a difference.

Yes, it seems the time for experimentation is over and someone with a solid financial and administrative background should lead the way. Ron Paul raises some very good points but overall cannot be taken too seriously.
 
I'd go by resume and Mitt Romney appears to be head and shoulders above the others, with not a bit of scandal attached to his name.

In a contest between Romney and Obama I cant see why any non ideological person would vote for Obama.

I don't think they would. It seems to me that either Romney or Huntsman could win the general election hands down.

But to get the Republican nomination, they have to get past the Christian Right, who have a problem with their religion.
 
I don't think they would. It seems to me that either Romney or Huntsman could win the general election hands down.

But to get the Republican nomination, they have to get past the Christian Right, who have a problem with their religion.

It seems most everyone has respect for Huntsman and his points of view but he's just never caught on. Perhaps it's the likability factor. I think he would make a good President but he's just not a serious factor at the moment.

Obama was doomed to be a one term President because he simply lacked the necessary qualifications. It's clear he is still pretending to be President.

He was a candidate, like Biden and many others, only in order to get his name better known and to sell more books, not that he expected to win. But, like The Mouse That Roared, he surprisingly did win.

I once had the fear that Obama's incompetence would hurt Black politicians but that is clearly not the case, and a very good thing.

Do you really think religion will ultimately play that big a role? It certainly might be for many but I doubt that it would be significant enough for people to vote for any of the others., not when the economy of the country is at stake. They might hold their noses in the voting booth but will still do what's best for their future and go with the candidate who will most likely win. They won't want another John McCain experience.
 
Last edited:
What are the neccessary qualifications? And who has had them?
 
A telling question.

You obviously voted for Barrack Obama.

Well, that Palin experience certainly impressed me. But I asked a serious question. Do you ahve an answer?
 
Well, that Palin experience certainly impressed me. But I asked a serious question. Do you ahve an answer?

Palin experience? You had a Palin experience? You live in Alaska?

As mentioned earlier a candidate should have fiscal experience (particularly in budgeting) and administrative experience, preferably on a large scale, and should be judged according to their successes in these areas.
 
Well, that Palin experience certainly impressed me. But I asked a serious question. Do you ahve an answer?

Don't think that an Obama supporter has any room to talk about the Palin experience. Looks like the Obama experience hasn't impressed a lot of people only his most ardent supporters.
 
Don't think that an Obama supporter has any room to talk about the Palin experience. Looks like the Obama experience hasn't impressed a lot of people only his most ardent supporters.

its gonna be an interesting morning, after Obama wins his re-election.
 
Palin experience? You had a Palin experience? You live in Alaska?

As mentioned earlier a candidate should have fiscal experience (particularly in budgeting) and administrative experience, preferably on a large scale, and should be judged according to their successes in these areas.


You mean someone like newt?
 
Palin experience? You had a Palin experience? You live in Alaska?

As mentioned earlier a candidate should have fiscal experience (particularly in budgeting) and administrative experience, preferably on a large scale, and should be judged according to their successes in these areas.

Fiscal experience? Who creates the budget? The president presents a budget, but doesn't congress go through a process to tackle it? Is there a reason we don't just hire accountants?

Administrative experience? Good, but why don't we have that listed as a qualification for the presidency?

And do you believe the president runs the US economy? I know you said budget, which isn't wholly his to control, but I am curious as to how far you think the president is to blame for everything.
 
QUOTE Grant;

Does Newt have that experience?

Speaker of the house



If so, what do you think the answer might be?


I think that you would be proud to vote for the Narcissist .:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom