Obama or Romney? (10/22 - 10/28)
Wow! To FINALLY see a discussion that hasn't resulted in name calling and instead both parties have remained calm and intelligent. I applaud you both!
He's right. I said deficit instead of debt. My mistake. The debt
Yeah. And also except for the part of killing bin laden, ending the war in Iraq, and killing more terrorists than any other admin. so it's Bush foreign policy except not really.
Really? Its George Bush's policy, well except for the part where you put ambassadors in harms way and then not protect them. You can't show force in a new islamic democracy you know....
Last comment before I go, you're right filibuster is always an issue for presidents. But Obama was filibustered over 60 times. More than any other pres. Thats a lot of slaps in the face haha
quite scary if he's going to be "more aggressive".The filibuster is something that is dealt with in DC no matter who is in office. If speaking about not moving forward,Harry Reid won't even bring a budget to the floor of the senate...is this regard for America,or partisan politics? That's rhetorical
Hey I have to go. But would live to continue this discussion later. "I'll be back" haha
To borrow a line from Monday night football, " C'Mon man!"...he's been in Washington long enough to understand how aggressive he has to be. Unfortunately, times we've seen Obama be "aggressive, it has been coupled with those closed door deals & very partisan politics;
Don't criticize Obamas foreign policy because according to the third debate, it's Romneys policy as well.
But the leadership wasn't immaculate as governor. Much like its not for Obama. I think it can go both ways.
Haha(the palin comment) I think we all thought that. But I believe as governor Romney also brought Mass. from 36th(already pretty bad) to 47th in job productivity, left a billion dollar debt, and outsourced many jobs. Along with tax cuts for the rich. Now business wise, he is successful no doubt
While they did have the majority in both the house and senate, filibustering was an issue. As it was throughout his presidency. Could he have done more? Possibly. But there goes that experience or lack there of we were discussing. He knows he has to be more aggressive this time around
I def agree with you on the McCain thing. The moment Palin walked out on that stage I looked at my wife & said "well there goes that!"
But he has! Balanced budgets in all 4 years as governor, surplus, working with the other side, etc. Obama has been in his First position to show us leadership, and he hasn't. He has shown nothing but partisan politics, closed door deals, & now this stuff in Libya...it's getting worse, not better
There was no justification. I wasn't a big Obama fan 4 yrs ago. He's a nice guy but I agree that his inexperience was unsettling. And McCain would've been the obvious choice with a different vp by his side. I think having palin hurt him more than it helped.
You have to remember that Obama had a majority in both the house & senate for the first two years of his presidency. Ask yourself, if you were in the house & the sitting president had approached the issues in the ways that this one has, would you be more or less willing to work with him?
To your comment: No, running a biz is not the same as running a country; however, I would argue that it does give one more qualification than a freshman senator/community organizer/professor. Based on ur comment, what would have been your justification for Obama 4 years ago?
Model for our country. So I ask myself the same question. Does he have something up his sleeve. I think what Obama has going for him this time around is the fact congress will work with him
Well you have to remember that congress was not being very bipartisan. But you're right there is no promise it will be better, but how is it different in Romney's case. He's never been in a position to show us his "leadership" other than governor. And to be honest, you can't say that's a very good
Frankly, based on what I've experienced over the last 4 years, I'm not willing to take the gamble...not for my kids future, not for me, not for my business, not for America.
What promise do I have that the next 4 years won't be more of the same, or even worse? You know, maybe the guys got something up his sleeve that no one knows about that will turn everything around & make everything better.
Under this president I have experienced only increased costs, fewer customers (as I deal with small businesses that have had to cut back costs) an almost $2000 increase in healthcare costs,all with continued fruitless spending & not one budget coming from the white house that even a dem will support
You seem like one of the more reasonable Romney supporters on this app. I'll be honest with you, people portray Romney as this great leader but I haven't seen that yet. Not saying he's not, but running a business is not the same as running a country.
policies has left a very sour taste in my mouth. If this guy was Clinton, I'd probably be voting for him, but in a race where a Carteresk candidate is running, I simply can not justify this president.
