• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I won't vote in 2010

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
222
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Democrats have decided to delay the tax cuts bill vote until after the election.
I’ll refrain from voting in general elections until the tax bill reaches the floors of both Congressional houses and the bill is voted upon the House of Representatives’ floor.

I fully support Obama’s position that we cannot afford to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. I’d prefer that the discounted tax rates for long term capital gains incomes be eliminated and replaced with more populist tax cuts.

Since leaving the service in 1959, I’ve voted in every general election and have missed extremely few primary elections. Finally since 2008 I’m no longer voting for the least evil and I require a candidate (at minimum) to substantially concur with my opinion upon at least one issue and methods to achieve our perceived goal. I won’t absolutely always vote for a candidate that simply meets the minimum standard.

Obama’s speaks well on the issues but lacks explicit explanation of how he prefers laws be drafted to achieve what he professes to be (and are too often less than explicit) goals.

Obama’s campaign office had written, (but I’ve never actually found a direct quote from Obama), that he was a proponent of the federal minimum wage pegged to a cost of living adjustment, (i.e. COLA). Based only upon that minimal but substantial agreement I voted for Obama. I now fear that his behavior thus far gives me good reason to fear Obama and the Democrats will acquiesce to Republicans. If Obama’s administration increases the minimum wage, Democrats will not press for it also being thereafter COLA’d.

A COLA’d minimum wage rate will not substantially improve USA’s economy but it is certainly an improvement of a non-COLA’d minimum wage. Any significant federal minimum wage is preferable to an ineffective minimum wage. I suppose it is feasible for a minimum wage rate to be excessive and detrimental to an economy. The greater harm occurs within jurisdictions adjoining others having inadequate wage scales and goods and persons have unrestricted passage over their borders. I have never encountered a historical reference to a nation’s economy being harmed by an excessive minimum wage. I don’t believe there’s ever been an excessive minimum wage within any nation.

Obama is the titular head of the Democratic Party. I appreciate the federal health act’s future benefits to our nation. Obama and the Democratic Party acted despicably to achieve an inferior bill’s passage. Democrats offered exceptions to a few states rather than negotiating and arguing for consideration to help all congressional districts with inadequate availability of health facilities. If such honorable negotiation couldn’t sway senators of less densely populated states, it would have certainly “held their feet to the fire”.

I am not angry because of what he and his party failed to achieve. I’m furious of what positions he surrendered without fully negotiating for anything better. Politics is not a dirty word and negotiation is respectable. Acquiescence and submission are despicable words and are generally cowardly and despicable acts.

It is my patriotic duty not to vote for a party that leads in the wrong direction or a second party that lacks leadership and has no definite direction. The Republicans will lead us until we recognize that it’s the wrong direction. Retaining no consistency of direction, Democrats are unable to correct our nation’s course.

I will not vote for any Democrats until Obama and his party finds and retain some courage. Thus far it appears that I will not vote for Obama in 2012.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It may be difficult to find a candidate to vote for, but you can ALWAYS find at least one to vote against.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I will vote, if for no other reason than I believe that if you don't vote, you don't have any right to complain about the system. Just like if you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't bitch when those that do get a tax cut.


So, come Nov, i will trudge down to my local polling office and cast my vote for the lesser of two evils.
 

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,059
Reaction score
2,412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since you're not voting, I'm going to go ahead and vote twice to make up the difference.

:)
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
222
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It may be difficult to find a candidate to vote for, but you can ALWAYS find at least one to vote against.
Jamesrage, if I opened the write-in window and wrote in a name, whose name would I write? A viable candidate must be wealthy or backed by wealth. No name that I know of could express my rage with both Parties. There are no 3d parties on the ballot. There are no local or state candidates or issues that I’d support or oppose. Everything’s dependent upon federal policy.

Diagones, my problem is I have two candidates I want to vote against and they’re the only candidates for the U.S. Congress.

Respectfully Supposn
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Democrats have decided to delay the tax cuts bill vote until after the election.
I’ll refrain from voting in general elections until the tax bill reaches the floors of both Congressional houses and the bill is voted upon the House of Representatives’ floor.

I fully support Obama’s position that we cannot afford to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. I’d prefer that the discounted tax rates for long term capital gains incomes be eliminated and replaced with more populist tax cuts.

