Reasons to vote for Obama.......

[Woodruff]

He's not rMoney.

Really? That's all you have? No wonder we keep electing these idiots.

Why don't I remember you speaking about those who are voting not-Obama?

[crispybits]

If I were to vote for him I'd wonder what the hell happened, being a limey brit and all...

[Woodruff]

Because he is a Marxist.

I like Marxists

Obama being a Marxist it totally a reason for a Marxist to vote for him!

So...you're a Marxist then?

[Woodruff]

I like how I'm a troll based on you not being aware of the evidence.

Why do you always blame everyone else for the fact that you're a troll?

[Lootifer]

Seriously, I'd like people to post REAL reasons to vote for this man. (I expect this to be a really short thread)

I can think of LOTS of reasons NOT to vote for him but am having trouble coming up with a single reason to vote for him.

If I were to vote for him (I am currently undecided), it would be because he's the best-smelling pile of dung amongst the dung-piles.

[thegreekdog]

If I were a registered Republican who also voted for GW Bush, Bush I, McCain, Dole, etc., I would vote for him because he's a great Republican. greecepwns stole my thunder (although, to be honest, he vastly improved my thunder after he absconded with it).

[GreecePwns]

He doesn't even get credit for being consistent with his trolling. When Romney fully endorsed Israel's healthcare system which goes much much further than Obamacare, Our Friendly Neighborhood Phattist did not shout from the rooftops that Romney is a Marxist.

Even from before you left the forums, I've constantly asked for 10 policy differences between Romney and Obama and the only thing I've gotten this bullshit or the emphatic "he's not Obama." Last I checked, name choice is not a policy decision.

[Phatscotty]

He doesn't even get credit for being consistent with his trolling. When Romney fully endorsed Israel's healthcare system which goes much much further than Obamacare, Our Friendly Neighborhood Phattist did not shout from the rooftops that Romney is a Marxist.

Even from before you left the forums, I've constantly asked for 10 policy differences between Romney and Obama and the only thing I've gotten this bullshit or the emphatic "he's not Obama." Last I checked, name choice is not a policy decision.

I probably can't name 10 policy (nice move Gpwn!) differences either. I mean, I could, but your point is good and I would be wasting my time posting their bullshit policies.

For now, I can however name one philosophical (combo breaker!) difference between Obama and Romney.....Marxism

[GreecePwns]

Surely a real Marxist wouldn't appoint the head of as the USDA head, sign the Affordable Care Act, which forces people to buy from private insurance, wage warfare against a peaceful socialist nation in order to install another capitalist regime that will serve America's interests instead of those of its own people, maintain the government's existence, bailout the banks, as opposed to nationalizing them, accept funding from multinational corporations to run for a government position, support Solyndra, support banks by allowing them to remain at a size deemed too big to fail, or observe Christmas and/or Islam.

Maybe Scotty will explain how these Obama policies, which are a much better measure of his ideology than who he talked to ten years ago or what language his parents learned decades ago, are a manifestation of the man's Marxist beliefs.

Or he won't and totally ignore them for a second time and keep on trollin'.


And another unanswered point:

And I'm learning the Arabic language as we speak, does that make me a proponent of al-Qaeda's or the Taliban's ideology? Which evil MIddle Eastern group am I 100% backing for learning their language? Perhaps I am a member of Golden Dawn neo-Nazi group for knowing Greek? Maybe I fought for the November 17 Group? Ohhh, I know English. I must be a KKK or IRA member then, since they know that language as well? I want to learn French as well, so I guess that means I am a flag-waver for Le Pen's party?

[Neato Missile]

Obama is a centrist, corporatist tool, and I fear that he's the harbinger of the Democratic Party's broader shift rightward on most non-social issues. Nevertheless, due to the incredibly short shrift third parties get in our national elections, I absolutely believe he is the best option available to us at this time. "Not Romney" may be glib to the point of being information-less, but it's not far off the mark. Maybe "not [explicitly] a proponent of trickle-down economics" would be more accurate.

The recovery has been underwhelming, to say the least. Reasons for this are myriad and often double-edged-- conservatives claim the stimulus failed, liberals claim it should have been twice as large, for example-- but without the benefit of a dimensional traveler from a McCain-led alternate reality, it seems difficult to show that Republican economic policies would have had better results.

That being said, Obama is more likely to take steps away from the economy policies that caused the crash, whereas Romney is running on a platform that involves taking steps toward those policies. This is enough reason for me to vote D in November.

[Army of GOD]

I think it'd be cool to play some basketball with Obama (NOT BECAUSE HES BLACK YOU SCUMBAGS)

[rockfist]

When the Obama administration passed the stimulus they controlled both houses of congress and had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. If from their perspective it was too small - they have only themselves to blame.

[Timminz]

Being Canadian, I cannot vote for Obama (we're only allowed to vote Republican up here), but the only real reason I can think of for anyone to vote Obama this year: Barrack HUSSEIN Obama is the anti-Christ, and for the prophecies set forth in the bible to become fulfilled properly, the beast needs to rise to power greater than that ever seen by man before, before hurling this planet into the fiery depths of Hell.

