Do you think Obama will be reelected in 2012

yes. there are thousands of homes left to repossess, taxes to raise, abortions to perform and world leaders to piss off.

You think Cata is an independent? Haven't been here long, have you? He believes that the rich should crawl on their bellies and thank the state for letting them keep some public property for a small while.

You should also beware the "Undisclosed", and there's a "Centrist" who only posts pro-choice (no other forum, no other subject, ever). Let's not take leans at face value.

Lets put it this way. Right now the LEADING runners for the GOP party are Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann, dont quote my spelling, because I could care less about the correct spelling of these two GOP cancers. I see Michelle Bachmann getting the nomination, alot of republicans still think Rick Perry will make a late run, but the guy is just way too crazy and out there. For example, he was the one who wanted Texas to be a seperate state from The United States, which in my mind is not only crazy, its also a mental disability, but these are the people Americans put in office, so I guess its a national problem.

President Obama destroys all of these GOP when it comes to election donations, Obama is off the map in terms of donations for his current re-election run. I believe Romney is second, followed by bachmann. Michelle Bachmann admitted PUBLICALLY a few weeks back that she believed blacks had it better during the slave days, and you can find that direct quote on CNN and Foxnews. Right there she just lost the black vote, which is essential to her in this upcoming election, considering she is running against BLACK MAN. The only GOP that could possibly, and i mean this by a HUGE long shot, beat president Obama and thats Romney.

Americans will not hold Obama responsible for taking in George Bush's economic meltdown, well, atleast the half-educated Americans wont. When I watch T.V. coverage of this debt sealing, all I see is the Republican party un-willing to budge on any issues they feel obligated to uphold, including their insanely rediculous anti-tax pledge, while the DEM's offer to reform S.S. and Medi. This to me says the Republican party is unwlling to work together with the Dem's for the assurance of a better future America.

You can NOT balance the budget on the backs of the poor, while the rich walk away without having to sacrifice in ANY way. Its un-American, and it will not fly. The lower class runs this country, the Upper class just takes in the cash. The rich would not be rich if they did not have the poor to teach their chilidren, balance their budgets, work in their factories, clean their homes, etc.

The Republicans, including the tea party, are always talking about CUT CUT CUT spending, DONT RAISE TAXES!!! When it comes time to cut something they need or use, they are totally against it. So basically, they want to Cut government spending, but as soon as its their turn to bat, they refuse to cut it, and demand we find other ways to cut spending! Its a no-win situation, and will never work, unless all Americans are on the same page and realize everyone will need to sacrifice in some areas of life, and you can send your thank-you mail to George W. Bush's $300,000,000 dollar ranch in Texas.

Another example of this is a few weeks back, a small town in Iowa got dismantled by a once in a lifetime flood. This small town is largely tea party Supporters. A big belief the tea party stands on is zero government involvement in state affairs and to disband FEMA. As soon as disaster struck, these people jumped the wagon so quick to get their checks from the government! Why? Because they would have died and/or starved if they didnt.

The Republican party, and yes... sadly I mean the ENTIRE republican party, which is basically dominated by the Tea baggers, has become the most in-consistent party I have seen in years. They demand spending cuts, and the disbanding of government programs, but jump ship as soon as its time to sacrifice themselves. Americans can see this, and THIS is why the GOP is screwed not only in this upcoming election, but for years to come.

Yes. Post #203 sums up the Republicans pretty completely, and a lot of 'Libertarians' as well.

Ron Paul's district is regulary one of the top four or five Federal pork recipients, and has been for quite a few years, something 'Libertarians' seem to be entirely happy with, which is genuinely hilarious. Apparently leading by example isn't an option for Libertarians or Republicans, for all their bloviating and incessant 'Who Can Be Furtherest To The Right of Adolph Hitler And Thus Has The Biggest Dick' ranting contests they pass off as 'conservatism' on message boards, if not in practice in office.

ecofarm said:

You think Cata is an independent? Haven't been here long, have you? He believes that the rich should crawl on their bellies and thank the state for letting them keep some public property for a small while.

Click to expand...

So? Thomas Jefferson thought so, too, and his Big Giant Government Statue is the symbol of their Party, and no, it wasn't meant to be ironic, either, to paraphrase Mike Huben.

You should also beware the "Undisclosed", and there's a "Centrist" who only posts pro-choice (no other forum, no other subject, ever). Let's not take leans at face value.

Click to expand...

Of course, this is opinion based entirely on your own beliefs on what is 'Centrist'. Many people don't adhere to an ideology, and their opinions vary according to the issue, as mine does. I despise both 'parties', and most of the 'third' parties, so I don't care for the label choices to pick from.

I don't suffer from paranoia so I don't really care what labels people choose for themselves. Why do you? It's not like any of this stuff matters and will swing an election or anything.

indigo said:

Sorry. I've been gone a while. Is everything still George Bush's fault?

