How is it possible to be still undecided between Obama & Romney?

[tamati]

no reason.

just fits a certain pattern, thats all.

have at it.

enjoy the alias.

 

[deleted15807]

^ Sure does. For some strange reason as soon as election season begins it's like the seeds now have water and emerge. Ohh Trinity where are you?

 

[StormfrontFL]

^ Sure does. For some strange reason as soon as election season begins it's like the seeds now have water and emerge. Ohh Trinity where are you?

A large number of new members have been posting right wing messages in other forums and all in support of right wing members who've been here for years but with no posting history until now. Sleeper cells are active.

Please don't call the Unholy He/She/It by name or else it may appear:wink:


To get back to the original topic....I really believe that those who say they are undecided really aren't. They know who they will vote for.

 

[varina1]

There are many things I am NOT undecided about. I am no better off than 4 years ago. We have a house divided & if one side says its night the other will say its day just to go against them. Truly a sick mentality. So how do we fix it and who is best qualified to make that happen?

The question for me is this, is tweedle dum better than tweedle dee?

Is it a case of better the devil you know or shall we try a new little imp in the white house?

Maybe I am just jaded by our politics. To me all politicians are pretty much the same.

 

[Q Vee]

I am curious as to why the below is not a concern for you?

President Obama and the Democrats are not the ones who have held the legislative process in a coma regarding jobs, the economy, and addressing the basic needs of ALL U.S. citizens.

... Why isn't anyone pointing to the House Republicans responsibility for not passing relevant legislation; working with the Democratic Senate to send bills to President Obama for his signature. The Republicans stated their goal was to make him a one term President and that is exactly what they have been doing. Without accountability.

...

Instead, the Republican House has brought bill after bill to fight; abortion rights; female reproductive services; and other lame issues that had nothing to do with their stated priority of jobs.

Is any of this agreeable to you?

The fact is that he has done more in less than a full term, than some two term Presidents:
Avoided a second great depression;
prevented the collapse of the banking industry;
rejuvenated the auto industry;
prevented many states from total insolvency;
ended the Iraq war; and
killed Bin Laden; to name few.
All while having to deal with an obstructionist House for the past two years; and with rebellious Blue-dog democrats who effectively made his Democratic controlled Congress in his first year plus, a myth.

If people believe that the economy/country is bad and that the President has been lackluster, imagine if the Republicans had truly had their way and there was no stimulus; no auto or bank bailout; Osama was still free; both wars were still active; and all the anti-abortion and anti-birth control bills had been passed with a two-thirds veto-override of a Republican controlled Congress.

There is no way that Democratically controlled States would be deconstructing voting rights;
the public unions in Wisconsin would not have been decimated by a Democratic Governor;
Planned Parenthood and Roe v. Wade would not even be on the agenda of a Democratic Congress;
the middle and working class would not be under attack; and
(as with Bill Clinton) taxes would be raised without outrageous tax cuts for the outrageously wealthy.

President Clinton (Dem) two terms, ended with a surplus.
Bush (Rep) two terms, squandered surplus left deficit and looming 2nd Great Depression.

Speaker Pelosi, managed her fellow House Democrats to bring bills to the floor for votes.
Speaker Boehner, House (Tea Party) Republicans manage him to bring bills to the floor for votes.

Here are my responses to your post.

Since I am one of the undecided, let me say it may not always be from a lack of political awareness. It is difficult to get accurate, unbiased information today. Just choosing a topic to write on, in itself, is a biased choice. Everyone has an agenda.

The reason I am undecided is because no one is talking about the things that I feel are important. No one has mentioned anything in regards to reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act. Currently, we see Corporate Profit increase as a percentage of GDP while Salaries and wages are decreasing as a percentage. This is creating excess capital and artificially inflating the markets.
...{Progressive, Liberal Democrats agree with you; Republicans would not.}... The markets lead to another issue since no one has mentioned how the markets are another way of removing money for circulation. Everyone has been led to believe that the markets are a sign of the economy. We all know this is false. The markets do not create jobs or any goods. It is a glorified casino. The money being put into the banks and the markets leaves circulation. Now everyone wants that money back in circulation, so they believe taxes are the solution.

Taxes could be a solution. ...{This worked fine for the economy when Bill Clinton did it - ended two terms with a surplus}... However, I do not trust the Government to actually spend it in a way to make the most of it. ...{And then W spent it up.}... Also, who are people to tell others what they have to do with the money they earn. (Earn is always a questionable topic, so please do not get into this) I expect to hear something on how we are going to get more money back into circulation of the economy, and not necessarily through unfair taxes of any class.

I do not have a problem with the healthcare bill itself, but rather the excess costs in other things it provided that were unrelated to healthcare. ...{When the public gets behind the President and Congress to offset Industry lobbyists, then real reform will happen.}... No doubt the new system is a good system compared to the current one. ...{The Affordable Care Act (ACA) aka ObamaCare is the first national healthcare system, unless you mean current as no system.}...

I do not like the Romney/Ryan budget plan. It involves another attempt at the Trickle Down Economics. This will only result in more money being removed from circulation. Then our Reserve will print more money. That sounds awful. ...[Agreed for the most part.]

Gay marriage isn't even something I believe is a political debate. I believe all couples should be able to get civil unions in the eyes of the state. Meaning the same benefits as straight couples. Marriage is the church's vocabulary so leave it to religion. {Totally agree.}...

I am disappointed in the current administration because of the amount of spending without any economics issue clearly getting better. ...{The economy is clearly getting better just not as quickly as people would like. This is my issue, with a Congress that was more compromising we would farther along, but that would make the President look effective and re-electable. Totally incompatible with Republican #1 priority: one term Presidency.}... He has increased the debt and we have little to show for it at this time. It may be too early to tell at this time, but he is currently spending faster than the systems he put in place can work. ..{So, you and others with this premise fall into the Republican plan: failed administration; new President needed.}

Bottom line for me is economics. Increasing the amount of money in circulation without imposing unfair taxes. An increase GDP is the only way we are going to get out of debt and be able to take care of ourselves. If we can't take care of ourselves, we can't take care of others. ...{The Stimulus was working. Economists had recomended a larger package, but Republicans scaled it down. Had the larger funding been allowed it would be still having a significant impact. They also insisted on continuing Bush tax cuts that all knew were unpaid for and would would drive up debt. Yet, President Obama is the one being held accountable. Republicans score.}...

I am open for anyone who can share some information that I do not possess or perhaps have gotten wrong.

Despite the "media" assessment that Romney has not revealed plans for his Presidency, the republican playbook is an open book;
Repeal Obamcare
Reverse Roe v Wade
Dismantle all social programs: SS, Mediicare, education, unemployment, welfare.
Give tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations.
Rollback civil rights, equal rights.
Eliminate Unions/collective bargaining
Ignore global climate changes

This would sound crazy except these projects are already open works in progress.

So forgive me if I find it difficult to understand how people who seem to be otherwise intelligent, and say they are not elitist, racist, misogynist, homophobic minded, have a difficulty with deciding who to vote for and insist that there is no difference between the Party's.

 

[Q Vee]

You're highlighting the defensive posture of the Democratic party quite well.
Good god, if this is what we get in one term, you're asking why people might have a problem with a second one?

Thank you and yes I am. And thank you also for making my point with the other parts of your post. I chose not to include it as it was overall redundant. But you have made my case much more inclusively than I could have done.

The point is, in order not to have a failed Presidency, he would have to out Republican the Republicans. President Obama had to chose between asking for everything his base would have expected of him and achieve nothing; thereby casting himself as a left wing, uncompromising Democratic President capable of only pandering to his base and assuring a single term, or going for what he could get from an opposing Party that was on record as being determined to not give him a crumb.

So, yes I am more than confident that history will review him as one of the most strategically successful politicians in history by being able to pass significant and reformative legislation in the face of unprecedented, uncompromising Congressional opposition.

I find it the ultimate rub that the legislation is largely Republican originated and they will never be able to take credit because they will be on record as opposing it. And yet if they do repeal, remove, or rescind it, it will simply add to their superior hypocrisy, and obvious racist resentment. He was not supposed to win, he was not supposed to do as well as he has done; and he is not supposed to be still as popular as he is. And it is this last point that causes the Republicans the most angst, as they have done everything they can to create the President as unworthy of his position... without the desired outcome.

I do not agree with everything that he has done or is doing. I wish he would not continue the civil rights breaking policies of the previous Administration. And some of the others you have listed. However, no politician will ever live up to the "hype" and anyone who is deluded in believing that will occur on either side will be horribly disappointed. On the other hand, if they can mange to live up to few, and work to the best of their ability for others, then the glass is half full. He may not be perfect but he is better than both the previous POTUS and the current opposition candidate by far.

If the President was as ineffectual and unaccomplished as you attempt to portray him 1) he would not have any signed legislation; 2) Republicans would not need to spend the vast sums of money to defeat him; and 3) he would not have his own vast sum of money to use for his own campaign.

You are quite adept at portraying him as a less than President and thus reveal yourself as less non-partisan than you claim to be. By the way, it is not hypothetical when the opposition is on record as stating that they were against every move that the President made. It is not hypothetical when much of what the opposition is suggesting was in effect during previous Administration's 8 years and was the cause of the crisis. Finally, shame on anyone who thinks that what took 8 plus years to manifest, could be undone, virtually singlehandedly, by the Black guy in 2.5 years.

So if you truly have not made up your mind, and really feel the ACA is step in the right direction, why would you consider voting for someone and their Party whose vowed to undo it? Seems somewhat counterintuitive, and Romney/Ryan/Republicanesque. Just sayin'...

 

[StormfrontFL]

Thank you and yes I am. And thank you also for making my point with the other parts of your post. I chose not to include it as it was overall redundant. But you have made my case much more inclusively than I could have done.

The point is, in order not to have a failed Presidency, he would have to out Republican the Republicans. President Obama had to chose between asking for everything his base would have expected of him and achieve nothing; thereby casting himself as a left wing, uncompromising Democratic President capable of only pandering to his base and assuring a single term, or going for what he could get from an opposing Party that was on record as being determined to not give him a crumb.

So, yes I am more than confident that history will review him as one of the most strategically successful politicians in history by being able to pass significant and reformative legislation in the face of unprecedented, uncompromising Congressional opposition.

I find it the ultimate rub that the legislation is largely Republican originated and they will never be able to take credit because they will be on record as opposing it. And yet if they do repeal, remove, or rescind it, it will simply add to their superior hypocrisy, and obvious racist resentment. He was not supposed to win, he was not supposed to do as well as he has done; and he is not supposed to be still as popular as he is. And it is this last point that causes the Republicans the most angst, as they have done everything they can to create the President as unworthy of his position... without the desired outcome.

I do not agree with everything that he has done or is doing. I wish he would not continue the civil rights breaking policies of the previous Administration. And some of the others you have listed. However, no politician will ever live up to the "hype" and anyone who is deluded in believing that will occur on either side will be horribly disappointed. On the other hand, if they can mange to live up to few, and work to the best of their ability for others, then the glass is half full. He may not be perfect but he is better than both the previous POTUS and the current opposition candidate by far.

If the President was as ineffectual and unaccomplished as you attempt to portray him 1) he would not have any signed legislation; 2) Republicans would not need to spend the vast sums of money to defeat him; and 3) he would not have his own vast sum of money to use for his own campaign.

