jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (95 posts)

Will a more aggressive Obama win in 2012?

  1. Mighty Mom profile image85
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    No more Mr. Nice Guy.
    If Obama hopes to retain the presidency, he has to stop capitulating to the GOP and grow a pair. He has to come out swinging. And show American who he REALLY IS.
    I confess, I honestly don't know.
    I never drank the koolaid of 'Change we can believe in" and Obama as the Great Black Hope.
    In 2008 it was Anybody But Bush (well, anyone that doesn't include Sarah Palin on their ticket, that is).
    Are we truly at the Anybody But Obama point in 2012?
    Not with the declared candidates I've seen.

    I'd like to hear from both sides on this.

    1. Petra Vlah profile image60
      Petra Vlahposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Obama's only chance is to go for broke, be bold and decisive

      1. lovemychris profile image55
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        He can only be who he is.... and if he just did that, without all the advisors advising, and all the political playing, he would win the hearts and minds.

        He put a bust of MLK in the White House. What was MLK's thing?

        Anti-War, and the Poor People's Campaign.

        Non-Violence and Love in the Face of Hate!

        1. Mighty Mom profile image85
          Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          That's the whole catch-22, LMC.
          Obama came in with the idea that community organizer love-in-the-face-of-hate a la MLK could work in the White House.
          It CLEARLY cannot.
          We ARE at war within this country.
          Fear is the strongest human motivator.
          I agree with Petra that Obama's ONLY chance is to come out swinging and take no prisoners. He needs to turn every single GOP talking point around and claim it for his own.
          Also agree with Cags but am stymied as to how this seachange (necessary as it is) can/will be accomplished.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Fundamental change- change in politics, change in election process, change in laws, change in duties of political office, change in how poverty is handled, change in how homeless is handled, change in fiscal responsibility, change in foreign policy and change in the educational system.

            Last but not least, a change in the way people think about their citizenship. wink

            1. Mighty Mom profile image85
              Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Aha!
              Now THAT is change I can believe in!
              Cags for POTUS!!

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                You now make the 10th person to say that. lol lol

                1. Mighty Mom profile image85
                  Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I will stop short of asking you to marry me.
                  That seems to be another popular query these days!
                  lol lol

                  1. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I know right. lol lol

                    But, you're willing to vote for me running a Nation, however, I'm not good enough for you to step up and ask to marry?

                    How am I to take that? tongue

            2. earnestshub profile image87
              earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Well said Cags. It's easy to see you are right from where I sit in Australia awaiting the next bit of legislation to be forced on my country by America.
              At least Obama is smart enough to be President. I don't know how any country can overcome the right wing lunatics that tie up every effort to extract America from the financial mess it is in.

              How does any government go forward with so many trying to destroy it?
              Obama has the huge problem of overcoming the covert racists that hate him because he is black as well.

              Racism doesn't stop overnight, it just becomes careful not to be too overt.

              I wonder if Americans realise that most Australians follow every bit of political news they can from America, because the state of your country has a huge affect on us and our economy, and we are used to compulsory voting, so we are a lot more politically aware than the average American is.

          2. lovemychris profile image55
            lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            It's not worth selling your soul.
            Look at em. They are empty.

            They do not care that people die. That people suffer. That children go hungry.

            All that matters to them is $$$ and power.

            They can have it. It won't save them when they're dead.

    2. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The answer to your thread title/question is no. Nothing he does will help him at all.

    3. cvacac profile image55
      cvacacposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'm 59 years old And I thought that I would never see a worse president than Jimmy Carter in my life time. But low and behold Obama steps in. And Jimmy Carter is dethroned.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image85
        Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        W dethroned Carter years ago.

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Were you asleep during the Bush years?

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    The more and more I continue to take part in the political forums, the more I cannot stand politics.

    The Presidency is presently a joke, considering "we the people" really don't have any real power in the country. So what, sure you can vote another idiot into office, but what good is it when that individual has no ability against the status quo presently holding on to political offices.

    Answer: NONE!

    There's a change coming, but it's nothing to do with his election or re-election. That change is restoring the power back to "we the people" and proving to the upper 1% that they will no longer live under it's rule.

    The U.S. Economy cannot handle the detrimental actions of the upper 1% and the no growth policies put forth by politicians needs to be eliminated.

