ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Bocefish]

I personally don't think it's up to the President so much as it is the (mostly House) members of Congress to stop acting like such stubborn children and actually start compromising. But they won't do that because the Republican Congress members' goal is still what it was in 2009. Block everything a Democrat President tries to do to make him look ineffective.

I respectfully call BS blaming the GOP for Obama's failures. Obama had a super-majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority for the first two plus years. He accomplished shoving the largest tax hike in history down our throats. Obama and the Democrats controlled the agenda for two years and the country responded to that agenda by giving the GOP over 60 additional seats in the House.

Edited for typo.

 

[WildFingers]

Since the Green Party candidate has no chance of winning, I'll not waste my vote and will vote for the person who does have that chance and who most nearly mirrors my views.

Why Nordling would you not vote for the person that best fits your values. To me that is the most important part of the voting process. You will use your vote as your voice. I do not mind that the candidate that I vote for looses an election. Because the candidate gave it his/her best effort and spoke to my needs (right on Schlmoe- I am always thinking of my needs :wink ).

To the matter of not shown respect. I will only mention this once and will not respond to it again I promise. ( i am not a politician and I keep my promises). I have pretty thick skin. I have been through a lot in my life and I do not sweat the small stuff. Thanks Schmloe for making my point by questioning the rhetoric. I deserved a little of what Nords was dishing out. I did not read all 45+ pages of this thread. I came into the end of a Flaming and personal attacks after a i saw a tweet and I just was overcome by curiosity. Like driving by a car crash on the expressway and wanting to see some gore.

I had written 2 versions of my prior post. I had self edited out the person attacks name calling etc. I had thought through my post not to point FINGERS at anyone who posted their thoughts. I (selfishly) wanted a mature conversation on the topic. After all I wasn't expecting rhetoric found on MFC's lounge.

I just wanted to get the discussion back on track and less personal attacks.

I personally don't think it's up to the President so much as it is the (mostly House) members of Congress to stop acting like such stubborn children and actually start compromising. But they won't do that because the Republican Congress members' goal is still what it was in 2009.

The President is the top dog. IF he can't get them to work together then who will be the leader? (The democrats did the same thing to GWB.) I too blame the spoiled brats that occupy seats in the House and Senate. Someone in there needs to grow a "pair" and get this country back on track. I am using my vote to change that mess as well.

 

[LadyLuna]

What the fuck is the president supposed to do with a stubborn congress? Hold a fucking gun to their heads to get them to do what he wants? Then we really *would* have a monarchy!

Fuck that shit. The president isn't supposed to tell congress what to do. The PEOPLE are supposed to tell congress what to do. We're supposed to send letters to our congressment and tell them "Stop fucking around! Get this shit done!" Instead, the republicans sat there and watched the President squirm, saying "take that! just TRY to get re-elected now!"

All the whipping in the world won't make a stubborn horse drink. He only does so when he gets thirsty enough.

 

[Mirra]

I respectfully call BS blaming the GOP for Obama's failures. Obama had a super-majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority for the first two plus years.

Yes and he continued the efforts (started by George W. Bush in his final months) of trying stop the nose dive our financial system and economy were in. You can argue effectiveness of the money spent but the down-turn did stop. You can question the effectiveness of the slow recovery but we are in a recovery now. That is a huge accomplishment along with several smaller victories from those first two years. Do I felt like he got enough done? No. I personally feel like he pissed away time actually looking for Republican input in that first year. It was the right thing to do ideally but it's hurting him now.

He accomplished shoving the largest tax hike in history down our throats. Obama and the Democrats controlled the agenda for two years and the country responded to that agenda by giving the GOP over 60 additional seats in the House.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since the Bush Era tax cuts are still in place for now. If my assumption is correct, your statement itself is propaganda and that amuses me. If I am wrong, I request clarification.

 

[Bocefish]

What the fuck is the president supposed to do with a stubborn congress? Hold a fucking gun to their heads to get them to do what he wants? Then we really *would* have a monarchy!

