The President Obama Thread

[SV Fan]

I'm sorry SV, but I believe you will back the Democratic party until hell freezes over, from what I've seen you post here, you would have voted for Obama even if the other guy had been JFK, with an R next to his name....I just haven't seen anything that tells me differently.

As long as the Republican Party is the ***** of social conservatives that is probably true. Beyond that even more then social conservative the neocon warhawks will turn me off from the party even more(sadly unlike social issues, the Demcrats suck on these issues as well but it's a case of less of 2 evils and the Dems look good by a large margin in comparison). So yeah when a party seems to look bad on 2 of what I would consider my big issues, why would I bother to vote for them

 

[Kelly]

As long as the Republican Party is the ***** of social conservatives that is probably true. Beyond that even more then social conservative the neocon warhawks will turn me off from the party even more(sadly unlike social issues, the Demcrats suck on these issues as well but it's a case of less of 2 evils and the Dems look good by a large margin in comparison). So yeah when a party seems to look bad on 2 of what I would consider my big issues, why would I bother to vote for them

Fair enough....

 

[SV Fan]

Fair enough....

I think I can sum it up saying my hate of the Republican party(on a whole) outweighs how much I like or support the Democrat party. I am not blinded that the Democrat party is perfect or does most things right or all candidates are great(which is why I never bought into hope and change for instance). Most races to me are the less of 2 evils basically

 

[hippie_hunter]

As long as the Republican Party is the ***** of social conservatives that is probably true. Beyond that even more then social conservative the neocon warhawks will turn me off from the party even more(sadly unlike social issues, the Demcrats suck on these issues as well but it's a case of less of 2 evils and the Dems look good by a large margin in comparison). So yeah when a party seems to look bad on 2 of what I would consider my big issues, why would I bother to vote for them

If it makes you feel better, the influence of those two particular groups have received massive blows.

 

[SV Fan]

If it makes you feel better, the influence of those two particular groups have received massive blows.

I can see the sway of Social Conservatives decreasing, as for the neocon war mongers, they are a bit more methodical and not as in your face. The warhawks basically realize they can lose a few battles as long as they win int he big picture and will be more then happy to lie low at times if it will hurt them in the long run

If Rand Paul ever wins the Republican nomination I do think that would send a strong message to them but much like his dad if he ever gets any sway in the party they will just marginalize him so it's very unlikely.

 

[CConn]

As long as the Republican Party is the ***** of social conservatives that is probably true. Beyond that even more then social conservative the neocon warhawks will turn me off from the party even more(sadly unlike social issues, the Demcrats suck on these issues as well but it's a case of less of 2 evils and the Dems look good by a large margin in comparison). So yeah when a party seems to look bad on 2 of what I would consider my big issues, why would I bother to vote for them

It's sad as that reversal of social conservatism could very much happen if the GOP leaders stopped pandering to their fanatical, minority base.

Although I do kinda agree with hippie, I often find the logic behind your formed opinions to be generally be shaky at best.

 

[SV Fan]

It's sad as that reversal of social conservatism could very much happen if the GOP leaders stopped pandering to their fanatical, minority base.

Although I do kinda agree with hippie, I often find the logic behind your formed opinions to be generally be shaky at best.

How is it shaky? Even you admit they pander to the social conservatives. While it may be a minority they are very vocal and have alot of sway(and money)

I think the last Republican primary was a perfect example of social conservatives. You have 1 guy who perfectly represents the Tea Party Movement(Ron Paul) yet the so called Tea Party Candidate was more a social conservative who adopted a few tea Party Ideas then anything else(Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, etc). That's how the social conservatives work, they will weasel their way into the discussion some how.

 

[CConn]

How is it shaky? Even you admit they pander to the social conservatives. While it may be a minority they are very vocal and have alot of sway(and money)

Oh, I'm not referring to this specifically. I just recall in other situations when you've said things I've gone "yeah...not at all." In my head.

 

[CConn]

And technically, if you believe in a maximum amount of social freedom, you should be a libertarian. Most Democrats are more interested in merely acting as some ying to the conservative establishment's yang than actually having any interest in promoting or preserving actual freedoms, IMHO.

 

[SV Fan]

And technically, if you believe in a maximum amount of social freedom, you should be a libertarian. Most Democrats are more interested in merely acting as some ying to the conservative establishment's yang than actually having any interest in promoting or preserving actual freedoms, IMHO.

As I said less of 2 evils although I do think they at least put some effort into social issues(although alot is just lip service) and it's not as bad as say defense(where the Democrats are the Status Quo party vs the ones who want to increase Defense spending)

 

[CConn]

As I said less of 2 evils although I do think they at least put some effort into social issues(although alot is just lip service) and it's not as bad as say defense(where the Democrats are the Status Quo party vs the ones who want to increase Defense spending)

Everyone is terrible with spending in Washington. If it isn't going to defense, its going to some overly and unnecessarily complex social programs that don't really improve our society at all.

 

[SV Fan]

Everyone is terrible with spending in Washington. If it isn't going to defense, its going to some overly and unnecessarily complex social programs that don't really improve our society at all.

Fair enough, but I rather see wasted money be used on road and bridges then having a base in Germany or fighting unneeded wars. I'll even settle for a useless social program that might create a few jobs at least

 

[CConn]

Lol, yeah. That's what democrats spend money on. Roads and bridges.

 

[CConn]

And actually, military spending creates and maintains a lot of jobs. From the manufacturing of ammunition and their various equipment, to all of the laborers involved in the upkeep and maintenance of military devices and installations.

