I Have No Faith In The American Electorate (healthcare, Obama, independent)

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by Guamanians

We'll see.

2. A military liberated from bigotry what? are you talking about DADT? That was Clinton's law. repealing DADT is going to be a big problem for the military. And, gay rights leaders have already dismissed it. They don't really care. Any gay person who really wanted to serve could have served before the repeal.

DADT was Clinton's compromise with the right - a stepping stone for a society not yet ready for equality. To say the gay community dismissed it is laughable. It was a HUGE breakthrough and, while they could serve, they had to live a lie (in violation of many of their religious tenants) and could not receive psychological or chaplan services when they had issues. The suicide rate has been far higher in that population. It's appalling to think that you can write off such a victory for human rights.

3. Extended tax cuts yes! But it had "nothing" to do with the repubs in congress did it?

Obama was pushing to extend tax cuts for 98% of the working population. The Republicans forced the 2% wealthiest aspect, but that's what makes him a great president - able to negotiate the middle between to extremes.

4. The biggest health reform The biggest waste of money! If Obama sticks to it he will never win in 2012.

Your opinion and nothing more. Unfounded conjecture given his job approval rating.

5. The biggest financial reform to prevent this from happening again more waste of money. CEO's, and wall street crooks are already back to their old tricks.

Wall Street reform wasn't a big outpour of money. It was a much needed re-regulation of the financial industry that had been slowly deregulated through the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush years to the point that it collapsed. Canada never undermined its regulations and sustained the recession far, far better. The goal of it is longer-term - to protect from future collapses - so you can't assess whether it's successful or not.

6. Ending the war in Iraq and increasing pressure on the Taliban yes, he "ended" the war in Iraq. But, there are still problems there. And, everyone knows that it would not have been possible w/o the surge that Obama was against.

Did you expect munchkins to pop out of the sand and sing "Ding dong the witch is dead"? Nevertheless, I thought it was a mistake for Obama to oppose the surge and will give credit where credit is due. He's enacted a similar surge in Afghanistan, so hopefully it has similar effect.

7. Improved pay equity for women... unemployed women make the same as unemployed men? I guess thats fair.

Huh? over 90% of the employable population is working - plenty large enough of a sample to determine pay inequities. This comment makes no sense.

[Guamanians]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

These aren't poll numbers. These are job approval ratings. They have nothing to do with an election, but rather whether or not people think Obama is doing a good job.

No doubt those numbers will go up and down with the day, but I don't really understand on what credible grounds (beyond wishful thinking) you think Obama is unelectedable. About 80% of Democrats want him at the top of the ticket in '12 and his job approval rating is significantly higher than Reagan (who was at 35% in January of 83) and a little higher than Clinton and Bush, both of whom were brought back for a second term.

We are emerging from calamity and around half the population thinks he has done a pretty good job making it happen. Considering he was elected by 53% of the voting public, that's not a big gap to close. As Colin Powell says, he's not Superman, but he's certainly not vulnerable to the likes of Fred Thompson, whose imploded candidacy was the laughing stock of 08. There are definitely some Republicans and Independents (probably more fiscal than social) who could give him a run for his money, though.

Why are you so quick to dismiss the 2010 mid-terms? All of those same issues will rise to the top, and Obama will have to defend them just like Pelosi tried to. Here are the big ones IMO
1. Healthcare: Americans DO NOT want Obamacare. Unless we see some changes (or delays) before 2012 then this will be a losing issue for Obama. He might try to downplay the issue, but Repubs will force him to defend it. Obamacare is a losing issue, but Obama doesn't think so. Unless someone can convince Obama of that then he will lose a HUGE portion of those uncommitted 2008 voters.

2. Jobs: Obama can't keep blaming Bush for everything - ok, he can TRY, but America isn't buying that anymore. This will be a big issue unless UE comes down significantly. And if unemployment is up in 2012 then the Repubs will take the credit. The citizens will then have to decide which policies were most responsible for any job growth. That should be an interesting debate.

3. War on Terror: This is a wild-card! While it looks like Obama is moving us out of Iraq, Afghanistan is still a hot spot. Obama wants us out of there too. That poses an interesting dilemma. If Obama touts his tough stance on terror then he will want to appear committed to "winning" in Afghanistan. BUT... anti-war liberals want us out at all costs. Also, the gays in the military issue will make Obama look weak if thats his only "pro-military" accomplishment. His SEC of Defense Robert Gates is really becoming a liability. Look at how Rumsfeld hurt G.W Bush. On military issues Obama gets a D

I think it is very possible that the Repubs pick up right where they left off in the 2010 mid-terms. The issues of 2010 are much more relevant than the anti-Bush message that won Obama the WH in 2008.

