jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (125 posts)

What if Obama was not a Democrat

  1. American View profile image61
    American Viewposted 4 years ago

    I find it interesting when Democrats say the only reason people will vote for Romney is because he is a Republican. They chastise the people on the right who are loyal to their party. They cannot see that people will not vote for Obama because he is doing a lousy job. OF course it is Ok for them to vote and be loyal to their party.

    So I wonder, what would they say about Obama during this re-election campaign if Obama was a Republican and there was a different Democrat running for President. Would they vote for him? Would they like his policies? Would they still like Obamacare?

    1. peeples profile image89
      peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obama would have never been elected in the first place if he was a republican. It is not acceptable for minorities of any kind to be anything other than democrat. Time and time again this is proven.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. That and he would have been labeled a racist and worse.
        Being a Republican or Conservative makes you fair game. Just go find Bill Maher's most recent slanders, as early as this weekend, against the family of Sarah Palin.

      2. teamrn profile image78
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It has been PROVEN? by whom? There is a tendency for Republicans to be WASPs, but the Republican party embraces many ethnicities/minorities.  That's a pretty strong statement and pretty narrow minded. Bottom line, Barack Obama does not ascribe to the ideologies of he Republican party. THAT, my friend is why he's a member of the different party. So, who PROVED that he 'applied' for membership and was denied?

        1. peeples profile image89
          peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Who said he had been proven to be denied? I said that minorities who were republican were not accepted. Meaning by democrats. Powell, palin, and Rice just to name a few minorities who were republicans and downed by the dems who claim to protect minorities. I am neither republican nor dem so it is not relevant to me.

    2. Wayne Brown profile image86
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I can guarantee you one thing...it would be far worse than they spoke of George Bush and they would have ample reason to speak as such.  This man is not a Republican or a Democrat...he is clearly nothing more than a Socialist totally centered on  making the American people as dependent on big government as possible.  The Democrats will long bear the burdens politically that have been imposed on their party by this one man.  The true philosophy of the Democrat is dead relative to the party concerns and directions and will continue to be unless the people of that party retake control of it. WB

    3. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      One mistake.  Obama is not a Democrat.  He's a moderate Republican.

      The majority of the Republican party now are not even Republican anymore, they are HUGE GOVERNMENT (wars, spying, invasion of the bedroom, outlawing of nude art in public) somethings.  They aren't libertarians.

      It's appears to be a weird mix of theocrats (which is what most social conservatives are) and war mongers.  Maybe warcrats?  Doesn't have a good ring.  That's the majority of the people making up the Grand Ole Party today.

    4. SportsBetter profile image63
      SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They are all the same any way.. Republicans and Democrats are just the right and left arms of the puppet master pulling the strings.  It is interesting though, he might not have been elected as a Republican.  I think it is only because during the time of the election people were fed up with Republicans.  Turns out they are the same party.

    5. SportsBetter profile image63
      SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      For all the people who think Democrats are better than Republicans, it may look that way, but I would take a closer look. 

      Both parties support the wars over seas, Both parties support the Federal Reserve Monetary system, Both parties ignore the US Constitution, both parties spend your hard earned money like it's no big deal, both parties increase the debt no matter who is in office. 

      The only differences is their stance on gay marriage and other social issues which should be left to the states to figure out. The state is supposed to handle all issues that are not listed in the Constitution.

    6. Brandon Tart profile image59
      Brandon Tartposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If Obama were not a Donkey, he'd be married to Oprah Winfrey, and they'd live happily ever after ensuring their great tax write-offs by giving free cars to their herd of Elephants.  After their days in the White House, they would write books that will publish easily due to their celeb status (which is a crying shame for actual artistic-creative writers), whose topics would range from the following:

      What if we were Democrats?
      Is the world ready for The Color Purple part II?
      Why are we so raved over?
      Why I support Obama, My Media Hubby.
      Big Business was our Beginning - The Ooprama Story - A Tale of 2 O's.
      Obama and Oprah - Oo so Rich.
      It's all about the Benjamin's Baby!
      If we had a kid, we'd name it Benjamin; if a girl, we'd name it Benjamin.
      Why aren't we more powerful than we ought to be?

      So on and so forth.