Sure, I appreciate his continuing of going after those that would do us harm & his desire to make healthcare available/affordable to everyone. Unfortunately, speaking to the latter, I wish I could say I appreciate his "accomplishment" in that area, however, his approach on this, and many other
Alright Brandon lets discuss it. I like a good discussion as long as youre not going to be completely biased. So of course Obama has added to our debt. We know that. Do you have anything good to say?(no sarcastic undertone, it's a serious question)
Let's talk about recent history indeed...like the last 4 years...
Ok. So what's your excuse for reagan tripling the deficit?
If Romney had no foreign policy experience what the hell did Obama have? He adopted most of Bush's policies and kept most of Bush's people. The outsourcing comment says you have nothing else. Admit it Obummer has been a bummer its ok to vote for a fixer with proven success!
And no one is using Reagan as a scapegoat. We are simply responding to a comment made about how republicans have dug us out of a hole, so to speak, in the past. But in recent history they've only worsened our condition for the most part.
Brandon: whether you like it or not, Reagan was not one of the great presidents. Nice guy? Of course! But that can't taint your vision and blind you to the fact he raised taxes over 5 times and tripled our debt. Among other things
Q ballart: I stated that Obama added to the deficit. So I'm not in denial. My point is that if Romney needs 8yrs to balance the budget, Obama should be allowed a second term.
Not if his policies were as failed as Obama's.
Funny how you're still talking about Reagan (who btw is/will be going down in history as one of the greats, whether you like it or not) instead of your failed president.
Lib response: talk about anyone BUT my guy...if must talk about my guy, immediately begin blame game
Obama added to the debt, please try to understand economics before you quote pundit quotes. It will help bring validity to your point.
Nope a true flip flipper like Obama can't be trusted.
Fight the real war on women, in the Middle East.
The deficit is the yearly shortfall, the debt is the running total. You can't pay down the deficit only balance the budget and therefore have no deficit.
It's ok John Stewart didn't understand it either, Bill O'rielly had to explain it to him too.
We need to cut through the noise. Certain points get repeated over and over and over again. What happens is we get a lopsided view of the facts, due to the weight partisans on either side give to them.
And Romney will be just as much of a "rookie". He's never been in a position to act upon foreign policy. What makes you think he will be any better? No foreign policy experience as governor(unless you're counting the outsourced jobs). It goes both ways in that case.
oops typo, I obviously meant South Africa.
Now we find he can't even keep our own people safe or at least isn't willing to send help when he could have very easily. Just proves what a rookie he really is...
I read an article last week saying the International Court in the Hague is going to indict Obama for his numerous activities with drones. I wonder if The Nobel Committee will want their Peace prize back? He kept so many of Bush's policies it make you wonder.
Oh and a terrible actor.
Exactly right. It's such a double standard.
He was an intl. war criminal, funded terrorists, armed Iran, exploded our national debt, raised taxes, granted massive amnesty to illegals, argued for separation of church and state....
Republican response: but OBAMA!!!! Rawrrrrrr!!!!
To fix our economy(not judging you) but be honest with yourself; how can you be sure he wont flip flop on some issues that are important to YOU. Decide he wants to cut loopholes that affect YOU. It's a risky deal.
You're right ibethann. I agree everyone deserves a chance. So why doesn't Obama? Like I said before, Romney says he needs 8 yrs to balance the budget, but why does Obama only get 4? And this time around congress will work with him, not against. And maybe Romney's plan sounds good to you as a model
Thank you palindrome. Republicans have Reagan on this pedestal but forget that he raised taxes over 5 times as president. He wasn't the political "saint" they make him out to be. How easy they forget.
Ibbethann- "we should give the republicans a chance... republicans have dug us out of these holes before"
-- actually, they haven't ever done that in recent history. They've doubled our deficit AT THE VERY LEAST. Reagan tripled it. Democrats have actually come the closest to paying our deficit down