If you don't think Obama has the leadership ability to get them working together, then why vote for him?

 

[Mirra]

What the fuck is the president supposed to do with a stubborn congress? Hold a fucking gun to their heads to get them to do what he wants? Then we really *would* have a monarchy!

If you don't think Obama has the leadership ability to get them working together, then why vote for him?

I know your question isn't directed toward me, but let me throw out my opinion anyhow. (Tired of me yet, Bocefish? :lol

The key difference between how you think and how I think are where we believe the problem lies. You think the problem is with the President's leadership and I think it's with the congressional stubbornness. I also agree completely with Luna when she says it's up to US to tell OUR representatives what WE want to happen. They don't represent the President's wishes when it comes to creating legislation. The President has little leverage or power over them so it's not like an officer telling enlisted men or even a parent telling their child what to do (and I've been lead to believe the 2nd of those is often no easy task). We are the ones who vote for them so we are the ones who (theoretically) have the power. Unfortunately the parties have taken some of that power away with how big they've gotten but it can be taken back.

Now let me take this even further down the rabbit hole. The problem is with us. We reward stubbornness and punish cooperation when elections roll around. Too many people feel that compromising is a sign of weakness and a failure at representing their interests. The Republicans have figured this out and it's working brilliantly for them. That just infuriates me even further.

 

[morment]

I respectfully call BS blaming the GOP for Obama's failures. Obama had a super-majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority for the first two plus years. He accomplished shoving the largest tax hike in history down our throats. Obama and the Democrats controlled the agenda for two years and the country responded to that agenda by giving the GOP over 60 additional seats in the House.

Edited for typo.

That's bullshit, he only had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for a few months because of the hold up with Al Franken's race being recounted several times and then the death of Ted Kennedy.
http://538refugees.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... rity-myth/

The Democrats never had a super majority in the House, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html scroll down to the bottom it says the composition of the house in 2009-2011 was
257-178. A supermajority, or 2/3rds majority, would have required another 57 Democrats

The people voted in so many Republicans because they were crying, "Where's the jobs Mr. President?" every thirty seconds and what happens when they get elected? They vote 31-33 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act and I'm not even sure how many anti-abortion bills the House passed. On top of that, they're still using the "Where's the jobs Mr. President?" line when they've done nothing to pass jobs legislation.

And I have to repeat the fact that Mitch McConnell, at the very least, has publicly state that it was his top priority to deny President Obama a second term. You tell me how anyone's supposed to overcome something like that.

 

[Bocefish]

I respectfully call BS blaming the GOP for Obama's failures. Obama had a super-majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority for the first two plus years.

Yes and he continued the efforts (started by George W. Bush in his final months) of trying stop the nose dive our financial system and economy were in. You can argue effectiveness of the money spent but the down-turn did stop. You can question the effectiveness of the slow recovery but we are in a recovery now. That is a huge accomplishment along with several smaller victories from those first two years. Do I felt like he got enough done? No. I personally feel like he pissed away time actually looking for Republican input in that first year. It was the right thing to do ideally but it's hurting him now.

A huge accomplishment? You call leading the worst recovery in modern history a huge accomplishment?

He accomplished shoving the largest tax hike in history down our throats. Obama and the Democrats controlled the agenda for two years and the country responded to that agenda by giving the GOP over 60 additional seats in the House.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since the Bush Era tax cuts are still in place for now. If my assumption is correct, your statement itself is propaganda and that amuses me. If I am wrong, I request clarification.

Propaganda? Obama lied his ass off for months saying Obamacare wasn't a tax, yet his own lawyers defended it as a tax. More than half the country didn't want it but the SCOTUS approved it because it is a fucking tax. 52% of the people STILL want it repealed. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare will raise taxes on 6 million Americans for failing to meet its insurance mandate. That’s 50 percent higher than the previous estimate. Most of that tax hike will fall on the middle class.

