The best outcome for the country of the election this November

[JimKiler]

How is republican president different than Obama? He should run for the GOP primary, he is better than any of the other candidates.

 

[cybrsage]

That doesn't explain why you think it would be best to give the Republican president a Republican majority in one of the two parts of congress; the Republican version of what we have now.

Yes it does. Obama is the democrat's nominee. Obama is a democrat. Since Obama is a democrat, and the democrat's nomiee, and due to his actions when he as least pretended to care what we all think I am afraid of what he will do when he no longer needs to even pretend, I cannot support Obama being the next President.

It would be the same as putting Stalin (to use an extreme example - Obama is not Stalin) in the Presidency. I fear what he would manage to force through.

So, given that, I hope how you see that Obama is relevant to the Democrats having the Presidency. If you cannot, I am not sure I can help you understand that Obama is the democrat's nomination for president any further.

 

[cybrsage]

The most telling thing about this poll is to see how many rabid DNC lovers vs rabid GOP lovers there are; 4.6 times as many. And to see that half the board (who cared to answer), are rabid DNC lovers.

 

[Jaskalas]

The BEST outcome is something that cannot happen: Third party finally wins.
Also, they need to sweep the house and senate.

Now that is music to my ears. Yes, a third party would be best. Sweep the two fascist parties out of office.

 

[Craig234]

No, I'd sleep with new girlfriend.

There is no 'better girlfriend' to pick who has a chance to get the Republican nomination.

 

[zsdersw]

Yes it does. Obama is the democrat's nominee. Obama is a democrat. Since Obama is a democrat, and the democrat's nomiee, and due to his actions when he as least pretended to care what we all think I am afraid of what he will do when he no longer needs to even pretend, I cannot support Obama being the next President.

It would be the same as putting Stalin (to use an extreme example - Obama is not Stalin) in the Presidency. I fear what he would manage to force through.

So, given that, I hope how you see that Obama is relevant to the Democrats having the Presidency. If you cannot, I am not sure I can help you understand that Obama is the democrat's nomination for president any further.

No it doesn't. It doesn't explain why you also want that Republican president to have a Republican majority in one part of Congress; why you want to give the Republican party as much power to screw things up as the Democrats currently have.

 

[Ausm]

Easy choice here....the 112th Congress is a JOKE compared to the amount of progress accomplished by the 111th Congress.

111th Progress:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress

For a good laugh the 112th progress:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_112th_United_States_Congress

 

[zsdersw]

The most telling thing about this poll is to see how many rabid DNC lovers vs rabid GOP lovers there are; 4.6 times as many. And to see that half the board (who cared to answer), are rabid DNC lovers.

I hope that's not giving you a minority complex.

 

[Craig234]

The best chance for your country is a majority house, majority senate and President from the same party. Whether it be Republican or Democrat.

Sure some will hate because they are on the opposing side, but at least SOMETHING will get done. Out of all that something there has to be a good move or two.

Otherwise you have 4 more years of stalemate.

It's not about 'hating' because you're on the other side. It's about the policies.

You are saying that 'getting stuff done' is preferable regardless if it's good or bad.

I disagree. Having an all-Republican 'get stuff done' would do so - more de-regulation, more transfer of wealth to the top, more war, more attacks on right, etc. That's bad.

 

[Craig234]

Easy choice here....the 112th Congress is a JOKE compared to the amount of progress accomplished by the 111th Congress.

111th Progress:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress

For a good laugh the 112th progress:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_112th_United_States_Congress

That probably deserves its own thread.

You might include the 'worst congress in history', named by Matt Taibbi, the 109th IIRC.

 

[dank69]

The most telling thing about this poll is to see how many rabid DNC lovers vs rabid GOP lovers there are; 4.6 times as many. And to see that half the board (who cared to answer), are rabid DNC lovers.

Can't we be rabid GOP haters?

 

[Jaskalas]

There is no 'better girlfriend' to pick who has a chance to get the Republican nomination.

Your first mistake is looking to the other party for a nominee you want. Nothing is stopping Democrats from NOT nominating Obama.

 

[cybrsage]

No it doesn't. It doesn't explain why you also want that Republican president to have a Republican majority in one part of Congress; why you want to give the Republican party as much power to screw things up as the Democrats currently have.

You only say this because you refuse to believe that people do not agree with you on your view of Obama are entitled to their belief.

EDIT: As I have previously said, if the candidate was someone like Bill Clinton, I would not care which party controlled the Presidency when the other party controlled enough of the legislature to block him. But when someone truely dangerous is in the wind, I cannot say "sure, put the dangerous guy in charge".

 

[cybrsage]

I hope that's not giving you a minority complex.

