You should only vote if you can distinguish Obama from Romney

Discussion in 'Election Forums' started by VoteForTheDucks, Oct 28, 2012.

  1. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    61,694
    Thanks Received:
    9,443
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +26,567
    Its that hypocrisy that ticks me off. They preach "family values" but get caught in every kind of anti-family affairs. they preach against abortion but still vote for the married jerk with ore than one mistress and pushing abortion for one of them. They preach individual freedom while trying to end it. They take no responsibility for their own actions but say others should.

    They preach smaller govt while pushing for bigger govt.

    And Mittens is absolutely the perfect choice because he is the biggest hypocrite.

    LyinRyan is just as bad. Different lies as the occasion calls for.
     
  2. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    40,025
    Thanks Received:
    4,810
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +13,427
    Your streak of being wrong continues.

    The next four years will see 3 justices on the High Court reach their 80th birthday. Whomever is President will appoint, likely, 1-3 justices. Roe can be overturned by the Supreme Court.

    Again, it's not about abortions, it's about the rights we all have, the rights we do not want government infringing upon, and the rights that come along with privacy. One of the justices will be Scalia. Having him replaced by a center-left Jurist would be reason enough to vote for Obama.

    As for the economy; I'll issue you the same challenge I've issued to other republicans.

    Look at Mitt Romney's spending cuts at his website:

    Spending | Mitt Romney for President

    His stated spending cuts--if he gets them--equals $319.6 Billion if memory serves. His numbers, his website; not from the Obama admin, not "edited" by anyone else. There are some "across the board" cuts too that he doesn't detail (translation; he doesn't know what those cuts would save).

    Now, using the governor's numbers, please tell us how he is going to do the following things he's said he's going to do:

    Balance the budget
    Start paying down the deficit
    Increase defense spending

    He is on record as saying he won't raise taxes so it's all spending cuts.

    Your move.
     
  3. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    40,025
    Thanks Received:
    4,810
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +13,427
    Politically you're dead on accurate.
     
  4. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,528
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,581
    Dear VTD: The difference is commitment to enforcing the rule of law by the Constitution.
    Obama made it clear he would push for change without the consent of dissenting parties on issues such as the health care bill that were stretching the interpretation of the Constitution.
    This is why people do not respect his authority, because he relies on political power from party support, instead of invoking authority based on the Constitution.

    That is not what you hire a President to enforce, no one in public office especially not federal govt should put loyalty to party politics above defending the law under the Constitution. See Code of Ethics for Govt Service Public Law 96-303.

    Also, if you argue that Bush superceded the Constitution under the Patriot Act, well Obama kept those same provisions and extended them to be even more invasive by govt.

    I give Romney credit for mentioning "rule of law" in the last debate. You won't catch Obama enforcing that because he doesn't follow it himself. His kind of leadership works best in the community to organize and mobilize solutions on a grassroots local level. But the leadership needed for PUBLIC office and PUBLIC statements must be rooted on our central laws for the entire nation, not by party.

    The spirit of what they are saying is different. Obama would have made a better Vice President and used his position to publicize community outreach and direct action on solutions that can benefit from his leadership style working with his constituents whom he does represent. For President, that position is more public and the focus has to be on enforcing the Constitution for all people, and not getting as sidetracked by partisan agenda as Obama was doing as the first Black President to represent members of a minority population he himself admitted were lacking in education. So that takes more work on the ground level to represent that membership and cannot be legislated from the top down. So his best skills and talents, and what he represents and has the potential to lead, are not served through the office of President. He would get more done for his constituents through setting up school programs that really reach that population, as Jimmy Carter had more positive impact through Habitate for Humanity after he left office than he did as president.

    The particular "style" of leadership of Obama and Carter works better applied directly to building and LEADING solutions on the grassroots democratic level. If Habitat for Humanity had been legislated from govt, it would never have gotten the support it has to work so effectively not only in providing housing but INVOLVING communities to do it themselves.
    So Obama would have better success with health care and educational reforms by working on the state and local levels, not trying to mandate changes from the federal executive.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2012
  5. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,528
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,581
    Then ask Republicans to CORRECT THIS! If they aren't already jumping on and denouncing their own candidates for the same.

