Will you vote for Resident Obama in 2012?

[gambit215]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by shatterkneesinc

both dont matter because presidential elections are based on electoral votes
u think obama gives a dam about the red states with 4 electoral ballots?

uh huh....either way I'm sick of people making that he won cause he's black excuse. Cause they prolly the same people who didnt vote for him because he's "black"

Obama
Electoral Votes: 364
Popular Votes: 64,414,843
McCain
Electoral Votes: 162
Popular Votes: 56,735,145


Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.

A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by gambit215

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by shatterkneesinc

both dont matter because presidential elections are based on electoral votes
u think obama gives a dam about the red states with 4 electoral ballots?

uh huh....either way I'm sick of people making that he won cause he's black excuse. Cause they prolly the same people who didnt vote for him because he's "black"

Obama
Electoral Votes: 364
Popular Votes: 64,414,843
McCain
Electoral Votes: 162
Popular Votes: 56,735,145


Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.

A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites.

-Other factors you need to look into-the sheer incompetence of the ex president when Obama ran probably helped him have this high margin of voters than his skin color. Obama ran at a perfect time.

-A better comparison of stats would be between Hilary and Obama not McCain and Obama showing female bias vs. black bias.

-Where are the stats from the old white voters?

-If Obama were white and just as charismatic, do you think he would have won by even a higher margin against McCain? Answer this question keeping the dissatisfaction people had fresh out of the Bush regime in mind. Is it possible the high turnout and the increase in young whites voting democrat had less to do with Obama's skin color and more to do with just how bad Bush was as a president.

-If Obama were running against a white male instead of Hilary, what do you think the outcome would have been?


Obama beat McCain because he's a democrat, you could make the argument that Obama beat Hilary because he's black but I'm going to need to see some stats.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by gambit215

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by shatterkneesinc

both dont matter because presidential elections are based on electoral votes
u think obama gives a dam about the red states with 4 electoral ballots?

uh huh....either way I'm sick of people making that he won cause he's black excuse. Cause they prolly the same people who didnt vote for him because he's "black"

Obama
Electoral Votes: 364
Popular Votes: 64,414,843
McCain
Electoral Votes: 162
Popular Votes: 56,735,145


Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.

A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites.

-Other factors you need to look into-the sheer incompetence of the ex president when Obama ran probably helped him have this high margin of voters than his skin color. Obama ran at a perfect time.

-A better comparison of stats would be between Hilary and Obama not McCain and Obama showing female bias vs. black bias.

-Where are the stats from the old white voters?

-If Obama were white and just as charismatic, do you think he would have won by even a higher margin against McCain? Answer this question keeping the dissatisfaction people had fresh out of the Bush regime in mind. Is it possible the high turnout and the increase in young whites voting democrat had less to do with Obama's skin color and more to do with just how bad Bush was as a president.

-If Obama were running against a white male instead of Hilary, what do you think the outcome would have been?


Obama beat McCain because he's a democrat, you could make the argument that Obama beat Hilary because he's black but I'm going to need to see some stats.

 

[domc03]

i think this time around it won't be a matter or voting against Obama but convincing millions to vote. do i think he'll win? yes. the reds don't have candidate that will provide any competition. when the biggest name of opposition currently is Donald Trump it doesn't look too good, especially if he wins the nom. which he has a snowball chance in hell of doing. so again i think obama will win its gonna be hard convincing people to vote the second time around. but then again we have a year to go, so ANYTHING can happen between now and nov. 2 2012.

 

[domc03]

i think this time around it won't be a matter or voting against Obama but convincing millions to vote. do i think he'll win? yes. the reds don't have candidate that will provide any competition. when the biggest name of opposition currently is Donald Trump it doesn't look too good, especially if he wins the nom. which he has a snowball chance in hell of doing. so again i think obama will win its gonna be hard convincing people to vote the second time around. but then again we have a year to go, so ANYTHING can happen between now and nov. 2 2012.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

I love the people who say Ron Paul would bring all of this fantastic change, yet probably don't understand that lack of government intervention is what's allowed the wealth gap in this country to widen astronomically. We're now on par with wonderfully democratic, free and classless societies such as Mexico and Russia. 
$$@% yeah Libertarianism!

+#!! yeah invisible hand!

+#!! yeah completely unregulated free market capitalism!

+#!! yeah dying middle class!...wait.. what?

Originality, love it.