    7. Wayne Brown profile image86
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If Obama were a Republican and still practiced his ways, I would be looking to become a Liberaterian.  ObamaCare will add a minimum of $600 billion dollars in red ink with each passing year once implemented driven by premium subsidies which the legislation was decided to off load on the states under Medicaid.  Since SCOTUS blocked that action and the legislation has no provision for federal subsidies then someone is going to have to come up with a modification to the current law.  Currently there are 17 states that are not planning on taking the actions to establish the insurance exchanges mandated by the law.  Now the federal government has lost it hammer over them and must face building the exchanges and absorbing the cost associated with them in those states...again, no funds provided for at the federal level by the legisilation.  No wonder Obama claimed the legislation was "debt neutral" for it was off-loading all of the costs to the State level which eventually had to be covered by the state residents if the state was to balance its budget...that either equates to new taxes or a heavy reduction of spending in other areas to cover the costs.  $600 billion dollars is equivalent to 25% of the federal government's total annual spending at this time.  It is equivalent to the administrative cost of operating the federal government or funding the current military for one year.  Whether that red ink accumulates at the federal level or it gets backdoored on the taxpayers through the State conduit built into the law...either way, the American taxpayer is eventually skewered...and Obama claims he wants to help the middle-class...Gee, thanks good buddy! WB

    8. Attikos profile image77
      Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Then he'd be running for president in place of Stewart Alexander, Peta Lindsay, or Jerry White.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What you seriously think that the socialist party would let Obama anywhere near them? You obviously know nothing about socialism, in fact if you read their subscription they spend half their time criticizing him.

        1. Attikos profile image77
          Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, it wasn't serious. You took it as if it were, did you?

          I hate campaign season. People lose their perspective.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            well  there we can agree.

  2. Cody Hodge profile image84
    Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago

    It's a good plan. Yea, I would have still voted for Obamacare. Maybe if more people in the party were more like Paul Ryan you might earn some respect again in this country. I mention Ryan merely because he at least comes up with a policy instead of most conservatives who simply yell and scream and cry against everything just because a democrat proposes it.

    Instead, the GOP has weirdos like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. You have conservatives who have have basically claimed that the law isn't constitutional just because the SC says so. Um, yea, that's why you go the Supreme Court.

    Micheal Savage was quoted as saying that John Roberts has a mental problems. Well, I guess that confirms everything we needed to know about George Bush.

    1. Wayne Brown profile image86
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Social Security and MediCare were good plans, Cody and where are they today.  They have been ravaged and the funds squandered by politicians starting with that famous Democrat, LBJ who came up with spending those funds on his Great Society...another failed socialist experiment that is carried on the backs of taxpayers in the form of a growing national debt. Those who seek office on the premise of reducing spending and cutting debt are anything but weird.  It is a fairly sound process that has been proven to work...it's called sound financial management.  No government can continue to buy what it cannot afford and continue to expect the taxpayer to pony up more and more until there is nothing left to pony up...then the ugly truth becomes the only reality...we are all responsible for our welfare and our future...not the government. wB

      1. Cody Hodge profile image84
        Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So your argument is that since it might not work 80 years from now, we shouldn't implement it today even though its better than what we have?

        Does this also mean that you are against a social safety net?

        1. teamrn profile image78
          teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Cody, I think we all know the health care system in the US is broken. We need to fix it. The disagreement doesn't like there. Heck, healthcare costs are approaching 1/5 of our GDP. I think many feel that because it is so difficult to change it, we ought to spend more time and find a change that will suit more needs, that addresses for THE LONG HAUL, the problems. One that isn't a bandaid. I'm all for insuring people with pre-existing conditions (I have several myself and see how the cost of insuring me is a driver DOWN). However, I also see that the blanket statement, "we're going to insure everyone" has consequences and we've just seen the creates tax increase in American history, There are good things in this legislation.

          Why not keep the good of this, the good of our present system and not throw the baby out with the bathwater? We need to continue to create a system that will serve ALL of us for a long time. This legislation is a start, no, not really a start, but a stab in the right direction. Now we know we can do it, it's been shown, we have the momentum. But to stop at the first thing that comes down the pike? Heck, I dated a few men, test drove more than one car before I committed.