Click to expand...

Gone from the planet? In a rubber room? news.google.com still exists if you need to think for yourself do some research.

indigo said:

Do you speak for all Independents?

Click to expand...

Right now, 58% of Independents are undecided. The other 42% are dissatisfied with Obama. Throughout history Independents tend to vote against the Incumbent , and if History remains consistent, the 58% of those who are undecided will vote against Obama.

LuckyDan said:

Then you won't have a liberal in '12 either.

If BO isn't liberal enough for you, may I ask who is? Whom would you appoint POTUS, if you could?

Click to expand...

We haven't had a credible liberal candidate in my lifetime. We have only elected conservatives or moderates. A liberal President would end both our optional wars immediately, as well as close all the unneeded US military bases around the world and reduce our military spending by 60% back to a defensive force. He would work to restore the progressive tax system that made our middle class strong, and undertake a massive R&D effort for alternative energy similar in intensity to the Manhattan project.

Oberon said:

Rick Perry is considered a serious candidate by Republicans???

Man, they really are pathetic if he's a possibility.

Click to expand...

That's the way I read it. If the GOP leaders allow Perry or Bachmann to be their candidate, it means they have given up the 2012 election.

indigo said:

Do you speak for all Independents?

Click to expand...

No, just the majority who are opposed to religious zealots being in charge of government.

Catawba said:

That's the way I read it. If the GOP leaders allow Perry or Bachmann to be their candidate, it means they have given up the 2012 election.

Click to expand...

I don't think they really want it; outside of some truly great foreign policy victories under George H.W. Bush, re repairing the damage Reagan caused over the demise of the Soviet Union, leading the coalition against Saddam, and some other stuff, all in one term, the Republicans have been a disaster, with a lot of sympathetic help from neo-liberal Democrat moderates like Clinton and now Obama.

The illusion of a 'two party system' isn't really fooling anybody any more, in any case. We all know it's a farce, yet few really want to change the system; pols just want to be the top dogs and have more control over distributing the loot and how much goes into who's pockets.

SPC said:

Right now, 58% of Independents are undecided. The other 42% are dissatisfied with Obama. Throughout history Independents tend to vote against the Incumbent , and if History remains consistent, the 58% of those who are undecided will vote against Obama.

Click to expand...

Being "dissatisfied with Obama" and being willing to vote for someone like Bachmann just to get him out of office are two completely different things.

I am pretty independent. I am with the Dems on some issues, with the Repubs on some issues, and want a combo of the two positions or neither position on still other issues. I don't like Obama or many of the policies that he has been pushing through Congress. However, he is the lesser of two evils if it comes down to him or a number of the current GOP Presidential hopefuls, especially Bachmann. I am not willing to get rid of one bad President for someone who is 5x or 10x worse, just in a different way.

roguenuke said:

Being "dissatisfied with Obama" and being willing to vote for someone like Bachmann just to get him out of office are two completely different things.

I am pretty independent. I am with the Dems on some issues, with the Repubs on some issues, and want a combo of the two positions or neither position on still other issues. I don't like Obama or many of the policies that he has been pushing through Congress. However, he is the lesser of two evils if it comes down to him or a number of the current GOP Presidential hopefuls, especially Bachmann. I am not willing to get rid of one bad President for someone who is 5x or 10x worse, just in a different way.

Click to expand...

So you would rather have a spend,spend,liberal instead of cut the deficit balance the budget tea party.

You can say you are not liberal but I do not believe you

ptif219 said:

So you would rather have a spend,spend,liberal instead of cut the deficit balance the budget tea party.

You can say you are not liberal but I do not believe you

Click to expand...

until she decides we need to spend spend spend on war war war

ptif219 said:

So you would rather have a spend,spend,liberal instead of cut the deficit balance the budget tea party.

You can say you are not liberal but I do not believe you

Click to expand...

I'd rather have someone who is not going to be able to "spend, spend, spend" on what he wants anyway, as long as Congress remains in the hands of the GOP, than have someone who could possibly get really horrible legislation passed through Congress while they have a majority there.

I believe balance works pretty well for us. The best thing we could do would be to have a moderate President and a Congress that is willing to actually compromise to get responsible and reasonable legislation passed that actually could help this country and be within the limits of the Constitution.

roguenuke said:

I'd rather have someone who is not going to be able to "spend, spend, spend" on what he wants anyway, as long as Congress remains in the hands of the GOP, than have someone who could possibly get really horrible legislation passed through Congress while they have a majority there.

I believe balance works pretty well for us. The best thing we could do would be to have a moderate President and a Congress that is willing to actually compromise to get responsible and reasonable legislation passed that actually could help this country and be within the limits of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Wrong moderate means liberal. We need a coservative. The dems have had control of congress since 2007 and have created 5 trillion in debt.Obama has created over 3 trillion on his watch It is time to throw them out.

ptif219 said:

Wrong moderate means liberal. We need a coservative. The dems have had control of congress since 2007 and have created 5 trillion in debt.Obama has created over 3 trillion on his watch It is time to throw them out.

