• 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!

CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

chevydriver1123 said:
This November will be a clear indicator.
Click to expand...

Just as 1994 spelled the doom of Clinton.

The 2012 election is almost three years away. Obama's low ratings are due to the economy (which surely will be different in 2012) and the fact he is bogged down in healthcare reform. He solves the latter and should the economy recovery be in full swing, which it should be, Obama will cruise to a big win in 2012. If, of course, the status quo exists, I might even vote the other way.

The election of 2012 will be dependent largely on issues and circumstances that are different than those of today. Anyone that takes too much stock in this particular poll either is politically naive or hopeless optimistic (or pessimistic, if that is your leaning)

Silly poll. Move on.
 
Conservative said:
Look, I will concede that the Bush Administration with the help of Congress including a Democrat Controlled Congress the last two years of his Administration spent too much money but I will not buy the statement that his Adminstration was a disaster.

We have 46 straight months of strong economic growth. We had to pay for 9/11 which many seem to forget happened. We also had three major hurricanes which had to be paid for.

The non partisan facts seem to refute the claim of a disaster. What we have now is a disaster in the WH, someone who has taken Bush spending and put it on steroids. As was pointed out by someone else here, the deficit the first 6 years of the Bush Administration excuding the 9/11 expense pales in comparison to the expenses of a Democrat Controlled Congress and the expenses now being generated by this President and by the liberal Congress.

By current standards the Bush Administration was a rousing success.
Click to expand...

Bush cut taxes and waged two simultaneous wars, one of which was completely elective. This was a unique combination was never before attempted; a feat that makes the olympic half pipe look like child's play.

In doing so, he more than doubled the national debt. The current deficit is not anything Obama created, but is pretty similar to the deficit in the last Bush budget, adjusted for projected revenue shortfalls from the recession.

As to 46 months of good economic trend, well that clearly was a mirage. As evidence by the economic collapse of 2008, our apparent prosperity was just living large on credit, not on economic substance.

We have had some good and decent Republican presidents over the years. Unfortunately for all of us, Bush was not one of them. In fact, he was a disaster.
 
upsideguy;1058579785]Bush cut taxes and waged two simultaneous wars, one of which was completely elective. This was a unique combination was never before attempted; a feat that makes the olympic half pipe look like child's play

In doing so, he more than doubled the national debt. The current deficit is not anything Obama created, but is pretty similar to the deficit in the last Bush budget, adjusted for projected revenue shortfalls from the recession..
Click to expand...

It is frustrating dealing with people who haven't a clue. This is the Obama economy and only in the liberal world can you blame the previous President for results generated.

Bush did not put this country into recession alone and got help from the Democrat Congress of which Obama was a member. Obama voted for all the spending that Bush did and then Obama bailed out GM/Chrysler and proposed and signed the 800 billion stimulus plan so don't give me the bs that he had nothing to do with the 2009 deficit.

As to 46 months of good economic trend, well that clearly was a mirage. As evidence by the economic collapse of 2008, our apparent prosperity was just living large on credit, not on economic substance.
Click to expand...

bea.gov says you are wrong. Interesting that the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007 and the recession began in December but the Congress had nothing to do with the recession.

[/QUOTE]We have had some good and decent Republican presidents over the years. Unfortunately for all of us, Bush was not one of them. In fact, he was a disaster.[/QUOTE]

It is too bad that you buy what you are told by the media. Historians will judge Bush a lot differently than you ever will. I would take Bush back in a heartbeat compared to Obama
 
Dittohead not! said:
Do you vote against liberal Republicans as well?
Click to expand...

I would if there was a worthy Conservative running against them but unfortunately that is not possible in the Democratic Party......There are no true Conservatives there.......
 
Navy Pride said:
I would if there was a worthy Conservative running against them but unfortunately that is not possible in the Democratic Party......There are no true Conservatives there.......
Click to expand...

The only real conservatives left now are not Republicans, nor Democrats. They re Libertarians.

Why not support the real conservative party?
 
Dittohead not! said:
The only real conservatives left now are not Republicans, nor Democrats. They re Libertarians.

Why not support the real conservative party?
Click to expand...

Because 43% of the people in this country are idiots and would vote for a Democrat simply because of the D after the name. Another 26% or so would vote Republican with the rest someone else. Mathematically it makes no sense to vote for someone who only splits the vote and thus assures a Democrat is elected.

The tea party movement is taking the Republican Party with it and is that is the only chance of winning this fall and in 2012
 
Conservative said:
Because 43% of the people in this country are idiots and would vote for a Democrat simply because of the D after the name. Another 26% or so would vote Republican with the rest someone else. Mathematically it makes no sense to vote for someone who only splits the vote and thus assures a Democrat is elected.

The tea party movement is taking the Republican Party with it and is that is the only chance of winning this fall and in 2012
Click to expand...

The Libertarians have no chance of winning because no one will vote for them because they have no chance of winning.

That about sums it up, doesn't it?

