Will Obama win a landslide victory?

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

... how about they actually try and support this administration and the goals it has set out to help the country.

And what might those be pray tell?

Amerika

RichieC wrote: »

Any news that doesn't receive morning pundit talking points from the RNC.

The question remains.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

It’s been quite a week... President Obama got caught selling America and it’s allies down river, helped to incite a race war, looked like a fool regarding his understanding of the Constitution with ObamaCare, and got humiliated when his budget was considered to be so bad that not even a single Democrat in Congress could support it. Perhaps he should push the "reset button" and go golfing.

Obama 2012 landslide???

The economy appears to be on the up, that is all the public will think about. So if it continues, my guess is Obama will win. Why would voters want a Republican to win and destroy the economy again, not to mention invade a few more countries. Not reset....replay, is what the sensible voters will want

RichieC

Amerika is one of those Republicans who lives in a Fox news, drudge report and right wing blogosphere 24/7 and actually thinks their inane ramblings represent mainstream America.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

And what might those be pray tell?

No matter what anyone says you are going to knock it down and discredit it, its a sad state of affairs when some people feel such animosity towards the man they elected to run the country form day 1.
I feel it is impossible to penetrate your bubble, if Obama gave up his life for this country you would have a problem with it.

RichieC

Carcharodon wrote: »

No matter what anyone says you are going to knock it down and discredit it, its a sad state of affairs when some people feel such animosity towards the man they elected to run the country form day 1.
I feel it is impossible to penetrate your bubble, if Obama gave up his life for this country you would have a problem with it.

That would be glory hunting!

c_man

Just how much credit do you suggest that Obama receive for the final result beyond taking the political question of entering Pakistan?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Rather a lot actually. Not entering Pakistan would not have led to the capture, so Obama made the call. The paid killers did the rest, as they are not paid to think. So he has what it takes, much to the chagrin of the Republicans.

Not really seeing how that differs from the first quote...

Amerika

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The economy appears to be on the up, that is all the public will think about.

Don’t know if I agree with that. At best I think things are relatively stable. But only because our government is pumping more than a trillion dollars a year into the economy... that it doesn’t have. How long can the debt binge continue? It seems like the only natural resource this administration believes is endless and worth exploiting is the revenue from our taxes.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

No matter what anyone says you are going to knock it down and discredit it, its a sad state of affairs when some people feel such animosity towards the man they elected to run the country form day 1.
I feel it is impossible to penetrate your bubble, if Obama gave up his life for this country you would have a problem with it.

Sounds eerily similar to what your side thought of George W Bush.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

Sounds eerily similar to what your side thought of George W Bush.

I am not on a side, there lies the problem. I only want whats best for the country not an individual party.

FreudianSlippers

Obama is a Harvard educated (head of the law review, probably the most prestigious one on Earth) constitutional lawyer. I highly doubt he could be 'embarrassed' on his knowledge of the constitution by anyone.

Scratch that, maybe the Clintions who are fantastic constitutional lawyers could 'embarrass' Obama.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

I am not on a side, there lies the problem. I only want whats best for the country not an individual party.

Fair enough. Scratch that then. I’ll rephrase it. When all the similar atrocious treatment you contend is happening to President Obama, happened against George W Bush... did you express the same displeasure about the vile treatment of GWB?

Amerika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Obama is a Harvard educated (head of the law review, probably the most prestigious one on Earth) constitutional lawyer. I highly doubt he could be 'embarrassed' on his knowledge of the constitution by anyone.

Could you site any notable work preformed by him while he held that "prestigious" title? I’m not trying to be snarky, I would just like a little more information to back up that contention... more than just a title. I do know he stated he "may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action policy." I contend he is a very intellegent individual, but I'm not sold on how smart he has been protrayed, without the benefit of example.

I am aware of this one, but much of the rest is rather lacking.
http://hlrecord.org/?p=11263

Scratch that, maybe the Clintions who are fantastic constitutional lawyers could 'embarrass' Obama.

LOL... just not smart enough to 'embarrass' him in a primary. And "fantastic"... very good word LOL.

- - - - -

Since you haven't responded as of yet, I wanted to sneak something in... Since you are the mod for legal discussion, do you think it is legal under the US Constitution for the federal government to “create” commerce, and force it upon it’s citizens, so the government can then regulate the commerce it has created under the Commerce Clause? This stuff facinates me.

Sindri

Amerika wrote: »

Fair enough. Scratch that then. I’ll rephrase it. When all the similar atrocious treatment you contend is happening to President Obama, happened against George W Bush... did you express the same displeasure about the vile treatment of GWB?

In fairness what happened to Bush was reprehensible but high profile members of the Republican Party actually entertaining the notion that Obama wasn't born in America cynically for political gain and stoking fires of racial enmity is absolutely farcical and deplorable!

Amerika

Sindri wrote: »

In fairness what happened to Bush was reprehensible but high profile members of the Republican Party actually entertaining the notion that Obama wasn't born in America cynically for political gain and stoking fires of racial enmity is absolutely farcical and deplorable!

Help me out here... Which high profile members of the Republican Party?

Sindri

Amerika wrote: »

Help me out here... Which high profile members of the Republican Party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Campaigners_and_proponents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Political_candidates_and_elected_officials

Amerika

Sindri wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Campaigners_and_proponents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Political_candidates_and_elected_officials

A bit lazy on your part but thats okay. Of the few "high profile members of the Republican Party" listed in the link, I could find none that entertained the notion that Obama wasn't born in America, other than perhaps The Donald. Most merely said people had the right to question it.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

Fair enough. Scratch that then. I’ll rephrase it. When all the similar atrocious treatment you contend is happening to President Obama, happened against George W Bush... did you express the same displeasure about the vile treatment of GWB?

You do have a very valid point to be fair and if I answer honestly then no I didn't share the same displeasure but I also know I didn't have such vile beliefs about Bush.

I had many question marks about Bush and his ability to lead the country and also a certain election had many question marks over it as well.
When Bush was in office that was that for me, didn't have to like it but you have to support the country which includes the president.

I believe Bush created most of his own problems due to many incidents and flaws (he said some stupid **** ) which is entirely opinion based and each to their own.

Obama has been getting vile treatment from day 1 for reasons unknown, one could guess but what good would that serve here.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

A bit lazy on your part but thats okay. Of the few "high profile members of the Republican Party" listed in the link, I could find none that entertained the notion that Obama wasn't born in America, other than perhaps The Donald. Most merely said people had the right to question it.

Really????
I think that the 'right to question it' stance is an insult to our intelligence. They knew what they were doing and so do you so don't go down that route.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

Really????
I think that the 'right to question it' stance is an insult to our intelligence. They knew what they were doing and so do you so don't go down that route.

I don't agree. If you look back at my postings here, you will find that I stated that I believed Barack Obama was a US citizen and able to be POTUS under the US Constitution, but that there were enough unanswered questions surrounding the debate, and felt people, if so inclined, had a legitimate reason to question it. Why do you think President Obama didn't just put out his birth certificate (the one that ended the debate) immediately... instead he put it out just a few months ago? Help me with that one.

Sindri

Amerika wrote: »

A bit lazy on your part but thats okay.

Amerika wrote: »

Help me out here... Which high profile members of the Republican Party?

:rolleyes:

Amerika wrote: »

Of the few "high profile members of the Republican Party" listed in the link, I could find none that entertained the notion that Obama wasn't born in America, other than perhaps The Donald. Most merely said people had the right to question it.

They did entertain the notion, and you know that (you're not arguing against the point I made rather you're arguing against the semantic syntax of the question rather than what was obviously implied which is quite frankly infantile), and did so publicly and quite cynically to weaken Obama's position and attempt to strengthen their own. I'd admire it if it wasn't such an indication of the state of American politics at times and particularly the Republican party which I feel to be regrettable. But hey, that's populism.

I don't know what battle you're fighting, you like so many others seem to be invested in an enterprise to such a degree that any notion of dissension or dissonance of that enterprise takes precedence over that of independent reason.

Amerika

Sindri, simple battle really... I'm for the removal of a person after one term as POTUS who's policies turned out pretty much exactly to what I warned everyone against... back in 2008.

Say what you want, but I just don’t think we should shut down questions and debate simply because the topic is not pleasurable. I didn’t fight against debate when they questioned GWB’s service in the National Guard, nor when the democrats questioned McCain’s ability to become POTUS under the Constitution. I didn’t think Palin’s treatment was fair, but I didn’t think the topic shouldn’t be discussed, I merely argued against the treatment.

