Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BVM_1221 said:
Of course not. Many voters DO understand that the housing boom and bust were the direct result of Bush’s 8 years. As were two wars in the middle east. As was the prolonged recession that resulted from Bush’s economic policies. :coffeeread:

And it was the GOP, not Obama, who turned Congress into a gigantic game of “chicken” over the budget and debt ceiling. Voters DO understand this sort of thing. 🤷

Never mind Obama’s approval ratings. Have you seen the ratings for Congress?:eek:
Click to expand...
Two wars that Obama continued.

Blaming Bush is pathetic. It shows a complete lack of leadership on the part of Obama George Bush did not create the incredibly unpopular healthcare bill (even among Democrats), Obama’s signature achievement, that is going to the Supreme Court. George Bush is not to blame for the anti business bias of Obama and his administration that has put unnecessary regulations on business leading to deferring of hiring and undermining business leaders. Bush is not to blame for the fact that Obama has added more debt in three years of his presidency than Bush added in eight years of his.

Obama had a Democrat controlled House and Senate for the first two years of his presidency. Do you know what Obama inherited from Bush? A triple A credit rating.

Joe Biden has said Obama, not Bush, is to blame for the economy:

dailycaller.com/2011/09/29/biden-voters-should-blame-obama-not-bush-for-economy/
 
Here are negative signs for Obama’s re election chances
  1. The jobless rate. Around 9%, no sign of abating.
  2. Fast and Furious and Solyndra are going to be brought up during the campaign. The gun running and waste of nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money scandals are going to explode.
  3. I don’t think Obama has an excited base. Rasmussen did 15,000 interviews, tracking party identification, which is done every month. Since Obama was elected, Democrats have lost 21% of their followers since Obama was elected, 26% if you count the fact that Obama was elected during a downgrade.
Youth turnout was the single largest contributor to Obama winning in 2008. The Republicans may have advantage over Obama this time. The Iowa Caucuses show some 38% of the caucus electorate reported never having been to a caucus before, and youth participation was up dramatically for Republicans.

Obama is below 50% approval rating in California, a traditional Democrat state.
  1. ObamaCare. It is unpopular among Republicans, among Democrats and among independents. The Supreme Court assessment of ObamaCare is only going to remind voters of it.
  2. Obama is going to go so negative during the campaign, so partisan, I think it is going to alienate voters. He can’t run on his record. People are going to think, what a different Obama from the one that run in 2008 on hope and change.
  3. Debt crisis. America is heading for a European style debt crisis if something does not change. Obama has added more to the debt in three years than George Bush did in eight years of his presidency.
  4. Pro life voters are energized to defeat Obama:
lifenews.com/2011/12/13/pro-life-voters-more-energized-to-defeat-obama-in-2012/
 
BVM_1221 said:
Of course. Any other straw dummies you feel the need the set up:rolleyes:

Again: I have never met a Catholic who voted Democrat BECAUSE of their support of abortion and gay marriage. I have met many Catholics who have voted Democrat IN SPITE OF abortion and gay marriage.

Because they have heeded the USCCB admonition that we are not to be one issue voters:tsktsk:

Because they support the majority of the Democratic Platform:shrug:

Because, apart from abortion, they find little in the GOP platform to support:dts:

Because they know the word “intrinsic” does not mean “infinite”

Because they are grownups, and spell the name as “Obama”, not “obama”
Click to expand...
You can not cherry pick verses in the Faithful Citizenship document. You are also ignoring all the statements made by Pope Benedict on the issue of voting.

The Faithful citizenship document is not very well worded in parts, there have been calls from Catholics for it to be revised, because it eludes that you can vote for a pro abortion candidate as long as the reason your not voting for them is because they are pro abortion. This is totally out of keeping with statements made by Pope Benedict on the issue of voting, and the fact that a candidate has to be pro life, it is a non negotiable says Pope Benedict.

Bishop Vasa who contributed to the ‘Faithful Citizenship’ document has rejected the spin that the document excuses people to vote for a pro abortion candidate:

*“When we were working on the document ‘Faithful Citizenship’, and the issue of whether or not a person’s adamant pro-abortion position was a disqualifying condition, the general sense was ‘yes that is a disqualifying condition’.” *

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1980/91/8091203

Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell have said there are no “‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.”

prolifedallas.org/pages/Joint_Statement
 
irishpatrick said:
Actually, I wish the GOP was worried–they seem to think Obama has no chance, and yet I think the GOP has only a slim chance. The GOP has it backwards, imo.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you here. Any GOP candidate should be able to beat Obama. I do not think any of them will. My personal opinion is that it will be Romney vs. Obama, with Obama winning an extremely close election. I think the Democrats will employ a clss warfare campaign- making it ‘us against the rich’. As Romney is a businessman, he will be an easy target.

