Should Obama be Elected again? Or thrown out?

Thanks guys for replying to my post. This is for my college report on current events. I learned a lot!

I would become Obama's queen, lackey, honorary boot shiner, or a MOAB if he required it but only if he voted "NO" for SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA. But I doubt he would since his time is coming to an end.

He killed the boogeyman, good for him. Now, I can finally clean out my closet.



Numbers are fudged, that rate only accounts for the people still actively searching for work and does not account for long term unemployed who have simply given up. If you add in those factors, our unemployment rate is still well above 10%. Government numbers will always be skewed to make the government look better.



Where?



Anemic economic growth is anemic. Numbers are most likely misrepresented with hazy math for political points.



George W. Bush signed that withdrawal date at the beginning of the Invasion. Taking credit for another man's actions isn't a positive characteristic in a leader.



I approve of this.



Republicans in congress wouldn't approve any tax hikes anyways. Obama has repeatedly tried to raise taxes on businesses and "the wealthy" and every attempt was stopped in congress by the Republicans.



Oh yeah, that's totally a positive factor. Having the media label everyone who doesn't like Obama a racist. Totally the way a leader should behave.



Bailed out failing businesses with out of date business practices with our money. Essentially, he paid off his supporters (unions) with taxpayer money. Stealing from Tom to give to Harry isn't a positive thing.



Turning on your allies. Such a faithful partner. Gaddafi was an ally of the United States, we sent terrorism suspects to Libya for interrogations and detainment. You really need to look more into that one.



The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke and has been since Henry Kissinger got his grubby paws on one. President Obama was involved in two simultaneous wars when he received a PEACE prize. He was nominated for that "award" for political points.



Meh, no opinion. I hate all parties involved in that mess. Dislike the Feds for interfering, dislike the banks for writing those bad mortgages, dislike the dumb asses who bought homes they couldn't afford.



Oh yeah, forcing the population of a country to buy a specific product under penalty of law. Yep, buy this product or go to jail. Land of the Free my ass.



He renewed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, and signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. Saying he protected our rights makes you sound barmy.



Obama is Bush in black face and a wig. A second term of Obama is a fourth term for Bush.

Obama is the status quo. He continues the fed, refuses to end the "War on Drugs" which has been marketed to us as a black&white issue, maintains Guantanamo bay, imposes the TSA, signed ACTA and the NDAA, bails our corrupt corporations, forbids a proper 9/11 investigation, and still has to explain his reasons for keeping 900+ foreign military bases around the world when we're broke!

He is like a guy who promises you 1000 dollars, punches you in the face, then gives you 100 dollars. He gave a LITTLE bit of the money, but that's not the point. He still punched you in the face!

Want war with Iran? You're free to elect Obama again!

Then there is an issue with news reporting. It's the 21st century, they could easily publicize the actions of the president. The reason why they don't is probably because they know people would be unhappy with his actions



I agree



What does "them" refer to? I don't fault him for results, I fault him for his actions.



I think an argument on this is unnecessary; it would be easiest to just say that the president represents the entire adviser group. When I say it's president Obama's fault, I really mean it's President Obama and his advisers fault. And when I say president Obama was awesome (lol), I really mean president Obama and his advisers were awesome.

There's enough places to redirect blame already, we don't need more

I'm pretty sure Fox News and many other places would just love to be in these little meetings, but that's not the case. News reporting can only dig so far. As far as these briefings that the President goes through each morning are concerned, the media never come near that room. Wanna know why? Two reasons: 1) The information discussed is top-secret. The President's daily brief (the actual information he's given at the meetings) is considered the most sensitive and most classified document in the US. And 2) because on-camera, all these men have to project a certain persona, a side that caters to the people that watch them on the tubes. It's when they're off-camera that they get serious and get down to business.



Maybe we're getting somewhere with this.



