• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Hill: 54% of Likely Voters say Obama does not deserve reelection

Yes, because everyone knows that presidential campaigns base everything on one poll that you randomly singled out

:confused: "kill romney" has been the theme since early spring at least. are you just now picking up on this?
 
:confused: "kill romney" has been the theme since early spring at least. are you just now picking up on this?

1. Exaggerate much? lol. Every single presidential campaign going back to Thomas Jefferson has attacked the other guy. Period. That's how it goes.

2. You insinuated that the Obama campaign is going to "double down" on a campaign strategy, based on a poll that you singled out. That's a silly notion, because, hopefully, Obama has people that don't actually think that every single poll conducted obviously is a perfect representation of how the general public feels. If only we could get some of the more naive posters around here to understand this...
 
1. Exaggerate much? lol. Every single presidential campaign going back to Thomas Jefferson has attacked the other guy. Period. That's how it goes.

Yup. But that is not the same as making it the centerpiece of your campaign. In 2008, for example, both candidates emphasized the attacks less to try to run on something positive (Maverick v Change). This time around, Obama seems to have dropped the actually-having-a-positive-message part, and is instead running almost entirely on a campaign built around "defining the opponent". This poll demonstrates a likely "why" that decision was made.

2. You insinuated that the Obama campaign is going to "double down" on a campaign strategy, based on a poll that you singled out. That's a silly notion, because, hopefully, Obama has people that don't actually think that every single poll conducted obviously is a perfect representation of how the general public feels. If only we could get some of the more naive posters around here to understand this...

No, I think that this poll is A) not an outlier B) probably in line what they are seeing in their internals, given their actions.

Going forward, Obama has not decided to make the case that he deserves reelection (that his second administration would be good) so much as he has decided to make the case that Romney would be worse.
 
What do you mean "we"?

Companies need to see enough inventive to start hiring again. Learn basic economics before you embarrass yourself further.

Perhaps you're not following the thread. I suggest you review the post to which I was responding before making comments about my post.

BTW - what do you mean by 'inventive'?

Context is everything, my friend.
 
Question: What part of the 54% believe angels are real?
 
Question: What part of the 54% believe angels are real?

Answer: probably there is a good overlap between the faithful and those who do not believe Obama has earned reelection.

Question: why do you think that following a religion (for example, Islam, which believes in spirits such as the ones you describe) is a disqualifying factor for ones' political judgement?




Anywho:

Barack Obama approaches his nomination for a second term with the lowest pre-convention personal popularity of an incumbent president in ABC News/Washington Post polls since the 1980s. He’s also at his lowest of the year among registered voters, with trouble among women....

The decline has occurred entirely among women registered voters – from 57-39 percent favorable-unfavorable in April to a numerically negative 46-50 percent now. That’s Obama’s lowest score among women voters – a focus of recent political positioning – in ABC/Post polls since he took office. Unusually, his rating among men, 50-47 percent favorable-unfavorable, is numerically better than it is among women, albeit not by a significant margin.

The result is not the only sign of the work ahead for Obama among women. In a separate ABC/Post poll last week, he led Romney among women registered voters in vote preference by just 6 points, 49-43 percent. In 2008, Obama won women by 13 points, 56-43 percent....
 
Answer: probably there is a good overlap between the faithful and those who do not believe Obama has earned reelection.

Question: why do you think that following a religion (for example, Islam, which believes in spirits such as the ones you describe) is a disqualifying factor for ones' political judgement?

You raise an interesting point about followers of religion and their mindset.

IMO - a mature person uses religion to help him make moral choices in life. He uses his faith to 'correct course' on a daily basis. He knows that religion is a man-made construct to help him connect with the spiritual.

However, people who believe in the more fantasy and magical elements of religious doctrine, they lack an adult maturity and intellect They straddle the Freewill Fence, if you will. They need to believe in magical forces manipulating their universe as way to explain shortcomings, injustices, and everyday science.

The concept of an angel is an extension of the pagan notion of spirit or fairy--a winged magical being that can effect your life. Children believe in them, and that's fine. But when adults believe in magic as a way to explain events, they are like children who need to have the complicated and chaotic world explained to them. People who believe in angels are, IMO, so intellectually lacking and immature, that they rely on organized religion to direct them and make decisions for them. Their Mega-Chuch is their Nanny-State.

The problem is this Mega-Church-Mommy who explains the big bad world with fairy tales has inserted itself in the public discourse and public policy. A single-issue religious voter is giving up his freewill and his right to consider all the complicated issues us adults consider when voting. A voter beholden to voting according to the will of his religious leader has given up some basic freedoms. They have surrendered their right to think and ask questions in exchange for a sense of order and a reassurance that magical unseen forces will make the world right.

This is not a disqualifying factor. I didn't say that. I made the comment as a way to ask, what does that 'belief in angles' survey tells us about the American voting public? Voting is a choice, a decision--ideally one that should be made with mature critical thought.

Conservatives will complain about under-educated minorities voting Democratic, the voters who lack adult maturity and will rely on some form of public assistance for most of their lives. However, there is a percentage of right-leaning folks who are not intellectually smarter than the urban voters they hold in contempt. The urban Democrat who relies on welfare and a 'Nanny State' is similar to the GOP voter who believes in angels, relying on invisible magic beings to protect and comfort them.

Bottom line, we CAN NOT disqualify either from voting.

Note: I realize there is some overlap here, some black Baptists who vote Dem believe in angles, too, etc.
 
However, people who believe in the more fantasy and magical elements of religious doctrine, they lack an adult maturity and intellect They straddle the Freewill Fence, if you will. They need to believe in magical forces manipulating their universe as way to explain shortcomings, injustices, and everyday science.