    Since most Republicans I know are either Christian or Constitutionalist or both, they respond to rebuke in that spirit. Either rebuke them as a Christian under Christian law (Matthew18:15-20) or under Constitutional laws (by petitioning to redress grievances, due process, or the Code of Ethics for Govt service ethics-commission.net)

    The Republicans I know accept correction when it is under Constitutional law, Christian law or both. They tend to have respect for due process, even more than the Democrats I encounter that don't feel they have enough support to admit poor judgment and correct it.
     
  6. 4Horsemen
    Offline

    4Horsemen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,205
    Thanks Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +116
     
  7. toomuchtime_
    Offline

    toomuchtime_ Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    8,926
    Thanks Received:
    1,271
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,764
    I see how deeply confused you are. First of all, Roe v. Wade is about abortions and nothing but abortions. The fact that you keep trying to pretend it's about anything other than killing unborn babies shows that beneath all that bluster, you are embarrassed and ashamed of the position you are supporting.

    These days it takes a super majority in the Senate to appoint a Justice who is too far to the left or the right, and neither Obama nor Romney will have that so moderates will be appointed to the Court regardless of who is president. Keep in mind that Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, both staunch supporters of Roe v. Wade, were appointed by Ronald Reagan, a Tea Party icon, David Souter, another pro abortion Justice, was appointed by Bush41 and John Roberts, a Bush43 appointee, saved Obamacare.
    The days of a far left or far right Court are long gone.

    You have been so taken in by the defeatist attitudes of the can't do Obama administration that you have forgotten that the way to solve our economic problems is to encourage private sector investments which will create more jobs and more tax revenues, and this is exactly what Romney proposes to do. The tax cuts and limits of deductions he proposes will put more money into the hands of consumers and investors and the limits on deductions will encourage people to spend and invest their money where they get the best value instead of where they get the biggest tax break, thus stimulating the private sector economy by giving consumers and investors more money to spend and invest and encouraging them to do it more efficiently and productively. His proposal to open government lands to more oil and gas exploration and to allow the pipeline from Canada will create many thousands of new jobs, and not just the temporary and part time jobs we've seen created during Obama's time in the WH, and it will bring down the cost of energy making US businesses more competitive and creating still more jobs. In addition he proposes to reform some of the anti business excesses of Obama's first two years, such as Dodd Frank, in order to create and more business friendly economy.

    So Romney's plan to increase employment and lower the deficit has two parts, cut non security discretionary spending and encourage new private sector investment to grow the economy and he has outlined how he plans to do it. Obama's plan for the economy: blame the Republicans.
     
  8. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    40,025
    Thanks Received:
    4,810
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +13,427
    Read the decision. The decision of the court is based on privacy.


    Bull, meet shit. You're full of it.

    No Nominee has been filibustered for one thing.

    For another thing, Scalia is a far right jurist who should be replaced with a non-ideologue.

    Advantage Obama once he's re-elected. Sucks to be you.

    In other words, you can't make the math work either.

    Don't feel bad....100% of all republicans I posed the question too ran from it as well. You're no exception.
     
  9. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    26,449
    Thanks Received:
    1,266
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +2,049
    It's heads they (corporations) win and tails we lose.

    "The November election is not a battle between Republicans and Democrats. It is not a battle between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It is a battle between the corporate state and us..."

    "All the major correctives to American democracy have come through movements and third parties that have operated outside the mainstream. Few achieved formal positions of power. These movements built enough momentum and popular support, always in the face of fierce opposition, to force the power elite to respond to their concerns.

    "Such developments, along with the courage to defy the political charade in the voting booth, offer the only hope of saving us from Wall Street predators, the assault on the ecosystem by the fossil fuel industry, the rise of the security and surveillance state and the dramatic erosion of our civil liberties.

    “'The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any,' Alice Walker writes..."

    Chris Hedges: Why I’m Voting Green - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig
     
  10. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,382
    Thanks Received:
    2,173
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,643
    Exactly. It's a rigged game. As long as government has the power to tell us how to spend our money, the corporations will be vying for control of that power.
     

Share This Page