You are quite adept at portraying him as a less than President and thus reveal yourself as less non-partisan than you claim to be. By the way, it is not hypothetical when the opposition is on record as stating that they were against every move that the President made. It is not hypothetical when much of what the opposition is suggesting was in effect during previous Administration's 8 years and was the cause of the crisis. Finally, shame on anyone who thinks that what took 8 plus years to manifest, could be undone, virtually singlehandedly, by the Black guy in 2.5 years.

So if you truly have not made up your mind, and really feel the ACA is step in the right direction, why would you consider voting for someone and their Party whose vowed to undo it? Seems somewhat counterintuitive, and Romney/Ryan/Republicanesque. Just sayin'...

:You_Rock_Emoticon:

 

[deleted15807]

A large number of new members have been posting right wing messages in other forums and all in support of right wing members who've been here for years but with no posting history until now. Sleeper cells are active.[/I]

That's interesting. And the fascinating part is when you call them out on it the standard response is 'Who me? We'll i've been sitting on the pot for years and just decided to begin overwhelming the politics forum with my beliefs. I can sit any longer. '.

To get back to the original topic....I really believe that those who say they are undecided really aren't. They know who they will vote for.

Yep. Few Voters Are Truly Up for Grabs, Research Suggests


A real good read here too:

Dark Road to the White House

 

[kayman]

Thank you and yes I am. And thank you also for making my point with the other parts of your post. I chose not to include it as it was overall redundant. But you have made my case much more inclusively than I could have done.

The point is, in order not to have a failed Presidency, he would have to out Republican the Republicans. President Obama had to chose between asking for everything his base would have expected of him and achieve nothing; thereby casting himself as a left wing, uncompromising Democratic President capable of only pandering to his base and assuring a single term, or going for what he could get from an opposing Party that was on record as being determined to not give him a crumb.

So, yes I am more than confident that history will review him as one of the most strategically successful politicians in history by being able to pass significant and reformative legislation in the face of unprecedented, uncompromising Congressional opposition.

I find it the ultimate rub that the legislation is largely Republican originated and they will never be able to take credit because they will be on record as opposing it. And yet if they do repeal, remove, or rescind it, it will simply add to their superior hypocrisy, and obvious racist resentment. He was not supposed to win, he was not supposed to do as well as he has done; and he is not supposed to be still as popular as he is. And it is this last point that causes the Republicans the most angst, as they have done everything they can to create the President as unworthy of his position... without the desired outcome.

I do not agree with everything that he has done or is doing. I wish he would not continue the civil rights breaking policies of the previous Administration. And some of the others you have listed. However, no politician will ever live up to the "hype" and anyone who is deluded in believing that will occur on either side will be horribly disappointed. On the other hand, if they can mange to live up to few, and work to the best of their ability for others, then the glass is half full. He may not be perfect but he is better than both the previous POTUS and the current opposition candidate by far.

If the President was as ineffectual and unaccomplished as you attempt to portray him 1) he would not have any signed legislation; 2) Republicans would not need to spend the vast sums of money to defeat him; and 3) he would not have his own vast sum of money to use for his own campaign.

You are quite adept at portraying him as a less than President and thus reveal yourself as less non-partisan than you claim to be. By the way, it is not hypothetical when the opposition is on record as stating that they were against every move that the President made. It is not hypothetical when much of what the opposition is suggesting was in effect during previous Administration's 8 years and was the cause of the crisis. Finally, shame on anyone who thinks that what took 8 plus years to manifest, could be undone, virtually singlehandedly, by the Black guy in 2.5 years.

So if you truly have not made up your mind, and really feel the ACA is step in the right direction, why would you consider voting for someone and their Party whose vowed to undo it? Seems somewhat counterintuitive, and Romney/Ryan/Republicanesque. Just sayin'...

Thank you! It is eloquently precise how you see (just like I did) through the coded partisan shilling that particular poster has exhibited. It is actually funny because most other objective posters see how transparent this whole "idealism/social feminism, whatever" is actually an affront for opposing the "pragmatic Black man in office" because he actually made things happen regardless. No human being is going to be perfect, so this requirement of perfection is just plain suspect.

