Who's going to be Pres. now? Since Trump or Huckabee is not running!
Posted Wed May 18, 2011 05:20 PM
Posted Wed May 18, 2011 07:51 PM
Posted Wed May 18, 2011 08:45 PM
Posted Thu May 19, 2011 05:08 PM
if i wanted a president that would fly to afghanistan and lead the troops personally into battle,i'd vote for ted! if i wanted a president who could teach guitar,i'd vote for ted,but if i wanted a president the knew shit from sunshine about everything else,i would'nt vote for ted!
Posted Tue Jul 05, 2011 08:49 PM
Posted Tue Jul 05, 2011 08:53 PM
lmao, just caught this. We could always just launch him and his bow at enemy troops.
Posted Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:48 AM
thats what happened in the special election for Chris Lee's congressional seat. and a democrat ended up winning a very republican district.
the GOP is really split right now.
Posted Wed Jul 13, 2011 02:47 PM
Posted Mon Aug 08, 2011 08:18 AM
This post has been edited by redhead8807: Mon Aug 08, 2011 08:20 AM
Posted Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:46 AM
I'm not Obama's biggest supporter, but the credit downgrade and the debt ceiling debacle is a cookie jar that both parties had their hand in....and it was a congressional issue, not presidential...I'm fairly certain that in his private thoughts Obama was telepathically trying to tell both parts of Congress 'you assholes better send me something to sign, like, yesterday'....The realities and parameters they work within are not the same that are shown on the news.
And be careful about high gas prices, in the summer of '08 (Bush's term) the gas prices were higher than they've ever been. The free market (sic) dictates the price of oil, and speculators on Wall St. did plenty to boost those prices. There's no a lot president can do to lower gas prices...as evidenced by Obama releasing 30 million barrels (it wasn't really 60) of oil from the Strategic Reserve a few months ago to increase supply and bring prices down (Bush did this, too)...both occasions, gas went down a few cents for about a week.
Obama did it : http://www.cbsnews.c...794-503544.html
Bush did it (via suspending deposits into the SPR) : http://en.wikipedia....(United_States)
Reckless spending, yes, one can draw a parallel or two between Obama and a So-Cal valley girl with her dad's no limit credit card. But if deficits are the devil, both parties are Satan-worshipers....the only beautified dude would be Clinton, who did balance the budget with the highest tax increases since WWII (sorry yall, I don't like tax increases). Bush maintained those surpluses until the 9-11 induced recession, but did boost gov't revenues by cutting taxes, to the tune of $785 billion from 2004-2007, which is the largest 4-year increase in government revenue.....that's right, he cut taxes, gov't revenue went up:
(no if only he could exercise the fiscal restraint, he could've gone back to surpluses, but I digress)
And a big problem with someone that all Americans can believe in is the socio-political climate is very poisonous and the gap has widened. There are more people on the far left and the far right now...
But as for who's going to be President, I would say Obama would have to seriously screw the pooch to not get re-elected. Getting Osama wont mean dick because Americans have a short memory. Just like the first Gulf War, Bush Sr., who was much more of a highly regarded statesman than Jr., suffered a defeat in his re-election bid because....of...a....recession. (and a relatively mild one, at that.) We win a war in which we had lots of support from other nations, we liberated a nation that was invaded without provocation, and for the first time in a looooong time, were starting to build credibility with the non-crazy part of the Arab world. And the president that presided over that lost....because we had a short, minor, recession. If the economy continues it's choppy, generally side-ways trajectory, Obama wont suffer. But if it starts to degrade, even a little...even if it's only statistical, that's all it'll take to put the economy issue back the repub's corner. (for this election cycle, anyway)
Obama also needs to shore up some of the disenchantment. And he's been working on it. Some are going to start saying 'where's the "change we can believe in"?' It's almost 3 years and unemployment remains high with no clear path or indication of a meaningful recovery of the GDP, the housing market, labor market, etc. Those college students from 2008 who voted for him are looking for those decent-paying jobs that were around when they graduated high school and aren't seeing them as college grads. They're going to say 'this change sucks'. so he's playing defense a little bit here, but it's not to be unexpected. In order to get elected, HE HAD TO SAY 'CHANGE'...people wanted change. But in all reality, a president can't change shit by himself. He's got the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and 50 state governments that are all checks on what he can get accomplished. What he's saying in this video is quite reasonable to any liberal, inexcusable to any conservative, but what's undeniable is if he said it was going to take two terms (8 years) for the 'change', he probably wouldn't have been elected:
What I said about Obama getting re-elected is also predicated on him shoring up the socially liberal vote. He would do well to come out and vocally oppose a ban on gay marriage. I don't know how many republican votes he thinks he's winning by not saying that..., and the demographic that is one of the MOST opposed to gay marriage, african americans, are (call it a hunch) not going to abandon Obama over it:
But he is frustrating non-minority non-poor social liberals with that, and for no benefit, and that's a BIG voting bloc in a lot swing-ish states. This is just my opinion on the matter, not that I'm stating a position on gay marriage myself...just saying what I'd do if I'm Obama.