What is wealth? How much is it? How much do I need to have for you to consider me "wealthy"? You are assuming that wealth is determined how much money one has, which is erroneous. Now, who are you speaking of? Those big bad corporations? Yeah, those corporations need a what in order to operate? A "corporate charter". Yeah so, ALL corporations need government INTERVENTION.

I would say wealth is a CEO making five hundred times what his average worker makes, and being allowed to skate on taxes because he has the money for lawyers while the kid making $7.25 has no choice but to have his money pulled from his check. 
I'm speaking of the top 1% of people who get away with financial murder in this country while our roads, bridges, dams and rail road crumble. 

The straw man you just threw at me is so nonsensical I don't even know how to respond.

You don't know how to respond because you're whole argument is based on a fallacy that wealth is determined by the the amount of paper money someone has. Wealth has a subjective value.

Why can Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, ect. skate on taxes and only pay around 15%? Oh yeah, government intervention. The tax code in which is written by the Ways and Means Committee. The scenario you just presented has nothing to do with the "Rich". The kid that gets paid $7.25 is also getting screwed because that $7.25 is worth less now than it did 20 years ago. Why? Government intervention, the centralized government forced monopoly over the issuance of currency has depreciated the value of his wages.


You can honestly tax those 1% a 100% of their income and it still won't make a dent in anything you would want accomplish. This country is in around $125 Trillion in debt when you count all the interest, unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security, and other social entitlements.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

I love the people who say Ron Paul would bring all of this fantastic change, yet probably don't understand that lack of government intervention is what's allowed the wealth gap in this country to widen astronomically. We're now on par with wonderfully democratic, free and classless societies such as Mexico and Russia. 
$$@% yeah Libertarianism!

+#!! yeah invisible hand!

+#!! yeah completely unregulated free market capitalism!

+#!! yeah dying middle class!...wait.. what?

Originality, love it.

What is wealth? How much is it? How much do I need to have for you to consider me "wealthy"? You are assuming that wealth is determined how much money one has, which is erroneous. Now, who are you speaking of? Those big bad corporations? Yeah, those corporations need a what in order to operate? A "corporate charter". Yeah so, ALL corporations need government INTERVENTION.

I would say wealth is a CEO making five hundred times what his average worker makes, and being allowed to skate on taxes because he has the money for lawyers while the kid making $7.25 has no choice but to have his money pulled from his check. 
I'm speaking of the top 1% of people who get away with financial murder in this country while our roads, bridges, dams and rail road crumble. 

The straw man you just threw at me is so nonsensical I don't even know how to respond.

You don't know how to respond because you're whole argument is based on a fallacy that wealth is determined by the the amount of paper money someone has. Wealth has a subjective value.

Why can Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, ect. skate on taxes and only pay around 15%? Oh yeah, government intervention. The tax code in which is written by the Ways and Means Committee. The scenario you just presented has nothing to do with the "Rich". The kid that gets paid $7.25 is also getting screwed because that $7.25 is worth less now than it did 20 years ago. Why? Government intervention, the centralized government forced monopoly over the issuance of currency has depreciated the value of his wages.


You can honestly tax those 1% a 100% of their income and it still won't make a dent in anything you would want accomplish. This country is in around $125 Trillion in debt when you count all the interest, unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security, and other social entitlements.

 

[bostonthreeparty]

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

Obama is the biggest fraud this country has ever seen.

He just showed how far a marketing campaign can carry you into office.
but seriously what would you expect from someone who voted present 130 times in the State Senate. 

He just has no backbone, and tries to please to many people or to get anyone upset by voting against them. 

 

[bostonthreeparty]

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

Obama is the biggest fraud this country has ever seen.

He just showed how far a marketing campaign can carry you into office.
but seriously what would you expect from someone who voted present 130 times in the State Senate. 

He just has no backbone, and tries to please to many people or to get anyone upset by voting against them. 

 

[thenewjs23]

I wont be voting at all. Unless either party has a total goof troop as their canidate.

 

[thenewjs23]

I wont be voting at all. Unless either party has a total goof troop as their canidate.

 

[teamjordan79]

 voting

 

[teamjordan79]

 voting

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by BostonThreeParty

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

Obama is the biggest fraud this country has ever seen.

He just showed how far a marketing campaign can carry you into office.
but seriously what would you expect from someone who voted present 130 times in the State Senate. 

He just has no backbone, and tries to please to many people or to get anyone upset by voting against them. 