 

[Neudiin]

Sums up my feeling on this thread...



and yet I will keep posting =)

 

[morment]

A supermajority, or 2/3rds majority, would have required another 57 Democrats

I missed the edit window, it would have only taken an extra 47 Democrats, not 57.

 

[Mirra]

By referring to it as a tax rather than by name, that is propagandized speech. Even the name Obamacare is propagandized speech though not nearly so much as the influence you're hoping to convey by referring to it directly as a tax.

...Obamacare will raise taxes on 6 million Americans for failing to meet its insurance mandate.

It's an estimate so the use of "will" rather than "may" bugs me... BUT beyond that, the PPACA does quite a bit through the Small Business Health Options Program to reduce the number of people who would fail to meet the insurance mandate. Employers have been given a lot of the responsibility of ensuring their employees health insurance options are adequate.

 

[Bocefish]

By referring to it as a tax rather than by name, that is propagandized speech. Even the name Obamacare is propagandized speech though not nearly so much as the influence you're hoping to convey by referring to it directly as a tax.

...Obamacare will raise taxes on 6 million Americans for failing to meet its insurance mandate.

It's an estimate so the use of "will" rather than "may" bugs me... BUT beyond that, the PPACA does quite a bit through the Small Business Health Options Program to reduce the number of people who would fail to meet the insurance mandate. Employers have been given a lot of the responsibility of ensuring their employees health insurance options are adequate.

Like I said, SCOTUS approved Obamacare because it is a tax. Obama himself said he likes the term. Obamacare = TAX.

I'll agree to disagree on the terminology.

 

[jackie_O]

lol I'm less communist and more libertarian than Ghandi, slightly

Ghandi and I could party.

 

[Nordling]

Since the Green Party candidate has no chance of winning, I'll not waste my vote and will vote for the person who does have that chance and who most nearly mirrors my views.

Why Nordling would you not vote for the person that best fits your values. To me that is the most important part of the voting process. You will use your vote as your voice. I do not mind that the candidate that I vote for looses an election. Because the candidate gave it his/her best effort and spoke to my needs (right on Schlmoe- I am always thinking of my needs :wink ).
[...]

The person who best fits anyone's values is that person him or herself. So, what I get from you here is that you think everyone should vote for himself? I'm sure you don't think that, but that is where the logic leads. One vote, unless it's in a huge bloc of other voters does NOT "send a message," it does not create a "voice." Your vote is your most valuable possession as a citizen, and it is up to you to use it to the best advantage. In other words, when you enter the voting booth, you become a bit like a politician for those few minutes, and you should use a strategy that leads to the best POSSIBLE outcome. So, voting for Jill Stein, Gary Johnson or even Ron Paul is almost identical to staying at home. Well, other than getting some fresh air.

This has been argued in the thread endlessly so I doubt anyone's opinion is going to change.

 

[Jupiter551]

Regardless of who had a majority in congress, for how long, and whether a leader should be able to force them to work together - I can't help but think it should in fact be illegal to openly use congressional positions to obstruct a nation's business for political gain. Yes, I understand it will always happen here or there but OPENLY?

It should be treated similarly to insider trading - yes, it goes on, but there is risk involved and sometimes people get caught. Just like insider trading it's totally unethical and exploiting an official position for financial/political gain, to the detriment of the company/nation they're employed/elected to serve.

I guess my point is, that it's so grossly unethical for either side to do this that they should be flat-out ASHAMED to admit it openly, but since they obviously have no shame maybe a criminal charge would remind them of their ethical duty.

 

[Nordling]

Regardless of who had a majority in congress, for how long, and whether a leader should be able to force them to work together - I can't help but think it should in fact be illegal to openly use congressional positions to obstruct a nation's business for political gain. Yes, I understand it will always happen here or there but OPENLY?

It should be treated similarly to insider trading - yes, it goes on, but there is risk involved and sometimes people get caught. Just like insider trading it's totally unethical and exploiting an official position for financial/political gain, to the detriment of the company/nation they're employed/elected to serve.