Other than that, he's just Romney in black sheep's clothing.

[Neato Missile]

When the Obama administration passed the stimulus they controlled both houses of congress and had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. If from their perspective it was too small - they have only themselves to blame.

That's true, and (as far as I know) it isn't "common wisdom" among Democrats that the stimulus was too small. Whenever I've seen the sentiment, it's been backed up with the claim that if it had been clear how bad the crash really was, the administration would have/should have passed a much larger stimulus.

[patches70]

Whenever I've seen the sentiment, it's been backed up with the claim that if it had been clear how bad the crash really was, the administration would have/should have passed a much larger stimulus.

Now, I'd like to be clear on something here for a moment, if you would sir.

I remember Obama campaigning and he was saying that's it was Bush's fault (and Republicans) that it was the worst economy since the Great Depression. The Great Depression, the economy when Obama took over (according to him) was just about as bad as that. And then after taking office, doing the stimulus and such, spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave and things don't go like Obama said it would, he and other of his compatriots say "Oh, knew it was as nearly bad as the Great Depression, but we didn't know it was worse!".

Now, if one is claiming that it is all as bad as since the Great Depression, am I to actually believe that when getting into the grits of it all they found it worse?
Really?

Seems more likely that Obama didn't know jack squat and ran his mouth a touch to much, made promises he couldn't possibly keep, made assertions he couldn't possibly know if were true or not and instead of taking any real responsibility, he says "Oh, it was worse than we thought".
Of course it was, cause he was talkin' out his azz the whole time. In fact, he still is.


But if I were to vote for Obama, I would do it for only one reason, to watch it all crumble and burn down. I want to make sure Obama goes down in history as the guy who did it (not that I'm saying Obama is the sole cause, but we know how it is, the current President is the one who is always blamed). If Romney gets elected, it's all still going to crash, but he'll get blamed for it, unfairly (not that the blame could be fairly put on one person anyway). Especially considering how Obama is quick to blame everyone and everything else but himself.

Let it all burn. Then maybe something decent will rise up afterward. Or something even worse, who can ever really know in these things though. Remember the Boy Scout motto and everything will be all right in the end. For those poor bastards who are like the grasshopper, well, it will be interesting times for them.

America has been foolish and unwise for quite a while now. There have been and continue to be signs of the looming storm. We get what we deserve in the end.

[Neato Missile]

That's a meaty post and deserves a meatier response, but for now I'll just clarify that when I said "liberals claim [the stimulus] should have been twice as large," I am referring to liberals I know in real life and on other, leftier forums. If that is a position held by democratic congressmen or members of the Obama administration, I'm not aware of it. This was unclear wording on my part.

[patches70]

That's a meaty post and deserves a meatier response, but for now I'll just clarify that when I said "liberals claim [the stimulus] should have been twice as large," I am referring to liberals I know in real life and on other, leftier forums. If that is a position held by democratic congressmen or members of the Obama administration, I'm not aware of it. This was unclear wording on my part.

Oh, ok then, but yeah, that is the position held by the Obama administration. I don't know if they actually believe that, but that's what they said publicly at least.

Seems to me though, and this should appeal to liberals, fiscal conservatives, libertarians and pretty much everyone, is back then in those "dark days" of the crash, it would have been better to let the market correct. Yeah, it would have sucked, really really bad, but by now we'd be off and roaring and actually growing instead of stagnating.

A lot of rich people who made malinvestments, scumbag banks, brokers and Financial banks would have gone bankrupt. A deflationary period would have crushed virtually every market. But prices would have gotten to where they should be and by today even an average Joe making a modest wage could easily afford a house. The poor bastard they buy it from will have lost a boatload of money, but hey, that's a consequence of messed up monetary policies that created the bubble in the first place.

The stimulus is an action to prevent a market correction. It is just staving off the inevitable. It's a bandaid when what's required is amputation. It would be a bad time for many, but it would also be a great time for opportunity for those with skills and ideas to make a real shot at making a life for themselves and their family. For the sheep, not so much.

As bad as it would be for the little guys, it would have been a lot worse for the really big guys. There'd be a number of em jumping outta windows.

When things like that happen it's not that the wealth is destroyed, it's that those riding the horses get thrown and leaves it open for new riders to take the reigns.

That is, if we could hold it together as a country and not freak out. Not a sure thing at all, given the life of luxury and leisure we've grown accustomed to as a people.

But, that's all water under the bridge now. As it stands, the next crash is right around the corner and this time there aren't any magic cures the Money Powers can pull out. The pain we would have felt letting the correction take place back then would have just felt like a little tummy ache compared to the pain we'll be feeling later. Then we'll all be pointing fingers at one another saying "It's your fault!"
Really, it's our own fault. We get what we deserve though we might not have realized exactly what we were getting into......

[jay_a2j]

He's not rMoney.

Really? That's all you have? No wonder we keep electing these idiots.

Why don't I remember you speaking about those who are voting not-Obama?

Make no mistake, I won't be voting for Romney either. But seeing the 4 disastrous years of Obama, I could see why people might vote for Romney. I can not fathom a reason to re-elect Obama.