          1. Cody Hodge profile image84
            Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Obama wanted a lot more. The GOP could have offered a lot more as well. Instead, we got this yelling and screaming about how the health care plan would be a socialistic takeover of our freedom.

            1. teamrn profile image78
              teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Is there another name for a plan that covers everyone, with the probability of delivering less, increasing taxes to do it and limiting my freedom and ability to choose.?.

              Like I said earlier, we ought to strive to cover everyone, but there must be a way to do it better, without penalizing the drivers of our economy. Canadians and Brits come here for better care. Soon where will WE go?

              1. Attikos profile image77
                Attikosposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                We'll have to beg government for it and give whatever it demands to get it. Seen from one perspective, that's what everything Obama and his political soldiers have done is all about. He said it himself years ago: in his world, government is god. Everyone is to be its worshiper.

              2. American View profile image61
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Problem was the Obama care bill with a Democrat it's my way or the highway bill. It was put together behind closed doors, many of the Democrats that were not for had to be bribed in order for them to cast their vote to pass it. The Democrats sit back today and say all the Republicans could have offered up amendments. We all know that was not true, the Republicans were completely cut out of that legislation. Perhaps if they had worked together in the beginning Obama care wouldn't be the disaster that it is and will continue to be as more taxes, in addition to the ones already implemented, come to fruition over the next few years. Obama care needs to disappear.

    2. denisemai profile image88
      denisemaiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I hear a lot of yelling, screaming and whining from the Democrat side. Oh, and name calling. So, I guess I don't really see the jab against conservatives being productive in any way. Just another jab. I'm a moderate conservative and usually see positives for all sides. Bill Clinton messed up a bit but I could see his heart was in the right place. I don't think Obama's heart is in the right place. He has been the most divisive president in office during my life. Whatever his party, he has to go. We need someone to bring our country together.

      1. teamrn profile image78
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Denise, I so agree. I like to think of myself as one who sees, or tries to see the good in 'the the other side.' It's the way I live and I try to see the good in everyone. But, I don't see that Barack Obama doesn't bring much in the way of good to any table. I agree with you about Bill Clinton. There were things I could leave and many things I disagreed with Geroge W about.

        1. Teddletonmr profile image80
          Teddletonmrposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Amen, ladies smile

    3. teamrn profile image78
      teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      glib, but hardly funny, Cody! (post about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman.) A certain Nancy Pelosi comes to mind.

      1. Cody Hodge profile image84
        Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Glib? How so? Are Palin and Bachman not an example of the lunacy of the right? Would your rather I go with Rick Perry? Perhaps Bob McDonnell?

    4. DannyMaio profile image61
      DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      DUDE, you have Nancy Pelosi! need I say more???? If anybody is a fool when the mouth opens it is her! Some of her most liked sayings!

      We have to pass it to find out what is in it!!!

      Food stamps a big bang for the buck!

      In our recovery package we put new standards of accountability and transparency, which we hope will now apply.


      “Every week we don’t pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.”

      “Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program”

      Imagine how many jobs we could create if everyone quit their jobs!    Wait…..

      “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.”

      Needless to say, natural gas is a fossil fuel.

      “I think it’s unAmerican.” (to enforce immigration law).

      She said that to a Hispanic audience, and refused to clarify the statement when Fox News called her office later on for comment.

  3. fpherj48 profile image85
    fpherj48posted 4 years ago

    AV.....very good hypothetical question and some great responses as well.
    All of this serves to re-affirm for me, once again, that my rationale, opinions and choices as a registered and practicing INDEPENDENT is the ONLY way I could go.  For me, it equates to common sense and conscience, as well as representation of true FREEDOM in America....  Thank you.

    1. Wayne Brown profile image86
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      AMEN to that! WB

    2. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      FPHERJ48,

      I am wrting an article on this subject now and decided to get some reactions to include so I put this out there. The responses should be interesting

    3. 0
      Larry Wallposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you. I have been an independent most of my adult life. I just turned 18 when that group got the right to vote. In Louisiana, there was only one party--Democrat. All the elections were decided in the Democratic Primaries. The general election was a joke. That has change over the years, but by the time I was 20 I was registered as an independent. I may have to change that to no party. There is a move by some independents to organize--kind of defeats the whole purpose of being independent. We have one state representative, who lists his political affiliation as no party. I may do the same.

