US President Barack Hussein Obama III will be reelected in 2012

[The T]

T the house idiot?

Maybe because he/she is unaware that Reagan claimed to represent FDR values?

gawd, what a fool

*FUCK OFF*

Get it?

 

[daveman]

President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama III will be reelected in 2012

The fastest horse.

 

[8537]

Liberal Jews already have warned him about his pro-Palestinian stances.

After his speech today he took another step towards his defeat in 2012.

Yes, calling for a 2-state solution and pre-1967 conditioned land swaps certainly got Clinton and Bush run out of office on rail.

Right?

amiright?

 

[Flopper]

How did Barry become Barak III? His grandfather was apparently some revolutionary African named Hussein Oingoboingo Obama so that name doesn't make "1. I think Barry changed his name to Barak so he wasn't even named after his father.

No, he did not change his name to Barack. That was his given name. His birth certificate reads, Barack Hussien Obama II. His father was Barrack Hussien Obama. According to the biography of his mother "A Singular Woman", he was given the nickname Barry at a young age. According to his older sister, he came home from college and announced he was going to use his given name Barack after a friend started calling him that and it caught on. I don't know where you got the III.

snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate
When Barry Became Barack - Newsweek

 

[Big Hoss]

I believe americans are dumb enough to reelect him.

Why not? They were dumb enough to re-elect Reagan and George W. Bush.

Dunno about Reagan I was just a kid back then but I agree on Bush a fucking idiot.

 

[American Cowboy]

If they could test fetuses for liberalism in the womb I might change my position on abortion

 

[American Legacy]

Like so many presidents that are reelected not because of their popularity, their policies, or their successes but because the opponent doesn't have the experience and can't convince voters he or she could do better.

Which presidents are those exactly? With all due respect, how does one quantify exactly which of the aforementioned factors resulted in exactly how many votes? How are the motives of the electorate to be ascertained? The above statement simply cannot be proven true. The most logical assertion is actually the opposite of the above statement: generally speaking, presidents are re-elected because the individual and/or his policies are popular with the electorate. Consider the list, below, of those presidents who were re-elected in competitive elections* (with their opponents listed in parenthesis):

George W. Bush (John Kerry)
Bill Clinton (Bob Dole)
Calvin Coolidge (John Davis)
Dwight Eisenhower (Adlai Stevenson)
Ulysses Grant (Horace Greeley)
Andrew Jackson (Henry Clay)
Thomas Jefferson (Charles Cotesworth Pinckney)
Lyndon Johnson (Barry Goldwater)
Abraham Lincoln (George McClelland)
James Madison (DeWitt Clinton)
William McKinley (William Jennings Bryan)
Richard Nixon (George McGovern)
Ronald Reagan (Walter Mondale)
Franklin Roosevelt (Thomas Dewey, Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie)
Teddy Roosevelt (Alton Parker)
Harry Truman (Thomas Dewey)
Woodrow Wilson (Charles Evans Hughes)

Jackson won re-election on a combination of personal popularity and the Bank issue; his opponent was perhaps the most qualified man in the nation for the presidency. Lincoln, Johnson and FDR won re-election as war time presidents. McKinley, Truman and Eisenhower won against the same opponent who had lost the previous election in each case. FDR was enormously popular, as were Reagan and Grant.

What "experience" were these opponents missing that resulted in their loss? I assume you can't be referring to the experience of having been president since only one challenger in history (Grover Cleveland) had that unique resume (and he won his challenge to the sitting president). If these men don't have the experience you're talking about, then it stands to reason those challengers who did upset incumbent presidents had it. So what's the difference between the above list and men like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Benjamin Harrison, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson?

Finally, you say the opponent couldn't "convince the opponent he could do better." Isn't that true of every losing presidential candidate?

Since you say there are "so many" examples of the scenario you've described, I hope you will detail a few of them for us to support your contention.

Much appreciated.

* "competitive elections" is hereby defined as all elections where an incumbent was re-elected save 1792 and 1820, where the sitting president had no opponent.

 

[American Legacy]

I can't imagine a harder job than being president. I think most voters agree and tend to trust the guy in office because he has the experience in doing a very difficult job. As my grand dad always said about voting, at least we know what we got with the guy in office. Who knows what the next guy will do to us.

We may vote for a candidate because of their stand on the issues during their campaign. But once elected things change. Look at Bush and Obama. Soon after they took office events they had no control over totally changed their agenda.

Flopper,

Please let me begin by stating that I enjoy your posts and this is in no way is an attempt to pick on you or single you out. It's merely inquiring about some of the points you've made in this thread. That said, your father seems to have been a subscriber to the theory that "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't." That's a valid point though my own position, as a voter, has always been to lean the other way and believe there's always someone else who can do the job as well if not better. ("When in doubt, vote 'em out.") I agree that the President of the United States carries an extremely demanding job requirement - look how much our presidents age while in office.