I assume many people will vote for Romney because "He's not Obama"

[Lootifer]

Man I wish I lived in America so I could enjoy your completely fucked up political landscape.

Shit is mental.

[rdsrds2120]

I think it'd be cool to play some basketball with Obama (NOT BECAUSE HES BLACK YOU SCUMBAGS)

Why'd you have to bring race into it, dude?

Man I wish I lived in America so I could enjoy your completely fucked up political landscape.

Shit is mental.

Wanna do a vacation swap? NZ sounds pretty cool.

-rd

[Phatscotty]

That's a meaty post and deserves a meatier response, but for now I'll just clarify that when I said "liberals claim [the stimulus] should have been twice as large," I am referring to liberals I know in real life and on other, leftier forums. If that is a position held by democratic congressmen or members of the Obama administration, I'm not aware of it. This was unclear wording on my part.

I wonder, if we spent twice as much on the stimulus, if we would have had our credit rating downgraded more or less, since we would carry a lot more debt now if we borrowed twice as much, and our balance sheet would look even uglier. Of course, I guess the answer will be "it would have turned the economy around!"

1 trillion dollars of stimulus proved to yield even worse results than Obama's own predictions about what would happen if there were NO stimulus at all. I really doubt another trillion would make that much of a difference. The reason being, it's totally artificial growth. There is nothing supporting it or maintaining it. That's what Rick Santelli meant when he said "If we are to believe the government, then we should just print and borrow 1 trillion dollars on hour because we will get 1.5 trillion back."

[BigBallinStalin]

What's funny about economic science, or systems design, in this realm of policy, is that:

(1) if X-amount of money is used as stimulus, and the outcome was less than expected, then they'll conclude that enough wasn't used.

(2) If x-amount of money is used as stimulus, and the outcome was generally as expected, then they'll conclude that they saved "capitalism from itself."


The problem is that their scientific means only scratch the correlation but can't dig up the causation. If (2) happens, then they'll believe that their science is totes awesome, but if (1) happens, they don't think that there's anything wrong with their science--even though clearly they played it by their books, and the outcome was less than expected. Instead of revamping the theory, they'll conclude that the stimulus wasn't enough.

[thegreekdog]

Obama is a centrist, corporatist tool, and I fear that he's the harbinger of the Democratic Party's broader shift rightward on most non-social issues. Nevertheless, due to the incredibly short shrift third parties get in our national elections, I absolutely believe he is the best option available to us at this time. "Not Romney" may be glib to the point of being information-less, but it's not far off the mark. Maybe "not [explicitly] a proponent of trickle-down economics" would be more accurate.

The recovery has been underwhelming, to say the least. Reasons for this are myriad and often double-edged-- conservatives claim the stimulus failed, liberals claim it should have been twice as large, for example-- but without the benefit of a dimensional traveler from a McCain-led alternate reality, it seems difficult to show that Republican economic policies would have had better results.

That being said, Obama is more likely to take steps away from the economy policies that caused the crash, whereas Romney is running on a platform that involves taking steps toward those policies. This is enough reason for me to vote D in November.

Quoted for uncomfortable truth.

I read (US Today?) that if all the people who had voted for the president in 2008, were expected to vote for him in 2012, he would win the popular vote by double digits. However, because it's no longer exciting to vote for the first black (or, if you're keeping track, the 44th white president), people aren't going to vote at all.

[jay_a2j]

Obama is a centrist, corporatist tool, and I fear that he's the harbinger of the Democratic Party's broader shift rightward on most non-social issues. Nevertheless, due to the incredibly short shrift third parties get in our national elections, I absolutely believe he is the best option available to us at this time. "Not Romney" may be glib to the point of being information-less, but it's not far off the mark. Maybe "not [explicitly] a proponent of trickle-down economics" would be more accurate.

The recovery has been underwhelming, to say the least. Reasons for this are myriad and often double-edged-- conservatives claim the stimulus failed, liberals claim it should have been twice as large, for example-- but without the benefit of a dimensional traveler from a McCain-led alternate reality, it seems difficult to show that Republican economic policies would have had better results.

That being said, Obama is more likely to take steps away from the economy policies that caused the crash, whereas Romney is running on a platform that involves taking steps toward those policies. This is enough reason for me to vote D in November.

Stop believing the lies. "Trickle down" did not cause this mess. What caused it is out of control government spending. Funding wars that didn't need to be fought and borrowing money to pay for them. Bailout after bailout. There is no party to blame, they BOTH are responsible for this mess. "You didn't earn that"..... um yes we did but those collecting government assistance "didn't earn that" but that's ok? Class warfare works because there are more "have nots" than "haves". From the age of 18 I've been following politics but as I start to see that both parties follow the same policies (at least economic) I've become disenchanted. It doesn't matter who you vote for, the two party system is a joke.... they give us a choice between two candidates who will continue to carry the line and if they don't they wind up dead (JFK) or shot (Reagan). I fear America's days are numbered.

[AndyDufresne]

Stop believing the lies. ... "You didn't earn that"..... um yes we did but those collecting government assistance "didn't earn that" but that's ok? ... I fear America's days are numbered.

Stop believing the lies!


--Andy