• 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!

Obama announces his Candidacy for 2012.

If it is by the election, can Obama count on your vote?

Not with a debt more than GDP, I don't support any policy that has more people working for the govt. than working in the manufacturing private sector. The massive growth in the govt. is unsustainable and not worthy of my vote.
Here's more on your, 'more government than manufacturing', rightwing talking point.

BLS.gov: Government jobs:
Jan 2001: 20,835,000
Jan 2009: 22,582,000
Mar 2011: 22,166,000


BLS.gov: Manufacturing jobs:
Jan 2001: 17,114,000
Jan 2009: 12,559,000
Mar 2011: 11,667,000

Under Bush, government jobs increased 8%; under Obama, government jobs decreased 2%.

Under Bush, manufacturing jobs decreased 27%; under Obama, manufacturing jobs decreased 7%.

So can Obama count on your vote now??
 
Thus, for me, it's about what has been done in the wake of the economic collapse to bring the economy back around. IMHO, Pres. Obama has made some end-roads towards improving the economy. Of course, there are those who based their decision moreso on "promises kept" over "progress made". Using that logic, most former Presidents should have been re-elected to a second term. But if people really want to play that "Promises Kept/Promises Broken" game, I encourage you to review the ObamaMeter at PolitiFact.org and then read this article from CBSNews dated Sept 2, 2007 and then make a real, honest assessment of which of the last two Presidents has kept his word more.

You are kidding, right, what is honest about the following "In the Works" as they all can be added to the promises broken. Further the important promises all have been broken including job creation and economic growth along with debt reduction.

In Works
No. 165: Train and equip the Afghan army
"Barack Obama will strengthen the training and equipping of the Afghan army and police and increase Afghan participation in U.S. and NATO missions, so that there is more of an Afghan face on security." In works

No. 175: End the use of torture
"From both a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint, torture is wrong. Barack Obama will end the use torture without exception. He also will eliminate the practice of extreme rendition, where we outsource our torture to other countries." In works

No. 286: Secure the borders
Will support "additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry".

No. 288: Provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
Will support "a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens." Stalled

No. 382: Secure nuclear weapons materials in four years
"Will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons materials at vulnerable sites within four years - the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama will fully implement the Lugar-Obama legislation to help our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction."

No. 395: Strengthen antitrust enforcement
"Will reinvigorate antitrust enforcement, which is how we ensure that capitalism works for consumers."

No. 439: Create 5 million "green" jobs
Will "create 5 million 'green' jobs; will invest $150 billion over ten years to deploy clean technologies, protect our existing manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs."

No. 441: Reduce oil consumption by 35 percent by 2030
Will "reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030."

No. 520: If you don't have insurance, or don't like the insurance you have, you'll be able to choose a new plan on a health insurance exchange
"If you don't have insurance, or don't like your insurance, you'll be able to choose from the same type of quality private plans as every federal employee - from a postal worker here in Colorado to a congressman in Washington. All of these plans will cover essential medical services including prevention, maternity, disease management and mental health care. No one will be turned away because of a pre-existing condition or illness."

No. 522: Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
Obama and Joe Biden will "turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington, so we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people
 
Here's more on your, 'more government than manufacturing', rightwing talking point.

BLS.gov: Government jobs:
Jan 2001: 20,835,000
Jan 2009: 22,582,000
Mar 2011: 22,166,000


BLS.gov: Manufacturing jobs:
Jan 2001: 17,114,000
Jan 2009: 12,559,000
Mar 2011: 11,667,000

Under Bush, government jobs increased 8%; under Obama, government jobs decreased 2%.

Under Bush, manufacturing jobs decreased 27%; under Obama, manufacturing jobs decreased 7%.

So can Obama count on your vote now??

Nope, I don't believe in the Obama economic policy and growth of the nanny state. I don't believe it is the role of the govt. to provide personal responsibility issues to the people and pay for it by charging someone else. This country wasn't built upon the principles of Obama but it is obvious that you need the nanny state
 
I am sure the u-6 unemployed are extremely happy to know that Obama saved all those jobs but wonder why it wasn't theirs they saved instead of govt. jobs?
What are you talking about? Government jobs are down 2% under Obama.

BLS.gov: Government Jobs.


You would be more rational if you would just be more honest ... that is, despite your whining about government jobs growing, the fact is, you voted for the man who saw government jobs increase on his watch and you're refusing to vote for the man who saw government jobs decrease on his.
 