Click to expand...

The Republicans are not going to do much better, since they basically want to do extremes in the opposite direction of whatever the Dems are doing. This is not how we should be running the government.

First of all, people need to understand, that fixing the economy will take time. Our economy didn't just suddenly break from some perfect system that was keeping everything working when Obama or any other politician from either side took office in the last 10, 20, or even 30 years. It has been working its way there because of various policies that both sides have supported/enacted and various things that politicians from both sides have done in that time and longer. To blame it on any one person or side is completely ridiculous.

Second, people need to understand that it is going to take a lot of little things, such as cutting down stupid spending that comes from reactionary steps (which is where a lot of our overhead spending comes from, having redundant backups because someone messed up and everyone now feels that a mistake means we must make a very visible change to "ensure" it doesn't happen again, instead of actually looking into what went wrong and accepting that sometimes people make mistakes, you deal with the mistake and move on), and cutting some governmental jobs and salaries, such as government paid aides and secretaries and advisers to politicians and cuts in their salaries. We also need to understand that everyone is going to have to compromise some of their ideals to make this work.

And people need to start becoming more self sufficient and less self absorbed to get through this. We aren't entitled to anything, but that doesn't mean that some things being made available to everyone isn't good for our society. Some government regulation will always be necessary. The trick is to find the balance of government regulation and economic freedom that allows the economy to remain healthy. Our problem is that we seem to have too much government regulation in some areas and not enough in other areas because too many people believe that their ideas are right without looking at all the consequences of what is likely to happen when those ideas are enacted.

Catawba said:

We haven't had a credible liberal candidate in my lifetime. We have only elected conservatives or moderates. A liberal President would end both our optional wars immediately, as well as close all the unneeded US military bases around the world and reduce our military spending by 60% back to a defensive force. He would work to restore the progressive tax system that made our middle class strong, and undertake a massive R&D effort for alternative energy similar in intensity to the Manhattan project.

Click to expand...

Are you assuming Congress was killed in a nuclear explosion? Or democrats were a) voted in across the boards, and b) not answering to any special interest groups?

BDBoop said:

Are you assuming Congress was killed in a nuclear explosion? Or democrats were a) voted in across the boards, and b) not answering to any special interest groups?

Click to expand...

Explaining to the far-right what a liberal presidency would be like, if it were to ever occur.

Catawba said:

Explaining to the far-right what a liberal presidency would be like, if it were to ever occur.

Click to expand...

It has occured and the democrats losing in 2010 shows the people do not like the liberal agenda.

Yet we still have democrats and Obama acting like they still have a filibuster proof congress.

It is time for Obama to listen to the GOP and the Tea party.

The presidential election will be decided by the economy … nuff said about that that .. and it makes no difference who wins .. what everyone seem to be ignoring it the senate

There are 34 senate seats up for grabs in 2012 .. of them I believe 23 are presently held by democrats … and 11 by republicans .. even not taking into account what happened in 2010 … and just saying there will be a even split in those elections .. that would mean the Republicans end up with control of the house and senate .. . and Obama is a lame duck president... that is powerless .. much the same as Bush was during his last two years .

Bardo said:

Maybe if Bachmann says "Obama will be a one term president" about a million more times people will come under the effect of some Tea Party mind trick.

Other than that possibility, I don't see Obama losing in 2012.

Click to expand...

He is the one term Marxist president... If he wins the country loses. But failing to lead the nation out of a depression with sound economic policies worked for FDR. He kept the country impoverished for at least one 4 yer presidential term longer that it might have been. And the poor people loved him. I think the one term Marxist president Obama is trying to follow FDR's example.

Misterveritis said:

He is the one term Marxist president... If he wins the country loses. But failing to lead the nation out of a depression with sound economic policies worked for FDR. He kept the country impoverished for at least one 4 yer presidential term longer that it might have been. And the poor people loved him. I think the one term Marxist president Obama is trying to follow FDR's example.

Click to expand...

Seriously, you need to look up what "Marxist" means. It's impossible to take your posts serious with the constant "marxist" crap.

Catawba said:

Explaining to the far-right what a liberal presidency would be like, if it were to ever occur.

Click to expand...

So it'd be a dictatorship?

Because as BDBoops post was pointing out, half the **** you said a "liberal presidency" couldn't cause to happen by Presidential fiat.

Zyphlin said:

So it'd be a dictatorship?

Because as BDBoops post was pointing out, half the **** you said a "liberal presidency" couldn't cause to happen by Presidential fiat.

Click to expand...

What I meant was that a liberal president would work towards those ends through his leadership.