Sindri

Amerika wrote: »

Sindri, simple battle really... I'm for the removal of a person after one term as POTUS who's policies turned out pretty much exactly to what I warned everyone against... back in 2008.

Say what you want, but I just don’t think we should shut down questions and debate simply because the topic is not pleasurable. I didn’t fight against debate when they questioned GWB’s service in the National Guard, nor when the democrats questioned McCain’s ability to become POTUS under the Constitution. I didn’t think Palin’s treatment was fair, but I didn’t think the topic shouldn’t be discussed, I merely argued against the treatment.

It's not about shutting down debate, it's about the obvious and deplorable "Machiavellian"/"Rovian" tactic of questioning whether Obama was legally eligible for presidency which was motivated by a fear of his persona as a reformer and his position of strength and was meant to accentuate and emphasise his race and weaken him and was coyly entertained publicly by members of the Republican party and the conservative media.

If you wish to disregard the above and justify it by another coy argument of protecting debate that's fine but you never once acknowledged the possibility that the above may be correct.

James Cessna

Denerick wrote: »

At this stage I'm assuming Romney will be the Republican nominee.

The economic indicators look better every day and he is going to romp home with the lions share of the independent's vote, the Hispanic vote (Hispanics will not vote for the guy who hires them to clean his mansion) not to mention all the other minority votes (With the exception of the Mormons, obviously) This is Obama's to lose. He'll even be able to match the spending of Romney's corporate campaign.

We're going to have an amoral shill, a venomous coward who will say anything to get elected, versus an effortlessly cool, socially progressive, economically competent sitting President. Romney doesn't stand a chance.

You are correct, Denerick.

George Romney will be the Republican nominee.

Several black leaders have announced today if George Zimmerman is not arrested and charged soon, there wail be "blood in the streets."

Barack Obama has done absolutely nothing to quell the high racial tensions in the U.S. as a result of this incident with Trayvon Martin.

In an objective way I hope there is "blood in the streets".

If there, is Barack Obama and the Democrats will pay a very heavy price at the voting booths in November!

Do you agree?

James Cessna

amacachi

James Cessna wrote: »

In an objective way I hope there is "blood in the streets".

Completely objectively yeah?

Manic Moran

Several black leaders have announced today if George Zimmerman is not arrested and charged soon, there wail be "blood in the streets."

Obviously shining examples of adherents to the basics of the modern US legal system: Charging people has nothing to do with due process and evidence, and everything to do with how loudly we shout and cause damage...

NTM

James Cessna

Denerick wrote: »

At this stage I'm assuming Romney will be the Republican nominee.

The economic indicators look better every day and he is going to romp home with the lions share of the independent's vote, the Hispanic vote (Hispanics will not vote for the guy who hires them to clean his mansion) not to mention all the other minority votes (With the exception of the Mormons, obviously) This is Obama's to lose. He'll even be able to match the spending of Romney's corporate campaign.

We're going to have an amoral shill, a venomous coward who will say anything to get elected, versus an effortlessly cool, socially progressive, economically competent sitting President. Romney doesn't stand a chance.

Before we break out the campaign and toast to Obama's victory, let's first take a close look at Obama's record.

By the way here is a remarkable summary of the Anointed One's actual accomplishments.

Obama's stellar record...

• Record debt.

• Record deficit.

• Record deficit spending.

• Record home foreclosures.

• Record food stamp recipients.

• Rammed through ObamaCare against the will of the people.

• Continued the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and added new Libya and Africa conflicts.

• Extended the patriot Act, not once, not twice, but three times

• Continues operation of Guantanamo bay prison.

• Highest national unemployment in 25 years.

• Solyndra scandal.

• "Fast and Furious" gun-walker scandal.

• Nominated two incompetent inexperienced anti-2nd Amendment
supreme court justices.

• Pushed job killing EPA regulations.

Wow! ... what a remarkable record!

This time, those people who turned out to vote for the "Anointed Qne" because Obama could read well from a teleprompter but did not have a record to run on will not turn out for this election. The college kids who voted for Obama only because it was “cool” to do so will not turn out and vote for him this time. They will be too busy looking for jobs that don't exist to care about which party wins the national election this November!