I guess my point is, that it's so grossly unethical for either side to do this that they should be flat-out ASHAMED to admit it openly, but since they obviously have no shame maybe a criminal charge would remind them of their ethical duty.

Agree. In fact, I call it treason. Maybe not in a legal sense, but certainly in a moral sense. To blatantly hurt the country and openly attempt to cause the economy to crash for political gain can only be interpreted one way.

 

[Mirra]

lol I'm less communist and more libertarian than Ghandi, slightly

Would you believe you're actually more "right" on the economic scale and only slightly more "libertarian" on the social scale than where I tested?

 

[Just Me]

By referring to it as a tax rather than by name, that is propagandized speech. Even the name Obamacare is propagandized speech though not nearly so much as the influence you're hoping to convey by referring to it directly as a tax.

...Obamacare will raise taxes on 6 million Americans for failing to meet its insurance mandate.

It's an estimate so the use of "will" rather than "may" bugs me... BUT beyond that, the PPACA does quite a bit through the Small Business Health Options Program to reduce the number of people who would fail to meet the insurance mandate. Employers have been given a lot of the responsibility of ensuring their employees health insurance options are adequate.

Like I said, SCOTUS approved Obamacare because it is a tax. Obama himself said he likes the term. Obamacare = TAX.

I'll agree to disagree on the terminology.

More Rush Limbaugh and Fox New's talking points. :roll: It is semantics whether to call it a tax or not. Personally, I don't care what it is called. It is something necessary if we are ever going to get healthcare costs under control. My personal opinion is it did not go far enough. If it makes you feel good to call it a tax that is certainly your prerogative. Of course you and the right wing conservatives shot themselves in the foot by calling it a tax. It would never have made it past SCOTUS otherwise. Or wait. Are you only calling it a tax now since it did pass? I never know with the flip flopping the republicans do. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/

He came into office with a mandate to shake things up, an agenda laden with civics-book reforms and a raging fiscal crisis that threatened to torpedo both. He sparred with a hostile legislature and suffered a humiliating setback in the midterm elections. As four years drew to a close, his legacy was blotted by anemic job growth, sagging political popularity and — except for a landmark health care overhaul bill — a record of accomplishment that disappointed many.

That quote is not about Obama

To paraphrase Bill Maher ,who I certainly do not agree with on many subjects, "there is this conservative bubble that facts just can't seem to penetrate." http://www.mediaite.com/online/romn...et-our-campaign-be-dictated-by-fact-checkers/

 

[Bocefish]

:roll: It is semantics whether to call it a tax or not. Personally, I don't care what it is called. It is something necessary if we are ever going to get healthcare costs under control. If it makes you feel good to call it a tax that is certainly your prerogative. Of course you and the right wing conservatives shot themselves in the foot by calling it a tax. It would never have made it past SCOTUS otherwise. Or wait. Are you only calling it a tax now since it did pass? I never know with the flip flopping the republicans do.

For someone who doesn't care what it's called, you sure go on and on about what it's called. :lol:

 

[Nordling]

I guess you'd call me a left-libertarian.

 

[Nordling]

:roll: It is semantics whether to call it a tax or not. Personally, I don't care what it is called. It is something necessary if we are ever going to get healthcare costs under control. If it makes you feel good to call it a tax that is certainly your prerogative. Of course you and the right wing conservatives shot themselves in the foot by calling it a tax. It would never have made it past SCOTUS otherwise. Or wait. Are you only calling it a tax now since it did pass? I never know with the flip flopping the republicans do.

For someone who doesn't care what it's called, you sure go on and on about what it's called. :lol:

It's not that simple. It's about getting things through the supreme court. Somewhat of an analogy, Roe v Wade was NOT determined on the basis of "the right to a woman's choice," but rather on the Constitutional right to privacy. That does not mean that all advocates of choice think that privacy is the only issue, but rather it's how the SC accomplished a right to choice.