How about responding to my statement, is that your vision for this country, the nanny state and the redistribution of wealth along with creating a socialist utopia?

Umm...no. I'm in big favor of a capitalist economy and a government makes sure that the members of such an economy don't threaten the physical and financial security of the American population. It's really not that extreme.
 
Umm...no. I'm in big favor of a capitalist economy and a government makes sure that the members of such an economy don't threaten the physical and financial security of the American population. It's really not that extreme.

What has Obama done that promotes the private sector and individual wealth creation?
 
'twas expected.

Can't say I'm surprised.

He does not have my support, unless the republican candidate is unbelievably vile, I'll be choosing the best of the worst this election season, can't wait.

Gonna be exciting.

which is why i held my nose and voted for GW Bush over John Kerry.
 
You are kidding, right, what is honest about the following "In the Works" as they all can be added to the promises broken. Further the important promises all have been broken including job creation and economic growth along with debt reduction.

Hence, the reason I included the following to my post (which you quoted before the edit was made):

Objective Voice said:
Bottom Line: the economy, personal character and leadership will be the driving forces for the 2012 Presidential election.

BTW: I said nothing about promises "In the Works". I said "Promises Kept!" Moreover, reposting that sparce list of promises "in the works" really doesn't do your side much good. It merely shows he's trying to accomplish those things but is either being held up by Congress or not enough time has gone by to determine whether or not he has kept his word, i.e., "No. 441: Reduce oil consumption by 35% by 2030"...how can this be measured until 2030 gets here?

Or "No 522: Bring Dems and Reps together to pass an agenda"...kinda hard to do in the other side is hell bent on continuing hateful, dishonest rhetoric. For his part, I'd say President Obama has been far more civil and has reached out to both Dems and Reps in trying to reach bipartisan agreements on a host of measures from health care reform (his presidential town hall meeting*) to the economy to the current budget stallmate (he has held meetings with the party leadership on atleast 2 occasions recently).

*Sidenote: Of course, he kinda killed it when he told Sen. McCain, "We're not in the primaries anymore, John. You lost." That was great!, but his comment certainly didn't win him many brownie points. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Thus, for me, it's about what has been done in the wake of the economic collapse to bring the economy back around. IMHO, Pres. Obama has made some end-roads towards improving the economy. Of course, there are those who based their decision moreso on "promises kept" over "progress made". Using that logic, most former Presidents should have been re-elected to a second term. But if people really want to play that "Promises Kept/Promises Broken" game, I encourage you to review the ObamaMeter at PolitiFact.org and then read this article from CBSNews dated Sept 2, 2007 and then make a real, honest assessment of which of the last two Presidents has kept his word more.

Bottom Line: the economy, personal character and leadership will be the driving forces for the 2012 Presidential election

Yeah, I've pointed people to Politifact, but I hadn't seen that article about Bush's promises. The thing about Promises Kept/Broken thing is that, in many ways, it's a faulty way to measure a presidency. It's pretty common knowledge that the President learns more when he actually gets in office and things necessarily change.

I agree about the bottom line and I would add that the Republican candidate has to come up with a clear and convincing plan for economy recovery and decreasing unemployment because right now just saying "we'll spend less" is probably too vague for most people.
 
Nope, I don't believe in the Obama economic policy and growth of the nanny state. I don't believe it is the role of the govt. to provide personal responsibility issues to the people and pay for it by charging someone else. This country wasn't built upon the principles of Obama but it is obvious that you need the nanny state
What you believe and what is real are two entirely different things.

For example, while you complain about the percentage of debt of GDP being too high (a valid complaint) ... you supported the man who saw that increase 52% and refuse to support the man who saw it increase, amidst the Great Recession, just 9%.

While you complain about too many government jobs (a valid complaint) ... You supported the man who saw goverment jobs increase 8% and you refuse to support the man who saw goverment jobs decrease 2%.

While you complain about not enough manufacturing jobs (a valid complaint) ... You supported the man who saw manufacturing jobs decrease 27% and you refuse to support the man who saw manufacturing jobs decrease, amidst the Great Recession, just 7%

While you complain about unemployment being too high (a valid complaint) ... You supported the man who saw the unemployment rate skyrocket 86% and you refuse to support the man who saw the unemployment rate increase, amidst the Great Recession, just 13%

You're a bundle of confliction.
 