    1. manlypoetryman profile image76
      manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Man, I sure hope your right about a change coming. I too, am sick of Politics.
      For normal folks in working positions across the nation and globe...we each would have been shown the door along time ago...for lack of getting anything done. Every Career politician in Washington DC  needs to be handed a pink slip.

      1. lovemychris profile image55
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You paint  with too broad a brush, IMO.

        It's not all of them that are the problem. In fact, I have great respect for some "career" pols.

        No, this current impass can be laid solely at the feet of the GOP.
        Totally, and completely.
        They have done nothing but obstruct since Obama was elected. While the Dems, have bent over backwards to appease them. The GOP's need to go, every single one.

        I have a list of those I would like to stay......and most have been around a while.

        Stop blaming dems for GOP politics...like people Always do!

        1. manlypoetryman profile image76
          manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          The fact that we are so divided as a nation from one side or the other is...IMO...laid at the feet of all past politicians who have completely circumvented their way around the basic needs of the average American citizen, and all matters pertaining to our basic needs from our basic government.

          Both parties are to blame for the cluster-"mess" that has been created at present. To believe one party-one candidate will ultimately fix all our problems...is to be niave. It took a whole bunch of people to screw it up...and with the wrong interests (like say-only interested in getting themself rich)...and it will take a whole bunch of people to fix it.

          I say...let's make it some fresh faces...who get elected by pretending they actually give a darn for the people of the nation.

          If they can't do it...throw 'em out...just like any business would do that is struggling to survive or make much needed changes. Try again with some more fresh faces until we get it right...or someone gets the message! What the heck does it matter anyways...they couldn't possibly screw things up any worse then the ones who got us to this point!

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I don't have any expectations for any President that we elect from either party.  As you say there is little one man can do being saddeled with the slimy bag of puss we call Congress.  Whenever there is an opportunity for them to redeem themselves they instinctivly take the money route.

            The worst part is that we are the ones to blame.  We have set a system up whereby they can write and rewrite whatever legislation protects them and their cohorts. They know we can change it so they polarize the constituency so they can continue in their corruption.

            We need a Constitutional Convention now to set:

            1. Term limits
            2. Publicy financed campaigns
            3. Shorter campaigning periods
            4. A balanced budget amendment
            5. Lobbying reform
            6. Benefit packages commensurate to their time served
            7. Equal trade tariffs
            5.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              If a Constitutional Convention is called then you can kiss America, as it has existed until now, good bye.  There is no limit on what a Constitutional Convention can re-write.  It can scrap the whole show.  Do you trust that the current understanding of government and liberty are sufficient to guarantee that only a limited number of errors be corrected, I do not.  It would be much more effective to campaign for the process that already exists, Amending the Constitution.

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image76
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    He hasn't delivered a single promise, and he's broken many others.

    If he had to go up against Ron Paul, he'd lose horribly.

    1. 2besure profile image82
      2besureposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Ron Paul is a sweet old nut! Plus, have you seen his numbers lately?  He doesn't have a chance.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If the elections was held at the Crazy Old Coots Club, but since it will be held across the U.S., Paul is just a sideshow.

  4. 2besure profile image82
    2besureposted 6 years ago

    It is so much easier to be King that President.  If people don't want to initiate your policies...off with their heads!

  5. KFlippin profile image60
    KFlippinposted 6 years ago

    He has come out swinging from the get go on health care, had Pelosi and Reid at his back, bribing and threatening whomever they had to to pass that bill.  Why do you suppose they aren't catching his back now?  Think on that.

    He thinks he has come out swinging on this pseudo jobs bill that from the get go was covered by most media as known to be not even passable, an essential repeat of bygone years that has left our economy still in the toilet, how do we know there will be actual 'shovel-ready' infrastructure spending that even he does not find laughable after the fact?  What more can he do except yak at a podium and try to tap the same charisma that even impacted and pulled me in for a good while so long ago.

    Kings......what an interesting, and quite pertinent addition to this discussion.  Kings do as they please, no matter the cost to a country or its people, lots of history to support that, thousands of years of history to support the widening of the gap between rich and poor when someone overthrows a government or a perfectly fine old world country and declares themselves King or Dictator and governs at the whim of both self and self-serving advisors.

    Go Herman Cain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  6. lovemychris profile image55
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "2012 GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain — who has seen a recent surge in the polls — has been trumpeting the supposed benefits of his “999″ economic plan, which would implement a 9 percent flat-tax on personal income and corporate income, along with a 9 percent national sales tax, while scrapping the rest of the tax code (including all of the deductions and all of the taxes on investment income such as capital gains).