Oh wait, that was Minority Report....my bad...

 

[cybrsage]

Can't we be rabid GOP haters?

It is usually the same thing.

 

[zsdersw]

You only say this because you refuse to believe that people do not agree with you on your view of Obama are entitled to their belief.

I'm not talking about your opinion of Obama. I'm questioning why you'd prefer to see any president's party with majority control in one part of Congress.

Obama, even losing majority support in the House, remains far too powerful/influential. If he should be re-elected, he needs to have a congress in which both the House and Senate have Republican majorities.

If he should not be re-elected and a Republican wins the presidency, why should we conclude that your choice--Republicans with a majority in half of congress--is the best?

Why should the Republican party also control one part of congress when/if they win the presidency? As far as I can tell, only your unwavering belief in the virtue and righteousness of the Republican party would lead you to honestly think that giving the Republican party as much power as the Democrats currently have would be good for the country.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm not talking about your opinion of Obama. I'm questioning why you'd prefer to see any president's party with majority control in one part of Congress.

And that is why you keep not understanding. You refuse to accept that my current position takes the real world into account.

If the republicans put up Stalin (again, as an extreme example), I would say a democrat president would be best. WHO is being put forth by the parties really does matter.

You are acting like it does not, which is why you refuse to understand my position.

You keep pretending that me saying I do not want the republicans to have full control means I have an "unwavering belief in the virtue and righteousness of the Republican party". That is why it is impossible to take you seriously. You refuse to accept the truth when it is placed infront of you.

 

[Craig234]

Your first mistake is looking to the other party for a nominee you want. Nothing is stopping Democrats from NOT nominating Obama.

Yes, there is.

The last time an incumbent was not supported by his party for re-election for Lyndon Johnson, and that gave the country Richard Nixon and Watergate. It's not practical.

There is some movement to prefer someone more progressive; it's not enough people.

So, the only choices as a practical issue are Obama or the Republican nominee - anything else is not going to happen other than throwing away your vote as a protest.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your first mistake is looking to the other party for a nominee you want. Nothing is stopping Democrats from NOT nominating Obama.

In theory you are correct but the party doesn't really care. Obama is the sitting president and "being practical" is far more important than having a better candidate. Less fuss and if the nation wants an alternative screw them. Some apologist will always stick up for it.

 

[zsdersw]

And that is why you keep not understanding. You refuse to accept that my current position takes the real world into account.

If the republicans put up Stalin (again, as an extreme example), I would say a democrat president would be best. WHO is being put forth by the parties really does matter.

You are acting like it does not, which is why you refuse to understand my position.

You keep pretending that me saying I do not want the republicans to have full control means I have an "unwavering belief in the virtue and righteousness of the Republican party". That is why it is impossible to take you seriously. You refuse to accept the truth when it is placed infront of you.

You keep pretending I'm talking about your choice of president. I'm talking about your choice for congress.

 

[kage69]

Ya Obummer has kept every promise and has the economy hauling down the road . We need 4 terms of this guy . Well I don't but some here like the guy. Because he ended all the wars and got economy hummming . I agree America needs way more obummer.

Hey stoner, who the hell said anything about campaign promises? I really don't give a fuck if he hasn't lived up to your fantasy expectations, but he sure as hell has done a better job than the party of NOPE that continually pisses on the middle class.

Great job making yourself look stupid btw, I haven't seen that many strawmen dropped in a post that size in quite some time. Bravo! *golfclap*

 

[ElFenix]

Easy choice here....the 112th Congress is a JOKE compared to the amount of progress accomplished by the 111th Congress.

111th Progress:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress

For a good laugh the 112th progress:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_112th_United_States_Congress

i kinda wonder at judging congress by how many acts it's done.

how much has the world changed since jan 4, 2011 that new laws are really needed?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

i kinda wonder at judging congress by how many acts it's done.

how much has the world changed since jan 4, 2011 that new laws are really needed?

More is always better. We don't want to quibble about quality. :whiste:

 

[monovillage]

In theory you are correct but the party doesn't really care. Obama is the sitting president and "being practical" is far more important than having a better candidate. Less fuss and if the nation wants an alternative screw them. Some apologist will always stick up for it.

Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter (Obama lite) in 1980, the only reason no one is running against President Obama this term is that the Democrat establishment and corporate interests have too much invested in Obama.

 

[dank69]

i kinda wonder at judging congress by how many acts it's done.

how much has the world changed since jan 4, 2011 that new laws are really needed?

More is always better. We don't want to quibble about quality. :whiste:

Debating quality over quantity is all well and good, however neither of you pointed to specifically good quality legislation from the 112th versus specifically bad quality legislation from the 11th...

EDIT: Replaced incorrect quote.