Okay, maybe not. You seem to be stuck on this word, "actions". What exactly do YOU mean when you say actions? Are you talking about the decisions he makes in the briefings that I mentioned, or the things he says when he's got a camera on his face? Because if you're talking about the former, then unless you happen to be the Secretary of Defense or someone else in that room that's actually present when he makes his decisions, you're not really in a position to judge them. If the latter, well, you already know what I have to say about someone on-camera.



There's two things I'm going to mention here:

1) Up until this point, I was working under the assumption that you were simply talking about the President, and not the rest of the Cabinet or their officials. If you're going to change the tune of your song now and say "I'm not just blaming the President, I'm blaming everyone else too", then we have a completely different ball-game. We're no longer simply talking about Obama, but essentially the entirety of the Executive branch (and possibly some of the Legislative as well). In this respect, I completely agree with you. Because that's essentially the point I've been trying to make; it's not just Obama. It's EVERYONE. The blame goes EVERYWHERE, not just to the Oval Office. Which brings me to my second point...



2)No. This is exactly what I didn't want to hear. If you're going to talk about blame and the guilty parties, you better damn well make sure you do a good job of it. Simplifying the order of the system in order to say "no, it's that guy's fault" illustrates one of two things: either A) you're ignorant and don't acknowledge facts, or B) you don't honestly know/care about how things actually work.

The blame is EVERYWHERE. To say otherwise is to admit that you have no place in an American political discussion.

Now, if you want to get into a discussion of why Obama shouldn't be re-elected because of the KIND of man he is, you'll probably have me beat there. I honestly can't defend the man. But I'm not gonna sit here and simply watch people push the burden of all the blame onto his shoulders, because that's not how it works. Anyone in the government could tell you that.

And I'm not saying this because I like Obama. I made it obvious in the first post I made in this thread that I could care less about who's in office right now. I'm saying this because people need to understand how the whole thing works and the fact that the government isn't as simple as some people seem to believe it is. You want change overnight? You'll have to do it the old-fashioned way; overthrow the whole thing. And there's a handful of people here who I've seen that would actually support that option. But if not, then strap yourself in, because it doesn't matter who the conductor is; this is gonna be a bumpy train ride before it begins to smooth out again.

Except for National defense and Military information, I don't see why anything should be top-secret.



Whats wrong with being honest about your character? I'm at all denying that this is what happens; this just shows that we need to publicize the president when he "gets down to business".



I think that what he says he did while on camera should be the same as what he actually did. This isn't always the case, so I'll pick the former; actions refer to the decisions he makes at the briefing.



I think agree with you here, assuming "everyone" refers to the entire executive branch. It's just easier to say "Obama" then to say "this one faction of the executive branch". Obama basically represents the executive branch.


Blame has a negative ring to it, so I'm gonna say "cause of problems". In order to fix the problems within our nation, it is necessary to find the cause of them. This is a very difficult task, but we can't just give up and say "the problems were caused everywhere". I'll admit that there are usually multiple groups involved, but that just means that multiple groups are the cause of the problems.

I like this. All of what you said. Regarding the nature of the documents and their behind-the-cameras method of doing things, they do it because of the sensitivity of the material they discuss. They're afraid of what might happen if the wrong people know what they know. And the problem with me saying that is that I (and by I, I mean the rest of the American people) don't know what they know, and as such we can't really defend/support their decision to keep it from us. It's this duality that causes people to lose trust in their government, but we need to acknowledge the fact that sometimes, especially during times of domestic and international instability, that's an option that they really need to have open to them.

Another problem is the fact that Obama isn't the root of the majority of the problems we've seen with his administration. We have to remember that when Obama came into office, he had to occupy a desk that already had so many things on it that you probably couldn't see him over it even if he stood up. And he knew that this was something that was going to face him, even before he won the election. He knew that before he could truly get anything done that he wanted to do, he would have to sort out all the mess that came before him. This means a lot of short-term hits that will most likely drop his ratings, but will result in long-term stability later on. Of course, he couldn't run his election bid with the slogan "Change That We Can Believe In (But Not Right Away)." People don't vote for a candidate that doesn't say they'll give immediate results, regardless of whether or not they can actually make them happen.