Could you elaborate somewhat on your second paragraph? While events are unpredictable and uncontrollable for any one man, no matter how powerful he and the nation he serves is, that does not mean his own actions - and the actions (policies) of his administration are beyond his control. Neither of the last two presidents "totally changed their agenda" in the least. Both, in fact, sought to fulfill campaign promises (though it appears Obama has broken considerably more than his predecessor, for good or ill.) Bush ran for president knowing he would inherit the Clinton recession; Obama in turn did the same knowing he would inherit a deeply wounded economy. Obama had the advantage over Bush of inheriting an offensive War on Terror; Bush and the nation were stunned by 9/11. Both men presided over substantial ecological disasters on their watch. Neither has wavered much from the core principles and goals of their respective administrations. To the extent that presidents must do some things to appease the electorate or to grease the wheels of Congress that they might choose to do differently if they were autocrats is a quite different thing than what you seem to be suggesting Surely you don't believe presidents are victims of circumstance, helplessly shaped by events rather than exercising the kind of leadership that shapes events themselves?

 

[Synthaholic]

President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama III will be reelected in 2012

The fastest horse.

I believe he's a Jr.

 

[Claudette]

I am a die-hard supporter of Israel. I listened to Obama's speech. I heard nothing of what you allude to.

Must suck being you...deaf dumb and full of wingnut bat shit

You don't think stiring up the muslims world into chaos and then stabbing Israel in the back is going to be bad news for Israel?

Stirring up the Muslim world? We're talking about the Palestinians and Israelis.

the stated position of the USA (Mitchell in the Peace talks) has been to propose the 1967 borders. Obama stated nothing new today on that point.

Wake up. Peace will entail both sides giving up something. Israel gave Egypt land for peace.

AS long as Hamas and Hezbullah rule in Pakistan there won't be any peace in that part of the world.

They have stated many times that they wish to wipe the Isreali people out of existance. Anyone who thinks you can negotiate with these guys, and they are all of a sudden gonna change their minds, is crazy IMO.

Peacetalks are a waste of everyones time. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[truthhurts]

Looks like republicans will walk away in 2012 with their tea bags between their legs.Palin,Newt,Paul,Ricky or whatever clown,hypocrite or reality star runs,the neocons have no chance.
Sticking up for oil companys,corporate welfare and protecting the rich,killing medicare and lack of ability to fight the war on terror correctly and the ability to wage war against women all adds up another 4 years...unless Trump finds out Hawaii is not a part of the United States.

 

[Leweman]

I took a screen shot of this to show you next november.

 

[Jarhead]

Looks like republicans will walk away in 2012 with their tea bags between their legs.Palin,Newt,Paul,Ricky or whatever clown,hypocrite or reality star runs,the neocons have no chance.
Sticking up for oil companys,corporate welfare and protecting the rich,killing medicare and lack of ability to fight the war on terror correctly and the ability to wage war against women all adds up another 4 years...unless Trump finds out Hawaii is not a part of the United States.

Now without the spin, I decided to rewrite the bold part of your post.

Not alientating oil companies for making a profit; protecting capitalism as that is what America is made of; not alienating the job creators and taxcing them to the point of not being able to gorw their companies; reforming medicare before it goes bankrupt; learing a new type of warfare of our enemies and adapting to it; do not believe it is the governments place to pay for a womans decision to have an abortion.

If you are so confident in your position, why do you feel the need to spin the true intentions of the GOP?

Are you concerned that if you did not spin it, people may see that their intentions are rational and genuine?

 

[Claudette]

Looks like republicans will walk away in 2012 with their tea bags between their legs.Palin,Newt,Paul,Ricky or whatever clown,hypocrite or reality star runs,the neocons have no chance.
Sticking up for oil companys,corporate welfare and protecting the rich,killing medicare and lack of ability to fight the war on terror correctly and the ability to wage war against women all adds up another 4 years...unless Trump finds out Hawaii is not a part of the United States.

WOW. You must be related to TDM.

 

[DiamondDave]

As we welcome our newest troll

 

[Avatar4321]

Love it. A year and a half out, before the opposition even has a candidate or even has a list of all the potential candidates, you're going to make a prediction for a landslide victory for the President despite the fact that he currently has high gas princes, high food prices, inflation, high unemployment, out of control debt and spending, and a level of corruption and hubris this nation hasnt seen in a long time.

Yes, Most of us Republicans encourage business. We like people having jobs. We encourage cuts in spending and eliminating wasteful government, making it more effocient because we like living within our means and eliminating corruptions. We like having a strong military, which is why we built it up and our current President has been using it to fight.

No idea why you think we are waging war on women. Thats just an outright lie. But I suppose you falsely presume that since we dont want the government funding abortion and nonprofits that support abortion when we can't even afford much more important issues, that we hate women. Regardless, it's a lie. I know the truth hurts though, thats probably why you won't admit it. If you spoke the truth, you couldn't beat us.