    Cain’s plan — which has earned accolades from the likes of supply-side guru Art Laffer — would explode the deficit, while increasing taxes on the poor to pay for a giant tax cut for the rich. As Center for American Progress Vice President for Economic Policy Michael Ettlinger put it, the plan “would be the biggest tax shift from the wealthy to the middle-class in the history of taxation, ever, anywhere, and it would bankrupt the country.”
    ****

    More right-wing tax the poor to give to the rich.

    GOD, it's tiresome!!!

    1. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      WTF? I hadn't seen that yet, but that is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

  7. habee profile image96
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    I don't think Obama's demeanor is going to have much infuence one way or another. The biggie in 2012 will be the economy. If it's better, or if people believe it will get better, Obama gets another 4 years. If the economy is worse, we'll probably get Romney or (yikes) Perry. At least we won't have President Palin. Remember, people already like Obama as a person.

  8. BaliMermaid profile image56
    BaliMermaidposted 6 years ago

    I am usually an optimist but one has to realize the facts. No President has EVER been re-elected with unemployment over 9% or during a recession with unemployment over 8% at the same time.

    Of course there can always be a first time, just as there was last year, when we elected our first African American President.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The recent presidents who ran for re-election ran against strong candidates, Reagan and Clinton.  There doesn't seem to be a Reagan this time.

  9. lovemychris profile image55
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Herman Cain in 2004:

    "Even substantive political debates were passed through the prism of culture and race. Arguing that Social Security needed to be disbanded and replaced with 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts, Cain made the case that the entitlement program was inherently biased against African Americans.

    "If that's going to be a transfer from me to white people," Cain said of his own payments into the Social Security trust fund, "can't I at least give it to white people I like?"

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/0 … lp00000003
    ***

    Uh Ohhh.::: Beck? We need you!! Is this...could this be.........Is Cain a "racists with a deep-seated hatred of white people"????

    Oh, the paaaaaiiiiiiin!

  10. lovemychris profile image55
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "Democratic lawmakers have begun to rally around the Occupy Wall Street protesters, with several members endorsing the movement yesterday. Congressmen including Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Keith Ellison (D-MN), and fourth-ranking House Democrat John Larson (D-CT) issued statements of support ahead of a large rally planned for Thursday just blocks from the White House. “The silent masses aren’t so silent anymore,” Larson said."

    Now that's what I'm talkin about!

  11. Reality Bytes profile image82
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    The best chance Obama has to have a second term as President is to drop out of this race.  Wait a few years and run again.

    He is not electable at this time.  His administration has their hands covered in blood.

    Nixon had Watergate but Obama's "fast and furious" scandals have dead bodies all around.  Lying attorney generals, Tim tax cheat treasurer, Secretary of Energy that is completely incompetent and a Secretary of Transportation that knows bridges that are ready to fall and doing nothing about it.

    Oh Yeah,  Van Jones?  Obama hired a self confessed communist in to his Administration.  Now I accept that there are communist Americans no problem but not running the country.

    He has a wife telling Americans how to eat while she still has rib sauce on the corner of her mouth and fried cheese sticks in her pork chop hands.

    http://zionstrumpet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/aint-eating-no-peas.jpg

    He should just play golf for 4-8 years, regroup and try again.  In Greece!!!

    lol

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      We'll see. Which one of the GOP clowns do you think can beat Obama?

      1. habee profile image96
        habeeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I think Romney has the best shot. The GOP needs to realize that America is not a far-right country, and one of their far-right favorites is not going to attract many independents. I can't understand why Huntsman isn't doing better. I like him.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Huntsman is my favorite GOP candidate. Romney second. His younger brother lives in the next block on our street. The GOP "base" doesn't like either of them which may save Obama unless the Dem base doesn't turn out the vote for him. Both have problems with their base.

          1. habee profile image96
            habeeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I feel the same way, Ralph. Romney isn't exciting, and he doesn't spout the far-right talking points, so the GOP base doesn't like him much. They need to think with their heads instead of with their hearts.

            1. lovemychris profile image55
              lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              But he is spouting them.
              He is now in favor of an amendment to make abortion illegal, and he refused to condemn the people who booed the gay soldier. He is kissing up and will continue to do so to ANYBODY who he thinks will get him elected.