Although I am one of the 99%, as such that I am definitely not in the top 1%, I lean more Republican. I never really had nor do I have a problem with Obama the man- I believe that he is doing what he thinks is best. I agree with just about none of it, but I bear him no ill will. I have a problem with Obama the barely 1 term US Senator, inexperienced in leadership, president. I think he needed more time in Congress to learn to be a bit more moderate, and he instead came into office with a very poor idea of what is needed to fix the country.

In my way of thinking, the lines between parties has blurred some. Politicians are more worried about appeasing constituants and other politicians that they rarely vote the way they truly feel. I’ll give you a great example. President Obama, from all that I’ve read, is personally against gay marriage. As quoted in an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune: “… and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” Yet he is willing to let states enact gay marriage laws to keep the more liberal people in his party happy. This blurring of party lines go both ways. And of course, there are pro-choice, pro gay marriage Catholic politicians.

I do not like the democratic party. Abortion and gay marriage are but 2 reasons why. There are others, but I don’t really want to go into all of my political beliefs. I think Obama wins re-election basically because the Republican Party is fractured and will not unite behind one candidate.

Sorry for the long ramble. Just some of my thoughts…
 
estesbob said:
This is the way these discussion usually go. On one side we quote Bishops, popes, cardinals, vatican documents, etc. On the other side all we ever get is misquotes from “faithful” citizenship and assertions that all they have to do is follow their conscineces.
Click to expand...
Nothing I ever quoted from the bishops guide was misquoted. Nor have I ever seen anyone else who quotes the bishops guide to misquote it.

“It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues or direction on how to vote.” The guide goes on to say moral concerns should not be reduced “to one or two matters”.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103920.htm

So that’s all I need to know to understand the bishops are not giving Catholics direction on how they must vote.
 
BVM_1221 said:
Of course not. Many voters DO understand that the housing boom and bust were the direct result of Bush’s 8 years. As were two wars in the middle east. As was the prolonged recession that resulted from Bush’s economic policies. :coffeeread:

k:
Click to expand...
That’s simply false. You have been misled. the whole housing boom started with Carter and his insistence that loans be made by commercial lending institutions to people unworthy of credit.

I work for a bank, every month each branch has to submit a list of these unmerited loans to the home office so they can report to the puppet gods in Washington what good corporate citizens the bank has been…

I will certainly agree that Bush did nothing to stop the madness, but he did not start it. The great Jimmuh did.

Bush made some horrific fiscal mistakes but I would remind you that the Executive Branch can only EXECUTE what the Legislative Branch MANDATES. Everybody better get their heads out of the sand. Neither one of these parties has anything but their own self interest at heart. They do not care about you. Get the photo?
 
JRRTFAN said:
That’s simply false. You have been misled. the whole housing boom started with Carter and his insistence that loans be made by commercial lending institutions to people unworthy of credit.

I work for a bank, every month each branch has to submit a list of these unmerited loans to the home office so they can report to the puppet gods in Washington what good corporate citizens the bank has been…

I will certainly agree that Bush did nothing to stop the madness, but he did not start it. The great Jimmuh did.

**Bush made some horrific fiscal mistakes but I would remind you that the Executive Branch can only EXECUTE what the Legislative Branch MANDATES. Everybody better get their heads out of the sand. Neither one of these parties has anything but their own self interest at heart. They do not care about you. Get the photo?/**QUOTE]

👍 I completley agree…
Click to expand...
 
estesbob said:
Which is, of course, a direct rejection of the teachings of the Church.

No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion," he said.

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,” he said

Cardinal Raymond Burke

The usual out of context quote used to rationalize rejecting Church teaching. heres what the document really says;

As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single
issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a
single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the
promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from
receiving support.

What in the Democrat party platform mitigates in any way their support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand?

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Archbishop Charles Chaput

Then they dont have to vote for Republicans. This reminds me of one of the absolute truisms concerning democat Catholics":

Abortion will reamain legal in this country until Democrat Catholics come to love the unborn more than hate Republicans"

A catholic can not support intinsic evil no matter how people want to twist the word to support their political views.

Hard to respect a man who supports such evil.
Click to expand...
Glad to see someone has it right. It shocking someone could have their name as BVM and support a man who has waged a war against the unborn. Very sad to see this.
 
estesbob said:
This is the way these discussion usually go. On one side we quote Bishops, popes, cardinals, vatican documents, etc. On the other side all we ever get is misquotes from “faithful” citizenship and assertions that all they have to do is follow their conscineces.
Click to expand...
Lol very true. And they hold these “documents” as some sort of creed.
 