Since leaving the service in 1959, I’ve voted in every general election and have missed extremely few primary elections. Finally since 2008 I’m no longer voting for the least evil and I require a candidate (at minimum) to substantially concur with my opinion upon at least one issue and methods to achieve our perceived goal. I won’t absolutely always vote for a candidate that simply meets the minimum standard.

Obama’s speaks well on the issues but lacks explicit explanation of how he prefers laws be drafted to achieve what he professes to be (and are too often less than explicit) goals.

Obama’s campaign office had written, (but I’ve never actually found a direct quote from Obama), that he was a proponent of the federal minimum wage pegged to a cost of living adjustment, (i.e. COLA). Based only upon that minimal but substantial agreement I voted for Obama. I now fear that his behavior thus far gives me good reason to fear Obama and the Democrats will acquiesce to Republicans. If Obama’s administration increases the minimum wage, Democrats will not press for it also being thereafter COLA’d.

A COLA’d minimum wage rate will not substantially improve USA’s economy but it is certainly an improvement of a non-COLA’d minimum wage. Any significant federal minimum wage is preferable to an ineffective minimum wage. I suppose it is feasible for a minimum wage rate to be excessive and detrimental to an economy. The greater harm occurs within jurisdictions adjoining others having inadequate wage scales and goods and persons have unrestricted passage over their borders. I have never encountered a historical reference to a nation’s economy being harmed by an excessive minimum wage. I don’t believe there’s ever been an excessive minimum wage within any nation.

Obama is the titular head of the Democratic Party. I appreciate the federal health act’s future benefits to our nation. Obama and the Democratic Party acted despicably to achieve an inferior bill’s passage. Democrats offered exceptions to a few states rather than negotiating and arguing for consideration to help all congressional districts with inadequate availability of health facilities. If such honorable negotiation couldn’t sway senators of less densely populated states, it would have certainly “held their feet to the fire”.

I am not angry because of what he and his party failed to achieve. I’m furious of what positions he surrendered without fully negotiating for anything better. Politics is not a dirty word and negotiation is respectable. Acquiescence and submission are despicable words and are generally cowardly and despicable acts.

It is my patriotic duty not to vote for a party that leads in the wrong direction or a second party that lacks leadership and has no definite direction. The Republicans will lead us until we recognize that it’s the wrong direction. Retaining no consistency of direction, Democrats are unable to correct our nation’s course.

I will not vote for any Democrats until Obama and his party finds and retain some courage. Thus far it appears that I will not vote for Obama in 2012.

Respectfully, Supposn
Why are you blaming the President for what happens in Congress?
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
222
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why are you blaming the President for what happens in Congress?
SamSmart, Obama is the titular head of the Democratic Party. Obama’s speaks well on the issues but lacks explicit explanation of how he prefers laws be drafted to achieve what he professes to be (and are too often less than explicit) goals.

Obama spoke of a “government option”. Almost every extended family in the United States is somewhat directly familiar with Medicare. To a vast predominant majority, almost all of those who use or whose parents use Medicare insurance are very pleased with Medicare. I listened to the crowds and speakers during the protests against any federal health plan. Almost all of the elderly and many of their children that were opposed to any federal health insurance were entirely satisfied and appreciative of Medicare. They knew what Medicare is. All they know about the “public option” is that it now doesn’t exist and it is to be feared because it is “liberal”. Every time he spoke of “public option” rather than “Medicare” or “similar to Medicare” or “like Medicare”, he lost voter and congressional support.

Too few other than Obama knew what he meant by “public option” and thus too many accepted Republicans’ definition of the concept. He fell in love with the words rather than explaining it’s like Medicare.

After crippling his own agenda and losing too many voters and Congressional Democrats’ supporters, he finally said “well the public option is not absolutely the only way. We can accomplish the same goals by other methods”. For the remainder of that speech I waited in vain to hear what “negotiating chip” he was trading for his concept of the public option. He never again mentioned it in that particular speech or within any other speech afterwards. I am not angry because he failed to achieve his public option. I’m furious because he did not strive for what he professed to be in the nation’s best interest. Rather than lead his party, he betrayed his own concepts and his followers that agreed with him. He didn’t lose the public option; he acquiesced rather than striving to achieve it. He lost his direction and his courage.