Isn't that also true of those who believe in the fantasy and magical elements of liberal political ideology?
 
Yep,people that truly need it should be able to receive help.Able bodied people that are just collecting checks need to be booted out the system,I know too many people that are doing it and it sickens me.

Could you explain what you mean by able bodied people? And who the people are that are doing it.
 
I don't see that Romney deserves to be elected. Of the two choices, I think Obama is the right man for the job.
 
Oh....a Rass/Pulse poll....

Say no more.
 
I don't see that Romney deserves to be elected. Of the two choices, I think Obama is the right man for the job.

And as a 2008 Obama voter I don't think he should be re-elected and have less problem with giving Romney a chance at bat than four more years of Obama.
 
As a weakness, it does mean that all Romney has to do is pull a 1980, and demonstrate himself to be an acceptable alternative during the debates. That would severely undercut the Obama campaign's strategy (were they to continue to pursue the "kill Romney" approach). We'll see.
Hey it worked for Bush....and Romney is no Reagan.
 
And as a 2008 Obama voter I don't think he should be re-elected and have less problem with giving Romney a chance at bat than four more years of Obama.

How much do you really know about Romney? I can't figure the guy out. That causes me to mistrust him and I dislike Ryan. I think Ryan is dangerous for Social Security and Medicare.
 
Could you explain what you mean by able bodied people? And who the people are that are doing it.

You seriously do not know what able bodied means?

As for your other question,people that can get jobs but consciously refuse to because they are getting unemployment/welfare checks.Now I'm not claiming a majority of people receiving assistance are like this,but there is a nice sized portion that do.
 
You seriously do not know what able bodied means?

As for your other question,people that can get jobs but consciously refuse to because they are getting unemployment/welfare checks.Now I'm not claiming a majority of people receiving assistance are like this,but there is a nice sized portion that do.

Of course I do, but you have no proof of your claim that a nice sized portion are sitting on their duffs and not working. You are speculating. Speculation is assuming that what you say is true.
 
Of course I do, but you have no proof of your claim that a nice sized portion are sitting on their duffs and not working. You are speculating. Speculation is assuming that what you say is true.

It's more of an educated guess based on what I see in the real world ;)
 
How much do you really know about Romney? I can't figure the guy out. That causes me to mistrust him and I dislike Ryan. I think Ryan is dangerous for Social Security and Medicare.

no..... the status quo is fatal to Social Security and Medicare.
 
You raise an interesting point about followers of religion and their mindset.

IMO - a mature person uses religion to help him make moral choices in life. He uses his faith to 'correct course' on a daily basis. He knows that religion is a man-made construct to help him connect with the spiritual.

If you are speaking strictly of religion in terms of it's physical forms (a church, a liturgy), then absolutely.

If, however, you are speaking of religion in terms of it's beliefs, then that is not what we do at all.

However, people who believe in the more fantasy and magical elements of religious doctrine, they lack an adult maturity and intellect

:lamo yes. Isaac Newton lacked intellect. Dietrich Bonhoeffer lacked maturity.

I would instead tend to suspect instead that those who were unable to accept the fact that men and women of good faith can come to honest disagreement given exposure to the same evidence would be those you describe above.

They straddle the Freewill Fence, if you will. They need to believe in magical forces manipulating their universe as way to explain shortcomings, injustices, and everyday science.

um.... no. I would suggest that you not attempt to dictate to Theists what they believe. You appear to be horrible at it.

The concept of an angel is an extension of the pagan notion of spirit or fairy--a winged magical being that can effect your life. Children believe in them, and that's fine. But when adults believe in magic as a way to explain events, they are like children who need to have the complicated and chaotic world explained to them.

not at all. accepting the reality of a plane of existence less limited than our own is anything but less complicated.

People who believe in angels are, IMO, so intellectually lacking and immature, that they rely on organized religion to direct them and make decisions for them

that such people do not require the physical constructs of faith to make their decisions for them is demonstrated by nothing so obviously as schism.

however, it is interesting that you would call all believing Muslims intellectually lacking and immature. Have you tried to work on expunging this bigotry of yours from your moral character?

The problem is this Mega-Church-Mommy who explains the big bad world with fairy tales has inserted itself in the public discourse and public policy. A single-issue religious voter is giving up his freewill and his right to consider all the complicated issues us adults consider when voting.

Not at all. Take, for example, your prototypical pro-life evangical voter. Let us say that he supports the Democrat partys' economic platform, but is horrified by what he see's as the mass murder of innocent children. Put to the vote, he is asked whether he is willing to accept murdering children, so long as we can make a buck off of it. I think we can certainly think of a few ways in which mature persons would decide that such a trade is not moral.

A voter beholden to voting according to the will of his religious leader has given up some basic freedoms. They have surrendered their right to think and ask questions in exchange for a sense of order and a reassurance that magical unseen forces will make the world right.

:lamo yeah, there's no intellectual debate within Islam. No questions asked in Christianity. No thinking going on in either :lol:




Regardless, the point was about the election, and how the publics' belief that the President does not deserve reelection is likely to shape the campaign.
 
no..... the status quo is fatal to Social Security and Medicare.

Now that the AHA has saved Medicare for longer, we have longer to fix it. There are good solutions to the problem.
 
Now that the AHA has saved Medicare for longer, we have longer to fix it. There are good solutions to the problem.

The AHA does not save Medicare, it simply buys us a couple of years by breaking faith with its' mission and screwing over seniors. That's not a good solution.
 
The AHA does not save Medicare, it simply buys us a couple of years by breaking faith with its' mission and screwing over seniors. That's not a good solution.

It needs to be saved for a few more years so solutions can be made. How does the AHA screw seniors? What plan does ROmney have that is better for seniors?
 
Back
Top Bottom