 

[American Legacy]

Looks like republicans will walk away in 2012 with their tea bags between their legs.Palin,Newt,Paul,Ricky or whatever clown,hypocrite or reality star runs,the neocons have no chance.
Sticking up for oil companys,corporate welfare and protecting the rich,killing medicare and lack of ability to fight the war on terror correctly and the ability to wage war against women all adds up another 4 years...unless Trump finds out Hawaii is not a part of the United States.

Let's work with your gross mischaracterizations as a starting point here. How is Obama the one who'll win in a landslide when Obama won't stick up for any company unless the federal government owns it? How when Obama's concept of welfare is to pay people to not look for a job rather than pay companies to create jobs? How when Obama's economic policies damage all Americans, not just the rich? How, when continuing Medicare as is will bankrupt the nation and ultimately result in a complete cessation of the program when working taxpayers have had enough of supporting people who don't pay for their own healthcare? How, when the extent to which Obama has fought the War on Terror correctly (a war he's stated does not exist) has been the same extent to which he's followed the policies of a Republican administration? How are Republicans "waging war" on women when Obama believes women should be killed at their mother's discretion so long as they remain in the womb and that underage women should receive medical advice, procedures and risk seriously endangering their mental, physical and emotional health without the guidance or consent of their parents? America may see a landslide in 2012, but it won't be the one you're predicting.

 

[Flopper]

I can't imagine a harder job than being president. I think most voters agree and tend to trust the guy in office because he has the experience in doing a very difficult job. As my grand dad always said about voting, at least we know what we got with the guy in office. Who knows what the next guy will do to us.

We may vote for a candidate because of their stand on the issues during their campaign. But once elected things change. Look at Bush and Obama. Soon after they took office events they had no control over totally changed their agenda.

Flopper,

Please let me begin by stating that I enjoy your posts and this is in no way is an attempt to pick on you or single you out. It's merely inquiring about some of the points you've made in this thread. That said, your father seems to have been a subscriber to the theory that "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't." That's a valid point though my own position, as a voter, has always been to lean the other way and believe there's always someone else who can do the job as well if not better. ("When in doubt, vote 'em out.") I agree that the President of the United States carries an extremely demanding job requirement - look how much our presidents age while in office.

Could you elaborate somewhat on your second paragraph? While events are unpredictable and uncontrollable for any one man, no matter how powerful he and the nation he serves is, that does not mean his own actions - and the actions (policies) of his administration are beyond his control. Neither of the last two presidents "totally changed their agenda" in the least. Both, in fact, sought to fulfill campaign promises (though it appears Obama has broken considerably more than his predecessor, for good or ill.) Bush ran for president knowing he would inherit the Clinton recession; Obama in turn did the same knowing he would inherit a deeply wounded economy. Obama had the advantage over Bush of inheriting an offensive War on Terror; Bush and the nation were stunned by 9/11. Both men presided over substantial ecological disasters on their watch. Neither has wavered much from the core principles and goals of their respective administrations. To the extent that presidents must do some things to appease the electorate or to grease the wheels of Congress that they might choose to do differently if they were autocrats is a quite different thing than what you seem to be suggesting Surely you don't believe presidents are victims of circumstance, helplessly shaped by events rather than exercising the kind of leadership that shapes events themselves?

I have no quantitative proof of what I said and don't know how you could find such proof. I was stating my opinion and should have said so. However, I do feel a number of presidents are reelected, not because of the their successes and popularity but rather because voters often prefer the known to the unknown, sometimes feeling they're choosing the lesser of two evils.

I think Bush in 2004 was elected not because of his popularity, his numbers were falling and it was becoming evident that Iraq was a disaster. Nixon was certainly not very popular in the early 70's. He was getting nowhere trying to end war. His opponent, McGovern was a disaster as a candidate. A combination of campaign screw ups and misreading the voters lead to a Nixon landslide. It was not so much of a Nixion win as it was a McGovern loss. Roosevelt's policies were far from a proven success but the campaign slogan "Don't change horses in the middle of the stream" was enough to get him reelected. I think Presidents are often reelected not because of their success but because of the failings of the opponent.

 

[JimH52]

Liberal Jews already have warned him about his pro-Palestinian stances.

After his speech today he took another step towards his defeat in 2012.

I am a die-hard supporter of Israel. I listened to Obama's speech. I heard nothing of what you allude to.

Must suck being you...deaf dumb and full of wingnut bat shit

You don't think stiring up the muslims world into chaos and then stabbing Israel in the back is going to be bad news for Israel?

Obama did nothing more than state the painful truth. He is attempting nothing more than to get the negortiations back to an even table. The election of Netanyahu damned any peace efforts for decades.

 

[American Legacy]

Obama did nothing more than state the painful truth. He is attempting nothing more than to get the negotiations back to an even table. The election of Netanyahu damned any peace efforts for decades.

Moderator Edit: This quote was restored after you edited it in your post. Please refer to the rules on altering quotes. Short version: It is not allowed and can result in infraction points issued, or a outright ban. Thx.