              And I don't know WHY he wants it so bad. He has NO core values!

          2. Jean Bakula profile image98
            Jean Bakulaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Dems are notoriously lazy about getting off there butts and voting. And I say this as a D. I've seen it while involved in town politics, but notice it's the same on a larger scale. Obama surrounds himself with the wrong people, and I also agree he has to "grow a pair" and call the Rs on blocking every effort he makes, just to get him out of office. Plus I don't think any of the R's are fit to win. The far right has highjacked the party. Perry is more of  a cowboy than Bush, he makes Bush look tame. But Obama has accomplished some small things, and needs to point attention to them, as the media isn't. I think he should stop the wars, and bring everyone home, and cut the military budget. We have enough weapons to destroy the world many times over. I hate thinking race has a part ot play, but only a fool would say it doesn't matter. I think Obama feels it's below his office as POTUS to call the R's on that crap, and it could be. But if he can't speak out, he needs to find an attack dog that can.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
              Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Jean, I asked a question below, as yet this has not been answered. Your country is divided as ours was, and is. Is it possible this could happen in the Us? (coalition)I'd like to think Obama would win, despite the problems, I also don't think he'll lose. But, if possible, I do think you may end up with our equivalent of a hung parliament.

              1. recommend1 profile image72
                recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Shame it is not a 'hung' parliament as in strung up !

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                  Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh brother, I wish it was. In the meantime we're stuck with it. Like the 80s all over again.

              2. Jean Bakula profile image98
                Jean Bakulaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Hello Hollie,
                I would prefer to see Obama win, but a more energized Obama who doesn't take so much crap from crazies. People forget that Unions are the reason we have lunch breaks, coffee breaks, sick time, and raises at work. We also have no child labor. In my state of NJ, which is normally D, we have Chris Chrisite, who fired all the older teachers before they got retirement benefits. Now, my son is a kindergarten teacher, and I agree tenure lets lousy teachers stay in jobs (we've all had some duds) but now our classes are too large, and the teachers are judged by standardized tests, meaning they teach the kids just to pass them. There's no history or geography, or a tiny bit.. But I digress. The country was divided in the Bush/Gore election, and the Supreme Court finally gave the D's one day for one more recount of votes, effectively handing the presidency to Bush, because that was humanly impossible. The R's are also closing down many voting areas, like all the colleges, so the young people can't vote on campus. I saw on the news yesterday a 96 yr. old woman who tried to vote on whatever was happening in her state. She had a photo ID, and her birth certificate, but was denied her right to vote because she didn't have her marriage license with her. These R nuts are out of control. They want to close Planned Parenthood, the only place some young people get sex ed or poor women get mammograms or pap smears, because they say they are abortion mills. No R man should be telling me what I can and cannot do with my body. And all the religious hypocracy is awful.  So now we can't even trust the highest court in the US. That's how it would be decided, but they teach us civics in grade school, and I may be wrong. Honestly, the US is a fairly young country, and it may be time for a revolution. The R's are all religious gun nuts, and the left feels a moral obligation to help the needy. Ours is the only country where so many people are killed by guns. But instead of stricter laws, R's think, you need more guns, so you can shoot back. Now criminals will get them anyway, but in general it should be much harder to obtain a gun. This is general, liberals are conservative on some issues, as conservatives are liberal on a few issues. Many of the 1% of rich people were trust fund babies, and never worked a day in their lives. They should never have been bailed out. The middle class is so squeezed, I'm food shopping with my calculator in the basket, and have to put food back on the shelves, and we make good money. We could use another party, but they never get enough support, so it just takes votes from one of the R or D candidates. This may change. I hope Obama wins, because none of the R's seem worthy of the office. Romney had a successful health care plan in MA, and he's pretending he didn't, so he won't be associated with Obama, it's similar to what he wants, everyone has to have health insurance. How can anyone pretend something successful was bad to win the Presidency? It's a sick bunch, and it's getting worse all the time. The R's are such liars, and they will believe anything their R leaders tell them, no matter how nuts it is, like a bunch of brain washed zombies.What about the birth cert thing? Does anyone honestly think Obama was not vetted? A president of our country must be born here. He's released the BC twice, and they still say he was born in Kenya. They all need lobotomies.

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I honestly think Obama was not properly vetted.
                  The only other possible scenario is that he WAS properly vetted, but the Democrats went radical and chose him anyway!  And that's even worse.