Hence, the reason I included the following to my post (which you quoted before the edit was made):



BTW: Reposting that sparce list of promises "in the works" really doesn't do your side much good. It merely shows he's trying to accomplish those things but is either being held up by Congress or not enough time has gone by to determine whether or not he has kept his word, i.e., "No. 441: Reduce oil consumption by 35% by 2030"...how can this be measured until 2030 gets here?

Or "No 522: Bring Dems and Reps together to pass an agenda"...kinda hard to do in the other side is hell bent on continuing hateful, dishonest rhetoric. For his part, I'd say President Obama has been far more civil and has reached out to both Dems and Reps in trying to reach bipartisan agreements on a host of measures from health care reform (his presidential town hall meeting...of course, he kinda killed it when he told Sen. McCain, "We're not in the primaries anymore, John. You lost." That was great!, but his comment certainly didn't win him many brownie points."

My side? My side is on the side of free enteprise, capitalism, and getting away from the nanny state that we cannot afford. as for bringing the party together, "I won, you lost" statement of obama when he met with both sides on healthcare reform. He promised to incorporate some of the Republican ideas and didn't do it, passed it without one Republican vote. that isn't bringing both sides together. The same with the stimulus plan that he forced through Congress without proper debate or even time to read the bills. That isn't non partisanship.

Obama is a Chicago thug, a community organizer who wants the perks of being President but doesn't act like a President. there are no leadership skills there at all either on the economy or the world stage.
 
What you believe and what is real are two entirely different things.

For example, while you complain about the percentage of debt of GDP being too high (a valid complaint) ... you supported the man who saw that increase 52% and refuse to support the man who saw it increase, amidst the Great Recession, just 9%.

While you complain about too many government jobs (a valid complaint) ... You supported the man who saw goverment jobs increase 8% and you refuse to support the man who saw goverment jobs decrease 2%.

While you complain about not enough manufacturing jobs (a valid complaint) ... You supported the man who saw manufacturing jobs decrease 27% and you refuse to support the man who saw manufacturing jobs decrease, amidst the Great Recession, just 7%

While you complain about unemployment being too high (a valid complaint) ... You supported the man who saw the unemployment rate skyrocket 86% and you refuse to support the man who saw the unemployment rate increase, amidst the Great Recession, just 13%

You're a bundle of confliction.

Again, Bush isn't on the ballot and to compare Obama's numbers to who you believe is one of our worst Presidents doesn't bode well for you and your decision making process. Trying to justify your vote on Obama by my vote for Obama ignores the economic policy both have in place. Obama's is the nanny state with Obamacare and the stimulus, Bush's was the pro growth, pro business tax cuts. Obviously we know which one you support.
 
Small Business isn't hiring thus no incentive that works. Those so called promises kept haven't delivered on the job creation.

Oh. I forgot who I was arguing with for a second.
 
I am still waiting for you to give me a reason to vote for Obama for all you have done if this is your argument is to provide a reason that you won't be voting for Obama whose record is worse than Bush's. Comparing Obama's results today to 2009-2010 which are disasters doesn't boost your case.
For one, to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from becoming more Conservative.

For creating and saving 3.5 million jobs during Bush's Great Recession.

For doing a better with job with unemployment than every Republican president since Hoover.

For pushing through policies which inspired the stock market to increase more than any other president during their first 2 years.

His ability to drive Conservatives crazy is also a caveat. ;)
 
My side? My side is on the side of free enteprise, capitalism, and getting away from the nanny state that we cannot afford. as for bringing the party together, "I won, you lost" statement of obama when he met with both sides on healthcare reform. He promised to incorporate some of the Republican ideas and didn't do it, passed it without one Republican vote. that isn't bringing both sides together. The same with the stimulus plan that he forced through Congress without proper debate or even time to read the bills. That isn't non partisanship.
C'mon, Conservative. You're being very disingenious here.

If you read ANY of the Republican health reform bill proposals, you'd know that many of the Republican ideas were incorporated in the PPACA. For example, the health insurance exchanges, particularly retaining them at the state level AND given states the option to op-out provided what they established would be self-sustaining, was a Republican idea. It came from the Senate Select Committee's proposal. And we all know where the individual mandate came from - Republicans were for it before they were against it.