That's why I said I'd re-elect him. Not because I think he's better than Paul or any of the other GOP candidates, but because we (and by we, I mean Obama and ourselves) are in a situation where the last thing we need is another change of hands in the administration. Four years, no matter how long you think they might be, is not enough time for anyone to get anything substantial done in the state that this country was left in after the Bush administration. Maybe he won't get much done if we give him four more. But I'd rather take my chances and wait them out than have to watch a new administration struggle to get their bearings for the first three years all over again.

PS: It's never good to be the presidential candidate of the opposition party during a time of war and international crisis. People will always favor stability over a new direction. Until the war's over, anyways. While I agree with much of what Paul preaches, he would be a much better candidate for the 2016 election. Not this one.

American's didn't really do much in Libya NATO did and all we did is blow the tanks up and let them do the rest.



if you don't vote you don't have the right to complain

We're pretty much fucked.

Upon further investigation into the policies and ideals of the current leading candidates, I've come to the conclusion that Obama seems like the most stable choice for president.

Paul's a radical with a sweet smile, Gingrich is a weak contender with a corrupt inner life, Romney is just Bush 2.0 He's an exorbitantly rich man who takes orders. How he is managing to win favor ANYWHERE is BEYOND my comprehension.

I really feel that most of the disfavor concerning Obama is mostly circumstantial. He's moderate, which is what I feel our country needs right now. He can't move mountains by himself, but I really feel that he cares about the American people.

So does Paul, but he aims to eliminate a lot of services that is essential for the unfortunate, the elderly, and the disabled. I also do not wish to live in a country where each state determines whether or not to allow religious freedom. Schools are for education, not religious/moral agendas. The decline of secularism is the rise of ignorance and bigotry.

Our country need a little drastic changes to make a comeback to to world stages in. Currently our reputation are to tainted with the war that's happen in these 10 years. Correct me if i'm wrong our economy are really on stable before the 9/11 but after that it plunges.

In the next 10 years what have we gain in these war the so called "war on terror", NOTHING and i mean nothing.
Do the people realize this? all of our tax money goes to some war that only make us poor and never meant to help us to boost our economy.

But, since the Obama take over some of those past glory have return slowly. If there were any changes in presidential before these current trend of recovery take effect we gonna gonna have a really tough time ahead of us. I didn't blame this on anybody but i do blame all this on GEORGE W BUSH.

He is the one responsible to all of this, to our economy to our country reputation and most importantly the death of the citizen that he sent to a war that seems pointless and useless.

I think Obama should get another term. Sure, I do not agree with everything he has done however out of most presidents it feels like he has been attempting to do more things. I can also feel his frustration with the current grid lock in Washington and would love to see his face when that wall comes crashing down.

you sure an evil person. Well not quite evil though, give a hope in hoping to see a disaster just great, i don't wanna lose my current job. I really like my job but if anything happen to our economy standing i'm quite sure my big boss gonna cut my salary into half well our research depend on our country economy standing if it going down so does my salary.

Ron Paul does not wish to eliminate the services for those already dependent on the system and would allow young people to opt out and pay for this by cuts to offensive military spending. The eventual goal is to eliminate those services on their own over time and our economy improves, as they do more harm than good.

In other words, his goal is to get the federal government out of these services. He will not immediately stop these services, but try to get our economy straightened to where less people would be dependent on these services. The goal is to get less people needing these services by having a healthy and growing economy. He realizes that there are too many dependent on these services to be able to get rid of them at this time.

As for the The Department of education, it isn't a service.. It's really something that's imposed mandates on the States to make one size fits all plans. And why would you care what other States do? Do you believe morality should be forced on everyone else, and that the federal government should be the one to enforce this? How do you argue that? If someone like Rick Santorum gets in power, he for example, could impose a mandate which, for example, teaches gay's are bad, abortion is immoral, and the earth is flat. Do we really need something with so much power to dictate the entire country when we're the United STATES?