                  1. profile image50
                    jeffhart123posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Regardless of if he was properly vetted, he is in the Oval Office and needs to be removed.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image67
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    There is nothing "radical" about Barack Obama. He is an overly cautious moderate.

                  3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Do you know what "vetted" means?

                  4. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                    Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I don't understand, in what way is he radical?

                2. profile image50
                  jeffhart123posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Wow, Jean. Talk about bouncing from one point to another. I get it, you're frustrated and yet you still want more of the same and will vote for Obama again to get it. It literally hurts my soul to think that anyone of rational capabilities would want to re-elect this man to our highest office. You're doing so as the lesser of two evils? You want change in the country but are willing to re-elect a man who has failed to prove that he can make any changes? You want our politicians to forget about party politics while in Washington but all you want to do is blame the "R's" for all your troubles? How can we expect them to forget party lines when most Americans have the same thought process and are so engrained in the thoughts of one or party or the other? This isn't about abortion, guns, gay rights, or any other liberal or conservative movement - this is about saving America. I'm not crazy about the field of Republican candidates either but I know enough to believe that we cannot and must not tolerate another four years of Barack Obama. We are on the brink of devastation the likes of which our country has never faced. This devastation may rear its ugly head in our financial markets, it may show up via terror threats, it could come within our own social makeup as a people or it could easily continue to slide unabatted across our opens borders. The America we know is negatively changing at a rate unseen in our modern history. We are in-fighting and back-biting, we are scrambling to cope with crushing debt and extending the burden to future generations in the hope of that some magical fix awaits us. We have begun to stop individual thinking and have elected to be easily swayed by biased media. We are losing what it means to be American and this did not begin in the Obama administration but it has been perpetuated by it. What we have believed to be progress has actually been a regression of sorts. We've regressed to the point of an us and them society, we've regressed to the point of lost focus and ill advised direction and we've regressed to the point where human dignity, honor, morality and ethics are largely items of our past. What the truest Liberals have called "progression" or "free thinking" has led to an anything goes, "me" society bent on its own destruction. The mantra of Americans these days is "change" but I would submit that we've endured enough change and need rather to focus more on what made us the greatest nation on earth and revert back to the fundamentals of our Constitution. We are a constitutional republic whose actions and laws are to be guided by our Constitution. The moment we began straying away from our founding principals was the moment we began our demise. We must stop the belief that we elect officials to go to Washington to benefit us individually but must understand that government is charged only with managing the affairs of the government. To defend the nation, to receive and allocate funds from taxpayers wisely and justly. To create laws that best serve its people. Government should never be in the bail out business, the health care business, the retirement business, the investment business or any other forms such as these. We've allowed Washington grow too large and all encompassing and it is time to pull back the reigns. Government is not charged with hand-outs to the people. Americans should take care of their own personal needs and agendas without the expectation that our government should do it for us. We have become a lazy, self-serving people too quick to blame our troubles on others. We must take back Washington by reverting the American mentality first and then we can take back America for all her glory.

                  1. Jean Bakula profile image98
                    Jean Bakulaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    jeffhart123,
                    Sorry about the rant. Honestly, if a candidate who came along that was an R and I thought they could manage to fix some of what's broken in our country, I would vote for them. I've had bad experiences with R's on the local, county level. I supported a D candidate several times and he was very qualified, did a lot of stuff for our community. All 3 X he ran, the R's sent out a piece of literature filled with lies about him, to arrive in the mail the Monday before Election Day. So I view R's as being very organized, but ruthless and less than truthful about themselves. I was a Reagan Dem though.

                3. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                  Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you Jean, I really appreciate you taking the time to explain  how it really is in the US, we get news reports but mostly through Sky News, sister company to fox News (as you can imagine it's hardly an objective lens) it seems that politically the situation is really toxic in the US. A witch hunt for Obama, to be honest though that also makes me think the R's are pretty desperate, anything to get rid of him. I know I'm an outsider but I do get the impression that Obama tries to get things done, like the jobs bill etc. But appears as if he can't do anything right for some people, it's as if they'd rather the country completely drowned under his leadership just so they could say " we told you so" Crazy.