  4. Cody Hodge profile image84
    Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago

    So the truth is a jab? All I'm saying is that the GOP needs to focus more on policy as opposed to this crazy rhetoric they have been spewing lately. It's hard to take them seriously when Sarah Palin is one of their more respected voices.

    1. peeples profile image89
      peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You mean the rhetoric that BOTH Democrats and republicans are spewing right? Surley you aren't naive enough to think it's just the GOP right?
      The only logical people left, are sitting in the middle looking in both directions thinking you have all gone crazy!

      1. Cody Hodge profile image84
        Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, both sides do talk a lot.

        However, at this point, I'm much more concerned about how far to the right the GOP is willing to go.

        Fortunately, most people are moderates in this country. Unfortunately, being a moderate means you have to have two sides that are willing to work together. Absent that, you have to get what you can.

        Tell me, which side is absolutely refusing to give an inch on most positions these days?

        1. peeples profile image89
          peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          By what I see neither are. All either side is doing is complaining about the other. I don't see the dems leaning toward the middle any more than the republicans. But that's just my opinion.

        2. American View profile image61
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Cody,

          No question, Democrats hands down. Now that does not mean the Republicans are innocent because they drag their feet as well.

          1. Cody Hodge profile image84
            Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LMAO

            Are you serious right now?

            1. American View profile image61
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Cody,

              I am not sure you want to go down this road but, Ok,  then explain the more than 2700 bills Harry Reid has tabled if he is not Obstructing?

              1. Cody Hodge profile image84
                Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think we have had this fight already. I've already listed my reasons. You then attempt to engage in circular logic. Around and round we go until we get tired of it and fight about something else.

                1. American View profile image61
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That is why I knew you did not want to go down this road again.because there is no excuse no matter how hard you try and make excuses or try and spin it. Reid blocks bills from being discussed or voted on, period

                  1. Cody Hodge profile image84
                    Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, because the GOP offers up really bad bills. Would it be easier for you if the Senate just voted them all down?

                2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I've been down that same circular road with him.  Waste of time.

                  1. American View profile image61
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You haven't been down this road with me because you never answered the question. You just come back and spend it or change the story. So I give you a chance too, what would you call a person that tables 2700+ bills?

        3. teamrn profile image78
          teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Cody, WHY are you concerned about how far to the right the GOP is willing to go, when you and I have a FAR left president and left wing Senate and television news media (except for FOX) is left wing in the tank?

          You say "at this point, I'm much more concerned about how far to the right the GOP is willing to go. " in relation to what?

          I'm concerned that places where most Americans get their news, the networks are all giving out the liberal drivel and talking points, rather than the NEWS. Where is your concern for this unbalance, that the majority of American newswathcers get their news from unreliable sources? from entertainment shows?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The factual truth is that There is no significant far left presence in America, the socialist party receives 0.01% of the vote and Obama is actually a right wing candidate on a global scale, if he were to run in most developed countries he would be considered very right right wing, the most leftist thing he has passed is healthcare and even the right wing candidates and parties support that in most developed countries. The truth is the US is one of the most right wing countries in the world, almost certainly the most far right democratic one.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What?


              WHAT?

              Josak that's just silly. There's is most assuredly a far left presence in the US.
              I posted videos on another forum of some of them.....of course I am sure you didn't look at at that.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I said no significant presence, the socialist party receives hardly any votes and there is no communist party that runs. Have you traveled much? In South America and Asia Obama would be dismissed as a far right candidate and would get almost no vote, in Europe he would be further to the right than most right wing parties.

            2. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
              1. teamrn profile image78
                teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You don't call redistributing the wealth as in "a Robin Hood tax" far left, close to socialism? It sure isn't far right, and it's not centrist.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Progressive taxation was actually supported by some of the founding fathers for christsakes.

            3. teamrn profile image78
              teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              WHAT, WHAT, WHAT? No far left wingers? I'll watch your  your tube video and raise you one. I've always said I'm not one of those, 'my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.; people. However, that's just what I am right now. There IS a left wing, and far left wing. What do you think Barack Obama and Rachel Maddow are? Obama is no moderate conservative!