[Guamanians]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

DADT was Clinton's compromise with the right - a stepping stone for a society not yet ready for equality. To say the gay community dismissed it is laughable. It was a HUGE breakthrough and, while they could serve, they had to live a lie (in violation of many of their religious tenants) and could not receive psychological or chaplan services when they had issues. The suicide rate has been far higher in that population. It's appalling to think that you can write off such a victory for human rights.

A voilation of their religious tenants? Give me a break Most gays read the bible as much as the Pope reads Hustler magazine
Yes, any serviceman can receive psychological assistance if they have issues. The DADT policy was quite clear. Your admission that gays have issues is correct. BUT... do we really want people with psychological issues in our military? What good does it do for anyone if unstable gays decide to join the military? The gay rights leaders do not care about the individual (gay) soldier. It doesn't matter to them if a gay person wants to serve or not. They would rather win the battle (gays allowed in the military) than do whats right for our country, and put the best people in the lineup. (i.e. if gays don't want to serve then they shouldn't serve. If gays really wanted to serve their country then they already would have. Repealing DADT has no effect on the dedicated soldiers who put their country before their self )


Wall Street reform wasn't a big outpour of money. It was a much needed re-regulation of the financial industry that had been slowly deregulated through the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush years to the point that it collapsed. Canada never undermined its regulations and sustained the recession far, far better. The goal of it is longer-term - to protect from future collapses - so you can't assess whether it's successful or not.

Thats right, it IS too early to assess it. Why did you bring it up again?


Did you expect munchkins to pop out of the sand and sing "Ding dong the witch is dead"? Nevertheless, I thought it was a mistake for Obama to oppose the surge and will give credit where credit is due. He's enacted a similar surge in Afghanistan, so hopefully it has similar effect.

Obama will never be confused with general George Washington or Dwight Eisenhower.

Huh? over 90% of the employable population is working - plenty large enough of a sample to determine pay inequities. This comment makes no sense.

Is equal pay really an issue when so many are unemployed. Does a family of 4 really care if Mom makes an extra $1 an hour when Dad is unemployed? This is a NON-ISSUE

[dunks_galore]

Originally Posted by Guamanians

Is equal pay really an issue when so many are unemployed. Does a family of 4 really care if Mom makes an extra $1 an hour when Dad is unemployed? This is a NON-ISSUE

This is a gross distortion of the issue, and the "extra $1 an hour" is ridiculously untrue, unless Mom is working a job that pays like 4 dollars an hour. Let me put it this way:

Does a single mother with two kids to support really care if Mom makes almost 25% less than her male counterpart? Yeah, I think she does. If you think it's a non-issue then you pretty much think equality is meaningless.

Do you think giving women equal pay puts men out of work? lol...

[Guamanians]

Originally Posted by dunks_galore

This is a gross distortion of the issue, and the "extra $1 an hour" is ridiculously untrue, unless Mom is working a job that pays like 4 dollars an hour. Let me put it this way:

Does a single mother with two kids to support really care if Mom makes almost 25% less than her male counterpart? Yeah, I think she does. If you think it's a non-issue then you pretty much think equality is meaningless.

Do you think giving women equal pay puts men out of work? lol...

Lets compare apples to apples. If women are indeed getting paid less than men for the same job then there is a problem. But, we have a competitive job structure. Men and women are free to transfer to another job if they choose. Whose fault is it that women accept less then men? If their skills are deserving of higher pay then they could surely negotiate a higher salary? Why would a company pay an employee MORE than the market price?

[nightbird47]

I have never been a fan of Obama though I don't think he's the ememy that he's been accused of being. He came up in the Chicago machine and he shows it. Appearance matters more than substance. I personally long for a president who will stand up and say this is what I stand for. Now lets debate. Who doesn't care what the spindoctors tell him or her. But the spindoctors are a fixture so I guess we get what we deserve since we have chosen to buy it.

There are several kind of reactions in a political choice. One is I LIKE this one. I support this one for what has been said and who they are. Rare and wonderful. The more likely is Not happy with this one but its a better option than the potential trainwreak.

I could never see McCain as president with all the bumbling and lack of apparent ideas, and as long as Sarah, I can see Russia was waiting in the wings of someone with a heart condition no way.

I don't like either party but am more inclined to vote for democrats as they don't have the lonnies of the tea party nation as a connection. I think we need some real talk and compromise and reality checks on both sides. But I expect Obama to have two terms. He doesn't have to do nearly as much convincing since he holds the office, and even if the Republicans manage to sidestep the tea party loonies the connection will still be there and I'm sure will matter to those who are concerned about what's owed to them.

[dunks_galore]

Originally Posted by Guamanians

Lets compare apples to apples. If women are indeed getting paid less than men for the same job then there is a problem. But, we have a competitive job structure. Men and women are free to transfer to another job if they choose. Whose fault is it that women accept less then men? If their skills are deserving of higher pay then they could surely negotiate a higher salary? Why would a company pay an employee MORE than the market price?