                  We had a third party, the lib dems, many traditional labor voters voted for them at the last election because of disgust regarding the Iraq war and MP's expenses, but they honestly expected a coalition of Labor and Lib dem, believing that the Libs would to some extent curtail the corruption of the labor party and their previously war mongering ways. We got the opposite, the conservatives, and boy are we paying for it, literally through the nose. So I'd honestly say to any wavering, previously Liberal voter in the US, do not let the conservatives in. We are living proof that their economic policies will not work in this climate (our economy is contracting) where previously, even after 2008 it had been growing, slowly, but growing. The chancellor does not have a plan B, and the Govenor of the Bank of England is warning that we're facing another recession on a par with the great depression. I know if the R's get in your country our war mongering PM and his cronies would be more than happy to get stuck into war, even with Iran. My gut feeling is that Obama will win 2012, when the dems who didn't vote at the midterms have had a taster of what lifes like when the R's are given power.

                  1. Jean Bakula profile image98
                    Jean Bakulaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    No problem, Hollie. Sorry to get off on so many tangents. We in the US are unhappy, and in my whole life I've never seen the country this polarized. It was bad during the Bush years, and Obama is still liked, but many in his own party are frustrated with what is perceived as his lack of accomplishment. He does accomplish some things. If you understand economics, many feel the bailouts of the corporations were necessary. I don't think they were. He ended the Don't Ask Don't Tell so gays aren't harassed in the military. He's trying hard to get healthcare for everyone, and the plan has not gone into effect yet. It won't until after the election, so that's why the Congress wants to stall as long as possible. Meanwhile, Congress and all their families are covered by the best medical plan in the world. And we can't fire them, they are elected officials. But once they get to Washington, their job is to represent the state they came from and do what they wish. They don't do that, they fall under the sway of lobbyists and money. I wish the US could just stop, think rationally, and try to solve our problems together, without bringing parties into it. But in the last years I've found that impossible even on a local level, as I said. R's run on a platform of conservative family morals, and lie and cheat like crazy. D's may do the same, but don't claim to be morally superior. Hillary and Bill Clinton honored their vows and didn't divorce after the hypocrites impeached him over an affair. If R's would play fair, I think D's would meet them halfway.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image59
        Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        As a Brit, I really don't know much about the US electoral system, but was just wondering, would it ever be possible for the 2012 election to end in a split, where neither party had overall control? As happened at the least election in the UK.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          The biggest difference is that Britain's is a Parliamentary system where the chief executive is elected by the Parliament.  The Liberals were needed for a coalition against Labour in order to remove Gordon Brown.  In the States the President is elected Chief Executive by electoral votes representing the States.  It is a complex system to explain.

          If there is a tie in the Senate then it is up to the Vice President to break the tie.  This gives more power to the President's party if the distribution of Senators is closer to even.  In the House of Representatives, a large majority held by a party can make is very powerful.  The Speaker of the House has enormous power.  All spending and taxing Bills are controlled by the House.

          It is a very different system than in Great Britain.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
            Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Uncorrectedvision, Thanks for answering, my knowledge regarding the US
            electoral system is limited to say the least. The biggest problem with the Libs in the Uk was that even with the combined lib lab vote there wan't sufficient seats to the reach the majority needed. Brown had already stated that he would resign as leader in the event of a Lib Lab coalition. Boy, did the public get stitched up.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              The consequence of a Parliamentary system.  Britain is in dire financial straights I wonder if a coalition government can produce a solution.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                And the system in the US delivers better results ??? No, this right wing coalition will not deliver a solution. And brother, both are countries are in the **** house economically. Pretty much the Western world is. How do we get out?

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  The system in the US is inherently more conservative than that in Britain.  I have more faith in the British people but they have linked themselves, for generations now, to the liberal social democrat model that is sinking economies all around the world.  The cautionary tales of Japan - languishing in a decades long stagnation and of Greece - trudging along under the weight of its welfare state have been lost on liberals here and all over Europe. 

                  Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Belgium and the UK all have similar economic issues regarding debt and varying causes but mostly the weight of the welfare state.  It should be humiliating that France has a stronger and more stable economy than Britain.

      3. Reality Bytes profile image82
        Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        If the People are ready for real change then they will not vote in another politician.

        From almost everything I have heard from the man Herman Cain seems to be the only non-political candidate in the race.

        He has said some things that I have disagreed with but he does have a plan.  It is pretty simple and out of everyone else running, Herman is the only one with a positive message.


        Although I think anyone would beat Obama at this point in time.  Still one year to go?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Cain would make a great Dale Carnegie instructor but not an acceptable president of the US.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image82
            Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Doom and gloom crisis creating america bashing Obama would not qualify as a Dale Carnegie instructor.