While I can agree with the 3rd line to an extent.. It isn't lack of backbone it is just his idea of good politics.. Trying to keep as many people as possible happy is good politics, but at the same time bad politics for personal agenda.

The second line is total bs.. The present vote has long been a precedure in not just the Illinois State Senate, but many other State Senates as a vote to continue debate, a way to excuse yourself from a vote for potential conflict of interest, and even as a objection to certain parts of a bill, which is more sensible to vote present to redefine a bill than to vote no because you hate one component of it..

There were instances where Obama voted present on bills that had unanimous support, that isn't defined as something lacking backbone...

Issues are not yes or no, and that is the exact type of policy people complain about in the terms of the two party system...

And 129 present in 8 years....  How many bills were passed in that 8 years?  Probably thousands.. It is a minuscule number in the scheme of things..

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by BostonThreeParty

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

Obama is the biggest fraud this country has ever seen.

He just showed how far a marketing campaign can carry you into office.
but seriously what would you expect from someone who voted present 130 times in the State Senate. 

He just has no backbone, and tries to please to many people or to get anyone upset by voting against them. 

While I can agree with the 3rd line to an extent.. It isn't lack of backbone it is just his idea of good politics.. Trying to keep as many people as possible happy is good politics, but at the same time bad politics for personal agenda.

The second line is total bs.. The present vote has long been a precedure in not just the Illinois State Senate, but many other State Senates as a vote to continue debate, a way to excuse yourself from a vote for potential conflict of interest, and even as a objection to certain parts of a bill, which is more sensible to vote present to redefine a bill than to vote no because you hate one component of it..

There were instances where Obama voted present on bills that had unanimous support, that isn't defined as something lacking backbone...

Issues are not yes or no, and that is the exact type of policy people complain about in the terms of the two party system...

And 129 present in 8 years....  How many bills were passed in that 8 years?  Probably thousands.. It is a minuscule number in the scheme of things..

 

[whyhellothere]

Originally Posted by thenewjs23

I wont be voting at all.

 

[whyhellothere]

Originally Posted by thenewjs23

I wont be voting at all.

 

[uniquekickz]

If we gave Bush 8 yrs we can definitely give Obama another 4 yrs. Especially since the way he had to recoupe the damage done by our previous president (Bush=antichrist)!!

 

[uniquekickz]

If we gave Bush 8 yrs we can definitely give Obama another 4 yrs. Especially since the way he had to recoupe the damage done by our previous president (Bush=antichrist)!!

 

[thejrob]

Voted for him last time, not happy with what he's done, but will probably still support him over whoever the Republicans choose...

 

[thejrob]

Voted for him last time, not happy with what he's done, but will probably still support him over whoever the Republicans choose...

 

[tkthafm]

$*%# Obama. 
"change" 

 

[tkthafm]

$*%# Obama. 
"change" 

 

[likethematrix]

If you believe that any president ever, in the entire history of the USA has ANY power whatsoever, you are a idiot.
the position of President is a puppet position.

there are teams, upon teams, upon teams of people who make the real decisions.

Obama only speaks the word written for him by his professional speech writer. 

no matter what president comes after obama, nothing will ever ever ever improve.

we are in a ditch so deep we are basically dead.

smh. worried about obama when you should really be organizing a coup of Goldman-Sachs. 

yes the jews.

also Rashi is a...not smart guy (no ban)

when companies such as coca-cola company and Sun-Maid pay 0 dollars in taxes due to loopholes written by people who have been paid GIGANTIC kickbacks in order to write the laws and modify them for them in order to not pay billions a year.

you dont know nothin bout that tho.

its just *+*! obama right?

 

[likethematrix]

If you believe that any president ever, in the entire history of the USA has ANY power whatsoever, you are a idiot.
the position of President is a puppet position.

there are teams, upon teams, upon teams of people who make the real decisions.

Obama only speaks the word written for him by his professional speech writer. 

no matter what president comes after obama, nothing will ever ever ever improve.

we are in a ditch so deep we are basically dead.

smh. worried about obama when you should really be organizing a coup of Goldman-Sachs. 

yes the jews.

also Rashi is a...not smart guy (no ban)

when companies such as coca-cola company and Sun-Maid pay 0 dollars in taxes due to loopholes written by people who have been paid GIGANTIC kickbacks in order to write the laws and modify them for them in order to not pay billions a year.

you dont know nothin bout that tho.

its just *+*! obama right?