You've changed the argument now, and I fail to see how you're comparing "apples to apples". First you say that the income inequality between men and women is a "non-issue". Now, you say that "If women are indeed getting paid less than men for the same job then there is a problem". Which is it? Are you backpeddling or do you simply not see how you've contradicted yourself?

Why should we tolerate companies exploiting the labor of women because they are women? This is a result of the biases of a male-dominated society, and it makes it more difficult for women to succeed in the workplace. Period. Some people don't have the luxury of simply transferring to another job, and they shouldn't be paid less than someone else doing the same work because they lack a penis. I don't understand why anyone but a corporate stockholder would be an apologist for discriminatory business practices.

[Bluefly]

Please stop writing in the quote box. It's hard to respond.

Originally Posted by Guamanians

A voilation of their religious tenants? Give me a break Most gays read the bible as much as the Pope reads Hustler magazine

Interesting that when one talks about religious tenants, you talk about one religion out of thousands in the world. Don't know if you realize it or not, but not lying is a core of most moral standards in many cultures. A government forcing people to lie and dictate who they must be may be great for you liberals who want government to control our lives, but for we who believe in the tenants of freedom and liberty upon which this country was founded, it's nothing but bigotry.

Admission that gays have issues?!?! What the hell are you talking about? I was referring to any sort of concern. This absurd paragraph just shows that there is no rationality to your beliefs. It's just bigotry against homosexuals. Sickening. The suicide rate amongst teenage homosexuals is signfiicantly higher than heterosexuals because of the hatred they must endure. If you have any pro-life value in you, you would end this bigotry rather than justify it. I will pray for your soul, though.

Thats right, it IS too early to assess it. Why did you bring it up again?

Because re-regulation was a much needed step to take. Pretty universally understood.

Obama will never be confused with general George Washington or Dwight Eisenhower.

Obama's actually getting very high marks for his work as Commander in Chief. Sorry, kid.

Is equal pay really an issue when so many are unemployed. Does a family of 4 really care if Mom makes an extra $1 an hour when Dad is unemployed?

This is a NON-ISSUE

Ummm.... you're confusing two very different issues - one temporal and one more permanent. Again, over 90% of working adults are employed. Plenty enough salaried, professional women in the workforce (I suspect you have issues with that as well...) to know that the differences are far more than $1 an hour.

Anyway. I've got your views figured out. No need to continue.

[Guamanians]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Please stop writing in the quote box. It's hard to respond.

Interesting that when one talks about religious tenants, you talk about one religion out of thousands in the world. Don't know if you realize it or not, but not lying is a core of most moral standards in many cultures. A government forcing people to lie and dictate who they must be may be great for you liberals who want government to control our lives, but for we who believe in the tenants of freedom and liberty upon which this country was founded, it's nothing but bigotry.

Admission that gays have issues?!?! What the hell are you talking about? I was referring to any sort of concern. This absurd paragraph just shows that there is no rationality to your beliefs. It's just bigotry against homosexuals. Sickening. The suicide rate amongst teenage homosexuals is signfiicantly higher than heterosexuals because of the hatred they must endure. If you have any pro-life value in you, you would end this bigotry rather than justify it. I will pray for your soul, though.


Because re-regulation was a much needed step to take. Pretty universally understood.


Obama's actually getting very high marks for his work as Commander in Chief. Sorry, kid.


Ummm.... you're confusing two very different issues - one temporal and one more permanent. Again, over 90% of working adults are employed. Plenty enough salaried, professional women in the workforce (I suspect you have issues with that as well...) to know that the differences are far more than $1 an hour.

Anyway. I've got your views figured out. No need to continue.

funny how almost every major religion in the world does not condone homosexual acts. For you to use religion as an argument FOR gay rights is ridiculous.

You just said that gays had a higher suicide rate. Whatever the case may be for suicide, - those people should get help. The military has never not allowed treatment. You are making stuff up.

Obama is getting high marks as commander in chief? From who? Rolling Stone Magazine? How does the military feel about Obama?

[mackinac81]

Originally posted by citizenkane2
With all the mess we're in, how in the world can Obama's approval rating be up? How dumb are we?? Nothing has changed since Nov 2nd! Gas is above 3 dollars. Nobody's working. Deficit is almost beyond control! China just stole more technology.

And all it takes is a shooting in Arizona + a flowery speech about civility and he's up again???

I got a bad feeling that he's gonna do two terms. Are independents that fickle????

Oh, don't be a drama queen. Just two months ago he lost the house and everyone on your side said that Americans were waking up. Polls are fleeting.

And not all independents are fickle. Unlike partisans, most actually think outside of their respective red or blue boxes and decide based on the situation at hand. Hard right and left folks lack that capability.