            Cain has much more experience in the real world then Obama will ever have.

            1. lovemychris profile image55
              lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              How so?

              Has he ever gone into a ghetto to help people there? Think not. He fought against the minimum wage increase....wooooooh.

              Does he SEE the problems in America?? No--he blames Obama, and the regular working person.
              Does he blame Wall street? nope. Big business? nope. Banking Industry? nope. Outsourcers? nope. Tax cheats? nope.
              GREED? nope.

              You see,to him, it all started in 2009.

              Wow--Genius. NOT.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image82
                Reality Bytesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Then I guess he is correct in blaming Obama after all.  Doesn't the prez kowtow to these same entities?

                1. lovemychris profile image55
                  lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  No, he doesn't. From the get-go, he has tried to curb them.
                  And one of his picks is running for Senate in my state!

                  And Cain is not right. He is far right, which makes him wrong. LOL hahaha Hee hee

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image85
                    Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Well which is it?
                    If you don't have a job and are not rich are you supposed to blame yourself or blame Obama?
                    Oh, I get it. Blame anyone BUT the innocents on Wall Street.

  12. lovemychris profile image55
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    By Lee Fang on Oct 6, 2011 at 10:15 am

    "After telling those protesting on Wall Street and around the country yesterday that “if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself,” presidential candidate Herman Cain had more choice words last night during a campaign stop in St. Petersburg, Florida. According to the Associated Press, Cain lambasted the protesters as un-American:

    Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says the Occupy Wall Street protesters are un-American and against capitalism. Speaking to The Associated Press during a book signing event Wednesday in St. Petersburg, Fla., Cain said the protesters shouldn’t rally against Wall Street bankers or brokers because “they’re the ones who create the jobs.”

    *****

    Game, Set, Match: Yerrrr Outta there!!

    1. Petra Vlah profile image60
      Petra Vlahposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      So the protesters are un-American because they voice an oppinion and block the traffic, but Wall Street is the American dream that left millions without a roof over their head and wiped out savings and penssion plans?
      Way to go America, way to go!

  13. lovemychris profile image55
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "At a campaign stop in Florida Tuesday, Mitt Romney said the demonstrations were "dangerous" and "class warfare."

    When ABC's Emily Friedman asked Romney today about the protests, the GOP front-runner declined to elaborate on his previous comments, saying "I'm just trying to get myself to occupy the White House."

    *******
    Ready...aim......pfffffffft

  14. cvacac profile image55
    cvacacposted 6 years ago

    If Obama gets another 4 years there will be a sound of a big flush. That will be the country going down the toilet. It's going to be hard getting this country back. But that's what you get when you put someone in the whitehouse that has no qualifications and no experience.

    1. lovemychris profile image55
      lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hmmm, I feel JUST the opposite!

      Unless we elect Obama, we are through.

      Isn't that funny?

    2. Petra Vlah profile image60
      Petra Vlahposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      There is nothing funny about NOT HAVING real choises, but getting the rep in the White House is the absolute END of any chance for this country to survive.
      Rep. candidates are talking about prosperity? Dead people can't prosper!

      1. profile image50
        jeffhart123posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        @Petra - I'm a registered Democrat but vote for the person, not the party.  In my opinion there is no denying the fact that Americans were happier, more fulfilled, better led and enjoyed an easier existence before the whole liberal movement began to take hold in this country. Look at us today, we have no focus, no direction and the White House, under this administration, is the head of that snake. This nation needs a leader, not a politician and I would agree that I am deeply concerned with anyone that the Republicans have put forth to this point but I am even more concerned with another Obama term. The nation would, without question, stagnate under gridlock like we see today. Perhaps the Presidents most important function is to show Americans leadership and character in the face of adversity and this President simply does not have that ability. Leadership envites the desire of the people to follow and provides confidence upon which the nation can prosper. Anything to the contrary spells disaster for the effectiveness of a Presidency and this administration is already doomed in that regard. We must put aside our personal bias and our party loyalty and focus on what is best for the nation in order for us to once again prosper. Obama must be removed from the White House in order for this country to regain its confidence as he has proven himself ill prepared for the task. The nation cannot endure another four years of a Presidency that it largely does not support.