_Abyssinia said:
ObamaCare. It is unpopular among Republicans, among Democrats and among independents.
Click to expand...
Probably depends on the Democrat. Take me for instance. I didn’t think “Obamacare” went far enough. But that doesn’t mean I think we should have kept the status quo. For instance that we should keep being able to deny coverage to people with pre existing conditions. I also like the idea that young people can remain on their parents’ policies longer. The Republicans have held the WH and Congress before and they never did anything of any substance about the ills of the US healthcare coverage system. It wasn’t until Obama started talking about it that they did. And then that was mostly just to oppose Obama.
 
jfmarm81 said:
I have to agree with you here. Any GOP candidate should be able to beat Obama. I do not think any of them will. My personal opinion is that it will be Romney vs. Obama, with Obama winning an extremely close election. I think the Democrats will employ a clss warfare campaign- making it ‘us against the rich’. As Romney is a businessman, he will be an easy target.

Although I am one of the 99%, as such that I am definitely not in the top 1%, I lean more Republican. I never really had nor do I have a problem with Obama the man- I believe that he is doing what he thinks is best. I agree with just about none of it, but I bear him no ill will. I have a problem with Obama the barely 1 term US Senator, inexperienced in leadership, president. I think he needed more time in Congress to learn to be a bit more moderate, and he instead came into office with a very poor idea of what is needed to fix the country.

In my way of thinking, the lines between parties has blurred some. Politicians are more worried about appeasing constituants and other politicians that they rarely vote the way they truly feel. I’ll give you a great example. President Obama, from all that I’ve read, is personally against gay marriage. As quoted in an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune: “… and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” Yet he is willing to let states enact gay marriage laws to keep the more liberal people in his party happy. This blurring of party lines go both ways. And of course, there are pro-choice, pro gay marriage Catholic politicians.

I do not like the democratic party. Abortion and gay marriage are but 2 reasons why. There are others, but I don’t really want to go into all of my political beliefs. I think Obama wins re-election basically because the Republican Party is fractured and will not unite behind one candidate.

Sorry for the long ramble. Just some of my thoughts…
Click to expand...
I have no dispute with what you here.
 
If the GOP wants to win, they have to throw out a middle of the road candidate like Romney. If they nominated someone too hard core conservative, Obama wins in a land slide. Most Americans are sick of the bi-partisanship. Look how low Congress’ ratings are. Assuming it is Romney, it will be a close race that really either could win. The state of the economy will be the biggest factor. Unemployment dropped this past month, and there are signs the economy may be beginning to tick up. If that continues, it will be a huge boost to Obama and the policies he’s put in place.

As for the issue of voting for or not voting for a candidate based strictly on the abortion issue, I think that’s wrong, regardless of what may have been written by Church leaders. In my opinion most of the GOP has no intention of ever overturning the Abortion laws either. As long as abortion is legal, all they have to do is say “we want to get rid of abortion” and look how many people will vote for them strictly on that issue, even if their other policies suck. Democrats actually align more with the Church’s teaching (death penalty, immigration, social services, etc). I understand you should support people who actually want to make abortion illegal, but even if that means the poor, the immigrants, those on death row, all suffer?

My statement has always been, vote for who you feel is best. Don’t look at one single issue, but the whole candidate. Don’t focus only on abortion, their religion, their color, their gender, or especially the letter next to their name on the ballot.
 
There is one word that explains (and nearly guarantees) why Obama will win in November:

CATHOLICS
 
CMatt25 said:
Probably depends on the Democrat. Take me for instance. I didn’t think “Obamacare” went far enough. .
Click to expand...
AMEN!!

And “Romneycare” was the only good he ever did for MA- despite the poor guy trying to distance himself from it. I lived there, and I give him props for it.

Oh, and the folks of MA actually LIKE the new healthcare system. IMAGINE THAT?!?
 
ishii said:
One argument you’ll never hear, but its the same as what BVM 1221 said above:

“I have never met a catholic who voted for racist KKK candidate who supports lynchings BECAUSE of his racist politics. I have met many catholics who voted for the racist KKK candidate who supports lynchings IN SPITE OF his racist politics.”

Ishii
Click to expand...
I can’t follow your reasoning. Do you have a point to make?
 
ishii said:
One argument you’ll never hear, but its the same as what BVM 1221 said above:

“I have never met a catholic who voted for racist KKK candidate who supports lynchings BECAUSE of his racist politics. I have met many catholics who voted for the racist KKK candidate who supports lynchings IN SPITE OF his racist politics.”

Ishii
Click to expand...
Pretty much. If somebody tried to use that as an excuse to vote for such a person in today’s world, they’d be immediately dismissed as either bigoted or delusional - and rightfully so. Not to mention any candidate who fit that description wouldn’t even stand a chance in the first place. However, you still have people making the exact same defense all the time for “leaders” who support government-sanctioned murder even though that’s much worse. The sad truth is, it really comes down to what the public has been conditioned through popular culture to accept more than anything else. It’s not like most people will ever pay any serious thought to this stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top