• 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!

Will Obama get a second term?

Will Obama get a second term?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 57.9%

  • No

    Votes: 16 42.1%
  • Total voters
    38
mikhail said:
Simple question i believe he will.
Click to expand...

Despite which republican runs against him, I could see Hilary, with the way things are going, getting the nod instead of him from the DNC.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Either Pete is clueless or he is being facetious. I hope it was the latter.
Click to expand...
Of course I was being facetious, the guy hasn't a chance in hell of winning. In my opinion, he won't run anyway, he is doing this for publicity.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Despite which republican runs against him, I could see Hilary, with the way things are going, getting the nod instead of him from the DNC.
Click to expand...
Hillary is not running and noone will challenge him. A primary challenger, would mean a certain loss.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Despite which republican runs against him, I could see Hilary, with the way things are going, getting the nod instead of him from the DNC.
Click to expand...

Right now she is the only thing stopping him from re-election, and even then he would have to take a lot of flack for the government shutdown.
 
Last edited:
You know, I thought for certain that Bush wouldn't have been elected to a second term. I'd say the same thing about Obama, but I've learned my lesson.

We will see.
 
Badmutha said:
Unemployment Rate Since The Kenyan Tyrant took Office
UnemploymentRate.gif


All signs point to NO......

Considering how Obama constantly defies the Will of the People.......all signs point to HELL NO......
Click to expand...
Who knows why you used a chart that only went up to 5 months ago, but the unemployment rate has come down another ½ point since then.

Currently, the unemployment rate is up 13% on Obama's watch. While that's not good, it's better than every Republican president since Hoover after their first 26 months in office:

Nixon ............ +77%
Eisenhower ... +59%
Bush ............. +40%
Ford .............. +40%
Reagan ......... +37%
GHW Bush ..... +26%
Obama .......... +13%
Kennedy ........ -14%
Carter ............ -23%
Clinton ........... -26%
Johnson ......... -30%

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt​
 
mikhail said:
Simple question i believe he will.
Click to expand...

I say yes. Obama still has the retards who will vote for him because of his race,those retards will want to make Obama the first two term black president. The media in general including FOX news will try to prop up Palin to deliberately loose against Obama.If they can't get Palin to do then they will try to prop up a RINO republican to deliberately lose against Obama.Both Parties as well as the media in general including FOX news will try to squeeze out 3rd parties by either not mentioning them or try to paint them as nut jobs,thus making sure the other candidates do not have any name recognition or are painted as nuts.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
You know, I thought for certain that Bush wouldn't have been elected to a second term. I'd say the same thing about Obama, but I've learned my lesson.

We will see.
Click to expand...

Kerry wasn't a really hot candidate. It can't be stated how important that was to Bush's chances of reelection. Same situation here.
 
I Hope for a Change in the White House.
 
If President Obama puts troops into Libya, I predict defeat...depending on how the Republican Congress reacts.
 
jamesrage said:
Both Parties as well as the media in general including FOX news will try to squeeze out 3rd parties by either not mentioning them or try to paint them as nut jobs,thus making sure the other candidates do not have any name recognition or are painted as nuts.
Click to expand...

Third parties have never had success. The most successful option they have is to change the debate. Most Americans continue to believe in the notion that third parties are a wasted vote. I would not blame this on Fox or the rest of the media.
 
based on the fact that most US presidents do, and the fact the present crop of Republican contenders make Obama look really good.. then yes he will get a second term.

Now the sad thing about this is the fact that the US only has a choice between a relatively unpopular president vs a bunch of wackos with so many skeletons in the closet that it would make the Adams Family feel at home. It is a choice of .. better the devil you know than the devil you dont know.
 
I think Daniels is the only threat to Obama, and (1) I'm not sure he will even run, (2) he will probably be cannibalized by his own party in the primaries. Christie would also be a threat, but he's definitely not running.

I really don't think any of the other candidates have any chance whatsoever. It will probably end up being fairly close, of course, but I can't imagine any of them actually becoming President. Nor do I think any of them would be any better at it than Obama. I see no indicated any of them know what they are doing or have any idea how to fix this county's many problems.
 
Fiddytree said:
Third parties have never had success.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the republican party and other successful parties before it at one time a 3rd party?

The most successful option they have is to change the debate.
Click to expand...

If you got Obama and Obama light then how can you change the debate if both of the major candidates are practically the same thing?
Most Americans continue to believe in the notion that third parties are a wasted vote.
Click to expand...

Most Americans do not pay attention to politics and when they vote its all name familiarity.


I would not blame this on Fox or the rest of the media.
Click to expand...


I do. They are part of the reason why we basically have a two party monopoly when it comes to presidential elections.
 
Why do so many people think Jimmy Carter--Back in Black........is going to get a third term?

.........I guess it only makes 652 days from now that much sweeter......seeing Barack and Moochelle leaving the Whitehouse.
.
.
.
 
Yes he'll be reelected, because people in this country love to be punished.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Who knows why you used a chart that only went up to 5 months ago, but the unemployment rate has come down another ½ point since then.

Currently, the unemployment rate is up 13% on Obama's watch. While that's not good, it's better than every Republican president since Hoover after their first 26 months in office:
Click to expand...
The fact that you truly think unemployment has actually went down is hysterical.
 
DontDoIt said:
The fact that you truly think unemployment has actually went down is hysterical.
Click to expand...
Not as funny as you revealing to the forum that you think unemployment went up since then. Where do you get your "facts" from?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' unemployment figures indicate there were 943,000 fewer unemployed last month than in December, 2010:

BLS.gov: Unemployment Level

Subtract 395,000 from that which is the number of people dropping out of the labor force over that same period:

BLS.gov: Not in Labor Force

And that leaves us with a grand total of 548,000 fewer unemployed than last December. Given that, the better question becomes -- how were you under the delusion that unemployment increased following the period badmutha omitted from the chart he posted?
 