The Defense Department is doing studies on “don’t ask, don’t tell”. That’s a political question that the generals and admirals would much rather not get involved with. Truman did not ask generals if they believed the armed services should be desegregated. He only asked how they could best achieve the policy that he as commander-in-chief has determined to be in our best interests. If Obama has determined that gays in the military are in our nation’s best interest, the policy should by now be in place. If he is not so convinced, then he should have not brought it up.

If Guantanamo prison should be closed, it should have been done by now. I agreed with Obama’s professed concept that we should be proud to demonstrate how a democratic republic’s public courts operate. If he has reason to reconsider, Obama should explain himself to the voters and the remainder of the world.

I may disagree with many Republican presidents’ policies but I respect an executive that knows what he believes to be our nation’s best interests and fully strives to obtain the passage and enactment of those government policies. Obama ain’t like that.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
SamSmart, Obama is the titular head of the Democratic Party. Obama’s speaks well on the issues but lacks explicit explanation of how he prefers laws be drafted to achieve what he professes to be (and are too often less than explicit) goals.

Obama spoke of a “government option”. Almost every extended family in the United States is somewhat directly familiar with Medicare. To a vast predominant majority, almost all of those who use or whose parents use Medicare insurance are very pleased with Medicare. I listened to the crowds and speakers during the protests against any federal health plan. Almost all of the elderly and many of their children that were opposed to any federal health insurance were entirely satisfied and appreciative of Medicare. They knew what Medicare is. All they know about the “public option” is that it now doesn’t exist and it is to be feared because it is “liberal”. Every time he spoke of “public option” rather than “Medicare” or “similar to Medicare” or “like Medicare”, he lost voter and congressional support.

Too few other than Obama knew what he meant by “public option” and thus too many accepted Republicans’ definition of the concept. He fell in love with the words rather than explaining it’s like Medicare.

After crippling his own agenda and losing too many voters and Congressional Democrats’ supporters, he finally said “well the public option is not absolutely the only way. We can accomplish the same goals by other methods”. For the remainder of that speech I waited in vain to hear what “negotiating chip” he was trading for his concept of the public option. He never again mentioned it in that particular speech or within any other speech afterwards. I am not angry because he failed to achieve his public option. I’m furious because he did not strive for what he professed to be in the nation’s best interest. Rather than lead his party, he betrayed his own concepts and his followers that agreed with him. He didn’t lose the public option; he acquiesced rather than striving to achieve it. He lost his direction and his courage.

The Defense Department is doing studies on “don’t ask, don’t tell”. That’s a political question that the generals and admirals would much rather not get involved with. Truman did not ask generals if they believed the armed services should be desegregated. He only asked how they could best achieve the policy that he as commander-in-chief has determined to be in our best interests. If Obama has determined that gays in the military are in our nation’s best interest, the policy should by now be in place. If he is not so convinced, then he should have not brought it up.

If Guantanamo prison should be closed, it should have been done by now. I agreed with Obama’s professed concept that we should be proud to demonstrate how a democratic republic’s public courts operate. If he has reason to reconsider, Obama should explain himself to the voters and the remainder of the world.

I may disagree with many Republican presidents’ policies but I respect an executive that knows what he believes to be our nation’s best interests and fully strives to obtain the passage and enactment of those government policies. Obama ain’t like that.

Respectfully, Supposn
So, again, why are you blaming the President for what happens in Congress?
 

danstevens80

New member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
31
Reaction score
5
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hurra! The lesser of two evils will then regret the day it got elected :)
 

DarkWizard12

Conservative Independent
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,127
Reaction score
2,259
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So, again, why are you blaming the President for what happens in Congress?
Because, supposedly, Obama want's those bills passed, so it's his responsiblity.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Because, supposedly, Obama want's those bills passed, so it's his responsiblity.
But you do realize that the President has no procedural power over legislation, right? The President doesn't have the power to propose a bill. The President doesn't have the power to debate bills nor to vote for bills in Congressional sub-committees. The President doesn't have the power to debate nor to vote for bills on the Senate floor. The President doesn't have the power to debate nor to vote for bills on the House floor.

The sole power that the President has with regards to legislation is to either sign bills into law or to veto them. Once a bill becomes a law, it is then his duty to enforce and execute that law.

