He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.
He's my choice, he took over a terrible situation, made some good changes, and needs a second term to see things through as much as possible.
He's the choice for middle America. Romney's the choice for the rich. Romney has nothing in his plans to make life for the average American better, he doesn't even recognize middle America, IMO.
Finally someone says something factual in P&WA.
What's the saying? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
The Democrats had a lock on the government for 2 years and did less than nothing (except spend money) - and have the gall to blame the 'current Republican house' for their shortcomings. Unfortunately, making the government work efficiently is unpopular - but when given the chance the Dems failed hard. Blaming President Bush for the countries problems can only last for so long - that's all we've been hearing from the President is that it's Bush's fault, it's congress's fault, it's the rich's fault... I wonder how much campaign money the President will raise from Wall Street this year? He might set a fundraising record... again.
I also find the OPs original statement interesting - especially when compared to the 2008 election. There was a senior (moderately respected) Senator and a governor of one of the most well ran states in the country versus... a junior Senator whom had barely served for a year before campaigning. Mitt Romney is not perfect, but the President will have a hard time making the case of 'experience' stick - basically just because he's the incumbent he has more experience? I've been driving a car longer than Danica Patrick, but that doesn't make me a better driver.
This sentence would be fair alone. But given that the rest of what you said is irrelevant to this election, you display a double standard.
I don't care about what party a candidate belongs to; if you want to whine about democrats, make a new thread. Let's keep partisanship out of this thread.
I see the President as being the 'leader of his party' and when he couldn't get 'his agenda' passed through a friendly congress, I have a hard time seeing him being successful. (even if I agreed with his policies) I think much of the extreme partisanship that exists is due to the 'us vs them' mentality that he talks about in nearly every speech. There is always someone for the President to blame it seems. That's not healthy for the country as a whole IMO, especially when we probably all could use less government in our lives.
Say what you want about the previous administration, but nearly all of his 'infamous' policies had vast bipartisan support*. That can't be said about President Obama - he seems too focused on eating the rich (so is that cannibalism?).
*(The tax cuts that were passed through congress in 2001/3 were one of the few major policies passed along party lines - but if they were so bad, why didn't President Obama and his friendly congress totally repeal them - especially when the sunset provision came to term?)
In my view, I don't care whether there is bipartisan support or not, either. In fact, I think both democrats and republicans are basically kings fighting over how many scraps to throw the rest of us. I care about what the president is doing for me. Obama is doing things for me as a student of science. I didn't like "no child left behind"; when you mess with the education of our youth, you really screw our future up.
In my view, Obama is the lesser of evils, not a knight in shining armor.
Is that the right attitude? Shouldn't you care about the greater whole rather than self-interest?
I don't know what's best for the whole, and I don't like it when people pretend they do. I also don't trust people that claim to; I'm cynical like that.
That's how our law system is built, free-market and all, Hobbes, Lock, etc...
I also feed my children, not other peoples;
Don't get me wrong, I volunteer at a Children's museum... but I don't think I'm a great savior of man or anything for it. I don't mind doing science for health, but it's all because these are things I'm interested in, not because I'm Jesus.
also, that's why Obama's going to win the election. Because he appeals to the personal needs of the most people. As Evo said, middle America.
So hypothetically you would vote for a dictator if he included you in his inner circle?
Dictator doesn't mean evil. But if you mean evil, ruthless dictator, no I wouldn't. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did that.
It's not like I don't have "altruistic" feelings and behavior. It's just that I don't think I'm really accountable for them. They're a result of millions of years of evolution, not some utilitarian logical conclusion I came to all on my own.
I think that morals are just a way we justify our feelings and behavior. They come as words and rules after the feelings/behavior, they don't guide it.
Preservation of self-interest/desire/life is where morality stems from.
This discussion so far kind of reminds me of the Prince to be honest. "Quick to change the one in charge, but the net result is still the same" (paraphrasing).
Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class. You can appeal all you want to people, but when they see your actions concerning them, appealing to voters isn't going to be worth much.
See, that's the general problem that I have with the President - I don't want him (via the government) dealing with my 'personal needs'.
There was an analogy by a lesser-known pundit (I forget his name even) that basically said politicians (and especially President Obama) are campaining with our tax dollars via handouts. It's no longer about the strength of the country but 'what can uncle sam do for you?' It's also the hypocrasy in the solution - 'hey, health care costs are ballooning, the government covers 1/2 of all of the healthcare costs already - so lets expand it!'
I'm also curious as to what President Obama is doing for you 'as a student of science'? All I see are rising college costs, that at the rate the government is giving out student loans, are only primed to go up even still. I'd also remind you, that if you're using NCLB as an indictment of 'the opposition' - remember that President Obama extended it when the provision was expiring. (I'm not a fan of NCLB out of principle, but think that it's negative impact is far overblown - also remember, that it had more Democrat supporters than GOP supporters when it first was passed. The 100% literacy requirement was kind of silly, but the accountability piece was about as good as schools will get for money from the federal government - rightly so. So, teach to some sort of standard or don't get extra federal money.)
I think this is the definition the president is using:
middle-class [mid-l-klas], adjective, of or pertaining to unaccountable government employees and contractors, mostly belonging to a labor union.
Seriously though, even President Obama admits that the ACA is not going to lower health care costs - it's just about getting his voting bloc insured. Health care costs will continue to go up, especially with that much more easy money floating around (see: former housing bubble, current education bubble, current medical care bubble, current Europe).
This is a fascinating statement. Is it intended to present a reason or qualification for re-election?
Compare this statement with:
Kim Jong-un has the most experience as Supreme Leader with the current political atmosphere.
Bashar al-Assad has the most experience as president of Syria with the current political atmosphere.
mege makes some relevant and largely factual statements and is scolded for being partisan. Many of the other posts praise his rhetoric over his record. If rhetorical skills are what we need then, hands down, he's the man.
I'm going to ignore comparison of Obama to the Supreme Leader.. that's ridiculous...
Obama has done a lot to reduce money-powered lobbying.
note: regardless of tuition costs, I am on RA's and TA's, I teach and do research for tuition. Food and gas prices are rising too. That's the nature of the beast, I don't blame Obama for that. But either way, I don't pay tuition, I work under research assitanceships for it, and the stipend rises with the tuition; the hours contracted stay the same.
what he has done for science/education (at least):
5 billion dollars to NIH
lifted the ban on stem cell research funding
student loan relief (caps on repayment rates)
extends more benefits to National Guard members who performed active service and allows for education benefits to be transferred to family members.
investing $2 billion in competitive grants to reform community colleges
$2,500 American Opportunity tax credit for tuition expenses
In general, you can see a list of accomplishments:
We'll see; I hold fast to my prediction that he'll win. I'm not even going to bother voting.
My mother is a nurse and my father is a federal employee so it didn't seem to affect them negatively. As a grad student, I'm povert, so taxes and medical and loans have worked out great for me under Obama.
Your list of examples just furthers my point - the President is essentially 'buying' votes with tax dollars by shoveling money to individuals. "Oh, look - that nice man gave me $2500" - this is why the President will likely win reelection. Too bad his campaign is costing the country trillions.
Out of those things you listed, there are only 2 arguably 'common interest' type projects: the community college reform money and stem cell research. The stem cell research ban was silly, and the community college money dispursement was seen as redundant since many CCs had revitalized in the late-90s already when the states were doing better. The CC money was really more of a state-education-bailout than an education policy.
Then we agree Obama will win by appealing to the most people. You keep trying to sell me on common good though which only seems dishonest to me. It's snake oil. Have you forgotten about Hobbes and Locke? The alternative to this kind of appealing to masses was killing opposition and oppression.
So do you think a particular candidate has "real" snake oil?
I believe that his "experience" is going to be a major problem for him.
[stunned] Then how can you vote at all?
You may be right, but that attitude may just kill western democracy. It's doing a fine job in Europe and we're racing to catch up.
I also agree that that will likely be Obama's campaign strategy. It makes me scared and sick to think that's what we've devolved into.
I'd much prefer an attitude where driven by bias one believes that what is best for them is best for the country because at least the good of the country is a consideration. Instead it sounds like you just want to pillage what you can from the ship before it sinks.
Separate names with a comma.