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                How come there is no communist party? How come the socialist party receives 0.01% of the vote? Obama would be considered a right winger in most countries. In south America and Asia he would be considered a radical right winger and a fringe politician on the right, in Europe he would just be considered a right winger.

                1. 0
                  Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't forget Josak.  Most people cannot leave their tiny bubble when making comparisons of different political beliefs!

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    *sigh* I know, nice to see you again btw.

                2. teamrn profile image78
                  teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Josak,

                  "Obama would be considered a right winger in most countries." We're not talking about most countries. The country of discussion is the USA and by OUR standards he is a very liberal Democrat. Is hair splitting your profession?

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No see that's not right, political position is not just an American scale, it's a global one, communism is the far left, there are nearly no communists in America, full stop, socialism is leftist, the socialist party receives 0.01% of the vote, the US is increasingly being left behind as a very right wing nation.

                    it's not splitting hairs, if most of the world considers Obama right wing it is downright ridiculous to call him far left.

    2. teamrn profile image78
      teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sarah Palin is a MEMBER of the GOP, but not THE VOICE OF THE GOP. She's not in government at all, so to equate her and mention her in the same sentence as the GOP policy is somewhat disingenuous,

      1. Cody Hodge profile image84
        Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You honestly believe that, huh?

        1. teamrn profile image78
          teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I do. That is like saying that Rush Limbaugh is the  voice of the GOP when nothing could be further from the truth.

          1. Cody Hodge profile image84
            Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And I bet the Tea Party doesn't represent the views of the GOP either?

            1. American View profile image61
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Cody,

              What each person in the Tea Party person believes outside of why the party was founded is irrelevant. The Tea Party only has one issue, fiscal responsibility. That is why not every Republican can be a Tea Party member.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I'll bet the qualifications are very strict!  From what I've seen on TV, proper spelling when making protest posters isn't one of them.  lol

                                                       http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6812619.jpg

            2. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Some of the folks in the Tea Party are Democrats.

              1. American View profile image61
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                JS,

                They will never admit that

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Who, the Tea Party itself or the democrats you claim are in it?  If you are referring to the democrats, then how do you know this if they don't admit it?  roll 

                                                          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6812619.jpg

                  1. American View profile image61
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this
                2. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh of curse not.
                  First thing I will get is"Where are your facts?"
                  Then I will be told I need to go read something or other because I am ignorant.
                  Then I will be called a racist and be told to quit calling others names.
                  That's what the weekend was like.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Now why do you think this is?  lol

                                                              http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6812619.jpg

            3. teamrn profile image78
              teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Cody, actually, the tea party represents the views of the Tea Party, There;s a resemblance to the Republican party and more members of the Tea Party are Republican than Independet or Democrat. The Tea Party aligns itself pretty strictly behind the premises of the Constitution.

              1. Cody Hodge profile image84
                Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No it doesn't....

                1. teamrn profile image78
                  teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Cody, In what way?

                  1. Cody Hodge profile image84
                    Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well...

                    For one, the "Tea Party" isn't actually a party as opposed to being a far-right wing of the GOP.

                    Secondly, how does Rand Paul come out and say that the Supreme Court's decision doesn't make Obamacare Constitutional if the Constitution says that the Supreme Court is the highest court in America?

  5. teamrn profile image78
    teamrnposted 4 years ago

    AV, hmmmm. If Pres Obama were not a Democrat, he'd still be who he is and in my mind, the problem is WHO HE IS. Not cut out for the presidency and I question if he's cut out for politics at all. I think we can all attest to his being a good husband and wonderful father, but we didn't elect a FATHER in chief.

    This country is in deep doggy do and needs someone, REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENT, PURPLE, DEMOCRAT, MARTIAN to get us out. IMHO, it matters little if the person who occupies the WH is one of the above; what matters is if he/she can deliver us from what appears to be the road to hell. I strongly believe that that person is NOT Barack Obama; rather Mitt Romney.

  6. 60
    Kruptedposted 4 years ago

    Democrat or republican, I don't care what you claim to be. If you know what you're doing, and stick to your word, I'll vote for you. By classifying people with the different political races we're only splitting our country which has proven to be harmful towards our growth multiple times. If I were able to change what goes on, I'd make it so there's no political parties so that people vote for the candidates that are FIT to run the country, not just because they're democrat or republican..

 
working