As for Obama caring about us? What about the TAXPAYER funded PRIVATE contractors that still remain? The DoD is a prime example, the inspector general found that the pentagon was paying $16 for a muffin and that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the exuberant waste that has been revealed within the federal government.

If Obama cares about the American people then why is he putting trillions in spending directly on the backs of the taxpayer and sending them off to die in needless conflicts like Uganda?

Obama also needs to explain:
Solyndra
Ener1
His Chicago connections
Leo Gerard
How many more people are on food stamps now
Shore Bank (now Urban Partnership Bank)
Railing against the rich while taking frequent vacations and spending money like it was water
Jetting around the world at huge expense
His wife's extravagant travels
He and his wife's huge personal staff (are they public servants or King and Queen?)
Fast and Furious (gun running into Mexico authorized by the ATF under Obama's watch & possible direction)
Obamacare
The current unemployment rate
The money from Obama's trillion dollar "stimulus" program went where?
His increasing push for globalization and the decline of America into a welfare state

Also, as for your fear about the "decline" in secularism, what you're saying is impossible. Our right to practice religion freely is granted by the 1st amendment in the constitution which supersedes any state legislation. The federal government's job is to preserve the constitution, not to dictate our lives.

edit: On the Dept. of Edu. issue, the Dept of Edu. was only created in 1980. Many Americans received fine educations before it existed. It would be better for states to keep their education tax dollars and use them for education, rather then send them to D.C. where they are wasted by federal bureaucrats and then returned (what's left) with pointless and patronizing requirements attached. Is there really any state that is incapable of educating its students? US educational attainment has gone down since 1980.

Bush ruined this country he was the one who started the was in Iraq and he sent more troops than needed to Afghanistan. A poll by the whitehouse.gov, said 88% of people (out of 36 Million) said it was Bush's (George W. Bush) fault. And so the point of this is Obama shouldn't be blamed for half of what's happening....The dept was already reaching hell when Bush was still president...he just handed all the horrible shit to OBAMA.

I have no real say in this because I'm not American and don't live in America, but Obama is perhaps the most worldly President the US has had in the last century. If nothing else, he is the face of your country, and as a representative on the world stage, he's probably the best you could ever hope for. You guys think Bush was bad? We hated him. Especially when he had his finger in all assholes. When America went to fight his war, that dragged Australia and Britain in, too. The actions of the United States will be far-reaching because they are one of the most powerful and influential countries on the planet. I truly think, if you threw Obama out, the world would panic.

[size=12]I guess it's true...From another countries point of view, but here in the U.S its different. The president shapes the U.S along with the Senate and the H.of Reps...It's really difficult for us Americans, since many factors come into play at the time of elections.[/h]

As a fellow Ron Paul supporter, I have to ask you to drop this one. The fact is fewer people were added to Food Stamps under Obama than Bush. However, despite the difference being around .2 million it still doesn't speak well for Obama when Bush had 8 years to accumulate something like 1.4 million people on Food Stamps compared to Obama's 1.2 in 4.



Again, I request that you cease this argument. Obama has taken fewer vacations than Bush during their respective terms. The presidency is a tough job and you can't blame a guy for wanting to get out of the house once in a while. Even so, Obama doesn't shelf everything, he still works while on vacation, just not to the extent that he would while in office.



Gotta be a little more specific otherwise you hurt your argument. For example, flying him entire family out to Hawaii only for him to follow a day later was a huge waste of taxpayer money. There was no real reason for the family to be split up like that and requiring separate flights.



Track it yourself

I'm aware about recovery.gov. Maybe I should have phrased the question: "Obama's stimulus accomplished how much in the long-run?"

While I'm aware it "worked", our debt went up as a net-loss, and by borrowing money out of thin air, it devalued the dollar from what I understand.