View Full Version : looking for the positive statement about presidential candidates
flowerseverywhere
7-9-12, 5:40pm
It is only July and it seems every time I read an article on the internet, or catch the news on TV or radio it is all negative. Same in personal and iternet conversations. I never hear either the Romney or Obama camp outline specifics as to what they would do to change the course of our country.
for Example, "I will repeal obamacare" not I propose to substitute this plan to help Americans obtain affordable health insurance
or "Romney is out of touch with the middle class" (I think just about every congressman and senator is as well as both candidates)
so I have a challenge. Can anyone come up with positive statements that would show what their candidate stands for and what their plan is to make our country and the world a better place? If the election was tomorrow, what positive attributes do you think would make your choice the best choice for all of us?
I don't agree that every Congressman and both candidates are out of touch with the middle class. I think the problem is that the Citizens United decision has totally corrupted the system.
I think your original post really oversimplifies state of 2012 political campaigns for the Presidency and Congress. So I think you're asking a question that can't really be answered by just saying "my guy stands for..." In the Presidential race, I think both candidates have decidedly different reasons for wanting to be President. And I know I don't exclusively make my decision for whom I'm going to vote based on their particular positions/plans because reality isn't that simple. The system in which the winners will govern is much more complicated than that.
ApatheticNoMore
7-9-12, 6:45pm
They have nothing to offer. :) The corptocracy choice and the corptocracy backup choice. Neither candidate even really has the support of their party base. They are so bad that lesser of two evils has ceased to convince me (at a certain point, lesser of two evils is just evil, right?). Here is what they will claim they have to offer you: Obama - his watered down healthcare plan, possibly even accurately being "lesser of two evils" in a few areas despite being appalingly bad in them. Romney: mystical magical ways of reviving the economy. He may even promise a balanced budget, this is almost certainly laughable. Do you really believe that is going to happen? If it does it will be on your back. By and large though I haven't even heard many claims!
It is only July and it seems every time I read an article on the internet, or catch the news on TV or radio it is all negative. Same in personal and iternet conversations. I never hear either the Romney or Obama camp outline specifics as to what they would do to change the course of our country.
they won't and they can't.
I don't agree that every Congressman and both candidates are out of touch with the middle class. I think the problem is that the Citizens United decision has totally corrupted the system.
it is MAJOR yes.
I think both candidates have decidedly different reasons for wanting to be President
I don't claim to know. I can't read minds. I can see actions.
And I know I don't exclusively make my decision for whom I'm going to vote based on their particular positions/plans because reality isn't that simple. The system in which the winners will govern is much more complicated than that.
Ah the playing 11th dimensional chess. Every action and every reaction, every lash and every backlash, omniscience, seeing all the consequences of a given choice spread out in infinity, is a Romney win good because then the left will care about civil liberties? Is a Romney win a Dem win 2 years later in the house, is an Obama win and Repub win 2 years later in the house. I don't know, I actually did do a lot of 11th dimensional chessing, I went back and forth on which was worse in 11th dimensional chess ways. Conclusion: They both stink. The green party maybe :)
flowerseverywhere
7-9-12, 7:55pm
well. I can think of lots of positives for each candidate.
Romney successfully enacted health care coverage plan for his state when he was governor.
Obama allowed young men and women up to age 26 to stay on their parents health plan. He signed the Don't ask don't tell repeal into law, supported even by a few Republicans (some did not vote.) Obama worked to extend unemployment benefits during the worst of the recession.
Romney eliminated a projected 1.5 billion dollar deficit when he was governor. He also turned around the 2002 Salt Lake City olympic games financially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney
Both are very articulate and present a very confident picture to people around the world.
flowerseverywhere
7-9-12, 8:02pm
I don't agree that every Congressman and both candidates are out of touch with the middle class. .
do you have examples of how they live middle class lives and vote according to the people that elected them?
Here is my example. My tea party congresswoman (Ann Burkle) works out of Syracuse NY. She made a statement that the fast and furious matter was foremost in her constituents minds. Ever since she made that statement the local paper and online news has been filled with letter after letter of how her constituents concerns are health care, medicare, unemployment and jobs. I even wrote to her.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/rep_ann_marie_buerkle_says_fas.html
but my purpose was not to get in an argument, but to see if there were any things out there that these candidates stood for that stuck out in anyone's mind.
I respect those on the right who believe that rampant and unchecked government spending is undermining our economy and "giving away the store" rather than asking people to work for what they get.
I also respect those who believe that government ought to play a big role in improving peoples' lives, offering them opportunities to better themselves, and being there to help them when they're thrust into poverty.
But nothing is so black and white as that. There are endless shades of gray in between, with judgment, name-calling, accusation, bluff, bluster, and just plain differences of opinion on where all of these boundaries lie.
So I respect the part of Mitt Romney that is genuinely worried about America's fiscal future (but not the part that's simply trying to preserve the status quo for the top 1%) I respected his stand on healthcare affordability in Massachusetts. I respect that he was a successful businessman - very hard to do sometimes.
And I respect the part of Barack Obama that really wants to lift people up to better lives (but not the part that thinks that just handing people endless gobs of money with few/no restrictions will do that) I respect the policies you mention, Flowers, and I respect the Dream Act, and his push for renewable energy and green jobs.
It's sad that they are both for sale. Modern politics in general makes me sad.
It's hard to be a centrist. Nobody likes us :D
I respect those on the right who believe that rampant and unchecked government spending is undermining our economy and "giving away the store" rather than asking people to work for what they get.
I also respect those who believe that government ought to play a big role in improving peoples' lives, offering them opportunities to better themselves, and being there to help them when they're thrust into poverty.
But nothing is so black and white as that. There are endless shades of gray in between, with judgment, name-calling, accusation, bluff, bluster, and just plain differences of opinion on where all of these boundaries lie.
So I respect the part of Mitt Romney that is genuinely worried about America's fiscal future (but not the part that's simply trying to preserve the status quo for the top 1%) I respected his stand on healthcare affordability in Massachusetts. I respect that he was a successful businessman - very hard to do sometimes.
And I respect the part of Barack Obama that really wants to lift people up to better lives (but not the part that thinks that just handing people endless gobs of money with few/no restrictions will do that) I respect the policies you mention, Flowers, and I respect the Dream Act, and his push for renewable energy and green jobs.
It's sad that they are both for sale. Modern politics in general makes me sad.
It's hard to be a centrist. Nobody likes us :D
so true, so true...
Mitt Romney wears nice sweaters and the President has a pretty good jump shot from about 12'.
flowerseverywhere
7-12-12, 2:10pm
Mitt Romney wears nice sweaters and the President has a pretty good jump shot from about 12'.
Was that so hard........................?:laff:
ApatheticNoMore
7-12-12, 2:57pm
Yea it is pretty hilarious, noone wants to defend them. I suppose for any human that exists or ever existed you could find *something* good to say, Charles Manson - hey have it, but for the overall assessment it has a degree of missing the forrest for the trees. The trains run on time? (the trains run between nowhere and nowhere .... but they are high speed ....)
flowerseverywhere
7-12-12, 3:13pm
Yes, Apathetic, it is very surprising that there was not a resounding list of positives for either candidate. except for puglogics contribution. So what does that say about our upcoming election? Does it matter?
so, you want us to say something good about each one? Well, I think i, and a lot of others have been saying good things about President Obama. He is a very smart guy. Very smart, and although i know being smart is somehow a negative to the republicans, I personally want my President to be exceedingly smart.
He has always worked for We the People, in his community, and now on a world scale. Although he could have just joined a law firm and made lots of money, he pursued issues important to him and his community instead of just money (and he banks in the US)
He saved the auto industry, even though plenty said let it die, even some in his own party.
He got bin laden, and has actually done more for the war on terror than previous administrations.
He seems like a genuinely nice guy, and i love his smile. (I love big smiles)
He tried, and succeeded somewhat, in doing SOMETHING about health care reform, despite the political cost to him. Again, it's that working for issues important to the community. And he won't run away from what he has done. He actually kind of likes that it is called Obamacare, although that name was used by the right as a condemnation, future generations will know who exactly saved health care in this country. Not only will the right be trying to claim it really was their idea in the first place, they will regret starting that name.
After all the sh-t he's been through, he still wants the job.
Mitt has nice hair, and his kids look like nice kids.
Romney folk, help a sistah out here. I know he's got some very good ideas and traits. Let's hear 'em so at least we have something good to say (being from one of those families where they preached, "if you don't have something good to say, don't say anything at all")
I don't mind having a choice of two good men, and then choosing the one who most closely aligns with my own values. That's the way America was supposed to be.
Or is his only redeeming trait (in the eyes of the conservative voter) that he's not Barack Obama?
P.S. Gregg, I respect a good jump shot. I have the hops of a two-toed sloth.
I believe Romney feels, in his heart, it's his turn (whatever that means) and that he can do the job. Just as I never questioned Bush's love of country or patriotism, i don't question Romney's. That's a tactic of the right that i just can't buy into. But love of country or patriotism doesn't qualify you for the job any more than shouting the national anthem louder than anyone else, or standing taller and slapping your hand over your heart doesn't make you more patriotic or prove your love of country more than anyone else. He's just not ready for prime time. Sure he is a successful business man, that is a given. No one is questioning his credentials as a successful businessman. But again, that isn't the same as being President of the largest, biggest economy on the planet. And it doesn't qualify you to be president, whether you think it's your turn or not. We don't select Presidents by who's turn it is. It isn't a game of dodge ball in Junior High. And it's more than just being a good business man. A president needs to be so much more, not only understanding business and economics, but diplomacy and the delicate nuance of world politics. When to be tough and when to step back and let things work themselves out.
I just feel Romney isn't up to the task. i don't think he is capable of doing the job right, as Bush wasn't really capable (9/11 being a real test and proof of that). The republicans, unfortunately, keep putting up candidates who, instead of being right for the job, are simply selected because it's 'their turn'.
Romney is a completely empty shirt. he seems like a nice guy, he really does. But he also doesn't seem to have an original thought in his head. he says whatever the audience in front of him, or the backers behind him, want him to say.
Look at his Romneycare, and Obamacare. Same program. Successful in mass. and will be successful in the country, when enacted. Romney runs away from his very successful program because of the rabid base who refuse to see success even when it hits them in the face, and Obama embraces his health care because he actually believes in it, even though it costs him politically. Who is tougher. Who is braver. Who will represent us on the world stage, and who will cave because someone somewhere might not like it.
Yes, Apathetic, it is very surprising that there was not a resounding list of positives for either candidate.
So you and your coherts can pick it apart?
Seriously, what is the point of your post? With the billions of words on the web, why should I put forth effort to aggregate political points for your edification? There is this thing called Google, you know. Besides, you've made up your mind on the Presidential campaign no doubt, and few here are qualified to speak to your local campaigns, so yeah, you've got to do the work.
Yes, the upcoming election matters. The lack of response to your thread doesn't negate that, and if posters here don't jump to your request, that doesn't means that 1) we don't care 2) candidates don't have good points 3) it's all a crock
It might just mean that some sense you are setting a trap, or we are posters who use this site for entertainment and don't wish to take precious time to post information that you will pretty likely discard anyway.
Here's a suggestion: Do your own research. Then why don't YOU come back here and post the positive things about your candidate(s.)
Romney folk, help a sistah out here. ...
Let's hear 'em so at least we have something good to say (being from one of those families where they preached, "if you don't have something good to say, don't say anything at all")
No.
No.
Fair enough. For the record, I wasn't interested in picking anybody apart. I thought Romney's supporters were the ones who knew him best and so were most likely to see things the rest of us didn't.
I liked this bit from the Washington Post back in January. It sums up Romney's makeup pretty well -- and in a way that doesn't toe the "anybody but Obama" party line. Flowers, I think it's a positive statement of sorts:
"Romney is temperamentally conservative but not particularly ideological. He reserves his enthusiasm for quantitative analysis and organizational discipline. He seems to view the cultural and philosophic debates that drive others as distractions from the real task of governing — making systems work.
His competitors have attempted to portray Romney’s ideological inconsistency over time as a character failure. It hasn’t worked, mainly because Romney is a man of exemplary character — deeply loyal to his faith, his family and his country. But he clearly places political ideology in a different category of fidelity. Like Dwight Eisenhower, Romney is a man of vague ideology and deep values. In political matters, he is empirical and pragmatic. He studies problems, assesses risks, calculates likely outcomes. Those expecting Romney to be a philosophic leader will be disappointed. He is a management consultant, and a good one.
Has the moment of the management consultant arrived in American politics? In our desperate drought of public competence, Romney has a strong case to make."
flowerseverywhere
7-13-12, 8:14am
Besides, you've made up your mind on the Presidential campaign no doubt
I have not made up my mind. I desperately wished a candidate would have emerged that would really have a good list of credentials to go up against Obama this fall.
I am a registered Independent, and through the years I have voted for as many Republicans as Democrats, depending on what they stood for and the plans they had to move this country foward. I have not missed a Presidential election since I was eligible to vote.
At this point I don't know who I will vote for. From talking to acquaintances and reading all I can get my hands on I have found it very difficult to get to the truth because so much of the information out there (especially if I google it) has a spin on it that makes it untrue.
...
At this point I don't know who I will vote for. From talking to acquaintances and reading all I can get my hands on I have found it very difficult to get to the truth because so much of the information out there (especially if I google it) has a spin on it that makes it untrue.
ok. Have you read everything at the candidates' web sites? That is without spin unless you don't want their own spin, and in that case, I don't know what you want. There is NO information without filter or without point of view, it's ALL opinion. There IS no pure "Truth" other than very basic facts.
What I think you want is convincing argument for a candidate and that is hardly "truth" or without "spin." There is nothing wrong with that, by the way. I'm looking for convincing argument to favor one of our three Republican Senatorial primary candidates. The winner will be going up against Claire McCaskill and that candidate had better be good 'cause Clairebear is polished and strong.
I have not made up my mind. I desperately wished a candidate would have emerged that would really have a good list of credentials to go up against Obama this fall. ..
...and clearly that is not Romney for you. ok.
The over riding issue for my election choices has always been the environment. I think the economy is resilient and will probably eventually reset to some sort of norm regardless of who wins, but the environmental damage and global warming will be here for generations.
Obama has been up against a bad economy, but I would say he has done these things.
Blocked the Keystone pipeline. In the big picture this may not be huge, but it has in the least sent a message for all to see.
Radically increased auto efficiency standards.
Provided stimulus money and tax credits for renewable energy. Also for home energy improvements. I personally benefited from this. In some ways his future of a green economy has been talk, but he has at least introduced the concept.
He has been a little disappointing in not going further, but considering an alternative that denies human caused global warming in spite of overwhelming evidence and support from climate scientists, in contrast he might be a star.
Obama has also pushed for financial reform, though much of this has been compromised by partisan politics. He has basically wanted regulate the ability of banks to invest in risky ventures and return to regulations in place from the great depression through the Reagan era. This was a significant cause of our recent financial meltdown and without more regulation, puts us at risk of it happening again. Again, in contrast to the opponent who favors less regulation.
flowerseverywhere
7-13-12, 10:09am
...and clearly that is not Romney for you. ok.
yes, I watched the debates and have read his website. I am not going to get into the negatives, however there are many statements that don't make sense to me in the overall picture. But that is not to say when I go to the polls he won't get my vote.
The world is very complicated. We have Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to deal with. We have the economy which is not working really well for a lot of people with a loss of the middle class, as well as the European debt crisis. We have environmental issues. We have the healthcare mess. Entitlements, abortion, same sex marraige- the list goes on and on of issues that strike a nerve one way or another with almost everyone. The loss of good american jobs. The growing budget deficit.
No one candidate is going to fit the ideals of anyone. But the issue is, what does each candidate bring to the table that will serve the greater good and move us forward as a country?
The over riding issue for my election choices has always been the environment. I think the economy is resilient and will probably eventually reset to some sort of norm regardless of who wins, but the environmental damage and global warming will be here for generations.
It's interesting Rogar, the economy is the overriding issue for me in most elections. We certainly have challenges facing us regarding the environment, but we have challenges in many other areas as well. Health, education, energy, defense, etc. all have significant impacts on our lives. When its all boiled down a government needs money to fix any of our problems. In down times we don't have any, at least not without more debt which usually makes things worse. In good times we do. It's about that simple.
The environment IS critical. If you don't have water to drink it doesn't matter how much money you have. I do have a very strong desire to see good regulation implemented and some teeth put into the ability to enforce it. I don't necessarily believe the President should be the leader in that above other considerations of that position. I personally think the States should be out front environmentally rather than the Feds. It makes sense to me because the environmental conditions vary so much from region to region in this country. That said, I realize the States do need significant direction from the Feds to prevent a free for all in states with a lot of resources.
To get back to the OP, it may just be that all the candidates in the race feel like a compromise to most of us even more than usual. For myself, this election is about picking the lesser of the evils. I don't think it is particularly complimentary to a candidate to state that I think he is less evil than his opponent so I'll stick with saying my candidate wears nice sweaters.
iris lily
7-13-12, 10:25am
... But the issue is, what does each candidate bring to the table that will serve the greater good and move us forward as a country?
Romney is more likely to work in concert with a Republican Congress than his opposition. Now that is a "truth" that few will dispute.
Since my main concern is fiscal responsibility and shrinking the size (as measured by cost) of the Federal government, and I think that the only way into that critical change in the mindset of Congress is the new guys like Marco Rubio, Paul Rand, et al, I want whoever is in the White House to work with them or at minimum stay out of their way. At this point Congress is more important to me than the White House.
iris lily
7-13-12, 10:43am
peggy, I would like to know which of the Presidential candidates is responsible for the most tree deaths. That Truth may sway my answer. Do you know?
At this point Congress is more important to me than the White House.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. The President is a figurehead with veto powers, the House and Senate are where the work gets done.
Since the economy is my leading concern, it would be nice to have a Senate which would actually allow bills to come before it and be voted upon. The President can talk all he wants but when the Senate blocks everything of value that the House sends it's way, we have a problem.
mtnlaurel
7-13-12, 11:06am
Romney is more likely to work in concert with a Republican Congress than his opposition. Now that is a "truth" that few will dispute.
I see the statement above in reverse.....
A Republican Congress is more likely to work in concert with Romney than his opposition.
I am a registered Independent.
I am actually quite hopeful for Jan. 2013 no matter who wins. I am ready for some things to get determined even if they are solved not according to my point of view.
This living in limbo until the election is a killer on the economy I think. And there is blame enough to go around for all.
Positives:
Romney - Determined.
I just couldn't imagine having all the money in the world and wanting to put yourself through the ordeal of running for President for the last 8 years...
(and I understand how nuts it is that him having money shouldn't even come into the equation, but for some reason it does for me - and it doesn't have anything to do with the spin factory - I guess I am a little inherently distrustful of people with copious amounts of cash)
And not that people running for President don't deserve to be put through an ordeal, they need to be fully vetted by the voters.
Obama - Understanding of regular people. Exceptional.
I believe that Obama has my best interest at heart as a 'regular' person.
I think he understands what it is like to choose between medicine or food for your kids which is the state that many in our country live in daily.
Exceptional - I think both Obama and Clinton to come from nowhere mid-america from single parent homes and take the northeast Ivy Leagues by storm is a testament of how exceptional they are.
The environment IS critical. If you don't have water to drink it doesn't matter how much money you have. I do have a very strong desire to see good regulation implemented and some teeth put into the ability to enforce it. I don't necessarily believe the President should be the leader in that above other considerations of that position. I personally think the States should be out front environmentally rather than the Feds. It makes sense to me because the environmental conditions vary so much from region to region in this country. That said, I realize the States do need significant direction from the Feds to prevent a free for all in states with a lot of resources.
Interestingly, I see it almost the opposite. In today's economy the majority of enterprises are not regional, but national or international. To put this back to the state level with multiple standards across the regions for the same enterprise would be inefficient. Plus the standards around health that are regulated by federal government are universal. Even Nixon's creation of the EPA saw some of this.
I agree that is a choice of lessor evils.
SteveinMN
7-13-12, 11:43am
At this point Congress is more important to me than the White House.
I've been thinking this one over, and, while I agree with you (for different reasons), I think the President has much more impact than just being a figurehead. When Ronald Reagan entered office, the discussion quickly turned from "Should we cut budgets?" to "How much should we cut budgets?" After the -- umm, "truthiness" of the previous administration, I think the Obama administration set a higher bar for integrity (though they didn't raise it as high as it should be, either).
But Congress is the place where we actually seem to think it's a good idea to fund anti-smoking programs and pay for smoking-related diseases through Medicare and subsidize farmers growing tobacco and the corporations who package and sell it. That kind of craziness has to stop. So Congress is more important. Unfortunately, there are too many deep pockets out there and a bought Congress responsible for addressing it.
At this point Congress is more important to me than the White House.
And should probably be to us all. +1
ApatheticNoMore
7-13-12, 12:07pm
The fundemental reason I can't vote for either of them is civil liberties issues. If not for civil liberties and the wars, I would probably just think "meh, Obama is the lesser (but not much) of two evils" and I could maybe be pursuaded to vote for him. But I can't actually ignore the fact that Obama's civil liberties record is atrocious, and Romney stands for all the same things (I have reasearched where Romney stands on these issues). And so hoping one or the other will be better on civil liberties is in my view a completely blind hope, with no real basis. I'm not interested in reading tea leaves to vote (ie hoping against hope that one or the other is better on these issues - I've thought about it yea, and saw how blind reading tea leaves really is). Bottom line I can't vote for all the monstrosities these candidates stand for - detention without trial, drone murders (the Esquire article on this was actually thinking along my lines - that's it's in a way more than war, it's more blurring of the line between war and murder), etc..
obama's lethal presidency:
http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812
I don't feel like voting for that, even if it really just on a lesser of two evils basis, it is in some way giving my ok to that. And I feel the least I can do is withhold my ok (not because it matters in some grand scheme, as one little voter among millions but it is what I can do). If enough people voted for 3rd party candidates then they would win? Well yea but that probably wont' happen. But if enough people vote for them it registers how very much we really really are not ok with this government.
The over riding issue for my election choices has always been the environment. I think the economy is resilient and will probably eventually reset to some sort of norm regardless of who wins, but the environmental damage and global warming will be here for generations.
I'm with you here (still can't bring myself to vote for drone murderer in chief but ... I agree with the economy being resilent compared to global warming etc.).
Obama has been up against a bad economy, but I would say he has done these things.
Blocked the Keystone pipeline. In the big picture this may not be huge, but it has in the least sent a message for all to see.
Yes and just ok-ed arctic drilling. Will there be oil spills? There WILL be oil spills. Also approved more drilling in the gulf (the already horribly damaged gulf).
Radically increased auto efficiency standards.
Provided stimulus money and tax credits for renewable energy. Also for home energy improvements. I personally benefited from this. In some ways his future of a green economy has been talk, but he has at least introduced the concept.
He has been a little disappointing in not going further, but considering an alternative that denies human caused global warming in spite of overwhelming evidence and support from climate scientists, in contrast he might be a star.
I agree with you that the vast majority of the Republican party has NOTHING to offer on this. I agree that sorry half hearted attempts of the Dems are still better than denying the problem even exists altogether. Yes the Dems are really lesser of two evils here. There is nothing you can even do with the denial. It should discredit the Reps as a party IMO, until they start dealing with the environmental questions. If they do so in some small government context, fine if it works and is a serious attempt at dealing with environmental issues, I'm not interesting in quibbling about approach, really. I am interesting in getting serious on the environment.
On the other hand Obama has also perhaps as much as sealed our environmental doom. Because he has pretty much sabotaged all global attempts to deal with climate change. He skipped the Rio 20 summit. He has as much as sabotaged other climate summits like Durban (there aren't many environmentalist happy about how that went!)
"Meena Raman of the Malaysia-based Third World Network told IPS: "Given the stance of the United States thus far in the Rio+20 negotiations, and the position they have taken in the climate change negotiations in Durban, it may perhaps be a blessing that President Obama is not coming to Rio.""
cites:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/15/rio-20-summit-barack-obama-absence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/14/durban-climate-change-conference-2011
All the fracking going on in this country now is going on under Obama (yes under congress as well), but ....
Neither candidate will speak about climate change now despite the weather (yea I know a single weather event doesn't indicate climate change blah blah, that's not my point - my point is it is that which can not be spoken about).
Bae has linked to public lands being sold off for pennies to the dollar for fossil fuel industries etc.. It is indeed CRIMINAL.
Bottom line on the environment OBAMA IS VERY POOR. He only wins by default in that Romney might be even worse (and again I've said it, Obama probably is the lesser of two evils on this one issue). But in the real world where everything gets more screwed up environmentally by the day, the lesser of two evils just doesn't matter that much (it does and it doesn't, every forrest saved is a future slightly less dark), but if the rate of deteroioration we are experiencing continues regardless ....
And if people turn a blind eye to the environment out of some sort of delusion that Obama is protecting it, that's just so destructive.
Obama has also pushed for financial reform, though much of this has been compromised by partisan politics. He has basically wanted regulate the ability of banks to invest in risky ventures and return to regulations in place from the great depression through the Reagan era. This was a significant cause of our recent financial meltdown and without more regulation, puts us at risk of it happening again.
Not Glass-Stegal though. I don't at all think we are secure in being regulated enough that it won't happen again. In fact I think it probably will happen again! I'm not sure you can entirely regulate it so it never happens, but honestly I don't think they are really trying. And all the too big to fail banks are now twice as big.
ANM, I pretty much agree. As far as my comments, I was trying to keep on track with the topic saying something positive:) And will try to keep it to that. I might at least point out that all that fracking has provided inexpensive natural gas which is a much cleaner energy source than coal.
According to a National Geographic survey, 65% of people surveyed believe President Obama would be a better choice to deal with an alien invasion.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-26/ufo-survey/55843742/1
On a side note, if angry aliens did attack Earth, 21% would call the Hulk in to deal with it, 12% would call Batman, and 8% would call Spider-Man.
At this point Congress is more important to me than the White House.
Except that Congress doesn't have veto power.
Except that Congress doesn't have veto power.
The have something just as effective called "anti-veto power". It just takes a two thirds majority.
The have something just as effective called "anti-veto power". It just takes a two thirds majority.
That's true. But it's so infrequent. Zero times in Obama's presidency. Four times for Bush 43. Two of Bill Clinton. One for Bush, Sr. Two for Reagan. And not for a want of trying, either. But it's kind of misleading to state throw the veto override around like it's something that's easily done. It isn't. Usually, if the President vetoes, it's all over.
That's true. But it's so infrequent. Zero times in Obama's presidency. Four times for Bush 43. Two of Bill Clinton. One for Bush, Sr. Two for Reagan. And not for a want of trying, either. But it's kind of misleading to state throw the veto override around like it's something that's easily done. It isn't. Usually, if the President vetoes, it's all over.
I don't think pointing out that a two thirds majority can override a veto is misleading, and I don't see any mention of it being easy. Perhaps you mis-read?
The have something just as effective called "anti-veto power". It just takes a two thirds majority.
I didn't mis-read. "Just" implies it's an easy fix. It's not. And even mentioning overriding a veto (which is so very rarely accomplished) without qualifying it by mentioning it's a big uphill battle implies ease.
Are we arguing semantics? That's pointless.
Are we arguing semantics? Seemingly.
That's pointless
And yet, here we are.
ApatheticNoMore
7-21-12, 11:44am
The veto power with Obama is largely theoretical as well it seems. He doesn't veto. He has only vetoed twice in his entire presidency, that is the least vetos from any president since James Garfield (wow had to get back in time for that one)! So what scenario are you actualy playing out in thinking about vetos? If you are actually thinking about vetos you are maybe playing out a Dem congress scenario wtih Romney. Which again is really talking about congress.
And we can conclude from Obamas lack of vetos? The congress and the President's interest have basically been aligned I think. Actions speak pretty loudly.
And this was one of the two vetos:
To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce
Oh yea that's really vetoing life and death legistlation there, such a serious threat!
The veto power with Obama is largely theoretical as well it seems. He doesn't veto. He has only vetoed twice in his entire presidency, that is the least vetos from any president since James Garfield (wow had to get back in time for that one)! So what scenario are you actualy playing out in thinking about vetos? If you are actually thinking about vetos you are maybe playing out a Dem congress scenario wtih Romney. Which again is really talking about congress.
And we can conclude from Obamas lack of vetos? The congress and the President's interest have basically been aligned I think. Actions speak pretty loudly.
And this was one of the two vetos:
To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce
Oh yea that's really vetoing life and death legistlation there, such a serious threat!
The reason Obama hasn't used the veto like other Presidents is the same reason he doesn't use the bully pulpit, or really comment much on things the congress does. Ironically enough, it is BECAUSE he is a constitutional scholar, despite what the right keeps trying to push, that keeps him from using these tools past Presidents used freely. He knows the constitution, his role, the role of congress, and he is loathe to interfere with their duty. But I think he is coming around. I think he has finally learned that this republican congress isn't interested in doing the people's business. They only want to win, period, at any cost to you, me, or the country at large. They don't care who, or what, gets in their way.
Really Peggy, we know Obama gave lectures, but That's about it. Most of his time has been spent campaigning. That's his number one priority. And even if he knows what's in the constitution doesn't mean he intends to follow it.
The reason Obama hasn't used the veto like other Presidents is the same reason he doesn't use the bully pulpit, or really comment much on things the congress does. Ironically enough, it is BECAUSE he is a constitutional scholar, despite what the right keeps trying to push, that keeps him from using these tools past Presidents used freely. He knows the constitution, his role, the role of congress, and he is loathe to interfere with their duty. But I think he is coming around. I think he has finally learned that this republican congress isn't interested in doing the people's business. They only want to win, period, at any cost to you, me, or the country at large. They don't care who, or what, gets in their way.
LOL Peggy, they should pay you for stuff like that.
It seems strange to talk about why a President hasn't vetoed anything without mentioning what he may have had to veto. Given that he had a Democrat majority in the House and Senate during his first two years, a majority that gave him exactly what he wanted, and now has a loyal Senate that will not allow anything originating from the Republican House to even come up for a vote, just how much opportunity has he had? Perhaps you could give us an example.
Better yet, let's talk about this again if he is lucky enough to win a second term, yet unfortunate enough to have to contend with a Republican House and Senate. I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to veto something then.
Also, if he respects the constitution and the role of Congress as much as you say, why would he show such blantant disregard for laws duly passed by Congress? I'm thinking that his use of executive orders to prevent government agencies from enforcing existing immigration laws and his recent reversal of President Clinton's signature Welfare Reform law. Not to mention bypassing Congressional approval for Cabinet appointments by declaring it a recess appointment, even though the Congress was technically still in session. To me, those things show a complete and utter disrespect for the Constitution and the role of Congress. What do they say to you?
LOL Peggy, they should pay you for stuff like that.
It seems strange to talk about why a President hasn't vetoed anything without mentioning what he may have had to veto. Given that he had a Democrat majority in the House and Senate during his first two years, a majority that gave him exactly what he wanted, and now has a loyal Senate that will not allow anything originating from the Republican House to even come up for a vote, just how much opportunity has he had? Perhaps you could give us an example.
Better yet, let's talk about this again if he is lucky enough to win a second term, yet unfortunate enough to have to contend with a Republican House and Senate. I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to veto something then.
Also, if he respects the constitution and the role of Congress as much as you say, why would he show such blantant disregard for laws duly passed by Congress? I'm thinking that his use of executive orders to prevent government agencies from enforcing existing immigration laws and his recent reversal of President Clinton's signature Welfare Reform law. Not to mention bypassing Congressional approval for Cabinet appointments by declaring it a recess appointment, even though the Congress was technically still in session. To me, those things show a complete and utter disrespect for the Constitution and the role of Congress. What do they say to you?
Wow Alan, I'm surprised you aren't dizzy from all the spinning. As anyone can see from this article, President Obama didn't 'gut' Clinton's welfare reform. But then, who on the right is going to bother to read it, so, it's all good.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-opens-the-door-for-states-to-seek-major-changes-in-welfare-to-work-law/2012/07/13/gJQA9bILiW_story.html
Sadly, most low information voters won't see the irony of the right trying to blast the President who is in fact trying to give more power and leeway to the states in welfare reform. He is actually trying to help the cash strapped states, also including in this 'gutting' the fact that the feds will take up a larger share of welfare reform dollars as the recession has devastated states treasuries. But, low information tea baggers don't want that information. Nope, they just want the bumper sticker OBAMA GUTS CLINTON WELFARE REFORM
Peggy, are you combining my comments with others you read elsewhere? You quote 'gut' and 'gutting' as if they came from me. It's not an important point, just curious.
At any rate, the point is that Congress and President Clinton, through the legislative process, created the Welfare Reform Law of 1996. This law, which contained work requirements for recepients, has been credited with bringing millions of citizens out of poverty, as well as reducing the level of child poverty in single parent households.
Now, by executive fiat, the work requirements have been waived, or perhaps I should say replaced with activities like bed rest, smoking cessation and exercise to be counted as work.
If the President actually respected the role of Congress as you stated, this 'gutting' (your words, not mine) would have been addressed legislatively rather than through executive order. It is the President's role to ensure that laws are enforced. It is the responsibility of Congress to change laws.
ApatheticNoMore
7-22-12, 12:31pm
So all the other presidents before him for the entire 20th century that used the veto more were just disobeying the constitution? Why is the veto supposed to be uncontitutional anyway? Isnt' it like right IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF? Why yes it is, Article 1 Section 7.
Never mind that the President should have used the veto to veto things that actually are unconstitutional (cough NDAA).
Nothing good comes out of the House pretty much, it's just one civil liberties destroying piece of legistlation after another (something to actually address issues the people care about? forget it!), usualy favored much more strongly by the Republicans than the Democrats. And Obama has very little record of opposition.
Why is the veto supposed to be uncontitutional anyway? Isnt' it like right IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF? Why yes it is, Article 1 Section 7.
Did someone say it was? I must have missed that.
ApatheticNoMore
7-22-12, 12:53pm
It was in response to peggy:
The reason Obama hasn't used the veto like other Presidents is the same reason he doesn't use the bully pulpit, or really comment much on things the congress does. Ironically enough, it is BECAUSE he is a constitutional scholar, despite what the right keeps trying to push, that keeps him from using these tools past Presidents used freely. He knows the constitution, his role, the role of congress, and he is loathe to interfere with their duty
Seems to imply that using the veto too much is unconstitutional, but the veto power is right in the constitution. Of all the things one could claim this president or the former have done that are unconstitutional, and there are many, using the presidential veto power even if they did it a few hundred times? Really?
It was in response to peggy:
Seems to imply that using the veto too much is unconstitutional, but the veto power is right in the constitution. Of all the things one could claim this president or the former have done that are unconstitutional, and there are many, using the presidential veto power even if they did it a few hundred times? Really?
Gee, did i say it was unconstitutional? Why, no, I don't believe I did. Perhaps you dreamed it. Or, maybe, you just decided to 'reinvent' or 'translate' or 'suppose' I said it. Never mind. Some do like to imagine things (cough).
Here, let me speak slower so some can follow this thought. The President is loathe to veto, or bully pulpit because he expects congress to do their job without his interference. Does that make it clearer? But, he is the President after all, and does have final say, so to speak.
Here, let me speak slower so some can follow this thought. The President is loathe to veto, or bully pulpit because he expects congress to do their job without his interference. Does that make it clearer? But, he is the President after all, and does have final say, so to speak.
I don't think anyone here has any trouble following your thought, but I suspect there's not many who agree with it, for several reasons.
You say the President is loathe to veto, which is nothing more than your opinion. Perhaps it would help make your case if you gave us an example of a piece of legislation which reached his desk that he didn't agree with and probably would have vetoed if not for his un-impeachable scruples.
I suppose the term 'bully pulpit' is vague enough to leave a little leeway in whether any given speaking opportunity applies or not, but in my mind, his every campaign speech and public appearance qualifies as examples of the bully pulpit. He has a half dozen or so tried & true themes he's consistently used. I think he uses it quite well to reinforce his ideological memes.
...
At any rate, the point is that Congress and President Clinton, through the legislative process, created the Welfare Reform Law of 1996. This law, which contained work requirements for recepients, has been credited with bringing millions of citizens out of poverty, as well as reducing the level of child poverty in single parent households.
...
Work requirements? Do welfare recipients get preferential hiring? because there aren't a lot of jobs out there even for people with impeccable work histories.
I read a headline today asserting that U.S. poverty has reached levels not seen since 1960. Maybe that's due to people being kicked off welfare rolls and being unable to find jobs. Do you think?
Peggy, are you combining my comments with others you read elsewhere? You quote 'gut' and 'gutting' as if they came from me. It's not an important point, just curious.
At any rate, the point is that Congress and President Clinton, through the legislative process, created the Welfare Reform Law of 1996. This law, which contained work requirements for recepients, has been credited with bringing millions of citizens out of poverty, as well as reducing the level of child poverty in single parent households.
Now, by executive fiat, the work requirements have been waived, or perhaps I should say replaced with activities like bed rest, smoking cessation and exercise to be counted as work.
If the President actually respected the role of Congress as you stated, this 'gutting' (your words, not mine) would have been addressed legislatively rather than through executive order. It is the President's role to ensure that laws are enforced. It is the responsibility of Congress to change laws.
No, you didn't use the words gut. I'm afraid I got that from the many ignorant posts about this when i googled it to see what you were talking about. You said he reversed it. Still wrong though, even if it was different words. He didn't reverse it. He didn't even do away with work requirements. What he did, and I know you are aware of this even though you wish to mislead, was to offer to the states, whose treasuries are stretched to the breaking point, various ways they can still meet their obligations towards the reform. See, he actually wants to keep the reform.
Again, ironically enough, he is offering the states MORE CONTROL in this matter. Yup, he is turning more control back to the states. Kind of thought you were for that Alan. Guess I was wrong. You apparently are for federal control after all. Gee, it really is difficult sometimes to follow what exactly you ARE for. I guess in the future I should just first check to see if President Obama and democrats are for something so I can then be assured of your position against it, right?
More state control if republicans/tea baggers/you demand it (but only as long as democrats are against it)
Less state control if President Obama/democrats think they should have it.
OK I'm being a little snarky here, but I think you can see my confusion.:confused:
For those who aren't driven/blinded by ideology, what the President has done is allowed the states to come up with more creative ways to achieve their reform goals, to help them ease the incredible budget crunch all states are experiencing right now. They have to submit their ideas, but must have definite paths to fulfill the reform goals. For some that may be keeping some very poor/uneducated/ill equipped persons on the roles a bit longer as training them with all the bells and whistles that go with that (with maybe spotty results) may be more expensive at this time. This isn't 'reversing' Clinton's reforms, which all agree are pretty good reforms. It simply is a way to temporarily help some states which are in pretty dire trouble right now. Actually, for those who bother to look into this, it's a very practical, and cost effective way to help the states through these tough times.
Of course, even though the President is doing this to help, that sure won't stop the ideologically driven from spinning this as his reversing the reforms. I just love how, despite all the sh-t his enemies throw at him, or how they spin every little thing (or simply make up nasty stuff from whole cloth), he still manages to govern, doing everything he can to help this nation forward.
I realize Romney would have a much easier time of it as tax cuts for himself...oops, the wealthy, seems to be pretty much the answer to everything.
Another irony, it would seem that 2 of the 5 states that have shown some interest in this program have republican governors. Imagine that.;)
Finite state machines are so cute when they loop.
And you are just adorable when you ignore the reality of what he is trying to do in favor of spinning it against him!;)
The states are hurting trying to fulfill unfunded mandates!
The states are furious that the government is NOT holding them to unfunded mandates!
The states want government out of their programs!
The states demand help in this time of budget crisis!
The states insist they can do it all themselves without government help, but please please send us money and help for this drought/flood/fire/hurricane/tornado/crop failure/unfunded mandate which we want to be held to, except we don't.
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. We never really will have a reasonable discussion on the merits of this as long as the misinformation merry-go-round spins.
Again, the President is simply putting this control into States hands, letting them decide if they can find other ways to achieve these goals. So, it's up to each individual state. Isn't that how you wanted it? Every man for himself? Every state a separate entity? Will results be spotty? I m guessing it will. Kind of an example of how things would go if we let each state decide it's own health, safety and business regulations, educational standards, banking standards, SS, medicare, etc....
Just pay attention to your own state and make sure it doesn't express interest in this program.
No, you didn't use the words gut. I'm afraid I got that from the many ignorant posts about this when i googled it to see what you were talking about. You said he reversed it. Still wrong though, even if it was different words. He didn't reverse it. He didn't even do away with work requirements. What he did, and I know you are aware of this even though you wish to mislead, was to offer to the states, whose treasuries are stretched to the breaking point, various ways they can still meet their obligations towards the reform. See, he actually wants to keep the reform.
I didn't attempt to mislead anyone, this action is just an example of what I would consider to be a lack of respect for the Congress, which you believe is one of the President's virtues.
But since you want to go down this path, I'm afraid you'll have to go into a little more detail on how relaxing the rules for cash payouts will help state treasuries which are stretched to the breaking point. I'm very much interested in hearing how that works.
Until then, I'm still curious how an administration can single-handedly, without benefit of legislative input, change the rules of a law and still be considered to have respect for the body responsible for instituting the law, or for the constitution which requires a separation of powers. Are we at the point where the President doesn't need Congress? Are they simply an out dated relic of an era when Emperors, Fascists and Despots were considered undesirable?
Until then, I'm still curious how an administration can single-handedly, without benefit of legislative input, change the rules of a law and still be considered to have respect for the body responsible for instituting the law, or for the constitution which requires a separation of powers. Are we at the point where the President doesn't need Congress? Are they simply an out dated relic of an era when Emperors, Fascists and Despots were considered undesirable?
Isn't this basically what Romney has promised to do to Obamacare as soon as he is in office?
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
Mitt's Plan
On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.
Isn't this basically what Romney has promised to do to Obamacare as soon as he is in office?
I wonder if anyone would consider that to be a sign of respect for the Congress and the Constitution? Or would it be considered a way to give the states what they want so it couldn't possibly be criticized? Seems like a win/win either way. ;)
I didn't attempt to mislead anyone, this action is just an example of what I would consider to be a lack of respect for the Congress, which you believe is one of the President's virtues.
But since you want to go down this path, I'm afraid you'll have to go into a little more detail on how relaxing the rules for cash payouts will help state treasuries which are stretched to the breaking point. I'm very much interested in hearing how that works.
Until then, I'm still curious how an administration can single-handedly, without benefit of legislative input, change the rules of a law and still be considered to have respect for the body responsible for instituting the law, or for the constitution which requires a separation of powers. Are we at the point where the President doesn't need Congress? Are they simply an out dated relic of an era when Emperors, Fascists and Despots were considered undesirable?
Well, you, as well as others, seem to be under the mistaken impression that Clinton's reforms simply tell the states to 'kick off' anyone after a certain point. Certainly that would save money, now wouldn't it, and makes some just positively giddy at the thought. But it isn't that simple. Any business person can tell you that.
In order to satisfy the reforms, the states actually have to do stuff for that uneducated, unmotivated, or simply incapable for whatever reason person before 'kicking' them off. And each and every bit of that 'stuff' costs money. And they can't simply dump them in the street, dust their hands off and be done with it.
What I don't understand is how can someone who keeps saying that environment regulations will keep business from doing business, and that more taxes on the wealthy would simply make them stop investing and building business can't understand this simple principal. Well, if a few more percentage points in taxes will make gaining millions more in wealth 'not worth it', then how can you not see that paying X is cheaper than paying the XYZ required to not pay X.
I wonder if anyone would consider that to be a sign of respect for the Congress and the Constitution? Or would it be considered a way to give the states what they want so it couldn't possibly be criticized? Seems like a win/win either way. ;)
See Creaker, it's like this. When a democrat does it, it shows disrespect for congress, but when a republican does it, it's all good! In fact, it shows more respect for congress cause, everyone knows anything a democrat does isn't really right or good or American. Therefore, Romney disregarding congress's actions is patriotic...somehow.
(gee where is my flag when I need to wave it. Guess I left it in the pew with my gun);)
Well, you, as well as others, seem to be under the mistaken impression that Clinton's reforms simply tell the states to 'kick off' anyone after a certain point. Certainly that would save money, now wouldn't it, and makes some just positively giddy at the thought. But it isn't that simple. Any business person can tell you that.
In order to satisfy the reforms, the states actually have to do stuff for that uneducated, unmotivated, or simply incapable for whatever reason person before 'kicking' them off. And each and every bit of that 'stuff' costs money. And they can't simply dump them in the street, dust their hands off and be done with it.
What I don't understand is how can someone who keeps saying that environment regulations will keep business from doing business, and that more taxes on the wealthy would simply make them stop investing and building business can't understand this simple principal. Well, if a few more percentage points in taxes will make gaining millions more in wealth 'not worth it', then how can you not see that paying X is cheaper than paying the XYZ required to not pay X.
Since you haven't yet, after several attempts to draw you out, explained how any of these actions infer a respect for the constitution or congress, I'll have to assume you'd rather not attempt it. The particulars of specific actions can be taken to a more suitable venue if you wish.
See Creaker, it's like this. When a democrat does it, it shows disrespect for congress, but when a republican does it, it's all good! In fact, it shows more respect for congress cause, everyone knows anything a democrat does isn't really right or good or American. Therefore, Romney disregarding congress's actions is patriotic...somehow.
(gee where is my flag when I need to wave it. Guess I left it in the pew with my gun);)
Gosh Peggy, I think you've left your hyperbole machine running on high and now it's just spewing out unfounded tripe. You should take better care of your equipment.
Gosh Peggy, I think you've left your hyperbole machine running on high and now it's just spewing out unfounded tripe. You should take better care of your equipment.
Maybe it was just the way you worded it but it did sound like you were condemning one and condoning the other for doing basically the same thing.
Maybe it was just the way you worded it but it did sound like you were condemning one and condoning the other for doing basically the same thing.
What I said was: "I wonder if anyone would consider that to be a sign of respect for the Congress and the Constitution? Or would it be considered a way to give the states what they want so it couldn't possibly be criticized? Seems like a win/win either way."
I was actually thinking of a specific 'anyone' when I wrote that. I was, perhaps in-articulately, wondering if the qualities so admired, and perhaps imagined, in one person would be condemned in another. Of course you'd need to have followed our give and take for a page or so before realizing that and I certainly don't blame you if you didn't as even I am becoming bored while awaiting an answer. :laff:
Alan:
http://blogs.nppa.org/visualstudent/files/2010/10/100726_Wrestling01_NB1-600x400.jpg
Alan:
http://blogs.nppa.org/visualstudent/files/2010/10/100726_Wrestling01_NB1-600x400.jpg
Shame on you for calling Alan a pig. Without a clear picture, we certainly can't be certain can we!
Since you haven't yet, after several attempts to draw you out, explained how any of these actions infer a respect for the constitution or congress, I'll have to assume you'd rather not attempt it. The particulars of specific actions can be taken to a more suitable venue if you wish.
It shows as much respect for congress and the constitution as Bush held for it, or Reagan, or President Cheney, or any past president. Why single out this president for actions taken by every other president? Are you really trying to suggest that he alone is the only President to take such paths? Well, I'm sure there are some who will believe that, but this is a much smarter lot on these forums. Your 'questions' amount to a child asking 'why why why' repeatedly to whatever answer you give. It's a game I don't feel like playing, as there is never going to be an answer to satisfy you.
Since you insist on only asking goofy, rhetorical questions, I'm bored with this conversation.
cheers.
Why single out this president for actions taken by every other president? Are you really trying to suggest that he alone is the only President to take such paths?
I don't think anyone is trying to say this President is the only one to ever show a certain contempt for Congress. To be honest it would be hard not to (with the current Congress I mean, not with the system overall). It is valid to single out the current President however simply because he IS the man in office. Reviewing the actions of past presidents is a history lesson. It's valuable and we need to do it, but there is no way to apply pressure on them to change their course if you believe it is wrong because their deeds are part of the past. As a citizen of the US you have a right and an obligation to speak out if you believe our elected officials are not acting in the best interest of this country. It seems that you are generally pleased with the direction the current administration is heading and feel you are supporting the candidate that best reflects your values. Great! There are, however, some of us that are not as satisfied with the President's performance and feel a different candidate might take a course that we believe is more in keeping with the best interest of the country. I don't get why that is a problem. Not singling you out peggy. I mean it is a problem everywhere. Rational discussion of what is best for all of us quickly breaks down, well, to about where this thread has now gone. We need a really strong leader (an actual leader, not just an election winner) to stand up and call bull**** and get things moving. I haven't yet decided if we have such a candidate in this election cycle or not, but 3 1/2 years in I don't really feel the President has shown us the take the bull by the horns leadership I'm looking for. And just to trim the standard response, it has nothing to do with party affiliation. It's all about the details.
I don't think anyone is trying to say this President is the only one to ever show a certain contempt for Congress. To be honest it would be hard not to (with the current Congress I mean, not with the system overall). It is valid to single out the current President however simply because he IS the man in office. Reviewing the actions of past presidents is a history lesson. It's valuable and we need to do it, but there is no way to apply pressure on them to change their course if you believe it is wrong because their deeds are part of the past. As a citizen of the US you have a right and an obligation to speak out if you believe our elected officials are not acting in the best interest of this country. It seems that you are generally pleased with the direction the current administration is heading and feel you are supporting the candidate that best reflects your values. Great! There are, however, some of us that are not as satisfied with the President's performance and feel a different candidate might take a course that we believe is more in keeping with the best interest of the country. I don't get why that is a problem. Not singling you out peggy. I mean it is a problem everywhere. Rational discussion of what is best for all of us quickly breaks down, well, to about where this thread has now gone. We need a really strong leader (an actual leader, not just an election winner) to stand up and call bull**** and get things moving. I haven't yet decided if we have such a candidate in this election cycle or not, but 3 1/2 years in I don't really feel the President has shown us the take the bull by the horns leadership I'm looking for. And just to trim the standard response, it has nothing to do with party affiliation. It's all about the details.
Fair enough Gregg. And I'm just pleased as punch you think Romney is the guy. You're wrong, of course.;)
I would love to have a reasoned discussion on various policies, but I admit I devolve into sarcasm when all I get from some here is birther/anti-American/kicks puppies type of junk. When someone posts a misleading statement, or something taken totally out of context, they aren't looking for reasoned discussion. They just want to bash. I should probably ignore these folks, but sometimes it's hard. Especially if I've had a really good nights sleep and feel frisky. :D
Well, you are right though. Maybe I'll think on it and start a thread on some particular policy and see where it goes. I do love my politics, and i do love a good debate, but I expect the debaters to be honest and thoughtful, whether I agree with them or not. I certainly don't expect to agree with everyone, and I really do want to hear reasoned objections to any particular policy. Any suggestions on a topic? Not health care as we have done that one to death, unless it were on a particular aspect of the health care law, like keeping kids on till 26 or access to prostrate/breast exams.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.