 

[Mirra]

Most of us so far have tested in that area... but you're far left and far libertarian for sure. Here's how mine came out.

 

[jackie_O]

I'm not sure how much I trust that compass, I feel I would come out much less Libertarian than I did. I definitely answered fairly government hands on to several questions.

 

[Nordling]

Yeah, I don't think it's very accurate either. I think how one comes out may be influenced by mood and in some cases by poor wording of questions. Lots of questions I was "uhh....wtf...not sure" or would rather have answered "not enough information.'

I've taken this test multiple times over the last couple years...and each time it comes out differently. Always in the same quadrant but within that quadrant, I'm all over the map.

 

[Just Me]

:roll: It is semantics whether to call it a tax or not. Personally, I don't care what it is called. It is something necessary if we are ever going to get healthcare costs under control. If it makes you feel good to call it a tax that is certainly your prerogative. Of course you and the right wing conservatives shot themselves in the foot by calling it a tax. It would never have made it past SCOTUS otherwise. Or wait. Are you only calling it a tax now since it did pass? I never know with the flip flopping the republicans do.

For someone who doesn't care what it's called, you sure go on and on about what it's called. :lol:

I don't care what it is called. The republicans care what it is called. Now. They call it a tax so they can call it the biggest tax increase in history, which it wasn't. They did not call it a tax when it was before the supreme court. I think I was pretty clear by going on about whether it was a tax or not that I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the republicans. If I wasn't clear I apologize. I do notice you did not refute the facts I posted, only comment on what you believe I care about. :lol:

 

[Jupiter551]

I'm not sure how much I trust that compass, I feel I would come out much less Libertarian than I did. I definitely answered fairly government hands on to several questions.

Yeah but I'm sure it depends what you answered them ABOUT.

 

[jackie_O]

I'm not sure how much I trust that compass, I feel I would come out much less Libertarian than I did. I definitely answered fairly government hands on to several questions.

Yeah but I'm sure it depends what you answered them ABOUT.

Probably true. I'm fairly apolitical, I don't get into much about politics at all and couldn't even tell you which ones would be more or less relevant.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I'm essentially Ghandi! :-D

 

[Jupiter551]

I'm essentially Ghandi! :-D

Yeah a whole bunch of us are Ghandi lol, some of us are even more Ghandi than Ghandi was

 

[Bocefish]

:roll: It is semantics whether to call it a tax or not. Personally, I don't care what it is called. It is something necessary if we are ever going to get healthcare costs under control. If it makes you feel good to call it a tax that is certainly your prerogative. Of course you and the right wing conservatives shot themselves in the foot by calling it a tax. It would never have made it past SCOTUS otherwise. Or wait. Are you only calling it a tax now since it did pass? I never know with the flip flopping the republicans do.

For someone who doesn't care what it's called, you sure go on and on about what it's called. :lol:

I don't care what it is called. The republicans care what it is called. Now. They call it a tax so they can call it the biggest tax increase in history, which it wasn't. They did not call it a tax when it was before the supreme court. I think I was pretty clear by going on about whether it was a tax or not that I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the republicans. If I wasn't clear I apologize. I do notice you did not refute the facts I posted, only comment on what you believe I care about. :lol:

What part of this do you not understand:

By a 5-4 vote, the court held the law's mandate requiring Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty valid under Congress's constitutional authority to levy taxes. The financial penalty for failing to carry insurance possesses "the essential feature of any tax," producing revenue for the government, Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

The Republicans called it a tax from the beginning, Obama lied for months swearing it wasn't a tax, yet his lawyers defended it as a tax.





It's collected by the IRS and is based on your income, but it's not a tax. Ya right! Just like the asshole in Ft. Hood screaming allah akbar or whatever the muslim extremist yell as they try to kill every America in sight was classified 'workplace violence.' Just like Obama, Hillary and Susan Rice blamed the Benghazi attack on a fucking video for 2 weeks and as 'mob violence.' Keep drinking that Obama kool-aid.