Obama. The Republicans are incompetent, malignant, irrational, and as said borderline treasonous. I wouldn’t support voting for any Republican for any position of authority whatsoever at this point. Even if the individual Republican is actually better than his/her opponent, since they are not just an individual but a part of the whole party machine.
Wall Street reform? I favor Obama too, but Wall Street fucking OWNS Obama.
I hope Obama wins in a landslide. Not because I think he’s a great president; I’m pretty ambivalent about his administration and I will likely vote third party. I just think the Republican Party has gone way off the deep end into crazy territory. A firm rejection of their current ludicrous politics could bring about some sanity in the future. Of course I don’t see this as a likely scenario.
Obama. There are certainly arguments against giving him a second term; however, I have never seen this kind of all-consuming hatred and unanimous opposition from an opposing party before. It disgusts me. Considering what he’s been up against and the mess he inherited, he’s done a decent job. No way in hell would I consider voting for a Republican the way the party stands now.
Almost all of this, except that I’m not sure if there are arguments against giving him a second term, except if you heavily emphasize the flaws in the ACA. Or believe that someone would take a more principled stance toward freedom and peace in foreign policy and security, but you have to balance that against bin Laden. (Plus of course, consider the alternative.)
There would be more data to analyze how his domestic policies work if he had been allowed to enact them without the greatest level of obstruction possibly ever.
For me, the unanimous opposition is what really makes it imperative to not elect Romney. If Romney wins he will probably create a coattail effect and thus consolodate effective GOP control of Congress, who will then be setting the agenda and Romney will give in to every demand of the far right.
Don’t do that; if you want Obama to win at all, you should vote for him. Nobody’s going to win this one by a landslide, it’s going to be close.
The NPR bit on the health care decision showed me that Romney is just faking his interest for Hispanics, Romney just said a few hours ago that his target is now the defeat of Obamacare, and yet that is not what most of Hispanics were looking for:
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/28/155941682/the-reaction-in-florida-from-protesting-to-partying
And, yes, that is in Florida. With this single act I think Romney is betting that he does not need the Hispanic vote. Well, as a Hispanic I was not going to vote for him, but just before this I was of the mind that Romney becoming president was not going to be so bad compared to Bush the lesser, now I see that I will have to contribute to make sure Obama wins.
President Obama has made mistakes, but he has the right intentions. Romney’s proposals will certainly increase the national debt. They are likely to increase unemployment as well.
This again. Against different opposition there might be a case for voting him out, but in this contest he is clearly the best man.
And the GOP really has become loathsome, no? Hate seems to be their agenda, hate the president, hate democrats, hate liberals, hate everything they do even if it is the GOP’s idea. And they combine this with anti-intellectualism. It is a disastrous combination if it succeeds- effectively a license to be stupid, evil and powerful all at once. Obama is not perfect but he does seem to be influenceable via facts, and evidences desire to serve the best interests of the American people as a whole.
Only if it came from his left.
That is more-or-less my reaction to the “What would be the negative effects of banning pornography?” currently running in GD, namely “It would encourage more stupidity in future.”
:mad::mad::mad: OK, here’s one more reason why Romney should not be our next POTUS.
Oxymoron: corporations are people.
No, they aren’t. Reality trumps law.
*Whoosh *
Romney. there is little Obama hasn’t accomplished that he couldn’t have accomplished just by staying in the Senate. As an executive, as a manager, he is as bad as GWB. He is also as unprincipled, never ceasing to surprise me with new ways to be cynical.
There are a lot of things wrong with Mitt Romney, you all know what they are and I’m sure you’ll be glad to recite the list again. 
But this country needs someone capable, with a record of success in government and the private sector. And someone who believes in professionalism in the public sector, not patronage. And frankly, we need someone to lead. I don’t know if Romney’s up to the job, but I know Obama is not. two straight unserious budgets rejected unanimously. It’s one of the most basic jobs of the Presidency, submitting a realistic and serious budget that makes tough choices and sets priorities, and this President has steadfastly refused to do that. I figure even if Romney doesn’t have the guts, he’ll at least let Congressional Republicans implement the Ryan plan, which cuts the deficit by $5 trillion over 10 years.
Cite?
Not even Paul Ryan makes that claim.
Actually, Ryan claims $6 trillion:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/usa-budget-republicans-idUSN0519046120110405
I’m having trouble finding the CBO’s bottom line estimate of Ryans’ deficit reduction compared to the alternative baseline scenario, but this is what his budget plan does:
CBO calculates that, under the specified paths, federal revenues and spending would evolve as follows:
Revenues—from 15½ percent of GDP in 2011 to 19 percent in both 2030 and 2050;
Medicare—from 3¼ percent of GDP in 2011 to 4¼ percent in 2030 and 4¾ percent in 2050;
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—from 2 percent of GDP in 2011 to 1¼ percent in 2030 and 1 percent in 2050;
Social Security—from 4¾ percent of GDP in 2011 to 6 percent in both 2030 and 2050; and
Other mandatory spending and all discretionary spending—from 12½ percent of GDP in 2011 to 5¾ percent in 2030 and 3¾ percent in 2050.
Under those paths for revenues and spending, federal debt held by the public would be 53 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2030 and 10 percent at the end of fiscal year 2050.
Tough choices. Can the President match that or even come close?
You may want to reread your own cite. Ryan does not claim his plan will reduce the deficit by 6 trillion.
A plan that makes 6 trillion in cuts is not the same as a plan that reduces the deficit by 6 trillion.
His plan also increases revenue, from 15% of GDP to 19%. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but if his plan cuts spending by $6 trillion, how is that not $6 trillion in deficit reduction is revenues are increasing?