But, how often have we wished that there were a "none of he above" choice on the ballot? The third party candidates are that choice. Not only that, but the Libertarian choice is also a way of saying that the government has gotten too big, too intrusive, too expensive.

And, if enough people start voting for none of the above, we just might get a viable third party going.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The Libertarians have no chance of winning because no one will vote for them because they have no chance of winning.

That about sums it up, doesn't it?

But, how often have we wished that there were a "none of he above" choice on the ballot? The third party candidates are that choice. Not only that, but the Libertarian choice is also a way of saying that the government has gotten too big, too intrusive, too expensive.

And, if enough people start voting for none of the above, we just might get a viable third party going.
Click to expand...

I will not vote democrat or republican again. Those two parties have done irreparable damage to this country. It really is a time for change.
 
USA-1 said:
I will not vote democrat or republican again. Those two parties have done irreparable damage to this country. It really is a time for change.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is time for a change, a real one.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The only real conservatives left now are not Republicans, nor Democrats. They re Libertarians.

Why not support the real conservative party?
Click to expand...

Because a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a liberaal democrat........No thanks
 
Navy Pride said:
Because a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a liberaal democrat........No thanks
Click to expand...

You either have a strange definition of a liberal democrat, or else don't understand the Libertarian agenda.

In a nutshell, the libertarian philosophy is that your freedom is not limited until it begins to impinge on someone elses. Individuals, not the government, make their own choices and then live by the results of those choices. Government needs to be kept small and non intrusive.


Does that sound like a liberal democrat agenda to you?
 
Dittohead not! said:
You either have a strange definition of a liberal democrat, or else don't understand the Libertarian agenda.

In a nutshell, the libertarian philosophy is that your freedom is not limited until it begins to impinge on someone elses. Individuals, not the government, make their own choices and then live by the results of those choices. Government needs to be kept small and non intrusive.


Does that sound like a liberal democrat agenda to you?
Click to expand...

I just believe that a vote for a 3rd party candidate that is moderate takes a vote away from the Republican conservative candidate and helps the liberal dem........

At this time in our country I don't take libertarians serious because the can not win..........
 
Navy Pride said:
I just believe that a vote for a 3rd party candidate that is moderate takes a vote away from the Republican conservative candidate and helps the liberal dem........

At this time in our country I don't take libertarians serious because the can not win..........
Click to expand...

OK, I misunderstood your post.

What if there is no conservative running? Who do you vote for then?
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, I misunderstood your post.

What if there is no conservative running? Who do you vote for then?
Click to expand...

No Problem.......The person I agree with closest on the issues.......There again I don't actually vote for someone I vote against their opponent......
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
No Problem.......The person I agree with closest on the issues.......There again I don't actually vote for someone I vote against their opponent......
Click to expand...

So do I. Quite often the candidate I agree with most closely is the Libertarian. That way, I get to vote against both candidates.

Who was the conservative running in the last few presidential elections?
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

USA-1 said:
Bush already led this country over the cliff. He doubled the debt and destroyed the economy. Remember? Obama is trying to climb back up. He is using spending to pull us out of the recession just like Reagan did. Just like FDR did.
Bush 2009 budget 3.1 trillion
Obama 2010 budget 3.6 Trillion.
Click to expand...

This is funny, Bush led us over a cliff, and for facts to back this up you quote his 2009 budget which is $500,000,000,000 less than Obama's 2010 budget that is saving the country.... :lamo

I forgot to look, are you by chance a liberal?
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Crunch said:
This is funny, Bush led us over a cliff, and for facts to back this up you quote his 2009 budget which is $500,000,000,000 less than Obama's 2010 budget that is saving the country.... :lamo

I forgot to look, are you by chance a liberal?
Click to expand...

Interesting how you blame Bush for all of the 2009 budget, how convenient. Did Obama vote for that budget? Did Bush propose the 800 billion dollar stimulus plan or the GM/Chrysler bailout? Did Bush spend all the 700 Billion dollar TARP funding?

It is obvious to me that you haven't a clue nor do you want the facts to get in the way of your opinions.
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Conservative said:
Interesting how you blame Bush for all of the 2009 budget, how convenient. Did Obama vote for that budget? Did Bush propose the 800 billion dollar stimulus plan or the GM/Chrysler bailout? Did Bush spend all the 700 Billion dollar TARP funding?

It is obvious to me that you haven't a clue nor do you want the facts to get in the way of your opinions.
Click to expand...

I think it best you go back and read my post again... all apologies accepted, well..... most of the time. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

USA-1 said:
He signed it.
Click to expand...

And democrats spent it.

About your tag line.... you do know the difference between the words "promote" and "provide" don't you?
 
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Crunch said:
And democrats spent it.

About your tag line.... you do know the difference between the words "promote" and "provide" don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. ...

Promote:
"to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further"

Provide:
"to make available; furnish"
 
Last edited:
Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

Crunch said:
And democrats spent it.
?
Click to expand...

Of course the republicans had nothing to do with spending it.:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom