Re-elect Obama :D

For or Against Obama?

For	61.0%	[ 466 ]
Against	39.0%	[ 298 ]
Total Votes:			[ 764 ]

[Master of disaster20]

FPSFrame52

Master of disaster20

FPSFrame52

Master of disaster20

FPSFrame52

Master of disaster20

Still would say that a different one would probably be better, due to his health care plan. Besides, they say he barely does anything with the military, even though he's suppose to be head chief of the military itself. (Of course it's every presidents duty, which is taking most of command of the military.) Which I did not see much was wrong with Bush, but of course my dad never had such trouble before then either, up until having Obama. But yet, the healthcare plan was messing up my mother, so is our tax income being horrible, and much more company rip offs have been happening to us. Which most of the dilemma happening around my country I believe is because of Obama.

I'm actually a bit glad he's not messing too much with the military. If anything he should let the generals do their job. Bush got too involved and he's the reason we're wrapped up in Middle Eastern affairs far too much.

As for company rip-offs, those aren't the president's fault. He doesn't control private corporations and can't dictate what they can or cannot do. The taxes are pretty heavy, but if he doesn't tax people then the government will continue slipping into debt. The only way out is to tax, tax, tax, and stimulate the economy. Things will get worse, but I'm confident they will also get better soon.

Well pretty much all I have to say is, why not tax other places that has more money than others? It's like take more money from the poor, than from the rich. Which literally, I do think it's beginning to come that way. It's like they think we're made out of money, but we're not. Which I still think it's one of his laws fault for companies, for laws still affect a lot, even private company. Still though, why call it private anyways? It belongs to the government in the long shot.

Obama's actually for taxing the rich. The GOP candidates are all anti-rich taxation (except maybe Ron Paul and Gingrich - both of whom will not get the nomination) so replacing Obama won't really do much for that. Also, the Congress controls tax laws, Obama merely signs them into play. He can't force Congress to tax the rich, but he can make his voice heard, which he has.

Private companies - far from belonging to the government - actually have strong power in the government. They sponsor the campaigns of many candidates, and Obama cannot hope to oppose them without losing their support and possibly losing his campaign. Also, Congress once again controls laws, and they're not about to jeopardize their main cash cow, the corporations. Obama is strongly against Corporate control over the consumer, which is why he's passing laws to ensure jobs overseas come back here, but he can only do so much.

Well there's too much greedy people in the congress then, which I just wonder how they even put some of the people in there who's been doing all this. Besides, even though Franklin Roosevelt put us in debt before, doesn't mean that Congress should put money before a person's life, and tax poor people more than rich.

Still, don't see why people voted for Romney anyways, it seemed like a horrible idea in the first place. They should of went with those two guys instead, which whom I say and knew to be one of the perfect choices for this position.

Gringrich caught a lot of flak for cheating on his wife, which I personally think is unwarranted (cheating does not equal "terrible president" - look at Clinton, he was a powerhouse Democrat who got us EARNING money rather than being in debt). Paul is too eccentric for a conservative - he's actually quite liberal, except that he can't run unless he's on GOP's side since Obama is the democrat candidate.

Romney got the vote from the GOP supporters because he's most like the "traditional" conservatives - a rich, white man who appreciates and wants to maintain the current status-quo.

I was really mostly for Gingrich at first really, because he looked like he know what he was doing, but apparently everyone just mostly is too stupid to realize it. Paul still seems ok besides of being too eccentric, which seems like his only downfall which is mostly described that I've seen from you.

[FPSFrame52]

Master of disaster20

FPSFrame52

Master of disaster20

FPSFrame52

Master of disaster20

Well pretty much all I have to say is, why not tax other places that has more money than others? It's like take more money from the poor, than from the rich. Which literally, I do think it's beginning to come that way. It's like they think we're made out of money, but we're not. Which I still think it's one of his laws fault for companies, for laws still affect a lot, even private company. Still though, why call it private anyways? It belongs to the government in the long shot.

Obama's actually for taxing the rich. The GOP candidates are all anti-rich taxation (except maybe Ron Paul and Gingrich - both of whom will not get the nomination) so replacing Obama won't really do much for that. Also, the Congress controls tax laws, Obama merely signs them into play. He can't force Congress to tax the rich, but he can make his voice heard, which he has.

Private companies - far from belonging to the government - actually have strong power in the government. They sponsor the campaigns of many candidates, and Obama cannot hope to oppose them without losing their support and possibly losing his campaign. Also, Congress once again controls laws, and they're not about to jeopardize their main cash cow, the corporations. Obama is strongly against Corporate control over the consumer, which is why he's passing laws to ensure jobs overseas come back here, but he can only do so much.

Well there's too much greedy people in the congress then, which I just wonder how they even put some of the people in there who's been doing all this. Besides, even though Franklin Roosevelt put us in debt before, doesn't mean that Congress should put money before a person's life, and tax poor people more than rich.

Still, don't see why people voted for Romney anyways, it seemed like a horrible idea in the first place. They should of went with those two guys instead, which whom I say and knew to be one of the perfect choices for this position.

Gringrich caught a lot of flak for cheating on his wife, which I personally think is unwarranted (cheating does not equal "terrible president" - look at Clinton, he was a powerhouse Democrat who got us EARNING money rather than being in debt). Paul is too eccentric for a conservative - he's actually quite liberal, except that he can't run unless he's on GOP's side since Obama is the democrat candidate.

Romney got the vote from the GOP supporters because he's most like the "traditional" conservatives - a rich, white man who appreciates and wants to maintain the current status-quo.

I was really mostly for Gingrich at first really, because he looked like he know what he was doing, but apparently everyone just mostly is too stupid to realize it. Paul still seems ok besides of being too eccentric, which seems like his only downfall which is mostly described that I've seen from you.

I'm all for Ron Paul or Gringrich but both of them need to win 80%+ of the final state caucuses and primaries in order to beat Romney and swoop in the nomination, which means they're effectively out of the race. Neither of them have enough support or money to go for a third-party campaign - and even if they did, they'd be unable to win enough votes due to being sandwiched in between the GOP and Democrat powerhouse campaign machines.

So I'm for Obama, because at least he's better than Romney.

[Master of disaster20]

FPSFrame52

Master of disaster20

FPSFrame52

Master of disaster20

FPSFrame52

Master of disaster20

Well pretty much all I have to say is, why not tax other places that has more money than others? It's like take more money from the poor, than from the rich. Which literally, I do think it's beginning to come that way. It's like they think we're made out of money, but we're not. Which I still think it's one of his laws fault for companies, for laws still affect a lot, even private company. Still though, why call it private anyways? It belongs to the government in the long shot.

Obama's actually for taxing the rich. The GOP candidates are all anti-rich taxation (except maybe Ron Paul and Gingrich - both of whom will not get the nomination) so replacing Obama won't really do much for that. Also, the Congress controls tax laws, Obama merely signs them into play. He can't force Congress to tax the rich, but he can make his voice heard, which he has.

Private companies - far from belonging to the government - actually have strong power in the government. They sponsor the campaigns of many candidates, and Obama cannot hope to oppose them without losing their support and possibly losing his campaign. Also, Congress once again controls laws, and they're not about to jeopardize their main cash cow, the corporations. Obama is strongly against Corporate control over the consumer, which is why he's passing laws to ensure jobs overseas come back here, but he can only do so much.

Well there's too much greedy people in the congress then, which I just wonder how they even put some of the people in there who's been doing all this. Besides, even though Franklin Roosevelt put us in debt before, doesn't mean that Congress should put money before a person's life, and tax poor people more than rich.

Still, don't see why people voted for Romney anyways, it seemed like a horrible idea in the first place. They should of went with those two guys instead, which whom I say and knew to be one of the perfect choices for this position.

Gringrich caught a lot of flak for cheating on his wife, which I personally think is unwarranted (cheating does not equal "terrible president" - look at Clinton, he was a powerhouse Democrat who got us EARNING money rather than being in debt). Paul is too eccentric for a conservative - he's actually quite liberal, except that he can't run unless he's on GOP's side since Obama is the democrat candidate.

Romney got the vote from the GOP supporters because he's most like the "traditional" conservatives - a rich, white man who appreciates and wants to maintain the current status-quo.

I was really mostly for Gingrich at first really, because he looked like he know what he was doing, but apparently everyone just mostly is too stupid to realize it. Paul still seems ok besides of being too eccentric, which seems like his only downfall which is mostly described that I've seen from you.

I'm all for Ron Paul or Gringrich but both of them need to win 80%+ of the final state caucuses and primaries in order to beat Romney and swoop in the nomination, which means they're effectively out of the race. Neither of them have enough support or money to go for a third-party campaign - and even if they did, they'd be unable to win enough votes due to being sandwiched in between the GOP and Democrat powerhouse campaign machines.

So I'm for Obama, because at least he's better than Romney.

Well I guess I got no choice then. At least something than this jerk buck tooth face one, which I wonder how stupid people was when voting upon him and his too prideful butt.

[Rose Kuran]

Even though Obama has made some mistakes, I'm willing to give him another chance. I'm so happy that I'm turning 18, and I would be able to vote. I only trust Obama, because I believe that the Republicans are trying to screw us over.

[Passion not Perfection]

Honestly, it seems like it doesn't matter who we put in office, we're still seriously screwed. Obama with his "After my re-election I'll have more flexibility." And the others ripping each other apart limp from limp to try and get support. It's disgusting.

[California Adventure]

S Plissken

PandorasJackinthebox

princess_pillow

No.

I'm curious...which bloke in red is your choice of poison?

BTW: Disregard my non-American status, it just makes me more pragmatic. Take it home, Mr. Obama--or should I say, Mr. President.

Ron Paul is my 1st choice. His views are so different that they may seem ridiculous on the surface, but they make sense if you look into his reasoning.
-He's been speaking out against the war on drugs for decades, saying that they cause more harm than good by locking up non-violent users, and the tax payers have to pay to keep them locked up. It should be a person's right to choose what they put into their bodies, and this prohibition has raised the drug-related crime rate - just like what happened during the alcohol prohibition.
-He's been speaking out against wars in general, saying that we should mind our own business unless our national security is at risk. For some reason, people think that he's an isolationist because he wants to bring home all of our troops from around the world. Video
-He wants to decriminalize prostitution. Even though he doesn't believe that drugs or prostitution are moral, he supports the people's freedom to do what they want with their bodies.
-He wants to cut a lot of government spending, which would allow him to lower federal income tax for people & actually balance the budget.
-He wants to kill the ties between government & corporations, which is why you see businesses such as Goldman Sachs supporting Obama's and Romney's campaign, and hardly any of the companies support Ron Paul... and yet I see people say that Ron Paul's views would help those companies? xd If that were true, then they would've funded his campaign instead of shoving him off to the side! xp
-He wants to bring back a sound currency instead of having our money constantly being devalued (he talks about the gold standard quite a bit). Inflation is pretty much a tax by making a person's paycheck worth less and less, and it destroys the incentive to save money.
-Shortly after 9/11, he predicted a series of events that would happen within the next 10 years, and he was pretty accurate. Video That was the first video I saw of him, and I was a bit shocked with his foresight, which lead me to investigate deeper into his views. If I hadn't of discovered Ron Paul, I would've went with Obama.

There's probably more reasons why I support him, but that's all I can think of for now. 3nodding

This is what he wants to do. But you do realize the people with the power to do this is congress. He can suggest and sign the bills and stuff, but he can't say he's going to do that unless congress agrees.

[Milo Caesar - A King -]

I support no one...

[Roxanne Blaze]

i wud do that bt he'z the creep who sends drone attacks on our country and says i have no knowledge of it

[S Plissken]

California Adventure

S Plissken

PandorasJackinthebox

princess_pillow

No.

I'm curious...which bloke in red is your choice of poison?

BTW: Disregard my non-American status, it just makes me more pragmatic. Take it home, Mr. Obama--or should I say, Mr. President.

Ron Paul is my 1st choice. His views are so different that they may seem ridiculous on the surface, but they make sense if you look into his reasoning.
-He's been speaking out against the war on drugs for decades, saying that they cause more harm than good by locking up non-violent users, and the tax payers have to pay to keep them locked up. It should be a person's right to choose what they put into their bodies, and this prohibition has raised the drug-related crime rate - just like what happened during the alcohol prohibition.
-He's been speaking out against wars in general, saying that we should mind our own business unless our national security is at risk. For some reason, people think that he's an isolationist because he wants to bring home all of our troops from around the world. Video
-He wants to decriminalize prostitution. Even though he doesn't believe that drugs or prostitution are moral, he supports the people's freedom to do what they want with their bodies.
-He wants to cut a lot of government spending, which would allow him to lower federal income tax for people & actually balance the budget.
-He wants to kill the ties between government & corporations, which is why you see businesses such as Goldman Sachs supporting Obama's and Romney's campaign, and hardly any of the companies support Ron Paul... and yet I see people say that Ron Paul's views would help those companies? xd If that were true, then they would've funded his campaign instead of shoving him off to the side! xp
-He wants to bring back a sound currency instead of having our money constantly being devalued (he talks about the gold standard quite a bit). Inflation is pretty much a tax by making a person's paycheck worth less and less, and it destroys the incentive to save money.
-Shortly after 9/11, he predicted a series of events that would happen within the next 10 years, and he was pretty accurate. Video That was the first video I saw of him, and I was a bit shocked with his foresight, which lead me to investigate deeper into his views. If I hadn't of discovered Ron Paul, I would've went with Obama.

There's probably more reasons why I support him, but that's all I can think of for now. 3nodding

This is what he wants to do. But you do realize the people with the power to do this is congress. He can suggest and sign the bills and stuff, but he can't say he's going to do that unless congress agrees.

Yes, I do realize that. But if he was in power, then he would have a greater influence on people, which could affect how Congress will vote. An example of this would be if people weren't so against SOPA, it probably would've been passed by Congress. 3nodding

[stefan1921]

Obama all the way!

[Mayor Gravity]

FPSFrame52

Mayor Gravity

FPSFrame52

Mayor Gravity

FPSFrame52

Overall, though, he's won very few states compared to Romney (who's a GOP powerhouse), so unless he runs third-party (even then) there's no chance he'll win. If he does run third-party, I'll vote for him, but if not I'll vote for Obama. At least the big O is the lesser evil compared to Romney.

Obama is better than all the Republicans.

I'd say Paul at least matches Obama. Paul's a nice guy, honest, and he's got that bit of charisma that most people lack. In a way he's very much like Obama, except a Republican. It wouldn't hurt to vote him into office, just to see how good his plans might pan out to be, but since he's probably not going to win the GOP nomination I'll be going with Obama this year.

I don't know if it's true or not, but Paul wants to legalize pot, which I don't do (I'm not against it, just never had an intrest in it) and that would be good for the economy, because it could become taxable.

Yeah, this is why people tend not to like him. His ideas are eccentric, but when you look closely at them you see they do have base. He's one of the few honest politicians left and it's a shame he couldn't work with Obama rather than campaigning against him. Imagine all the good they could do together.

Maybe one day...

[tokyoslut]

ill take obama over romney any day.

[Mouth-of-War]

we just need a strong independent president

[The Ruthless Dark Ace]

To be honest, there really haven't been any candidates that I feel any particular draw to in the past couple of elections. In 2008, I was pretty set on McCain, but then he waffled on so many issues and practically flipped his platform upside-down halfway through, so I just voted Obama to shut my grandmother up about it.

Now I'm in the boat where I don't want to vote for any of these guys, but if I don't, I'm doing just as much harm. Ron Paul is a very interesting candidate, but I sincerely doubt he'll beat out Romney. I doubt I'd vote for Romney, though. I get the same iffy feeling from him as I did from John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

I wish I could vote for Bill Clinton again. I guess I'm going with Obama again. :/ Happy, grandma?

[Epiphany of Nothingness]

I couldn't give a rat's a** about the election. Both candidates are morons, lets vote for...