Jimmy Carter lost, America won.

George HW Bush lost, America lost.

Obama is worse than either of those two, and his ability to damage the country is undiminished. There's some discussion on putting troops in Libya after Obama started America's first ever and hopefully only three front war. He does that, he's gone.

What a second Obama presidency hinges on are the stupidity of the voters in the US, something the Democrats have relied on for decades, the ability of the Republicans in the House to stop the damage Obama has done to the economy, and the ability of the media to protect the liberal candidate from honest questions.

So, chances are good that the third worst president the US has ever had might be able to get another turn at wrecking the place. All he needs to do for now is keep granting exemptions that ridiculous socialised medicine law he pushed and signed, and hope the media won't cover them.
 
I chose No, but I chose no to a clinton second term too, actually I said no to clinton winning his first term...I felt the pain :(
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Not as funny as you revealing to the forum that you think unemployment went up since then. Where do you get your "facts" from?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' unemployment figures indicate there were 943,000 fewer unemployed last month than in December, 2010:

BLS.gov: Unemployment Level

[COLORce="blue"]Subtract 395,000 from that which is the number of people dropping out of the labor force over that same period:[/COLOR]

BLS.gov: Not in Labor Force


And that leaves us with a grand total of 548,000 fewer unemployed than last December. Given that, the better question becomes -- how were you under the delusion that unemployment increased following the period badmutha omitted from the chart he posted?
Click to expand...
Anyone that follows politics should know how misconceiving the unemployment stats are, and how rigged they are in order to make it appear politicians are doing there job...about like February when only 36,000 jobs were added but unemployment allegedly fell .4 points? Tell me how that even remotely makes since, beings how it take around 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep the rate steady?

My point is, is the number are staggered to favor either party. The only reason the numbers "fell" for instance in that month was because 500,000 workers dropped out of the work and the government merely rules them as not being able to work since there are "no jobs"...they just exclude them. Less people to calculate into the equation = lower unemployment.

Unemployment falls to 9 percent; only 36,000 new jobs added - San Jose Mercury News

Although still far off from "true unemployment" ...this is an un-biased point I am making, I'm not making it because I don't like Obama.

Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.2% in Mid-March ....a little closer toward the actual unemployment number
 
Last edited:
DontDoIt said:
Anyone that follows politics should know how misconceiving the unemployment stats are, and how rigged they are in order to make it appear politicians are doing there job...about like February when only 36,000 jobs were added but unemployment allegedly fell .4 points? Tell me how that even remotely makes since, beings how it take around 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep the rate steady?
Click to expand...
It's absurd to give a Gallup poll more credence for the unemployment rate than the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For one thing, the BLS utilizes two methods to calculate employment; for another, the household survey data method polls up to 60,000 households per month, compared to Gallup's 18,000; also, unlike the BLS, Gallup doesn't seasonally adjust their rate; and lastly, Gallup's one method doesn't match either of the BLS's two methods. Now while you claim you're being unbiased, I can't help but feel you are since you're looking for polls that present the worst data instead of relying on the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

All that aside, I addressed your concern about the unemployment rate not accounting for people falling out of the labor force by including those numbers. I subtracted the number of people no longer in the work force from those who became unemployed and the number was still a drop in unemployment by more than ½ million.

DontDoIt said:
My point is, is the number are staggered to favor either party. The only reason the numbers "fell" for instance in that month was because 500,000 workers dropped out of the work and the government merely rules them as not being able to work since there are "no jobs"...they just exclude them. Less people to calculate into the equation = lower unemployment.

Unemployment falls to 9 percent; only 36,000 new jobs added - San Jose Mercury News
Click to expand...
First of all, I can't explain how you didn't notice that the numbers I gave you included the number of people who dropped out of the work force. Secondly, where are you getting that figure that 500,000 people dropped out of the work force in February? That number is 87,000:

BLS.gov: Not in Labor Force
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's absurd to give a Gallup poll more credence for the unemployment rate than the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For one thing, the BLS utilizes two methods to calculate employment; for another, the household survey data method polls up to 60,000 households per month, compared to Gallup's 18,000; also, unlike the BLS, Gallup doesn't seasonally adjust their rate; and lastly, Gallup's one method doesn't match either of the BLS's two methods. Now while you claim you're being unbiased, I can't help but feel you are since you're looking for polls that present the worst data instead of relying on the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

All that aside, I addressed your concern about the unemployment rate not accounting for people falling out of the labor force by including those numbers. I subtracted the number of people no longer in the work force from those who became unemployed and the number was still a drop in unemployment by more than ½ million.


First of all, I can't explain how you didn't notice that the numbers I gave you included the number of people who dropped out of the work force. Secondly, where are you getting that figure that 500,000 people dropped out of the work force in February? That number is 87,000:

BLS.gov: Not in Labor Force
Click to expand...
There was a big thread on it back in February on here, I couldn't find it, I'll look here in a minute, but there was reportedly around 500,000 jobs lost in February which "dropped out of the working force, and was considered no longer looking for work"

The Employment Disappearing Act: Where Did 500,000 Jobs Go? - WhatTheyThink
Unemployment Rate Drops to 9% (if you believe it) but 504,000 drop out of the labor force | Scotty Starnes's Blog
January 2011 Unemployment Rate Drops Due to Labor Force Drop of 504,000, Not Due to People Finding Jobs | Grownup Economics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom