How can liberals really justify voting for Obama in 2012?

[oldsalt]

And we'll get the same shit again. Either another round of Obama or some equally lame Republican.

We have no "lame Republicans" running for President, unless you want to judge a book by its cover, that is. We plan to balance the budget, cut spending, reducing the size of government, keep taxes low, and reduce the deficit by kicking the unemployment rate back down by salting American shores with jobs.

The mountain of debt? We're gonna make a molehill of it. Go, pachys!!!

Thanks for the laugh!!!!

 

[editec]

How can liberals really justify voting for Obama in 2012?

Three possible voter justifications

1. The lesser of two evils voting strategy
2. Belief in Obama's plan
3. Sheer SPITE.

 

[uscitizen]

Are you really better off now than you were when Obama took office? Not many people are.

Nobody except the super wealthy have been "better off" since the 1990s.

Yep todays median wage earner is taking home the same they did in 1969 once inflation is figured in.

 

[JohnA]

Are you really better off now than you were when Obama took office? Not many people are.

Yes I am. What percentage of people aren't better off?

those that joined the unemployment line

soon to be those on s/s and medicare

those soon to be forced to buy insurance they dont want

 

[JohnA]

How can liberals really justify voting for Obama in 2012?

Three possible voter justifications

1. The lesser of two evils voting strategy
2. Belief in Obama's plan
3. Sheer SPITE.

(4 ) they have a locked of brain and vote for who their union boss tells them to
(5 ) they dont know any better
(6 ) they like his looks better then the *other candidate *

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you really better off now than you were when Obama took office? Not many people are.

The UAW is much better off.

Oh, I forgot to mention, racist!

 

[Oddball]

How can liberals really justify voting for Obama in 2012?

That (D) next to his name.

They'd vote for Beelzebub (D) himself, were he on the ballot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How can liberals really justify voting for Obama in 2012?

Because he's been a good president. 90% of the Republican Party can never see that.

Good at what exactly?

He killed the Space Shuttle and manned space exploration and he's failed leader by his own admission

 

[JohnA]

And we'll get the same shit again. Either another round of Obama or some equally lame Republican.

We have no "lame Republicans" running for President, unless you want to judge a book by its cover, that is. We plan to balance the budget, cut spending, reducing the size of government, keep taxes low, and reduce the deficit by kicking the unemployment rate back down by salting American shores with jobs.

The mountain of debt? We're gonna make a molehill of it. Go, pachys!!!

 

[dblack]

We have no "lame Republicans" running for President, unless you want to judge a book by its cover, that is. We plan to balance the budget, cut spending, reducing the size of government, keep taxes low, and reduce the deficit by kicking the unemployment rate back down by salting American shores with jobs.

The mountain of debt? We're gonna make a molehill of it. Go, pachys!!!

I wish you all would quite mis-copy-n-pasting this quote. I didn't say that. I think pretty much all of the Republicans are lame - with the exception of Ron Paul whom the would never actually nominate.

 

[xsited1]

Are you really better off now than you were when Obama took office? Not many people are.

Nobody except the super wealthy have been "better off" since the 1990s.

Translation: Maybe getting a liberal arts degree wasn't such a great idea after all.

 

[JohnA]

We have no "lame Republicans" running for President, unless you want to judge a book by its cover, that is. We plan to balance the budget, cut spending, reducing the size of government, keep taxes low, and reduce the deficit by kicking the unemployment rate back down by salting American shores with jobs.

The mountain of debt? We're gonna make a molehill of it. Go, pachys!!!

I wish you all would quite mis-copy-n-pasting this quote. I didn't say that. I think pretty much all of the Republicans are lame - with the exception of Ron Paul whom the would never actually nominate.

somebody has seriously fucked up the posts with copy and pasting i didnt say the quote int he post above either

 

[uscitizen]

How can liberals really justify voting for Obama in 2012?

Exactly the same way that 'conservatives' justifed voting for Bush in 2004.

 

[dblack]

How can liberals really justify voting for Obama in 2012?

Exactly the same way that 'conservatives' justifed voting for Bush in 2004.

Pretty dismal observation on both counts.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

How can liberals really justify voting for Obama in 2012?

Exactly the same way that 'conservatives' justifed voting for Bush in 2004.

Pretty dismal observation on both counts.

Anyone who gets a major party nomination these days is likely to be pretty dismal. The power brokers want someone they think they can control.

 

[dblack]

Anyone who gets a major party nomination these days is likely to be pretty dismal. The power brokers want someone they think they can control.

So, are we going to continue to fall for it? When will Democrats quit voting D, just 'cause their scared of the R - or vice versa? When will we start voting our conscience and stop giving the 'power brokers' what they want?

 

[Yoda]

Are you really better off now than you were when Obama took office? Not many people are.

Simple. He's liberal,black and the only democrat running. Did you really have to ask?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anyone who gets a major party nomination these days is likely to be pretty dismal. The power brokers want someone they think they can control.

Which the Framers anticipated.

It was the original intent for the Congress to ‘run’ the country, not he Executive, who was to be a neutral referee – a final check before a bill becomes law, whose veto could be overridden by Congress if need be.

The investment of so much de facto power in the Executive today is a Constitutional aberration: it’s not the president’s job to ‘fix’ the economy, or decide when to go to war, or come up with a plan to balance the budget – again, that’s Congress’ job.

And Congress can’t function per original intent because Senators are elected by popular vote. The state legislatures were to appoint members of the Senate. There was a reason for that as well: to ensure Congress implements appropriate policies absent subjective retribution by the voters. The people may have their voice in the House, but he Senate and Executive are responsible for final disposition of legislation.

Now we have members of the Senate whoring themselves to the voters, acting in their own best political interest, not the Nation’s. Congress is no longer able to function objectively, it’s become a pit of partisan vipers. With Congress unable to execute its Constitutional mandate to address the Nation’s issues, that responsibility falls to the Executive, which has grown into the bilious bureaucracy now needed to fulfill that role, contrary to original intent.

It’s was intended to be a very elegant system: the people participate but do not rule; the Congress and Executive enact legislation subject to the rule of law which is in turn subject to judicial review when the people believe a given Branch has acted unconstitutionally.

The Supreme Court has for the most part acknowledged this original intent by giving Congress wide latitude in its law-making authority – as it represents the will of he people.

With the Age of the Imperial Presidency, however, this elegant system has been out of balance for well over 60 years. It was never intended for Congress to be an equal partner in governance with the Executive, and this errant perception of the president as some sort of ‘leader’ or the like has resulted in needless conflict and acrimony the Framers tried desperately to avoid.

By failing to adhere to the Framers’ original plan, we alone are responsible for the dysfunctional government we must now suffer.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Anyone who gets a major party nomination these days is likely to be pretty dismal. The power brokers want someone they think they can control.

Which the Framers anticipated.

It was the original intent for the Congress to ‘run’ the country, not he Executive, who was to be a neutral referee – a final check before a bill becomes law, whose veto could be overridden by Congress if need be.

The investment of so much de facto power in the Executive today is a Constitutional aberration: it’s not the president’s job to ‘fix’ the economy, or decide when to go to war, or come up with a plan to balance the budget – again, that’s Congress’ job.

And Congress can’t function per original intent because Senators are elected by popular vote. The state legislatures were to appoint members of the Senate. There was a reason for that as well: to ensure Congress implements appropriate policies absent subjective retribution by the voters. The people may have their voice in the House, but he Senate and Executive are responsible for final disposition of legislation.

Now we have members of the Senate whoring themselves to the voters, acting in their own best political interest, not the Nation’s. Congress is no longer able to function objectively, it’s become a pit of partisan vipers. With Congress unable to execute its Constitutional mandate to address the Nation’s issues, that responsibility falls to the Executive, which has grown into the bilious bureaucracy now needed to fulfill that role, contrary to original intent.

It’s was intended to be a very elegant system: the people participate but do not rule; the Congress and Executive enact legislation subject to the rule of law which is in turn subject to judicial review when the people believe a given Branch has acted unconstitutionally.

The Supreme Court has for the most part acknowledged this original intent by giving Congress wide latitude in its law-making authority – as it represents the will of he people.

With the Age of the Imperial Presidency, however, this elegant system has been out of balance for well over 60 years. It was never intended for Congress to be an equal partner in governance with the Executive, and this errant perception of the president as some sort of ‘leader’ or the like has resulted in needless conflict and acrimony the Framers tried desperately to avoid.

By failing to adhere to the Framers’ original plan, we alone are responsible for the dysfunctional government we must now suffer.

It might be more accurate to say that Congress' own abdication of responsibility since at least the 1920s created this dysfunctional government. That would be true of both houses.

As for your point about the Senate, it's doubtful whether whoring oneself to a state legislature is necessarily better than whoring oneself to the voters. At least those in favor of the 17th amendment thought so.

 

[Sallow]

Anyone who gets a major party nomination these days is likely to be pretty dismal. The power brokers want someone they think they can control.

By failing to adhere to the Framers’ original plan, we alone are responsible for the dysfunctional government we must now suffer.

While this is a rough patch..we still have the best government in the world.