So if the President has no power to write the bills that become law, how is the writing of law, which is the purview of Congress, the responsibility of the President?
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
222
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why are you blaming the President for what happens in Congress?
Sam Smart, you continue to ask the same question and continue to ignore the answer in response to your question. This is excerpted from message #8:

………………………… “After crippling his own, (i.e. Obama’s) agenda and losing too many voters and Congressional Democrats’ supporters, he finally said “well the public option is not absolutely the only way. We can accomplish the same goals by other methods”. For the remainder of that speech I waited in vain to hear what “negotiating chip” he was trading for his concept of the public option. He never again mentioned it in that particular speech or within any other speech afterwards. I am not angry because he failed to achieve his public option. I’m furious because he did not strive for what he professed to be in the nation’s best interest. Rather than lead his party, he betrayed his own concepts and his followers that agreed with him. He didn’t lose the public option; he acquiesced rather than striving to achieve it. He lost his direction and his courage”.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sam Smart, you continue to ask the same question and continue to ignore the answer in response to your question. This is excerpted from message #8:

………………………… “After crippling his own, (i.e. Obama’s) agenda and losing too many voters and Congressional Democrats’ supporters, he finally said “well the public option is not absolutely the only way. We can accomplish the same goals by other methods”. For the remainder of that speech I waited in vain to hear what “negotiating chip” he was trading for his concept of the public option. He never again mentioned it in that particular speech or within any other speech afterwards. I am not angry because he failed to achieve his public option. I’m furious because he did not strive for what he professed to be in the nation’s best interest. Rather than lead his party, he betrayed his own concepts and his followers that agreed with him. He didn’t lose the public option; he acquiesced rather than striving to achieve it. He lost his direction and his courage”.

Respectfully, Supposn
Well, there's a ****load of reasons for all that. For one, Congress was getting bogged down by it and was ignoring things such as dealing with the economic crisis, dealing with the wars in the Middle East, and backlash from state governments. For another, while the Democratic Party had the majority, they've had most of their liberal legislation foiled by the Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party. Then there's the prolific use of filibusters by the GOP.

So to say that President Obama failed because of what Congress did is still unfair to the President.
 

mikeey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
776
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It should be an offence in the USA not to vote,so if u dont vote but u want all the benfits i say

u get none,that is fair,what do u think lads.

mikeey
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It should be an offence in the USA not to vote,so if u dont vote but u want all the benfits i say

u get none,that is fair,what do u think lads.

mikeey
Only if there's an option to vote for "None of the Above."
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
222
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sam Smart, I did not write “President Obama failed because of what Congress did. I wrote of president Obama’s acquiescing and submitting rather than striving and negotiating to advance what candidate and later president Obama proposed (to be in our nation’s best interests).

I wrote of President Obama’s failure to lead and support the members of congress who accepted what he (himself) had proposed. He, the titular head of the Democratic Party abandoned what he advocated as what would be to our nation’s best interest and thus denied his supporters in congress of the White House advantage.

It is unlikely that the Democratic leadership could have offered the inducement of waiving federal healthcare mandates for selected states in the hope of acquiring additional U.S. Senate votes if President Obama would have actively opposed the despicable and dishonorable scheme. Rural congressional districts that lacked reasonably accessible medical facilities and the congressional representatives have for many decades been lobbying for some federal assistance in the matter. I do not know if promoting such additional consideration for less densely populated areas would have attracted many of those votes opposing the healthcare bill but offering the remedy to all of the United States would have been honorable political negotiation. Opposing senators of sparsely populated states would have been much less comfortable if they then voted to oppose the health bill.

I fully appreciate our nation’s there will be net national benefits due to the passage of the federal health bill that President Obama signed into law. But with regard to this and too many other issues where President Obama has retreated from positions that he advocated to be in our nation’s best interests, the results have and I fear will continue to be much less superior and much more inferior federal legislative activity.

The President and vice president are the only persons’ owing their elections to a constituency composed of the entire nation. The president is also the titular head of his party. President Obama has a very significant political advantage. President Obama has continuously failed to use the political advantages of office to advance the agendas that he himself has professed are in the nation’s best interest. Obama’s greatest political hindrances are not Republicans, Tea Partiers or Blue dogs; they are his own timid surrendering to his own fears. That is absolutely President Obama’s own fault!

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm going to vote for the elder gods come November, but I'll save Cthulhu for president in 2012. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
 
Top Bottom