Your position suggests to condemn the man for things he has not done. That's equivalent to accusing a man guilty before he's had a fair trail or as we use to say in the military "guilty before being presumed innocent".“Pro-gun rights”, again, everything he has ever said on the subject indicates him to be opposed to the Second Amendment and the rights affirmed therein.
That, as President, he has not had nor taken any opportunity to put forth policies on these matters is no reason to attribute to him positions that are opposite to those that he's clearly expressed.
I think you'd be interesting in reading the book, "Why We Want You To Be Rich," co-authored by Robert T. Kiyosaki and Donald J Trump. You'd be surprised to learn what The Donald says on the issue of wealth redistribution where tax cuts to the wealthy are concerned in relation to the debt and deficit. (And mind you, this book was published in 2006!)“Very pro-tax reform (wealth redistribution) in an effort to reduce the deficit and bring about more opportunities for those within the middle-class to become entreprenuers [sic] and start small businesses to spur job growth and become prosperous…” — here, he has successfully pursued policies which have been the exact opposite of what you attribute to him. About the only thing I can give you here is your parenthetical remark about “(wealth redistribution)”, but I must point out that such “wealth redistribution” is usually understood to be about taking wealth from those who are deemed to have too much of it, and giving it to those who are deemed not to have enough; while President Obama's actual wealth-redistribution policies have consisted of taking wealth from all classes of taxpayers, and giving it to a few huge, badly-run corporations in the form of “bailouts”, which is rather contrary to the generally-understood point of “wealth redistribution”.
Again, non-sense. Health care premiums were on the rise long before ObamaCare was made law. I agree that the law isn't perfect, but the verdict on its overall impact on the economy cannot be measured at this time since the law has not been fully implemented. Thus, your argument equates to nothing more than hyperbol. Let's wait until 2018 after federal block grants to the states end and the states are left to fund their health insurance exchanges on their own and individuals are left to fully pay for their own health care before judging the law an epic fail, shall we?“…Very pro-health and health care access in order to ensure a future where this nation's citizens are healthier…” — this has been his signature cause, and to that end, he promoted and signed into law a horrendous mess which has ****ed up the entire health care business, in a manner that, for the vast majority of Americans, is making health care more expensive and unattainable than ever before.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-29-12 at 09:25 PM.
I cast my vote vote on resolute intellect, ability to make good decisions, temperament foreign policy, healthcare, protection of our rock and the people inhabiting it and how they have invested themselves in our country and their ability to represent "We the People".
That above is the short list!
I will never agree with anyone 100%.
Here's the logic which eludes you ... with only some 15% of blacks eligible to meet the requirements of your poll, it is not even possible for most blacks to vote for Obama because he's black since some 85% would be typically voting for the Democrat regardless of skin color.
As President, he hasn't directly taken any actions that are relevant to either of these issues. Your only basis for calling him “pro-gun rights” is that he hasn't participated in the enacting of any new gun control laws. Given the positions that he has clearly stated in the past, it's a safe bet that if a new gun control bill were to come across his desk, as President, he'd be more likely than not to sign it into law; and if a bill were to come across his desk to relax existing gun control laws, it is as likely that he would veto it.
Similarly, based on his past expressed opinions, it is likely that he'd sign a bill that removed legal restrictions against killing unborn children, and veto a bill that increased restrictions against doing so.
The five great lies of the
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.