And as I've mentioned to you several times before, if States really wanted to do away with the so-called "nanny state", they'd toughen their welfare program requirements, couple job training and job placement with welfare benefits and place limits on how often and how long recipients could receive benefits. Instead, most states "allow" people to stay on welfare (in some cases) until the child reaches 18 yrs of age (or the mother remarries or gets a job that brings in more in income than she'd receive through welfare), or the fed (and the states) would do away with allowing folks to have part-time jobs while still collecting unemployment benefits. You know about these things. So I ask, when was the last time you petitioned your state or federal government to make the necessary changes even remotedly as outlined herein to the applicable laws? You can't complain about it if you've done NOTHING to force your state and federal representatives to change the law(s).

As to the rest of your drivel, I'll just ignore it because as usual you've just stooped to name calling and unsubstantiated partisan mud-slinging...acts I'd expect from a child than someone who claims to be a well-educated, mature professional. If you want to be taken seriously, you gotta come correct.
 
ill probably be voting mickey mouse again...unless there is a candidate that's not a corrupt politician. Oh wait, they all are...so...mickey mouse it is.
 
Sheik Yerbuti;1059390457]For one, to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from becoming more Conservative.


You mean putting activists Justices on the Court that makes the laws instead of interpreting the Constitution?

For creating and saving 3.5 million jobs during Bush's Great Recession.

You mean like having fewer employed than when he took office and saving state responsibility jobs like teachers? Is that the role of the Federal Taxpayer?

For doing a better with job with unemployment than every Republican president since Hoover.

Right and having more people drop out of the labor force than any other President and then claiming that the unemployment percentage is lower

For pushing through policies which inspired the stock market to increase more than any other president during their first 2 years.

Those evil corporations that aren't hiring?

His ability to drive Conservatives crazy is also a caveat. ;)

You mean his ability to brainwash supporters into adopting policies in complete violation of our Founders vision for this country?
 
ill probably be voting mickey mouse again...unless there is a candidate that's not a corrupt politician. Oh wait, they all are...so...mickey mouse it is.

In cases such as those, I always vote for my grandfather (who died in 1971)
 
Small Business isn't hiring thus no incentive that works. Those so called promises kept haven't delivered on the job creation.

Employment Situation Summary

Unemployment is down, growth in jobs is in the private sector. Government jobs are declining overall. It's not a big change, but it is better.

I'm sure you'll find a way to poo-poo this. Obama could gain full employment (which no President has done), walk on water and bring about world peace and it wouldn't be enough for you. I'm not convinced that McCain's job growth numbers would have been much better, so let's see some numbers besides your opinion.
 
Objective Voice;1059390464]C'mon, Conservative. You're being very disingenious here.

If you read ANY of the Republican health reform bill proposals, you'd know that many of the Republican ideas were incorporated in the PPACA. For example, the health insurance exchanges, particularly retaining them at the state level AND given states the option to op-out provided what they established would be self-sustaining, was a Republican idea. It came from the Senate Select Committee's proposal. And we all know where the individual mandate came from - Republicans were for it before they were against it.

Mandatory coverage and penalties are violations of the Constitution and individual states rights.

And as I've mentioned to you several times before, if States really wanted to do away with the so-called "nanny state", they'd toughen their welfare program requirements, couple job training and job placement with welfare benefits and place limits on how often and how long recipients could receive benefits. Instead, most states "allow" people to stay on welfare (in some cases) until the child reaches 18 yrs of age (or the mother remarries or gets a job that brings in more in income than she'd receive through welfare), or the fed (and the states) would do away with allowing folks to have part-time jobs while still collecting unemployment benefits. You know about these things. So I ask, when was the last time you petitioned your state or federal government to make the necessary changes even remotedly as outlined herein to the applicable laws? You can't complain about it if you've done NOTHING to force your state and federal representatives to change the law(s).

That is the state's responsibility to decide, not Obama's. Why do you care what I have done locally when you acknowledge that is a local responsibility, not a Federal Responsibility? Do you believe it was obama's job to save teacher's jobs in the states?

As to the rest of your drivel, I'll just ignore it because as usual you've just stooped to name calling and unsubstantiated partisan mud-slinging...acts I'd expect from a child than someone who claims to be a well-educated, mature professional. If you want to be taken seriously, you gotta come correct.


Results matter, not rhetoric.
 
For creating and saving 3.5 million jobs during Bush's Great Recession.

Even your savior himself stopped using that nonsensical talking point, once his own people told him they really can't prove it one way or the other. For you to use it as a reason to vote for him again is as nonsensical as the statement itself... more so.
 
Back
Top Bottom