This whole exchange furthers exactly what I was already suspecting...

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

Back when, the ruling majority party, during the time of the Bushed Administration, the Repugnant-Cons were rulers in both houses. They sought to eliminate the vote of the Democrats, by holding voting sessions at 3am in the morning. And in this way, received no opposition from the Dems. This all is searchable facts.

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

To answer the original question posted on this thread: " How is it possible to be still undecided between Obama & Romney? "

First off... the structure of reporting and delivering news via the Television airwaves has changed over the last 15 or so years. It used to be that Network news organizations were impartial, and so they could do in depth news stories, which were hard hitting, factual and honest. With the expansion of cable news, with 400-600 plus stations, that has drastically changed( Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). Most network news organizations are owned by corporate interests, and it is they who decide what content can and will be broadcast. Corporate interests have curtailed any in depth and impartial and honest reporting of the day's news. Since the inception of Fox News, it's access on cable, is easily accessed on the lower channels. Not the premium channels, but on the channels that are free for public consumption. With the removal of the Fairness Doctrine, that allows Fox News to transmit basically it's own brand of journalism. Which isn't journalism at all, but their own opinion, which is Right Wing in nature. So the only real news that is transmitted on Fox News, it the scrolling news ticker at the bottom of the screen. Plus, since Fox News is on the lower end of the channel scale, it's broadcast is seen just about everywhere, from bars, hotels, airport terminals, motels. So they've easily been able to shape their own well crafted bent of Right Wing "journalism" to the masses. Whereas, networks such as MSNBC, and Current and CNN, are seen at the higher channel spectrum. As for network news, many stories are not covered by the Corporate owned news organizations. And are virtually ignored. Hence that is the reason why so many have already made up their minds one way or another because of organizations as Fox News. We just have to wait until November to find out the results. And many of the masses, who are not political geeks, like me, are not aware of the shenanigans going on the the House of Representatives, voting 33 times to dismantle Obama-care. And nothing but basic obstructionism. The minority leader of the Senate said, two months after Obama was sworn in, Mitch McCon-artist said quite honestly, as he see's it: "is to make Barack Obama a one term President". With more filibusters conducted on record than any Congress ever before, and the tricks and ploys they've successfully completed... this is the most DO Nothing Congress on record. Most of which can be attributed to the House. Despite all of this, it's amazing to see just how much Obama has gotten through.

 

[Q Vee]

To answer the original question posted on this thread: " How is it possible to be still undecided between Obama & Romney? "

First off... the structure of reporting and delivering news via the Television airwaves has changed over the last 15 or so years. It used to be that Network news organizations were impartial, and so they could do in depth news stories, which were hard hitting, factual and honest. With the expansion of cable news, with 400-600 plus stations, that has drastically changed( Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). Most network news organizations are owned by corporate interests, and it is they who decide what content can and will be broadcast. Corporate interests have curtailed any in depth and impartial and honest reporting of the day's news. Since the inception of Fox News, it's access on cable, is easily accessed on the lower channels. Not the premium channels, but on the channels that are free for public consumption. With the removal of the Fairness Doctrine, that allows Fox News to transmit basically it's own brand of journalism. Which isn't journalism at all, but their own opinion, which is Right Wing in nature. So the only real news that is transmitted on Fox News, it the scrolling news ticker at the bottom of the screen. Plus, since Fox News is on the lower end of the channel scale, it's broadcast is seen just about everywhere, from bars, hotels, airport terminals, motels. So they've easily been able to shape their own well crafted bent of Right Wing "journalism" to the masses. Whereas, networks such as MSNBC, and Current and CNN, are seen at the higher channel spectrum. As for network news, many stories are not covered by the Corporate owned news organizations. And are virtually ignored. Hence that is the reason why so many have already made up their minds one way or another because of organizations as Fox News. We just have to wait until November to find out the results. And many of the masses, who are not political geeks, like me, are not aware of the shenanigans going on the the House of Representatives, voting 33 times to dismantle Obama-care. And nothing but basic obstructionism. The minority leader of the Senate said, two months after Obama was sworn in, Mitch McCon-artist said quite honestly, as he see's it: "is to make Barack Obama a one term President". With more filibusters conducted on record than any Congress ever before, and the tricks and ploys they've successfully completed... this is the most DO Nothing Congress on record. Most of which can be attributed to the House. Despite all of this, it's amazing to see just how much Obama has gotten through.