As for Republicans, well, they're fucked. If they had a strong candidate, Obama would have a real challenge because the economy is NOT (if we're being honest, Obama-supports) where America thought it would be when it voted for change. Meaningful recovery, (not GPD, there's lots of money out there now, but it's all with the banks. Thank Obama for that, too) in the terms of jobs, wages, household wealth etc., has not in any way come back. The biggest measure household wealth is generally the home...and that's going to be toast for a long time. And it's not Bush's, Obama's or any president's fault that we went apeshit with credit. But we Americans need to blame someone not named 'ourselves'...they jobs being created are of the 'would you like fries with that?' variety, and wages have decreased and stagnated, depending on where you are.
So Obama isn't without a chink in his armor, but there's no adversary with any measurable strength and skill that is going to be able to exploit that chink:
Mitt Romney is a stiff, a suit with hair that looks like it was drawn on his head...and he is devoid of any likable personality. (Remember Bush and how even people who didn't vote said they'd have a beer with him? Yeah, that's what Romney doesn't have) I don't even think people give a shit that he's mormon. (which makes sense, mormons aren't the most thrilling people to engage, generally)
Michelle Bachmann has got some life, but she's a fringe candidate without a lot of charisma. She handles herself well in debates and in front of camera's usually, and that helps. But seriously, who the hell is she and where'd she come from? (Minnesota, I know...originally she's from Iowa, and was actually a democrat until her last year in college! Betcha didn't know that!)
Herman Cain - A non-token man with a non-token resume who is serving as the republican party's token black guy. Even if they really pushed him, he's a math geek and it shows...good sense of humor when reports give him the chance to lighten up, though.
Newt Gingrich - Former Time Magazine Man of the Year...but he's been MIA for 17 years. Sorry, bro-ham. Doesn't work that way. Shoulda stuck around. But you didn't. Let someone who stuck in the fight get a shot.
You know what? There's too many douche bags to go through. Here's who has would have the best showing in presidential elections for the repubs:
Ron Paul - He backs up everything he says with statistics and logic...so you can understand why I like him. He says what ALOT of Americans express to each other in non-highly politicized environments. However, the Republican Party doesn't really like him because he really does want smaller government...not just less of the stuff the left likes, but no more corporate welfare/tax breaks/subsidizing, no more policing the world, etc. And republicans generally like that stuff,....a lot.
Rick Perry - Governor of Texas. Has everything a candidate would need to be a viable challenge to Obama and hit the chink in the armor, but he is very very very emphatic about his Christian faith which wont play well at all with irreligious people and non-Christians that exist at every point of the right/left political spectrum...here's a very recent example (and read ALL of what he prayed about):
Aside from this, he's a very strong candidate.
Jimmy McMillan - This guy is my hero. I can't help it. He's my guy. He's the one we all want but would never vote for because we say we want real people but we really only vote for politicians. This guy is a badass. If you really want 'change in washington' this guy is fuckin' IT. If you don't know who this guy is, and you probably don't, you NEED to check him out regardless of what party you like.
My fingers hurt. So...I'm done.
This post has been edited by ilyushin79: Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:59 AM
Posted Mon Aug 08, 2011 01:12 PM
Also..........please educate me on your reference to lax gun laws.
Posted Mon Aug 08, 2011 01:26 PM
"The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms."
So yes, jobs got outsourced, but no one really went apeshit because we had plenty of job creation here (Do I need to get unemployment statistics, guys?) prior to 2008.
As for lax gun laws, Wisconsin, where back check is, WAS one of two states that didn't now allow carry. Now my state of Illinois is the only one...so Backcheck might be conveying that sentiment because Wisconsin just very recently allowed carry (i forget if it's conceled or open).
But this thread isn't about gun laws....so let's stay on topic, ok?
This post has been edited by ilyushin79: Mon Aug 08, 2011 01:28 PM
Posted Mon Aug 08, 2011 01:28 PM
I'm having a devil of a time getting my hands on a full auto TAR-21, I'd even settle for a full-auto MP5....but nope. Can't get it. (Dammit, off topic!)
Posted Mon Aug 08, 2011 02:55 PM
My bad...I wonder why I thought that????
Posted Mon Aug 08, 2011 04:50 PM
To all you Obama supporters, in all seriousness, do you really think we can keep going at this current pace ? Can this country really handle six more years of this bullshit world we are living in now ?
Demonizing the rich does no good, all this does is keep their wallets closed tight. Hitting them with higher taxes will only hurt our current employment rate, not help it. These people that have all the money need to be encouraged to spend it, not lock it away and keep it from the government. All this will do is add more people to the unemployment lines as we sit and watch the remainder of our jobs go to overseas.
This is basic business 101.
When Walmart is losing customers, do they inflate their prices and scare away the few remaining customers or do they have a huge blowout sale in hopes of adding newer customers ? There is more money to be gained in volume. you might have to sell more but in the end you wind up making more money due to a higher turnover rate. Its the same thing with taxes. The higher you rape trhe rich the less money they are going to spend. What we need is more taxpayers not higher taxes.