    3. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That's what I thought in '04 with Bush. Fortunately, lame duck-hood set in relatively quickly, so he wasn't able to do as much damage the second time around as I'd feared. I'm sure you'll find the same will happen with Obama. tongue

      1. Petra Vlah profile image60
        Petra Vlahposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The damage Bush have done in his first term was so great that topping it off would have been hard even for him. As for Obama I am just hoping that if re-elected he will get less concerned about compromizing with the ones who are determined to keep the foot on the breaks, no metter what,  and finally get more aggressive with reforms and changes "we can believe in"

  15. lovemychris profile image55
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    I saw Cain this a.m., defending his statement that if Wall Street protestors are unemployed, it's their fault.

    He clarified it by saying It's not Wall Street's fault, It's Obama's!!!

    Now THIS is what I've been waiting for. THIS is the truth of the TP movement!!

    They don't protest the bankers, the outsourcers, the tax-cheats, the corporate corruption, all the undoing of America under the GOP......they protest Obama.

    THIS is why they are phony as a three-dollar bill. IMO

    1. profile image50
      jeffhart123posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      lovemychris - surely you aren't serious! The liberalist movement has been saying the same old clap trap for a hundred years. "Protest the wealthy, the bankers and banks, the corporations and their corruption as all these are the undoing of America." Then, nearly immediately following the words, they go to work to earn a paycheck from the very corporations that they hate, they love their banker when they are approved for the loan on a house or car they know they cant afford, they buy the lottery tickets hoping for a something for nothing windfall and then complain that the wealthy are the root of the problem. I am a registered Democrat, have been for 25 years, but this isn't about Republicans or Democrats, Tea Partyers or protestors this is about America and its future. We are not a democracy nor were we designed to be one. America is a Constitutional Republic and is goverened accordingly and as such its our duty as Americans to work diligently toward putting the best candidate forward that can propel this nation forward and, unfortunately, no party has put forth a viable option at this point including the party represented by a sitting President. The next President must be a leader above all else and possess the capability to foster confidence in Americans and we have seen, with certainty, that Obama is not the man for that job. We want our elected officials to set politics aside while in Washington so that our nation can be led in its best interest yet we get on forums such as this and continue to spout party politics at one another. Why do we expect those we elect to be any different than what we are ourselves. Get a grip America and Americans, we are on a very slippery slope of potential disaster in this country and are spending way too much time expecting our country to more for us individually than we will for it collectively. This sort of America will not long stand and we are already feeling the effects of the strain. God Bless America but most importantly, God Help America!

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Disgusting! Cain reminds me of a bombastic, phony corporate vice president straight out Dale Carnegie for whom I worked once upon a time. He was ignorant and wrong much of the time but he had a convincing delivery. He was the author of the notorious auto industry "Jobs Bank" agreement with the UAW. It was arguably the worst agreement in the history of collective bargaining. Individuals like that can do immense damage if they get in a position of power before their mistakes catch up with them.

      1. Jean Bakula profile image98
        Jean Bakulaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Cain doesn't have any political experience at all, does he? I think that's one of the issues with Obama. If he had been a longer time senator, or had more mentors in the party, maybe they could have steered him in a better direction. Sometimes I cant tell if he doesn't know what to do, is too proud to voice his opinion, or is very disciplined and feels he's doing the job to the best of his ablitlies and doesn't have time for BS. Does anyone think Hillary will challenge Obama?

        1. Mighty Mom profile image85
          Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Let's make a thread about that and see what others think about the possibility of Hillary challenging Obama...

          1. Jean Bakula profile image98
            Jean Bakulaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            OK, do you want to start it, or shall I? I think that it would be very damaging to our party, but I like Hillary. I lived for the day a woman had a chance to be President. Then Obama promised to stop the wars, and I always thought the wars for oil were wrong.  They are still going strong, and he's bombing Libya. I don't like innocent people getting killed. I realize some of them are not innocent and want to harm us, so it's good O has some stones about that. But if he didn't campaign on closing Gitmo and stopping wars, I would have voted for Hilllary. She has so much experience.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image85
              Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I started one and have had some response.
              Feel free to add your two cents, Jean!

              1. Jean Bakula profile image98
                Jean Bakulaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                What is it titled? I've been scrolling though several political forums and didn't see the thread. I promised myself I would stay out of trouble via politics on here, lol.

                1. Mighty Mom profile image85
                  Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  It's cryptically titled "Will Hill/Should Hill Challenge Obama in 2012?"
                  I can see the problem. It fails to include her full name.

 
working