FreudianSlippers

Amerika wrote: »

Could you site any notable work preformed by him while he held that "prestigious" title? I’m not trying to be snarky, I would just like a little more information to back up that contention... more than just a title.

I hope you're kidding? The Harvard Law Review is and has been the most cited and influential legal periodical for 125 years. He is the only president to have been the president of the review. He is up there with 7 supreme court judges and many other jurists. It is literally the most notable academic position in law that I can think of.

As for work he did, I think you misunderstand... the president of the Review does not write all of the articles; but politico has put out the contents of all of his reviews here - the actual articles being subject to copyright.

He worked at Sidley & Austin, probably the oldest law firm in the USA (whom I believe handled the estate of Lincoln after his death) where he met Michelle who was also an associate there.

He was a senior lecturer of constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School:

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004

He then went on to work as a senior partner and civil rights litigator in a Chicago law firm...

I mean, if that's not enough what would be? Oh, becoming the POTUS I guess.

I do know he stated he "may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action policy."

Considering it is an elected position of chosen candidates based on legal academic ability I doubt that he was being serious.

I contend he is a very intellegent individual, but I'm not sold on how smart he has been protrayed, without the benefit of example.

He's a constitutional lawyer... are you a constitutional lawyer? It's a pretty tough academic gauntlet to become any lawyer.

Since you haven't responded as of yet, I wanted to sneak something in... Since you are the mod for legal discussion, do you think it is legal under the US Constitution for the federal government to “create” commerce, and force it upon it’s citizens, so the government can then regulate the commerce it has created under the Commerce Clause? This stuff facinates me.

It depends. You've clearly swayed this in light of "obamacare" and "forced" insurance. I'm sure you'll argue the medicine is not a "commercial" business as well. Yes, if you accept that modern medicine is not truly "commercial at its core" I]United States v. Lopez[/I then it could be argued that "obamacare" (for example - and I think it's what you're getting at) may be unconstitutional or at the very least ultra vires the powers of the federal legislature. But I would disagree that medicine is not "commercial at its core", especially in the US. Hospitals are corporations run for profit, so are pharmaceutical companies and so are insurance companies. A simplistic view of the integrity of the body being the core of medicine requires a severe detachment from the reality of the commercial nature of healthcare in the modern world.

I think the ruling of Judge Silberman in Seven-Sky v. Holder is a good and logical explanation without too much legalese:

To be sure, a number of the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause cases have used the word "activity" to describe behavior that was either regarded as within or without Congress's authority. But those cases did not purport to limit Congress to reach only existing activities. They were merely identifying the relevant conduct in a descriptive way, because the facts of those cases did not raise the question--presented here--of whether "inactivity" can also be regulated. In short, we do not believe these cases endorse the view that an existing activity is some kind of touchstone or a necessary precursor to Commerce Clause regulation. . . .

Indeed, were "activities" of some sort to be required before the Commerce Clause could be invoked, it would be rather difficult to define such "activity." For instance, our drug and child pornography laws, criminalizing mere possession, have been upheld no matter how passive the possession, and even if the owner never actively distributes the contraband, on the theory that possession makes active trade more likely in the future. And in our situation, as Judge Sutton has cogently demonstrated, many persons regulated by the mandate would presumably be legitimately regulated, even if activity was a precursor, once they sought medical care or health insurance.

I would also have to agree that nowhere in the real world of rational thinking can a penalty for not doing something be considered a 'tax'.

Can you tell me why people shouldn't be forced to purchase a minimum level of personal insurance? Could that argument be extended to cover car insurance? Driving licences? Gun licences?

James Cessna

amacachi wrote: »

Completely objectively yeah?

Ha-Ha!

Good point!

What I meant to say if the radical Left continues to fan the flames of racial hatred, it will set back their political agenda of "socialism" for America gack 100 years and the Democrats will lose all three branches of government this November.

[MOD SNIP - Please do not post large photos, images or GIFs in this forum unless they are there to actually provide information that furthers discussion: i.e., a graph, table or map that helps illustrate a point.]

Spread

Obama/Biden is a shoe in at the moment. If anyone thinks otherwise ......... get on to the bookies.