Thank you.
For the enlightenment on faux news' rise and dominance.
For the clarity and verification on the GOP's lockdown on governing this country.
For acknowledging the President's predicament and hard fought achievements.
For your open mind and concise writing skills.
Awesome Post!

 

[BigBoy14]

If you think this system can be fixed by your filling in of bubble A or bubble B, then you are delusional and part of the problem.

 

[superbot]

Who are these folks? Have they been living under a rock?

Had it occured to you that a great many people are wholly unipressed with both Obama and Romney?
Similar situation in Egypt recently when the majority of the popular saw it as a choice between the 'devil and the deep blue sea!!?'...

 

[Q Vee]

If you think this system can be fixed by your filling in of bubble A or bubble B, then you are delusional and part of the problem.

This is revolutionary.
Complain, blame others, and then insult them without offering a viable alternative. This is bound to catch on.
Would you like your tea with cream or lemon?

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

If you think this system can be fixed by your filling in of bubble A or bubble B, then you are delusional and part of the problem.

I just might take offence if you were referring to me.

 

[AtomicMouse1950]

This is revolutionary.
Complain, blame others, and then insult them without offering a viable alternative. This is bound to catch on.
Would you like your tea with cream or lemon?

I would have asked, "would like some cheese with that whine"??

 

[earllogjam]

Had it occured to you that a great many people are wholly unipressed with both Obama and Romney?
Similar situation in Egypt recently when the majority of the popular saw it as a choice between the 'devil and the deep blue sea!!?'...

I think the candidates are polar opposites. There isn't much if any overlap here between one and the other. They are as different as you possibly can get. You may be unimpressed with both but you sure know which direction you want the country to go.

I think for a majority of people in America their choice has been set for a very long time since George Bush left office. That is why the country is so polarized and the rhetoric so sharp and nasty between the camps.

 

[earllogjam]

This is revolutionary.
Complain, blame others, and then insult them without offering a viable alternative. This is bound to catch on.
/FONT]

LOL, so true. Yeah, put up or shut up, as the saying goes.

 

[MisterB]

Interesting thread here for sure. While I'm not trying to go off the topic of this thread, I thought I'd add my two cents based on some of the comments above.

I think it's interesting reading here how some posters are so critical that President Obama didn't accomplish all the things he promised when he ran for the oval office. And they are right; he didn't. But then, did the previous Presidents Bush, Clinton, or Bush senior, etc? I can't seem to recall one who did.

I also don't remember a time when the President was so disrespected. I don't recall anyone "heckling" former Presidents Bush, Clinton, etc. during the State of the Union address. I don't remember a time when members of the opposing Congessional party told America that we just won't work with him. Maybe not in those words, but that was certainly the message, n'est pas?

I'm further confused by comments made by specific "groups" that the current President has not done enough for a particular constituency. I'm thinking of those comments made by the "ultra" left of the Democratic party, gay activists, and the black community. Um, last time I checked, he's the President of the United States, not just your particular demographic.

Like another poster stated above, it's sad how ignorant a lot of Americans are about politics. But I guess when you get your news, if you do pay attention, you're getting it from biased sources. I think it's unfortunate that so many people cannot form their own opinions based, but have to be "told" what they believe. I'm related to too many, on both sides of the political spectrum.

I guess my Polyanna side would like to see our elected officials come together to solve our country's problems. I like to see things from a half-full rather than half-empty glass perspective. Don't we as Americans have more in common that not?

If I have offended anyone here with my post, that was not my intention.