 

[SV Fan]

And actually, military spending creates and maintains a lot of jobs. From the manufacturing of ammunition and their various equipment, to all of the laborers involved in the upkeep and maintenance of military devices and installations.

I still think you can get better bang for your buck with other programs. Even say Welfare, you give a poor person 1000 bucks they going to dump all of that cash back into the economy, which is much better then weapon manufacturers dumping it into Swiss bank accounts

 

[CConn]

I still think you can get better bang for your buck with other programs. Even say Welfare, you give a poor person 1000 bucks they going to dump all of that cash back into the economy, which is much better then weapon manufacturers dumping it into Swiss bank accounts

Well, you're kind of right. Oh yes, definitely you can do much, much more to create jobs than just give money to the military.

But social programs (and welfare...are you being serious?) is most certainly not the way to create either economic growth nor jobs. I've never seen a single economist even come close to suggesting that.

In fact, what pretty much everyone agrees on, is that less taxes for corporations (with democrats usually disagree with) is the number one thing that does/would improve the job market and general economy.

Social programs are not at all intended or thought to be able to help the economy in any way. They're designed purely to help the destitute, the unemployed and the underemployed. They're merely bandages for a much larger, more encompassing problem.

 

[Kelly]

Well, you're kind of right. Oh yes, definitely you can do much, much more to create jobs than just give money to the military.

But social programs (and welfare...are you being serious?) is most certainly not the way to create either economic growth nor jobs. I've never seen a single economist even come close to suggesting that.

In fact, what pretty much everyone agrees on, is that less taxes for corporations (with democrats usually disagree with) is the number one thing that does/would improve the job market and general economy.

Social programs are not at all intended or thought to be able to help the economy in any way. They're designed purely to help the destitute, the unemployed and the underemployed. They're merely bandages for a much larger, more encompassing problem.

I think I'm still mad about the "shovel ready" jobs that Obama jokingly said (after spending my tax dollars) were not quite "shovel ready"....


I'm a fiscal conservative that actually has absolutely no problem with entitlement programs, as long as they are run effectively and efficiently. I would even take a tax hike for them to do so......but government just cannot do it, they just can't, it goes against every that a bureaucracy is...and it will NEVER HAPPEN. I see it every day in our education system....the waste of money is almost unbearable to watch, it is just mind blowing.

 

[TheVileOne]

Something else for the environmentalists to chew on. Government regulation isn't going to find alternative fuel or figure out breakthroughs in solar power either. Solyndra.

 

[CConn]

I think I'm still mad about the "shovel ready" jobs that Obama jokingly said (after spending my tax dollars) were not quite "shovel ready"....


I'm a fiscal conservative that actually has absolutely no problem with entitlement programs, as long as they are run effectively and efficiently. I would even take a tax hike for them to do so......but government just cannot do it, they just can't, it goes against every that a bureaucracy is...and it will NEVER HAPPEN. I see it every day in our education system....the waste of money is almost unbearable to watch, it is just mind blowing.

Yeah, it's not even a matter of whether or not you believe in social programs, it's the fact that how we do it is just plain dumb.

There's tons of great alternative ideas out there for improving wealth distribution; from flat taxes, to negative income taxes, etc. For us to have a system where you have to be Matthew Lesko to properly navigate the boundless number of entitlement programs is just plain despicable.

 

[Victarion]

What kind of backlash would you expect from a reform of the current social programmes?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, Democrats are so desperately clinging on to what little they have, there isn't exactly much time for large-scale overhauls.

It's hard to seriously talk about reforming welfare, when you can barely keep housing and warming for the poor on the table.

 

[enterthemadness]

Well, Democrats are so desperately clinging on to what little they have, there isn't exactly much time for large-scale overhauls.

It's hard to seriously talk about reforming welfare, when you can barely keep housing and warming for the poor on the table.

Something has to give, or the dam(debt) breaks.

Some people say no foreign aid for starters...

 

[Thundercrack85]

Foreign aid is peanuts. And arguably quite useful on the international playing field.

Out of control defense spending is the elephant in the room. No pun intended. America spends more on defense than the next top ten countries combined, which includes China and Russia, the rest are allies.

Just imagine if America spent a quarter of that on education. Now that would scare China.

 

[Marvolo]

Foreign aid is peanuts. And arguably quite useful on the international playing field.

Out of control defense spending is the elephant in the room. No pun intended. America spends more on defense than the next top ten countries combined, which includes China and Russia, the rest are allies.

Just imagine if America spent a quarter of that on education. Now that would scare China.

The problem with defense cuts is the first thing they seem to do is cut supplies and benefits for the troops. The marines have already said that current soldiers will have supplies but due to the sequester cuts anyone who joins after this will have to make do and they can't guarantee all equipment and armor will be available. That is unacceptable imo. Even more so when you factor in congress's ridiculous pay and benefits.

Defense cuts shouldn't endanger our troops which is what always seems to happen. Buddy of mine had to purchase his own armor because the military said it wasn't their problem! I'd like to see these congressmen go into battle with no armor. See how long they last before they **** their pants.

 

[Schlosser85]

Defense cuts shouldn't endanger our troops which is what always seems to happen. Buddy of mine had to purchase his own armor because the military said it wasn't their problem! I'd like to see these congressmen go into battle with no armor. See how long they last before they **** their pants.

Stuff like that is disgusting and none of those who vote in favor of it get to wear their little flagpins and brag about their "patriotism".